Harvardstan?

David Meir-Levi writes and lectures on Middle East topics, until recently in the History Department of San Jose State University.


Pages: 1 2

Harvard has long been perceived as America’s premier university, the gold standard in the quest for truth in the market-place of ideas, where scholars of high academic integrity pursue cutting-edge research and assist eager students to develop the analytical skills and critical acumen needed for future leadership.

But that perception bears closer scrutiny, especially since Harvard graduates become a disproportionate percentage of our country’s leaders.  Based on a Slate survey of 1,410 prominent Americans, Harvard grads make up 17% of college and university presidents, 12% of people in the executive branch of our federal government, 11% of our judiciary, 10% of our Senate, and 9% of our business leaders.  Harvard grads shape the course of America’s future.

Unfortunately, such scrutiny reveals rather unpleasant realities.  The present writer’s three previous analyses[1] of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, its Middle East outreach center and its John F. Kennedy School of Government document a decade-long drift from academic integrity to the institutionalization of anti-Israel counter-factual and often deeply mendacious pro-Muslim indoctrination, characterized by egregious distortions of history and risible lies about Israel and Jews.  But perhaps most astonishing is the Harvard Law School’s promotion of Sharia law as a system of jurisprudence that can, and according to some faculty should,[2]  operate alongside of our secular legal system.

The problems and perils of such an endeavor have been discussed in detail.[3] To summarize briefly: Shariah is based upon a Muslim religious ideology that embraces the suppression of women (gender apartheid), the oppression of other religions (religious apartheid), cruel and unusual punishment, the denial of basic western freedoms (speech, thought, conscience, religion, and choice of life partner), and the maintenance of an eternal religious war against non-Muslims until Islam is the only, or at least the supreme, religion on earth.  As such, Sharia is incompatible with the social and political values of Western civilization, and radically contrary to its jurisprudence.

None the less, Justice Elena Kagan, then Dean of Harvard Law School, successfully promoted Sharia finance there.  Today Harvard boasts three separate programs, all funded by Saudi largesse, devoted to the study and application of Sharia law.  Professor Kagan is now a Supreme Court justice[4].

Still left un-explored is the motivation for Harvard’s unconscionable compromises of its commitment to “veritas.”  As the old adage has it: when things don’t make sense, look for the money.

In 2000, the Sheikh Zayed Foundation offered Harvard $2.5 million to create an endowed professorship in Islamic studies at the Harvard Divinity School.

Due to the noxious anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American nature of the Zayed foundation’s speakers, events, and the extremist causes that it supports, there arose much objection to the gift and to the Divinity School’s creating such a program with Zayed money:  but no Harvard administrator or professor publicly criticized the gift. The endowed professorship was withdrawn only because one courageous student, Rachel Lea Fish, mobilized public support against it with an article in the Harvard Crimson.

Ms. Fish alerted the presumably snoozing Harvard community that sheikh Zayed is responsible for his nation’s abysmal human rights record (including, corporal punishment of dissidents, amputations for theft, lack of democracy, and child slave labor in the camel racing industry).  She also drew attention to the travesty of an American institution lending credibility to the Zayed Centre, which sponsors events and publications that spew such obscenities as “The Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare for holiday pastries,” and “The United States was involved in the attacks of September 11, 2001,” and “the truth is that the Jews are the enemies of all nations.”  Zayed Centre speakers have also expressed support and encouragement for suicide bombings and other terrorism against Israel, and denied the Holocaust.

When her letter in the Crimson drew no response, she circulated a petition on line which quickly garnered c. 10,000 signatures. Students’ outrage and petition failed to move Harvard administrators, but so deeply embarrassed the Zayed foundation leaders that they decided to rescind the offer.

Then in 2005, during Larry Summers’ presidency, Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal donated $20,000,000 to Harvard to establish the Prince al-Waleed bin Talal Islamic Studies program. Officially bin Talal gave the gift with no strings attached; but some observers worried about indirect influence, especially regarding how Islam and Arab history are taught in U.S. schools.

Their worries may have been well founded.

On September 10, 2006, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, employer of Stephen Walt of Walt-Mearsheimer infamy, marked the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by hosting Mohammed Khatami, a former president of Iran.  His topic: “Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence.”

His hosts at the Kennedy School surely knew that Khatami presided over the July 9, 1999, crackdown on Tehran University, where hundreds of students were arrested and tortured.   Shortly before his invitation to Harvard, he described Hezbollah as “a shining sun which warms up all oppressed Muslims, especially those in Palestine and Lebanon.”  His predecessor, the Ayatollah Ruhola Khoumeini, founded Hezbollah in 1983, and Khatami continued to fund and support it.  They must have known as well that his country is run in accordance with Sharia law, women’s rights have been curtailed, homosexuals are hanged, and other human rights violations abound.

Then in 2008 Harvard banned men from its three major gyms for six hours every week so that modest Muslim women could use these facilities without male scrutiny.  Critics, including Muslim students, condemned this decision as capitulation to radical Islam.

Pages: 1 2

  • Stephen_Brady

    "None the less, Justice Elena Kagan, then Dean of Harvard Law School, successfully promoted Sharia finance there. Today Harvard boasts three separate programs, all funded by Saudi largesse, devoted to the study and application of Sharia law. Professor Kagan is now a Supreme Court justice[4]."

    I'm surprised that not one commenter at FPM caught this article, but especially the above quote. So, how exactly will Elena Kagan vote if a Sharia-based case comes before the Court. And if the Court judges in favor of Sharia, it becomes the law of the land. This will mean that there will be two systems of justice in America … one for non-Muslims, and one for Muslims.

    • enoughalready

      And we will eventually look just like the UK—with Muslims becoming defiant, aggressive and demanding control of entire cities and areas. We need to push back now. I am constantly amazed by the lunacy of our elected officials. My dream is that someone will eventually declare that O was never eligible. America would get a giant "do-over"–Kagan and Sotomayor would be gone; Dodd-Frank–gone; Obamacare–gone…he is destroying this country, our currency, our military, our soul by design.

      • Stephen_Brady

        You're exactly right. We've got to remember that the make-up of SCOTUS is the primary issue in every campaign.

  • Choi

    In a better world,a Harvard Degree would DISQUALIFY their graduates from the "best" jobs ,instead of the sad reality of this world.
    A HARVARD DEGREE should be a MARK OF SHAME.
    Imagine a better world where Harvard Grads NEED NOT APPLY.

  • hajid

    Should launder the foreigh money to wash off all the Islam ridicules

  • BLJ

    First time I ever visited Cambridge I saw a guy dressed in drag with a friend in a bunny suit. The Mrs and I were a bit startled. We then spent the rest of the day touring the campus and town and found out par for the course.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Shariah is based upon a Muslim religious ideology that embraces the suppression of women (gender apartheid), the oppression of other religions (religious apartheid), cruel and unusual punishment, the denial of basic western freedoms (speech, thought, conscience, religion, and choice of life partner), and the maintenance of an eternal religious war against non-Muslims until Islam is the only, or at least the supreme, religion on earth.  As such, Sharia is incompatible with the social and political values of Western civilization, and radically contrary to its jurisprudence.

    Actually Shariah is the expressed will of Allah and the first and foremost requirement of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the will of Allah, whereby the freedom of conscience is forbidden, and to enforce that tenet Islam makes blasphemy and apostasy capital offenses. In other words, Islam is 100 percent totalitarian.

    It also indicates that Islam is not really a faith-based religion as adherents to faith-based religions are all perfectly free to question and challenge the texts and tenets of their respective religions and are free to leave their respective religions or to convert to another religion altogether. However, in Islam, on the other hand, because the freedom of conscience is forbidden, those same actions, blasphemy in the first instance and apostasy in the second, are capital offenses.

    Hence, technically Islam is not a faith-based religion. What it is instead is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe the gullible societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism.

    Shariah also makes it an obligatory duty for every Muslim on earth without exception to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme via total warfare that employs both violent and non-violent means.

    Thus, this means that all true Muslims are jihadists. A tiny minority of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims are covert and deceptive non-violent jihadists, and the few of them that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of mainstream orthodox Islam must be executed. Which, of course, includes the millions of Muslim immigrants currently living in America today as a fifth column of covert jihadists.

    Due to the noxious anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American nature of the Zayed foundation’s speakers, events, and the extremist causes that it supports,

    You really mean Islamic causes that it supports. Islamic causes aren't extremists, they may run counter to Western values and principles, but they are nevertheless mainstream and normal within the Islamic world and the context of Islam.

    Zayed Centre speakers have also expressed support and encouragement for suicide bombings and other terrorism against Israel, and denied the Holocaust.

    You really mean violent jihad as opposed to terrorism, as Jihad is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and involves total warfare that employs both violent and non-violent means. While terrorism, on the other hand, can be for any number of political causes other than the cause of Allah and in stark contrast to jihad, terrorism as its name implies always only consist of violent means.

    Hence, the two manifestations are very different, distinct, and mutually exclusive manifestations, and conflating jihad as being terrorism not only conveniently takes the focus off of Islam, but also helps covert and deceptive non-violent jihad to take place throughout the West today totally below the radar and completely uncontested and unopposed. Thus, unless you support jihad, then stop conflating jihad as being terrorism.

    Critics, including Muslim students, condemned this decision as capitulation to radical Islam.

    With all due respect, there is no such thing as radical Islam. That is a false PC multicultural myth of the kind that led to the two fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan that were also premised on false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam and that were about as counterproductive and insane as saving Hitler and lifting up the Nazis during WWII, as both of those fantasy based nation-building missions were preordained to fail and to become the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history and in which they are today.

    Furthermore, those Muslims students aren't true Muslims at all. Instead, they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of mainstream orthodox Islam must be executed.

    –continued below

  • ObamaYoMoma

    After the attack, Professor Swamy wrote an article uncomplimentary to Muslim terrorists

    I hate to keep raining on your parade, but those Muslim terrorists only exist in your PC multicultural polluted mind. Those jihadists you conflate as being terrorists were really violent jihadists and they were fighting jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme.

    an appetite for hosting supporters of terrorism,

    Old habits are hard to break. You mean jihad. Again, jihad is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and involves total warfare that includes both violent and non-violent means. Meanwhile, terrorism, on the other hand, can be for any number of political causes, can indiscriminately be directed against anyone, including Muslims, and as its name implies only involves violent means.

    Concurrently, the Law School became a purveyor of Muslim propaganda and a cheerleader for the spread of extremist Islam.

    With all due respect, the existence of extremist Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, moderate Islam, peaceful Islam, or whatever, exactly like the existence of extremist Muslims, radical Muslims, fundamentalist Muslims, Islamist Muslims, moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims or whatever are all false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam. The truth is there is only mainstream orthodox Islam and mainstream orthodox Muslims. Anything else is a false PC multicultural myth.

    Indeed, the notion that Islam is a so-called Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists and that the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are moderates is also a false PC multicultural myth and also pure utter nonsense. Yet, based on that same false fantasy based PC multicultural myth, our Harvard educated political elites are allowing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage that is really covert and deceptive non-violent jihad for the purpose of mass infiltration and stealth demographic conquest to occur today totally below the radar and completely uncontested and unopposed.

    Nevertheless and despite the severe PC Multicultural blindness of this writer, which also limits his knowledge and understanding of Islam, he has hit the nail on the head. Our elites in the news media, political elites on both sides of the political aisle, and our federal government have all been rendered blind with respect to the scourge of Islam, and as a consequence are all absolutely incompetent in protecting and defending America from the existential threat emanating from Islam. The biggest reason for this phenomenon is because they all get their bogus information form the same exact source, our leftwing hijacked and co-opted colleges and universities, which have been further hijacked and co-opted by opportunist Muslims eager to take advantage of the fact that leftists are all gullible useful idiots.

    Thus, this ideological monopoly in our colleges and universities is the biggest problem in America today that must be overcome and corrected, and if this ideological monopoly in our colleges and universities isn't somehow broken, it will end in the destruction of America.

  • RonCarnine

    Every year thousands of people are killed by Muslims. Women, children, the elderly, soldiers and anyone else that happens to be within their reach. Yet, there is very little in the mainstream media about it. There are kidnapped females who are forced to convert to Islam and to marry a Muslim man, often after he has raped and humiliated her. 91% of honor killings are committed by Muslims. There are slave markets where men, women and children are sold like cattle. There is no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of conscience in Muslim countries. Yet, the thousands who are killed every year by Muslims have no voice, and those who speak out against it are labeled as racists and "Islamophobes" are are called "right wing terrorists" by some civil rights groups. (See THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT published by The Southern Poverty Law Center) So the threat to freedom deepens because many people are ignorant of the threat. There is no reason for one not being informed about the threat. The information is out there.

  • BS77

    Harvard how far have you fallen? From a dignified, albeit liberal college….to an Orwellian stockyard.

  • DogsHateRomney

    Harvard was established in 1636 by the Massachusetts legislature and named after its first benefactor, John Harvard, who was Congregationalist and Unitarian.

    NOTE: Harvard was "established by the Massachusetts legislature" and, named after a "Unitarian." Harvard was taken over by Unitarians in 1805.

    Unitarians are of course, universalists (as in all paths lead to god's salvation, nirvana, etc.,) – moreover, their world view, and politics philosophy, would naturally fall into a secular humanist mindset.

    With this history; it's easy to understand Harvard's HETERODOXY. – It's in their genes.

    • Stephen_Brady

      As I've understood it, the unitarian view … at one time … was simply a push-back against the Trinitarian ideal of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that unitarians viewed as polytheistic, rather than monotheistic. This view has crept up many times, throughout Christian history.

      I agree that the Unitarian Universalists have a syncretic view of religion. I was once asked to perform at the Oak Park, Illlinois, Unitarian Universalist Church, and I was told by the "minister" that I was not to sing anything that included the word "Jesus" in it. I told her that would be difficult, since I was singing selections from "The Messiah". She, herself, was a practising Wiccan priestess. At the end of my concert, I sang a song called "Jesus is All I Need". I wasn't invited back …

      There is another fairly well-known unitarian denomination, called the United Pentecostal Church. I think that they would take umbrage at the idea that they are "secular humanists"!

  • DogsHateRomney

    RE: (quote) – "Harvard has long been perceived as America’s premier university, the gold standard in the quest for truth in the market-place of ideas,"

    Earlier this week, a Harvard Occupy protester proposed to his girlfriend.

    His exact words were, 'Here is a gold Cuban cigar band;

    …….."Will you occupy my parents' basement with me until I get a real job?'"

  • DogsHateRomney

    YO! All you peevish invaders whom DING us with your thumbs-down:

    ….To err against you is Illiberalism, – but it feels divine.

  • Schlomotion

    Why is it inappropriate for Muslims to endow the university, but appropriate for Jews to endow the university?
    Why is it appropriate for Larry Summers to run Harvard but inappropriate for Darrell Issa to run Harvard?
    Why is it bad for Harvard to be Kremlin on the Charles or Mecca on the Charles but not bad for it to be Jerusalem on the Charles?