The Agony of Moral Defeat

harvardPerhaps when literary critic C.S. Lewis despaired of “omnipotent moral busybodies . . . who torment us for our own good,” he was speaking about those well-meaning, but naïve college students who “torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Lewis’s observation seemed to have been given credence in the past weeks by the very public, tendentious rants of two coeds, one at Harvard University and one at UCLA, as they railed against a world in which their dreams of social justice for the oppressed and weak was not being realized, despite their best efforts.

In the first instance, in an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson entitled “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom,” Sandra Y.L. Korn, majoring at Harvard, tellingly, in the history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality, decided that academic freedom was undeserved by those who hold beliefs different than hers and her fellow “moral busybodies”— those who have decided what is moral, what is right, and what is acceptable speech and behavior on Harvard’s campus and in the world beyond. “Why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom?’,” she asked, seemingly without embarrassment. Academic freedom, she contended, should be put in check so that unwelcomed viewpoints can be suppressed. As an alternative virtue, she suggested “a more rigorous standard: one of ‘academic justice.’”

One example of how that justice might be applied, at the expense of academic freedom, was the recent academic boycott against Israeli academics called for by the American Studies Association (ASA). Though the boycott was subsequently denounced by over 200 university presidents and scores of academic organizations and scholars, Ms. Korn thinks that the loss of academic freedom by Israelis is of secondary importance to her notion of “academic justice;” that is, justice for the oppressed, the victimized, the marginalized, the weak. “The ASA, like three other academic associations,” she wrote, “decided to boycott out of a sense of social justice, responding to a call by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine.” Despite universal protestations from many people far more insightful than Ms. Korn, in her mind, any critics of the boycott are, by definition, morally wrong, and, she asserted, “only those who care about justice can take the moral upper hand.”

The UCLA incident revealed a similar Leftist obsession with obtaining social justice for the Palestinians, even if it necessitates the weakening or destruction of the Jewish state. On February 26th , the UCLA undergraduate student government voted 7-5 against a Students for Justice in Palestine-proposed “Resolution to Divest from Companies that Violate Palestinian Human Rights,” including specific corporations:  Caterpillar, Cement Roadstone Holdings, Cemez, General Electric, and Hewlett-Packard. After the charged hearings, which included some 500 people in the audience and went on for ten hours, an identified UCLA undergraduate, who was serving as a note taker for the hearings, broke down and railed at the cameras with an expletive-laden rant about how disappointed she was that the resolution failed, how ashamed she was of the racists and bad people who voted against divestment, and how Palestinians would now continue to be “hurt” because of their inaction. For two minutes the hysterical woman can be seen screaming “I’ve never been so f***ing disappointed” and complaining that “we just f***ing blew it” by not passing the corrosive divestment resolution.

Many pro-Israel commentators gleefully parodied the whimpering student when the video went viral, suggesting that her behavior typified the dangerous liberalism which elevates the Palestinian cause at the expense of Israel’s survival. But the reality is more troubling than that: this woman, like the Harvard undergraduate who wishes to live in a world where only her predetermined virtues and worldview prevail, feels quite strongly that, in the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, at least, the answers are black and white, there is a moral side and an immoral side, and that anyone who does not, or cannot, see things as clearly and unambiguously as these gifted undergraduates do is a racist, an oppressor, an imperialist, a colonizer, or a supporter of an illegal, apartheid regime trampling the human rights of a blameless indigenous people.

As commonly happens when liberals appraise the relative merits of their own countries and others, one set of expectations is used to measure Third-world countries and their leaders, and a totally different, far more stringent (if not unreasonable) set is used when evaluating the behavior and values of the United States, the EU, or Israel. This cynical, nearly hypocritical, view has meant that the Left frequently denounces Western democracies as imperialistic, racist, militaristic oppressors, precisely because they wish them to evolve to a purer, newly-structured society and feel that they have the collective insight and moral strength to effect this change as they strive for the social justice, or its intellectually-flaccid offspring, “academic justice,” a nebulous term lifted from Marxist thought which empowers Left-leaning administrators, students, and faculty with the false ethical security derived from feeling that they are bringing positive moral and ethical precepts to campuses.

For that reason, Israel is continually slandered as a racist state, an aggressive, militaristic regime that inflicts disproportionate suffering on the hapless Palestinians, lubricating the argument that this inequality is inherently and inexorably wrong, that it must be corrected and made just. Thus, when such radical campus groups as Students for Justice in Palestine have as their core mission, as their name implies, bringing their own vision of justice to the Middle East, it is justice only for the oppressed, the Palestinians, and not for the perceived oppressor, Israel, whose position of power was made possible only because of military strength and imperialistic tendencies.

For the Left, social justice is solely for the disenfranchised, the ‘victims’ of unjust Western societies, those whose suffering is ostensibly caused by and is the fault of imperialistic, capitalistic, militant, hegemonic nations—America and Israel foremost among them. And on campuses, where liberal professors have nearly made sacred the politics of race and class and have identified specific sets of favored victim groups for whom justice will be sought, the cult of “victimhood” has even led to compulsory instruction on the mechanics of achieving social justice for the weak in society.

The new academic dialogue over the concept of social justice obviously has found a fitting locus with concern for the Palestinian cause, since the concept of social justice is particularly applicable on highly-politicized campuses when, as in the case of the Palestinians, the absence of a new Arab state is perceived to be the fault of Israel alone. Compassion for the dispossessed and the weak on the part of the Left has also seen the growth of a whole different set of ethical standards by which the actions of powerful nations—primarily Israel and the U.S—are judged as compared to weaker, developing, sometimes clearly inferior nations, based on their political and international behavior.

In their mission to protect the sensibilities and emotional well-being of identified campus victim groups, universities, often violating their own written guidelines and codes of behavior, have also instituted speech codes to prevent what is generally called “hate speech” now, but which has become a perverse tactic to marginalize, and exclude, the speech and ideology of those with whom liberals and Leftists do not agree, those individuals who express ideas that offend the sensibility of Ms. Korn, for example. Because they feel they have the moral high ground and a much more profound insight into social justice and the rights of the oppressed victim groups with whom they share an intellectual affinity, Leftists are fervent in their belief that they, therefore, have a right to unfettered speech to promulgate their own high-minded views; in fact, the speech of their ideological opponents, simply by virtue of the fact that it contradicts the moral principles that the Leftist holds dear, is regularly regarded as “hate speech” that can be ignored, punished, or, as happens with increasing regularity, shut down completely and excluded from the campus conversation.

That core sentiment has come to define the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and was on full display at UCLA during the divestment debate: it is the notion that the repeated defamation of Israel will result in its eventual expulsion from the supposed civilized community of nations. But the call for divestment is merely a tactic through which Israel will be marginalized, and eventually extirpated, as a pariah state with no moral justification for existing.

The acting out and vitriolic language against Israel that so often defines campus anti-Israelism may make the activists feel good about themselves for striving for social justice, but, as journalist Khaled Abu Toameh has contended, these are hollow efforts, that “[i]nstead of investing money and efforts in organizing Israel Apartheid Week, for example, the self-described ‘pro-Palestinians’ could dispatch a delegation of teachers to Palestinian villages and refugee camps to teach young Palestinians English. Or they could send another delegation to the Gaza Strip to monitor human rights violations by the Hamas authorities and help Palestinian women confront Muslim fundamentalists who are trying to limit their role to cooking, raising children and looking after the needs of their husbands.” What was Abu Toameh’s conclusion about this misdirected effort to support the Palestinian cause? “What is happening on the U.S. campuses,” he wrote, “is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the ‘occupation’ as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel . . ,” and “we should not be surprised if the next generation of jihadists comes not from the Gaza Strip or the mountains and mosques of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but from university campuses across the U.S.”

“The whole problem with the world,” observed philosopher Bertrand Russell, “is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” That these two undergraduates display a certainty that is so stringent and so contrary to intellectual inquiry should give us all pause, and might make us question if we are teaching a whole generation of college students what to think instead of how to think.

Richard L. Cravatts, PhD, is president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the author of Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & Jews.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Hans Soeplepel

    A brilliant analysis of elite-fascism. Those ‘bright’ ‘students’ should first find out what Islam is all about in an objective manner instead of projecting their idealistic view on this vile ideology. Maybe this could cure the disease of being a useful idiot and they will cease collaborating with the religious variant of fascism, because that is the core of the Islam-Jewish conflict.

    • fiddler

      Yeah. Let them live in Saudi Arabia for awhile or some other misogynistic culture to gain a little perspective. Better yet, let them dwell among Palestinians. Perhaps that may cause them to go one of two ways: either repudiating treatment of women (how about a debate with Nonie Darwish?) or becoming a Jihadi herself.

  • bob smith

    Wonderful expose on the thoughts and intellectual prowess of the post pubescent Illuminati who scream from their ivory towers that the world is indeed flat notwithstanding that that admonition is supported by their own optics: a telescope from said tower focused to within 50 feet of their viewpoint…not exactly a world view, is it?

    i stopped at the use of your word “stringent” in the last paragraph as if to describe these curmudgeons of thought as capable by definition of the standards of “rigor, strictness, or severity especially with regard to rule or standard” (Merriam Webster). This word, though on the surface may appear to be, does not apply in any sense whatsoever. Stringent requires a degree of scholastic endeavor in the pursuit of truth(s) irrespective of bias at what should be all costs.

    The word which is befitting their ilk is purely and simply “strident”: “expressing opinions or criticism in a very forceful and often annoying or unpleasant way” (Merriam Webster). These are the acts of irrational and illogical children lashing out, irrespective of their stage of pubescence. They are not in pursuit of unbiased knowledge, they are merely using their crayons stridently portraying the canvass that they view with their limited optics from their ivory tower.

    • frodo

      They are students–not yet graduated, not yet finished with learning. To imagine that they’re representative of the academy is simply wrong. This is the politics of teenagers when it’s easy to be certain, by the time they finish up and move on, this stridency will (I’d hope and expect) be toned down.

      • fiddler

        Have you heard the debate between Bill Ayers and Dinesh D’Sousa at Dartmouth University? Ayers appears to show that his stridency hasn’t diminished at all.

      • chicagorefugee

        Yes, they are students – and you think these ideas sprung completed from their foreheads?

        Or is it more likely that they are regurgitating what they have painstakingly been taught by their professors?

        Ms Korn is clearly appealing to what she strongly feels is a shared standard of “justice” among her university community. What reason have we to think your read of the situation is more accurate than hers?


          Peer pressure – and Academic pressure to agree with the politics of some professor who has their academic fate and grades in the balance.

        • frodo

          Just as “clearly,” she is pretending to speak for her peers and the lack of any sign of support for her very silly position from Harvard seems evidence that she’s not speaking for anyone in particularly. As far as my read of the situation goes, I’ll claim some more perspective because I’m not a college sophomore.

          Of course she gets her ideas (in part) from somewhere, students say and do dumb things all the time that one can attribute to bad deployment of something they’ve read. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s regurgitating something. Faculty in general aren’t engaged in some indoctrination project–there are far too many other things to do.

      • Guest

        oh, of course.

      • bob smith

        i respectfully disagree. their angst is well forged through a carefully crated plan of indoctrination throughout all institutions of ‘higher’ learning that began long ago. they are set in their ways for the most part and once common core is complete, the social engineering of western culture is complete. God help us.

        • frodo

          Your faith in the amazing organizational capabilities of university faculty is everyday belied by the disorder, self-division, and cranky independence of faculty members, departments and institutions.

          It may be comforting to believe in such a “plan of indoctrination,” but there is very little evidence of anything resembling such a plan.

          • bob smith

            “It may be comforting to believe in such a “plan of indoctrination,” but there is very little evidence of anything resembling such a plan.”

            you are delusional

          • frodo

            Have you ever worked in a university? Academics are a pretty disorganized bunch–that’s kind of the point, after all, since people are all pursuing their own interests.

            There’s no Cabal dedicated to fomenting the Revolution.

          • bob smith

            Yes, I have worked in an Ivy League University.

            Are you familiar with David Horowitz?

            you know, the founder of this website and amongst his many great accomplishments the fight against indoctrination in post secondary institutions.

            here are some snippets to help you out…you can read the rest of it at

            glad i could clear up your confusion.

            Biography of David Horowitz

            “…Horowitz has devoted much of his attention over the past several years to the radicalization of the American university In 2003, he launched an academic freedom campaign to return the American university to traditional principles of open inquiry and to halt indoctrination in the classroom. To further these goals he devised an Academic Bill of Rights to protect students from abusive professors. In the same year Horowitz founded Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), which now has chapters on 200 college campuses. Asserting that, “You can’t get a good education if they’re only telling you half the story,” Horowitz called for inquiries into political bias in the hiring of faculty and the appointment of commencement speakers.

            In three years Horowitz’s campaign for academic freedom was able to make intellectual diversity and academic freedom front-burner issues on college campuses across the country. In June 2005, in direct response to his campaign, the American Council on Education, which represents 2000 colleges and universities, called on its members to create grievance procedures for students who were politically harassed by their professors…” etc.,

          • frodo

            You also must know that very very few if any institutions adopted the “Academic Bill of Rights,” which doesn’t argue for success. His definition of academic freedom simply isn’t correct. Nor was he able to produce much in the way of evidence for his claims.

            He called for inquiries, but nothing came of it because there’s all but nothing to inquire about.

            His analysis has been effectively critiqued by any number of people and Students For Academic Freedom, if the website is any indication, is largely defunct.

            I stand by my statement about there being no secret or open Cabal dedicated to a project of indoctrination. No one has the time, or inclination.

  • tagalog

    “Why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom?’,” Ms. Korn asks.

    Because the price one pays for eliminating academic freedom in favor of some predetermined goal is slavery. If Ms. Korn gets her way, today it will be her enemies whose freedom is taken away, but tomorrow it will be her freedom.

    • frodo

      And she won’t get her way, because she’s wrong. And she doesn’t represent any kind of authoritative position on academic freedom. It’s not sensible to keep returning to her as some kind of voice of the left–because she’s not.

      • tagalog

        Oh, I suspect that Ms. Korn is thoroughly in the Herbert Marcuse wing of the left, a long-established school of thought that has long advocated for the silencing of dissident voices, and speaks for a significant and entrenched left-wing community.

        • William Tucker

          Tagalog. Could you get in touch with me? I want to ask about that family farm you mentioned in another article. Thanks.

          • tagalog

            Not meaning to be difficult, but what is it you want to know? I hesitate to share too much personal information on the net.


            Wise decision. The barbaric left is unprincipled.

        • frodo

          She may be a reader of Marcuse, but to say that she speaks for any substantial constituency in the academy would be wrong.

          • tagalog

            I didn’t say “substantial.” I said “significant.”

          • frodo

            I’ll say that she doesn’t speak for a significant constituency either.

          • Albert8184

            She’s speaks for the tiny majority that is taking over the country right now and disenfranchizing the silent majority.

          • tagalog

            I guess we disagree on that point.

          • Albert8184


      • fiddler

        Ah, but she has many bed-fellows, does she not? How about Brown University? Afraid of words we don’t like? SHOUT THEM DOWN! CHANT! MAKE LOTS OF NOISE! Utterly disrupt what an official has to say. I mean that’s intelligent isn’t it? It’s MATURE isn’t it? And hey it’s COOL and in vogue, isn’t it. Can you say it is WRONG? I mean if you are consistent?

        • frodo

          Sure, shouting anyone down is wrong. Brown, rightly, embarked on an investigation leading to possible discipline for those students. Most of the students, when polled, were not in support of the heckling and silencing.

          But that’s not the point of this piece or my comments here. These, again, should not be taken as representative voices.

          • Albert8184

            It seems to me you might be a troll trying to downplay justifiable fears.

      • George of the Jungle

        Typical leftist responses here from ‘frodo':
        1) the ‘no true scotsman’ (or in this case ‘no true leftist’) logical fallacy;
        2) the Groucho Marx defense: “Who’re you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”.
        Leftist trolls and provocateurs such as frodo are nothing if not predictably banal.

        • frodo

          1. To say that Korn is wrong and doesn’t hold a position that’s widely shared is not an example of that fallacy. It’s a description of reality.
          2. Nonsense–I believe that Korn thinks this way, I also know that her position isn’t widely shared. It’s telling that FrontPage keeps citing her foolish comments and not finding more such statements about “academic justice.”

          Defensiveness too has an element of predictability.

          • George of the Jungle

            Sure, honey, you’re not a typical leftist troll, and we should believe everything you say just because you say
            so. Just as you’ve already intimated, there’s really no leftist agenda incrementalist or otherwise, there’s nothing to see here, we should all just move along.

            Wrong !!! Only in your fevered narrative-driven fantasyland is any of that true. Now back in the real world, your enemies finally see you and your ilk for what you are, including all the vile techniques you’ve used over the decades to get this far in your destruction of traditional American society.

            You are trying to entice me into the typical leftist game of agreeing to some objective principle, while you
            meanwhile propose to argue about all the ostensibly underlying specifics. This well-known tactic allows you play your shifting subjective semantic games with terminology, all the while moving the discussion so far off base that the original intent of the article is lost somewhere off in the weeds.

            Sorry, honey, I refuse to play that hackneyed leftist game with you. BTW, since I have just effectively called you out for the provocaeur that you are, there is no need for further responses on my part. On this blog we all see right through you… bye bye, honey, go take your regurgitated nonesense elsewhere.

          • frodo

            It’s a lot easier to talk to yourself.

            Typicality is in the eye of the beholder.

          • Albert8184

            Excellent analysis George. You seem to understand Marxists very well.

        • Albert8184

          My impression too.

      • Shmalkandik

        Do you have a counter example of a prominent member of a liberal faction member who is loudly in favor of academic freedom? If we find none or, only a few, this would suggest this woman is representative of the campus left, the ‘modal’ element as it were.

        • frodo

          There’s a whole organization that does this–the American Association of University Professors. One of their primary functions is the defense of academic freedom.

          • Shmalkandik

            I”ll look into them.

          • Albert8184

            Look deeply.

          • Albert8184

            Yep, founded in 1915 by John Dewey, the progressive Fabian Socialist. Their original function was to break down the resistance of traditionalists to progressive Left ideas, and pave the way for cultural Marxism in American education.

            And now the shoe is on the other foot, and they don’t have much to say about Academic freedom for anyone but themselves. Who are you trying to kid? Look at their censure list. What a joke.

          • frodo

            The AAUP hasn’t changed focus to some imaginary work of indoctrination. The 1940 Statement still serves as the central mission statement for the organization.

            Overheated fantasy about the scary professors is only that.

            Go look at the reports on why institutions are on the censure list–it might be enlightening.

        • dwpittelli

          Alan Dershowitz. Laurence Tribe. Chistopher Hitchens.

      • Albert8184

        No Frodo. Ignoring her is not the answer. She’s a symptom of cancer that is spreading and becoming terminal. Ignore her like you would ignore a mole that shows up on your face suddenly.

        She is the voice of the Left. She is evidence that the radicalism being disseminated in the universities is becoming more and more strident, extreme and DANGEROUS with each passing year.

        • frodo

          More concerning is the way that overheated and unreflective emoting seems to be the characteristic mode of response from both ends of the spectrum.

          Who’s ignoring her anyway? Her position is stupid and the attention she’s gotten is primarily negative.

      • A Z

        I have seen Leftist students run a group off campus and they wanted to run everyone off campus. They stated their desire and they acted on it.

        • frodo

          Sure, and I’ve seen Right-wing students hound teachers of the lecture podium and make it impossible to conduct classes.

          That’s not the point.

          The point is that she’s wrong and its telling that the only people taking her seriously are people like the ones on this webpage, because comments like hers are reliable clickbait.

    • PhillipGaley


      Well, Ms. Korn has failed to apprehend the fact that, Maybe, like fighting over the blankets, to see who will build the fire in the morning, “Decent people are really, always on the same side.”, . . . and it has to be just that way. in the tussle of competing arguments, we acknowledge the supremacy of neither side simply for arbitrary will, but rather, that, the opposing side may have found something which the other party has yet to be informed of and to learn.

      But further, I’m pretty sure that, Ms Korn and her associates are not ashamed to entertain as serious, discussion coming from people who think that, such as: “so f***ing disappointed, . . . we just f***ing blew it” is somehow, meaningful.

      And to conclude the whole, i would say that, the opinions of people who fail to distinguish between decency and that which is indecent, . . . are to be entertained most hardly, . . . they are not worth considering.


      Ms. Korn needs to read the US constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      Freedom of Speech comrade Korn.

      This is the US. Not some socialist or islamofascist dictatorship

  • George of the Jungle

    By this time in the culture war, none of this should be of any surprise.
    The left’s greatest, most successful and most effective tactic ever devised
    is to use their ideological enemies’ objective standards against them. First they propagandize some lofty position that is ostensibly “fair” to everyone, thus getting their opposition to buy into it simply as a matter of objective logic, equanimity and even-handedness. Then when the associated law or meme or standard has been foisted off onto everyone, the left uses its appointed henchmen in the legal establishment and lackeys in related organizations to undercut the law by introducing (subtly at first) new shifting subjective “definitions” of supporting terms that immediately distort the intent of what they originally sold to the gullible objectivists, thereby imposing their true program instead. In the process, their enemies are left confused, spluttering, and powerless to do anything about it… after all, they bought into it in the first place, didn’t they? After the figurative dust has settled a bit, leftists will drag out
    some revisionist history to prove that it was all inevitable anyway.

    Thus we see endlessly repeated the situation in which an objective law
    intended to be applied in equal manner to individuals, is morphed by the left
    into an “equal outcome” for their designated victim group of the
    moment. Finally, when the left feels firmly enough in control, they abandon all pretense of objectivity, and then unequivocally state their final agenda, such as in this case an end to free speech and academic inquiry, replacing it with totalitarian “academic justice”.

    • fiddler

      Hey, they have a very creative vocabulary. People need to acquire and develop their own BS detector. As we near November there should be loads of it.

      To quote Detective Spooner of I-Robot: “Sorry but I’m allergic to B____ S____!”

    • Albert8184

      Exactly. And when “finally” comes, all the gullible victim groups on the Left suddenly find themselves out in the cold with the new regime they helped install, no longer needed as voters and useful idiots and activists. Suddenly, they become “decadent bourgeois” and “lumpen proletariat” left over from the days of corrupt and materialistic capitalism.

      Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.

  • CaoMoo

    I knew all too many like these girls in college. Young and full of themselves. The fact that Ive seen more in my life being 30 over their 19 meant nothing. The fact that I shut them down in debate after debate meant nothing. The fact that they could not analyze evidence, read, reason, and employ logic as well as I could meant nothing. I was the one that was ignorant and uneducated (though in fact we all were as educated at that point as the other high school no degree). It’s all about feelings to them. We all know hearts and feelings are infallible guides after all.

  • frodo

    It’s ironic that you quote Russell to talk about these undergraduates since he’d be an example of what this site has frequently characterized as the problem with college faculty. He was politically active, mostly liberal, agnostic, and relentlessly antiwar as well as full of doubt.

  • UCSPanther

    These meddling student crusaders are like those who supported Castro, Ho Chi Minh and the Sandinistas: Those regimes may have seemed “cool” to outsiders in those areas, but those who lived within knew different.

    In an ironic way, academics who cheer for those types of regimes/ideologies are actually cheering on the mistreatment/repression/persecution of their colleagues in those areas.

    • Albert8184

      Yes. And in a few more decades, these students will be the “intellectual” capital of the revolution, if all goes as planned. The radical lieutenants. The “vanguard” who will direct the “mindless masses” being bred in the ghettos and inner cities and gangland cultures. Take charge of them and arm them for the final violent struggle to come. When the time is right.

  • Shmalkandik

    This is just Marcuse’s doctrine of Repressive Tolerance. He argued that tolerance of ideas is wrong if it does not advanced the progressive (communist) cause, and that academic freedom is ‘repressive’. Famously he stated – quite consistently – that he would rather American Blacks did not get the franchise if it meant they would not vote ‘correctly.
    This occured in the 1960s.
    Three generations, it is now the new orthodoxy.

    • UCSPanther

      Don’t forget: Marcuse’s concepts are also central to political correctness as well, which is largely the censoring of free speech in the name of tolerance.

  • christopher mahoney

    Antizionism is now a core value on the Left, equal to Warmism.


      “F” the fascist left.

    • Albert8184

      It always has been a core value. The BIGGEST core value. And the fact that Karl Marx was the son of a rabbi tells you something there.

  • EmilyPostModern

    there is a whole generation of 20 to 30 somethings who were spoiled by their yuppie parents beyond belief, and told how special and wonderful they were to make sure they had “self esteem”, now they know everything, except the fact that they are fools


    One GREAT parody of the self righteous socialist meltdown.

  • Albert8184

    American conservatives need to revise their misplaced sense of “fairness”. The correct way to deal with fascists like these, who would deny freedom to others, is NOT to give them the freedom to destroy freedom. Those who embrace authoritarianism should be treated as they would treat others. Conservatives need to unify behind a platform of ‘Denazification” in the university and school system.

  • Fritz Kohlhaas

    Both women are imbeciles!

  • Sonnys_Mom

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Ms. Korn, herself, Jewish?

  • Louis Emery

    She’s just a child. She has had limited exposure to the real world. She’s regurgitating what she is being fed by parents, school, etc. I say to give her a break, till she’s out of school for several years. At 30, say, she’s responsible for her ideas because she’s had ten years to reconcile them with reality. (I was 26 or 27 when this happened.)

  • mtnhikerdude

    We have reduced so called racial slurs to letters of the alphabet yet calling Jews apes ,pigs and monkeys is acceptable . Ya gotta be in wonderment at “Liberal Logic” .