In an article published in the Stanford Review last Wednesday entitled “A Way Forward For Cardinal Conversations,” Stanford University student Andrew Ziperski wrote this:
My primary piece of advice to the administration is simple yet essential: those who are invited to speak as part of the Conversations must be provocative, and they must make us uncomfortable. This does not mean, of course, that speakers whose primary (or only) goal is provocation ought to be invited; people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Robert Spencer add no value to a campus like ours, and I would strongly oppose an invitation extended to them or those who employ their tactics.
My primary (or only) goal is “provocation”? Only if the truth provokes you, as it does so many in the totalitarian indoctrination camp that Stanford and most other American universities have become. I challenge Andrew Ziperski to find one untruth in anything I’ve ever said or written about Islam. He thinks that the truth is “provocation” because he has been so relentlessly bombarded with lies from every quarter that he was told to trust and learn from that he now thinks, like the well-programmed bot that he is, that a reasoned and documented presentation of unwelcome truths is “provocation.”
For the Andrew Ziperskis of the world, and universities and colleges today are turning them out by the gross, any perspective that challenges the Leftist worldview is a “provocation.” He has been taught, and he has dutifully learned, that to oppose jihad mass murder and the Sharia oppression of women, gays and others is “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.” He can without any doubt recite the fake news “fact” that right-wing Christian terrorists are more of a threat in the U.S. than Islamic terrorists. He is almost certainly convinced that America and Israel are the primary villains on the international stage today.
In fact, every last one of Andrew Ziperski’s political positions are abundantly clear and can be articulated down to the last syllable by someone who, like me, has never met him, but who is deeply familiar with the propaganda that passes for education at Stanford and other universities today. What is even worse is that in the article in which he dismisses my work (which he undoubtedly has not read), he is actually calling on Stanford to feature speakers that don’t all march in the Left’s totalitarian lockstep. He acknowledges the students’ need to “feel safe” – a nod to the current Left-fascist tactic of shutting down dissent on the spurious grounds that it “endangers” Leftist students – but still hopes that university officials will “bring thoughtful, provocative speakers to Stanford in the years ahead.”
Wait, what? “Provocative” speakers? So Andrew Ziperski, a student at one of the nation’s elite universities, wants “provocative” speakers, but not ones, in his judgement, “whose primary (or only) goal is provocation.” So young Andrew wants to be provoked, but not by those whose goal is provocation. If your goal is something else, but you end up provoking Andrew, that’s all to the good. But if your goal is provocation and you provoke the young scholar, that adds no value to a campus like Stanford.
This woolly-headed thinking is what Stanford and other universities turn out these days. Andrew Ziperski and his peers aren’t taught how to evaluate arguments on their own merits. They are abjectly incapable of judging the truth or falsehood of any given proposition; they can only examine them for “racism” and “bigotry” and accept or dismiss them on that basis. They are, therefore, simply slaves of the Leftists who have indoctrinated them and told them what “racism” and “bigotry” are.
But unfortunately for young Ziperski, reality is reality despite the lies he has imbibed and the fantasies he has embraced. Jihad violence and Sharia oppression are real, and the “Islamophobia” he so hates and fears isn’t. The truths I have told are likely to confront this young man and his fellow sheep sooner or later, at a time when it will likely be too late for them to realize that they have been lied to and change course. But at least he can comfort himself in those dark days with the fact that he didn’t allow himself to be provoked by those whose goal was provocation.