We may now add Northwestern University to the list of American schools that have succumbed to the thuggish bullying of the politically correct.
And we ought to add that the graduate students and faculty who imposed their will on the pusillanimous university administration ought to be called out as unpatriotic. One understands that they will squeal at the notion that anyone would impugn their patriotism, but the real problem is that they have no patriotism to impugn.
One imagines that they see themselves as citizens of the world, thus about notions involving loyalty to country. Welcome to the Age of Obama.
Anyway, here is what happened, via Kyle Smith:
Gen. Karl Eikenberry was tapped by the university to lead its new Buffett Institute for Global Studies, a position he seemed easily to have earned by having actual knowledge of the globe.
Eikenberry was ambassador to Afghanistan. He was deputy chairman of the NATO Military Committee in Brussels. He has lived in Hong Kong, China and South Korea, and taught in Rwanda.
What happened next?
Yet faculty and grad students led a revolt against the appointment, assuming that being a military man automatically meant Eikenberry was a warmonger…. They also sniped that, having served the US overseas, Eikenberry might actually think in terms of US interests, and we can’t have that.
Of course, we can’t have that. When did our current president think in terms of our national interest? Heck, when did he treat our allies like allies and our enemies like enemies? Don’t strain yourself trying to answer the question.
Smith continued, exposing the advanced thinking of a Northwestern graduate student and certain faculty members:
A graduate student named Charles Clarke supported a petition to block the appointment of Eikenberry with these words: “An ex-US general will likely think about international politics in terms of war and from the perspective of the US’s interests, and the research agenda will be negatively skewed as a result. Instead, why not appoint someone who will encourage research that is less belligerent and tainted by US bias?”
“As faculty who are deeply committed to academic integrity,” chimed in 46 faculty members in a letter, “we believe that it would be irresponsible to remain silent while the University’s core mission of independent research and teaching becomes identified with US military and foreign policy.”
Eikenberry withdrew his acceptance of the appointment:
Northwestern effectively blackballed someone for being perceived as pro-military and pro-US (ah, now I think I understand why hiring Obama wouldn’t be an issue for Northwestern).
Northwesterners are upset that their academic mission would have been indirectly tainted by association with someone who formerly worked for the Amerikkkan military.
Perhaps the university should decamp from the United States to the world. These academics might feign neutrality, but they have clearly aligned themselves with the interests of the enemies of the United States. Is this what they are teaching their students?
[If you think this is an outlier, check out the new radical leftist anti-American curriculum that is being adopted in California public schools.]
And, of course, they were all concerned that a man without a Ph. D. would be taking an administrative job for which he was eminently qualified. One notes that in the Age of Obama, job qualifications are easily trumped by ideology.
Smith notes that when Dwight Eisenhower served as president of Columbia University, no one cared a whit that he did not have a Ph. D.
As I and many others have often noted, this nonsense will only stop when alumni start withdrawing their contributions and stop sending their children to study such schools.