The Long March through Academia

Radicals called it the Long March through America’s institutions. They had little hope of winning democratic elections so they chose to use universities as a means to take control of the American mind. At the least, it defied democratic norms. At worst, it used its university platforms as a way to force people to believe the correct opinions.

One understands that the current brouhaha over BudLight and Target came about because corporate honchos caved in to pressure from outside interest groups, from stockholders like Black Rock and Vanguard. How many of their executives graduated from elite institutions of higher learning?

The Long March means that those who were indoctrinated in college go on to take corporate jobs and use their jobs as a way to impose their views on the nations. As of now, what with BidLight on death watch and Target losing massive market cap, it does not seem quite so effective.

So, the Daily Caller takes on Harvard, the most prestigious American academic institution:

A new Harvard survey on faculty political leanings reveals that the left’s long march was more successful than they likely ever dreamed. A whopping 75% of Harvard faculty identifies as “liberal” or “very liberal,” while only 2.5% identifies as conservative. A minuscule 0.4 percent identifies as “very conservative.”

What did radicals gain by taking over Harvard? A great deal, in terms of prestige and power:

By capturing the Harvard banner, radical activists then got to decide what constituted excellence and prestige. Their radical ideologies gained the legitimacy associated with the Harvard name and serve as an example for lesser universities to follow. Molded by these new definitions, Harvard graduates carry them out to the world where they shape the halls of power in business, government, and media.

Harvard boasts the most alumni who later became CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. With 41 alumni CEOs, Harvard dwarfs the nearest runner up, the University of Pennsylvania, by almost double.

None of this is democratic. It is all about mind control. And it is all about pressuring students to adopt the prevailing correct opinions.

Famed conservative Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield explained how it is at his institution. One might say that many faculty are open minded, and yet, the truth remains that peer pressure forces students to become true believers-- before they go on to become BudLight marketing executives.

Mansfield wrote in National Review:

Not long ago, an Iranian woman in my class told me that in her country, one had to be careful about what you said in public, but could say what you wanted in private.

“At Harvard, however, it’s the reverse,” she said.

This is the self-censorship some Harvard students complain of. Only some complain because the complaint is directed against the rest who dominate conversation and do not want to hear opposition. These dominant students may not begin as a majority, but the activist few create the majority who accept their view and then impose it on those who disagree, forcing them to censor themselves.

The punishment for not censoring yourself is to lose the company of fellow students and to be disregarded and shunned. You are not put in jail, as happens in Iran and other countries, but you are deprived of the fellowship you want from college life.

Mansfield continued:

Is anything lost by being woke? Yes, let me suggest there is. Instead of arguing the point, one begins to search for character defects and pounce when they are found. You blind yourself by taking offense because in doing so you are led to simplify the justice you think is so unquestionable. Instead of thinking about what justice might require, you try to shame opposition out of existence.

But how did we get to this point? Allow me to offer a suggestion. Harvard and many other universities have opened their doors to students who would never have made been admitted according to objective standards. Isn't the school being sued by parents of Asian candidates for discrimination.

The general dumbing down of the student body, with the exception of students in STEM subjects, promotes indoctrination in woke ideology. In order to debate issues, to consider different sides of a question, you need to have a certain level of intelligence. If enough students lack it, the level of debate declines into name-calling and defamation. This is especially true when peer pressure forces students to mouth the correct opinions.

How many little gray cells does it take to denounce someone for thought crimes? How many little gray cells does it take to present both sides of an issue and to make each side sound plausible? 

Please subscribe to my Substack.