Thursday, June 2, 2016

Unpatriotism at Northwestern University

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.


Leo G said...

Seems Virginia Tech alumni had an effect also:

priss rules said...

At another university.

Oh these precious babies.

And another one. They all sound alike. Pod people

Ares Olympus said...

Not being fully satisfied by the reporting of the NY Post's film critic, I found another source.
This is the worst stereotyping I can imagine and an affront to any veteran," Eikenberry wrote in an email. "What is it about a military officer's career that makes her or him unqualified to serve as the executive director for an institute of global studies? Their familiarity with leading large organizations, securing resources, directing strategic planning, and implementing institutional change? Their experience of living in diverse cultures abroad (in my case Korea - twice; China -- three times; Hong Kong -- twice; Italy; Belgium; and Afghanistan - three times)? Or their experience in the field of national security decision-making and international security issues?

"As for 'non-academic' -- if no Ph.D. makes me 'non-academic,' then guilty as charged." But he said two master's degrees and a range of other experiences in the academic world "should offer some standing in the academy."

I don't think patriotism is the correct stance, pro or con, but certainly its fair to call this an anti-military stereotyping. And I'm willing to consider the issue of a lack of Ph.D. as an excuse than a reason.

p.s. MinnPost's Eric Black agrees with Priss Rules, Hillary is a war-monger by fact, not stereotype. Unfortunately Democrats generally only unite against Republican war-mongers.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

COL. JESSUP: "You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You want me there. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."

I've always enjoyed that exchange in the final act of "A Few Good Men" because both sides are correct. It's give and take. There is interdependence, whether either side wants to admit it or not.

Universities are so divorced from reality that they don't recognize that their academic freedom relies on people to defend it. That's not intellectual, that's escapism. Someday reality will come a-knockin'.

Anonymous said...

College. Then and now.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, agreed, good self-righteous dialogue on both sides. A Few Good Men (1992)

And Jessep's words don't just apply to soldiers, but everyone who aspires to wield power and protect power against those who would expose its dark side.

These can be the same words every dictator imagines to justify their actions. If the innocent need to be killed to protect the protector, its always justified. Everyone is "above the law" when the law isn't on their side.

But in this case we have no evidence of wrong-doing by Eikenberry, so we're back to Hollywood stereotyping replacing reality.

And as priss rules notes, military leaders are more often reluctant to use force than the political chicken hawks who never served.