Brainwashed

by Ben Shapiro

  One of the leading advocacy groups for euthanasia is the Hemlock Society. As of September 2003, the chairman of the society was Professor Paul Spiers of MIT and Boston University. Other members of the board included Professor Fred Richardson, who formerly taught at Ohio Wesleyan University, and Professor Alan Meisel of the University of Pittsburgh.64

  Another of the major groups supporting euthanasia is Death With Dignity. As of September 2003, the board of directors included Professor David Orentlicher of Indiana University School of Law, Professor Charles Baron of Boston College Law School, and Professor David J. Garrow of the Emory University School of Law. The board also included Professor David Mayo of the University of Minnesota, Professor Timothy Quill of the University of Rochester, Professor Margaret Battin of the University of Utah, Dr. Ivan Gendzel of the Stanford School of Medicine, Professor Samuel Klagsbrun of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Professor Sharon Valente of the University of Southern California, Professor James Werth of the University of Akron, Professor Irvin Yalom of Stanford University, and Professor Charles McKhann, formerly of the Yale School of Medicine. Also Professor Alan Meisel, whom you may remember from the Hemlock Society.65 Detecting a trend here?

  Professor William Curan of Harvard, who earned the title of “Father of Health Law” and the praise of the New York Times, was a staunch backer of euthanasia.66 Professor Lawrence Tribe, also of Harvard, is one of the main proponents of “a right to die with dignity.”67 Professor Robert Sedler of Wayne State University was one of the lawyers for Dr. Jack Kevorkian;68 Kevorkian has been personally involved in at least sixty-nine euthanasias, only seventeen of which were patients with terminal illness.69

  If public opinion were as solidly pro-euthanasia as the universities, America would be full of suicide clinics already.

  LET THERE BE DARKNESS

  Polls show that while students who just finished high school believe in an active God at a rate of 77 percent, once students reach the level of postgraduate education, that rate drops to 65 percent.70 This may be due to youthful arrogance; more likely, it is due, at least in large part, to the anti-God bias of the universities.

  Higher education undermines religion, not because knowledge inherently threatens religion, but because professors wish for religion to be undermined. As role models and teachers for their students, professors openly proclaim their atheism. They discard organized religion as foolishness, except for Islam, which they enshrine. They teach that science and religion must come into conflict, and that when they do, science is assuredly correct. The universities themselves discriminate against religious Christians and Jews; their tolerance extends only to non-Judeo-Christian cultures. They promote abortion, and they advance the cause of euthanasia.

  God is no longer welcome on campus. Unless He disguises himself as a professor.

  8

  BURNING THE FLAG

  On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was with my father, driving my younger sister’s carpool to school. My father and I had just dropped off the carpool when his cell-phone rang.

  “Hello?”

  “Do you see what’s going on?” It was the mother of one of the girls in the carpool.

  “What?”

  “They just bombed the World Trade Centers.”

  “Again? ”

  “No, you don’t understand. The World Trade Centers are gone. They’ve collapsed.”

  “Oh my God . . .”

  In the aftermath of September 11, Americans came together like no time since World War II. There were massive prayer meetings. Impromptu memorials went up. The people of the United States saw the enemy, and they gave President Bush their unconditional blessing in the War on Terror.

  So naturally, when I got back to school, I expected some kind of campus-wide solidarity. I thought the professors would discuss the greatness of this nation. I thought that the students would hold vigils for the victims of the attacks and attend rallies for the war.

  Boy, was I naïve.

  Professors immediately blamed America for 9/11. It was caused by foreign policy failings. It was our wasteful consumption that led to Third World anger. It was our lack of respect for Islam. It was America’s “cowboy style,” our arrogance. It was slavery, oppression, brutality against American Indians and Africans.

  America’s reaction to the attacks was disgusting, the professors growled. Simplistic displays of patriotism only bred resentment against Arab Americans. The War on Terror was a misguided attempt to create an enemy where President Bush could find none. Continuing support of Israel made Arab countries even less likely to ally with us. America’s “go it alone” attitude was unconscionable. Saddam Hussein was not an enemy, but a strong and principled leader.

  Victor Davis Hanson, a conservative commentator and professor at Cal State Fresno, describes the professors at his university: “Maybe 90 percent of the faculty sympathizes with boutique anti-Americanism.”1 It’s no exaggeration, and the pattern holds nationwide. There is no flag-waving. There is no mourning for American victims without using the word “but.” There is no pride in being American on campus.

  THREE CHEERS FOR OSAMA!

  Many professors felt pangs of joy as they saw three thousand Americans dying in Washington DC, New York, and Pennsylvania. To hear these professors talk about 9/11, it sounds as if they must have danced around the room, or wept in honor of the occasion as they watched men and women jumping from hundred-story buildings to their deaths.

  On September 11, Professor Richard Berthold of the University of New Mexico stepped up to the microphone to speak to his class about the events transpiring on the East Coast. “Anyone who bombs the Pentagon has my vote,” he proclaimed.2 Berthold’s statement was the opening salvo for all the anti-American professors to begin speaking their minds. Scores of professors strode to lecterns across the country and blasted away.

  In a philosophy/political science class I took, Professor Dan O’Neill, a self-described “bleeding-heart leftist,”3 suggested that “the people who caused September 11 might fit into Locke’s definition of justified resistance.”4 I looked around to see the class’ reaction; most were nodding their heads in silent assent, like puppets manipulated by the strings of the professor.

  The Middle East Studies Association, MESA, held a meeting in November 2001 in San Francisco. As the New Republic’s Franklin Foer relates, “[P]resenter after presenter referred to ‘so-called terrorism’ or ‘terrorism in quotation marks.’ In one typical panel, the University of Arkansas’s Gwenn Okruhlik defended the fundamentalist opponents of the Saudi regime as slightly perturbed Marxists: ‘They’re calling for redistribution of wealth and social justice. They want rule of law.’”5 Those Saudi extremists, always striving for social justice.

  A University of North Carolina teach-in included William Blum, author of the book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. At the teach-in Blum blithely stated, “There are few if any nations in the world that have harbored more terrorists than the United States.”6 At the same teach-in, Professor Catherine Lutz of UNC stated, “If one [of the perpetrators of September 11] is Osama bin Laden, send the international police for him and pick up Henry Kissinger and Augusto Pinochet on the way home.”7

  The “America as terrorist” sentiment is extremely popular. “We have not shown that our actions differentiate us from those who attacked us,” pontificates Georgetown University’s Michael Hudson. For example, he states, “We ought to be reminded of our responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and understand that we’re not so good.”8 Adam Goldstein, the former campus relations committee chairman for the University of Wisconsin at Madison, wrote a letter to the editor of the University of Wisconsin Badger-Herald: “before you preach at us about the evil terrorists, why don’t you try getting your facts straight and face up to the reality that our leaders are war criminals just as much as people like Hitler, Stalin, and other monsters of the 20th century.”9

  University of Texas Professor Robert Jensen feels
that September 11 “was no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism . . . that the US government has committed during [his] lifetime.”10 “My anger on this day,” he writes, “is directed . . . at those who have held power in the United States and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic.”11 I can’t remember the last time United States Marines hijacked passenger aircraft and flew them into buildings full of working civilians, can you?

  There is no living professor who can match the anti-American record of Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT. In 2002, Chomsky’s 9/11 became an international hit. Globally, people loved it because it ripped America as a terrorist state. Chomsky is always careful to say that nothing can justify the attacks of September 11 in his book; then he proceeds to justify them. “[T]he World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as a terrorist state,” states Chomsky. America is responsible for “massive terrorism . . . and it continues right to the present.”12 Next time, Professor Chomsky should volunteer to fly the suicide missions.

  UCLA offered seminars for students based on the September 11 attacks. One of them was called “Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge.” The course description reads, “While the world rightfully stands united in its condemnation of the bombings of September 11, the American mainstream media has remained impervious to those critical voices which have also drawn attention to America’s own record of imperialistic adventurism and the relation of the WTC bombings to American excesses in Iraq, Sudan, and the Middle East. This seminar asks fundamental questions about how we constitute “terrorism” and its agents . . . Should the continuing sanctions against Iraq also be considered a form of terrorism? . . . What is the relationship of the bin Ladens of this world to ‘Western state terrorism’?”13 Could this possibly get any more disgusting?

  Yes. Professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz of Cal State University at Hayward teaches a course entitled—no kidding—“The Sexuality of Terrorism.” She says that military conflict is caused by masculine sexual aggression. “Armed conflict is not necessarily a hell for those who fight it, but a form of eroticism,” she states. Her course also emphasizes Taliban suffering at the hands of the American aggressor. “In [President Bush’s] administration are some of the most documented terrorists on the face of the earth.”14

  On July 1, 2001, students at the University of Texas opened up copies of the Daily Texan to find an anti-American diatribe by Professor Dana Cloud. “It seems very strange to pledge loyalty to a scrap of cloth representing a corrupt nation that imposes its will, both economic and military, around the world by force,” she wrote. “I pledge allegiance to the people of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, and to their struggles to survive and resist.”15 It’s people like Cloud who need to be in buildings when terrorists hit them. It’s only fair, since Cloud and her ilk so willingly support terrorist actions.

  “IT’S ALL OUR FAULT”

  If the reaction of the universities wasn’t “America deserved it,” it was “we must ask why.” Professors sought to understand the terrorists, to deny that their actions were evil by justifying them. Usually, this meant blaming American foreign policy for “Muslim anger.”

  Professor William Beeman of Brown University begged students to look deep into the terrorists’ souls and try and relate to them. “[I]nstead of rushing to judgment and seeking vengeance against those responsible for the terror . . . understand the more difficult question of ‘why did they do it?’”16 he told them. At UCLA, understanding comes in the form of seminars: Professor John Agnew teaches a seminar titled “Understanding the Taliban.”17 St. Lawrence University in New York offers a course called “Why Do ‘They’ Hate ‘Us’?”18

  “We need to understand their grievances to create political reforms to deal with these movements, rather than military actions,” agrees Paul Lubeck of UC Santa Cruz.19 Appease, appease, appease.

  “I am skeptical that we have even learned anything from this attack,” declared Professor Aamir Mufti of UCLA at a teach-in about September 11.20 What America had failed to learn, of course, was that its foreign policy created hatred in the Arab street. Solution? Change our foreign policy.

  Apparently being part of a death cult isn’t a good enough reason for people to murder Americans. It must be something we did.

  Students at Georgetown University were treated to a debate titled “Resolved: America’s Policies and Past Actions Invited the Recent Attacks.”21 The terrorist acts were “the predictable result of American foreign policy,” stated Bill Israel of University of Massachusetts.22

  Tom Pettigrew of UC Santa Cruz said that US actions and policies were to blame for the September 11 attacks, especially the $2 billion a year the United States provides in foreign aid to Israel. Forget the fact that Israel is America’s closest ally. Forget that America gives nearly $2 billion a year to Egypt, as well. Forget that the total amount of American money going to Muslim states dwarfs the amount going to Israel. “Around the world, the US is seen as a huge, aggressive superpower that has no rival,” Pettigrew maintains.23

  Professor Mazier Behrooz of San Francisco State University agrees with Pettigrew: “The [international] resentment comes from factors such as sanctions against Iraq, US support for unpopular regimes, US presence in the Middle East, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”24 So does Professor Donald Quataert of Binghamton University in New York; he says the attacks were the reflection of twenty-five years of “failed US policies in the Middle East.”25

  Echoing the “America is arrogant” argument, UCLA Professor James Gelvin excused the terrorists for slaughtering three thousand Americans. “They hate us because of our freedom, arrogance, and hypocrisy,” he declared to an audience of UC Irvine students.26 Professor James McCormick of Iowa State University concurs, asking: “[I]s the US too arrogant and should it not use its power but [work] with other countries, or should it just use its military power?”27 Let’s think about this one. Okay, done thinking. I choose military power.

  A UCLA seminar reflecting on September 11 was entitled “America as Hyperpower,” and was taught by Professor Geoffrey Garrett. The course description reads: “People in the US, on the street and in Washington, believe that American power has been used benevolently, for the good of all the world. But reactions tend to be very different outside America, running the gamut from polite disgruntlement to mass protests, and finally to the tragic events of September 11.”28 Because we’re so cruel to the Muslims, they want to come over here and kill our civilians. Never mind that the United States government has placed its soldiers in harm’s way to save Muslims, as in Yugoslavia. It must be our fault.

  Rutgers University Professor Barbara Foley: “Whatever [September 11’s] proximate cause, its ultimate cause is the fascism of US foreign policy over the past many decades.”29 Fascism? Has this lady ever lived in a truly fascist country? If she had, she’d know that it is the foreign policy of the Arab world that is fascistic.

  Professor Ayad Al-Qazzazz of Cal State University at Sacramento insists that Arabs do not hate Americans, only American foreign policy. And, he says, President Bush’s policies will create more terrorists. “If Bush refuses to address the causes of terrorism, I can guarantee the problem is going to be with us for a very long time,” Al-Qazzazz states. What are the causes of terrorism? “They just hate American foreign policy. From their perspective, it’s based on dictation, interference and supporting corrupt regimes, particularly the Israelis.” The solution, Al-Qazzazz suggests, is to “educate yourself and keep an open mind about Arab people and the situation in the Middle East.”30 To end terrorism, just keep an open mind about the terrorists and their agenda. Sounds like sympathy for the terrorists to me.

  There must be something uniquely psychotic about the University of North Carolina. A panelist at a University of North Carolina teach-in suggested that the US government apologize to “the tortured and the impoverished and all the millions of other victims of American imperialism.”31 A University of North Carolina professor r
equired students to read a book lauding the Koran, and gave assignments based on the readings. The book ignores Surahs four, five, and nine, all of which encourage Muslims to kill infidels.32

  Professor Sarah Shields of UNC calls Osama bin Laden “the result of misguided US policies,” and says that “new misguided US policies will create dozens, perhaps hundreds more bin Ladens.”33 No, idiots like Shields block the US government from targeting terrorists like bin Laden by whining about US foreign policy.

  “DON’T BLAME ISLAM”

  The professors’ first reaction was to blame America. Their second was to defend Islam from all culpability. And they’ve done a fantastic job. While 39 percent of Americans say they have an unfavorable impression of Islam and 47 percent say they have a favorable impression, a whopping 61 percent of college students say they have a favorable impression of Islam, and only 24 percent are unfavorable toward Islam.34

  “This is not about religion, it’s about economics and politics,” insists Professor Donald Quataert of Binghamton University.35 Using the old intellectual formula, moral relativism, Professor Jamal A. Badawi stated to University of Connecticut students that: “Throughout history, people have done the most horrendous things in the name of religion,” and therefore we shouldn’t blame Islam.36

  To justify their violent opposition to safety measures like racial profiling, professors cite “domestic terror.” Abortion bombers and white male Christians like Timothy McVeigh pose as much danger to Americans as Islamic terrorists, professors maintain. The September 11 bombers were only fanatics, and there are American fanatics too, so let’s not crack down on Muslims, okay?

  Law professor Khaled Abou el Fadl says there is a double standard with domestic terrorists.37 “There’s a double standard when acts of terror are committed by people of Islamic background,” nods Professor Jamal A. Badawi in a lecture to students from the University of Connecticut.38 Not exactly: McVeigh and the Unabomber both got the death penalty.