Monday, March 06, 2006

Academia, the Taliban and Military Recruiters

I awoke to the news this morning that the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that universities that accept federal funds must allow military recruiters on campus. I am sure there will be outrage among the academic elite who so despise the American military. Are these harsh words warranted? Yes, I speak from experience. Let me give you some examples.

A took a class under a highly regarded professor recently, a Yale alumnus I might add. Every class was a lecture in how he was a socialist, how evil the Bush administration is and how much the world hates us. He made no attempts to hide his disdain for the US military either. He stated,"The American military consists of the dregs of American society."

Upon being challenged, he explained himself by saying that when he was in Iraq (getting paid lots of money by the US government) these were the "idiots" he was afraid were going to shoot him. My response, "Did they shoot you? Did they even shoot at you?"

The answer was of course a muffled "no". I informed him that he was xenophobic, prejudice; a look of both confusion and anger crossed his face. The look said,'What xenophobic! Prejudice! But I am a liberal, I am open minded by default, how dare you!' Wisely he shook his head and said nothing. I then reminded him that these "dregs of American society" were single handedly responsible for pulling off the largest rescue operation in the history of the world during hurricane Katrina, a topic he so loved to talk about in class. I also reminded him that if he were ever kidnapped in Iraq, he would pray every night that some of these dregs would kick in the door and bring him to safety. I finished by asking him if he knows anyone in the military; the answer was no.

Another example is of a classmate, a graduate student. We got into a discussion about the military and she stated, "...Well they only want the stupidest people possible so they can brainwash them."

I responded by asking what she thought about recruiters and ROTC units on campus. Of course, she was opposed to it. So I inquired, as I was a bit confused, why if one of her beefs with the military was that, as she perceived them, they were all stupid, why wouldn't she want them on campus recruiting the people so enlightened as her. Silence, crickets chirping. I asked her if she new anyone in the military; the answer was no.

The point is that academic elites hate the US military, the one that protects their academic freedom. When pressed they usually express a disdain for war and violence and say they associate the US military with that. Understandable, I guess, in some idealistic, unrealistic way. That of course is how their reasoning or lack thereof is formulated, out of idealism and not reality. This is why military recruiters are banned from campuses I assume. Academics' harsh words about the military, however never seem to be about some intellectual disdain for war, but usually resemble a trailer park discussion about one's mamma's boyfriend's sister. In other words, they really like to talk trash about the members of the military in such away that has nothing to do with the reasons they give for loathing the institution.

Here is the problem. Other practices indicate a double standard in academia regarding the disdain of all things violent. The recent well-publicized case of the Taliban official at Yale is a perfect example. Here is a man with literally a fourth grade education who was a high ranking member of the Taliban regime. This regime is responsible for unspeakable acts of violence against civilians and severe violent oppression of women. Thousands of young American citizens who dream of attending this university are turned down every year in spite of stellar academic records and three times as many years in school. When officials from Yale were asked why they selected this guy, their response was that Harvard got the last one like this that came along and there was no way Yale was going to let this one slip through.

So what is going on here? Academia says one thing and does another. They supposedly are anti-violence and anti-war, so they ban military recruiters and ROTC units from campus. Yet they embrace a radical terrorist who represents one of the most violent regimes in modern history and are proud of it. Why?

Academics (and I am generalizing here but I can because most are from the far Left) loath the United States. They hate the principles that this country was founded on-capitalism, the American work ethic, traditional values, national unity. You know, all the things that have made the country a place where everybody in the world wants to come and live. A place of opportunity for those coming ready to work for it. The American military is a symbol of America and all that it is, not just death, violence and war. So at some level these folks probably have a disdain for violence, at least any carried out by Americans. But it is not because of some high moral ground on which they stand; it is due to a disdain for the America that I know and love and I see slipping away as a result of many of the policies touted by academic elites. They like to talk trash about their country, and those who serve it are prime targets.

So, I think I know why there is so much bad mouthing of the American military personnel and I have discussed this above. So what about this Taliban character? Well, this is simply a case of an institution trying to be so "open-minded" their brains fall out. "Hey everybody! Look at us, we are inclusive, we embrace diversity look at our token Muslim terrorist!" diversity trumps aversion to violence and common sense any day of the week in academia.

I congratulate the member of the US Supreme Court, all of them, for exercising a little common sense in their decision. America will be a better place as a result.
|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home