If you’re a veteran like me, you will find it increasingly more difficult to watch the news. Lately, as current events pertain to the military, however, it’s becoming almost unbearable to witness the crumbling of the beloved nation we once donned the uniform to preserve and protect.
If you follow The Daily Wire, you know I recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/woke-u-s-military-more-dangerous-world" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote an article</a> addressing my concerns that a sense of “wokeness” is seeping into America’s armed forces. It is a seemingly conscious effort to chip away at American nationalism. This relentless shift to the Left is distracting our military from focusing on its true mission, which is to protect our homeland through lethal projection of power and the willingness to use this power if necessary.
With this said, imagine my dismay, along with many other veterans, when I read that the United States Military Academy at West Point is dropping the patriotic edict “Duty, Honor, Country” from its mission statement in favor of the more politically correct “Preserving Army Values.” At first, I thought it was “fake news” as I simply refused to believe that such an about face on American patriotism was taking place at one of the nation’s oldest and most revered military academies. To my dismay, as The Daily Wire has since <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/west-point-removes-duty-honor-country-from-mission-statement-replaces-with-army-values" target="_blank" rel="noopener">confirmed</a>, the initial report I read was, in fact, correct. 
I am not the only veteran in my family. My father served in the Korean War, First Marines, wounded in combat, whose hero was General Douglas MacArthur. Although not popular among the rank and file, my father always admired that MacArthur, an army chauvinist to the core, nevertheless chose his First Marine Division as the spearpoint for his brilliant Inchon landing behind communist lines in 1950 that saved South Korea from tyranny. And so, many of MacArthur’s dicta rang true with him. 
One of the General’s mantras was the hallowed West Point rallying cry of “Duty, Honor, Country.” Indeed, though my father was a hard man who’d seen war up close, who suffered personal loss during his life, the only time I ever saw him weep was when we watched the movie “MacArthur” and actor Gregory Peck recites to a group of actually assembled West Point cadets, the eponymous character’s final speech to his beloved academy in 1962, two years before his death. Audio recordings of the General’s actual speech can also be found on YouTube. It wasn’t the acting so much as the words, spoken verbatim, that so deeply affected my combat veteran father.
In his moving elocution, the old warrior again and again reverts to the three sublime words as the bedrock standards upon which they should base their future conduct as America’s first line of defense: “Duty, Honor, Country.” 
Says MacArthur, 
<blockquote>…great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a ten-fold beacon in the night &#8211; Duty, Honor, Country. 
You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come-the great captains who hold the nation’s destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds. The Long Gray Line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses thundering those magic words &#8211; Duty, Honor, Country.</blockquote>
To a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, this sacred credo is the summation of who, why, and what we serve. They are calls to commitment, morality, and belief in the national interest above the self. Indeed, no better words can sum up the ethos of the American fighting man and woman. 
And now these words which stood as a beacon in an institution that for over two centuries has produced some of the world’s most gifted captains have been scrubbed from the walls of the academy like so much politically incorrect graffiti.
During MacArthur’s soliloquy — a framed copy of which my father kept prominently displayed in our family room — the importance the great strategist and former West Point superintendent placed on those three words &#8220;Duty, Honor, Country&#8221; made an indelible mark on my psyche. So much so that offering my life up for military service was an easy decision. To this day, those three words still inspire me with a deep sense of American nationalism whenever I revisit them: “Duty, Honor, Country.” 
Now, I find that this new, progressive group of Army bureaucrats — I won’t call them generals because that is a title worthy of respect and admiration — who are “facilitating” West Point, not leading, are actually uprooting every fiber of the patriotic base that made West Point the wellspring from which the desire to preserve our American Constitution flows. Words have meaning; they inspire feelings, thoughts, and conduct. As such, to sterilize the powerful message found in those three words “Duty, Honor, Country” with a sanitized, anodyne PowerPoint slogan such as “Respect Army Values” is a blight against every patriot who died for this country, from Nathan Hale to the Unknown Soldier.
Words can inspire, and an inspired enemy is difficult to control and is capable of extraordinary bravery. The Left understands quite well that language can be a powerful tool of indoctrination. It is not by chance that our children no longer start off their school days by first reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Again, rousing words lead to extraordinary deeds, and evil people, who are trying to usurp a good and free nation, know this. Taking away the loyalty oath of “Duty, Honor, Country” has a desired, debilitating effect. I doubt very much, that the men who fought their way to the summit of Mount Suribachi to plant the flag atop Iwo Jima had the words “Army Values” running through their minds as the fierce battle raged around them. But they knew their purpose, they knew why they were fighting, and they knew for whom they were willing to continue engaging in a life-and-death struggle for freedom. It was their duty to honor their fallen comrades in order to save the country they loved so dearly. Again, I don’t see where saying “Army Values” would have motivated anyone to risk their lives for a nation that from grade school to even our military academies they are being taught to disdain.
No doubt, many a G.I. over many battlefields has garnered intestinal fortitude by whispering to themselves those same three words “Duty, Honor, Country” before lining up for the charge into the hell of enemy fire. The concept that “Army Values” could inspire such valor at a time when an American soldier needs it most in order to ensure a continuation of our free way of life under the Constitution is ludicrous and laughable on its face, and frankly insulting and offensive. “Army Values” indeed.
With every waking moment of his or her day, a West Point cadet is reminded that he or she is an integral part of The Corps whose core values were, &#8220;Duty, Honor, Country.&#8221; A cadet can take solace in the knowledge that the shiver of motivation he or she feels running down their spine is a natural outgrowth of such inspiring words. That is, until today!
If you had read one of my other articles about the reactions us boomer vets and myself were having to President Biden threatening to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/extreme-prejudice-at-the-texas-border" target="_blank" rel="noopener">call out the National Guard</a> on the Texas border agents, you will remember that we regularly debate this nation’s policies as we sit in the waiting rooms of the VA hospitals. The same scenario will happen the next time I show up at my VA, and I’m almost certain I can gauge what will be the reaction to the extreme alteration to West Point’s point mission statement.
In 1917, the Espionage Act was passed after the United States entered World War I. It was followed by the Sedition Act of 1918. Both of these pieces of legislation were designed to incriminate individuals who attempted to impede the war effort. Those who did so were punished since they were believed to be performing acts of anti-patriotism.
I can tell you with no uncertainty, that during the next discussion I have with a fellow vet, we will be deliberating who we feel is responsible for removing West Point’s more than a century-old motto. My conclusion would be that the individual bureaucrat in uniform, or even the entire committee if the decision were made in this manner, should be stripped of his/her rank(s) and brought before a court martial to face charges of sedition in accordance with the Espionage and Sedition Acts.
After all, unlike &#8220;Duty, Honor, Country,&#8221; these words are still on the books.
* * *
Brian Schaeffer served as a Naval aviator until his honorable discharge in 1985 with the rank of Lieutenant. Lt. Schaeffer has been in both the shipping business and involved in real estate ever since re-entering civilian life. Prior to heading off to Aviation Reserve Officers Corps, he graduated with honors from Indiana University, Bloomington.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-MILITARY-WEST POINT-DEFENCE

‘Duty, Honor, Country’: Political Correctness At West Point Leaves Our Military Distracted From Its True Mission

'Duty, Honor, Country': Political Correctness At West Point Leaves Our Military Distracted From Its True Mission

Opinion

Readers Pass

U.S. Military

Universities

West Point

Woke Culture

If you’ve been paying attention over the last couple of years, you’ve seen how woke ideologies are ripping through all aspects of society from the K-12 education system to colleges, the military, and our local, state, and federal governments.
If you haven’t been paying attention, Harvard-educated House GOP Chair, Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) thrust this into the spotlight and is finally taking some action. Her brave questioning of several U.S. college presidents in Washington, D.C., exposed the rot that has formed at many of America’s most respected education institutions.
And now this is extending beyond the GOP. Bill Ackman, billionaire and longtime Democrat donor, <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/bill-ackman-war-harvard-mit-dei-claudine-gay.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently told the New York Magazine</a> that his daughter was indoctrinated at Harvard University saying in part &#8220;She became, like, an anti-capitalist. Like practically a Marxist.”
Bill’s comments reflect the pain that many parents from around the nation are feeling who have watched their sons and daughters return home from college not smarter, more cultured, or more business savvy, but brainwashed on many issues that go against the values in which they were raised as children.
What should terrify all parents, is that this is not an uncommon scenario in today’s world where a young man or woman goes off to college with a deep love for America only to come home on spring break with a new mindset: burn America to the ground.
U.C. Berkeley&#8217;s School of Law <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/09/30/uc-berkeley-blasted-for-creating-jewish-free-zones-with-pro-israel-speaker-ban/">allegedly</a> created a “<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/uc-berkeley-law-schools-jew-free-zones-latest-progressive-trend-opinion-1748218">Zionist-free zone</a>&#8221; where anyone who supports Israel is not allowed to enter. On another side of the same campus, Jewish students were recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-uc-berkeley-jewish-students-forced-to-evacuate-after-mob-storms-event-with-idf-soldier" target="_blank" rel="noopener">forced to to barricade</a> themselves inside because of a angry mobs trying to attack them. 
Through a strategic plan to completely infiltrate our education systems, we have seen innocent children grow up to become unrecognizable anarchists on campuses across our nation. What should scare us even more — today’s protesters will become tomorrow’s prosecutors.
And it doesn’t stop there. Innocent, moldable minds that have been hijacked by woke ideology are the future of our healthcare system, government, judicial system, and yes, those in charge of educating generations to come.
President Donald J. Trump has always said, “They aren&#8217;t after me, they are after you.” But it doesn’t stop there — they are after an entire generation.
As a former intelligence officer and prosecutor, this problem is much deeper than meets the eye.
For years, this has been quietly driven by weak college presidents who can’t find the moral courage to unequivocally condemn Anti-Semitism and tenured professors turned political activists with a single mission — to brainwash the minds of our nation’s future.
This hate-filled culture is not enriching life on college campuses. Why are the leaders of higher education allowing this to take root and more importantly, who is funding it?
And it’s not just in higher education where the destructive woke ideologies have taken root. We now see them on full display in the U.S. military where recently, radical U.S. airman, Aaron Bushnell, quite literally<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hamas-praises-far-left-extremist-who-torched-himself-while-screaming-free-palestine" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> set himself on fire</a> outside of the Israeli Embassy in the United States to protest the American government’s support for Israel.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices have transformed into a Marxist value system and the consequences are detrimental and our recruitment is suffering immensely.
Traditionally, the U.S. military has been revered for its focus on meritocracy and unity of purpose. Recruitment was based on the principles of honor, duty, and patriotism, with individuals from diverse backgrounds coming together under the shared goal of defending their country. However, the rise of Marxist initiatives has shifted the focus away from these core principles, prioritizing identity politics over the fundamental qualities necessary for military service.
DEI initiatives have fostered a toxic environment within the military, where divisive identity politics take precedence over unity and cohesion. Rather than fostering a sense of camaraderie and shared purpose, these initiatives have sown discord and resentment among service members, undermining morale and eroding the bonds of trust that are essential for effective teamwork in combat situations.
It is imperative that we recognize the dangers posed by Marxist initiatives all throughout our society and take decisive action to reverse this damaging trend. Instead of focusing on divisive identity politics, we must reaffirm our commitment to meritocracy, unity, and shared purpose.
From all aspects of our education systems to our military to our government leaders, one thing is for sure; woke ideologies are destroying the fabric of our great nation and they must come to an end once and for all.
And in Congress, I will fight to save our children and our national security. I will use all means possible to form a task force to investigate this problem, find out who is funding it and make sure that our youth once again believes in one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
* * *
<a href="https://twitter.com/AbrahamHamadeh?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Abe Hamadeh</a> is a Trump-endorsed Republican Candidate for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District and former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

University Of California Proposes COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement Policy

How Woke Ideologies Are Corrupting America’s Future

How Woke Ideologies Are Corrupting America's Future

Anti-Semitism

Arizona

Berkeley, California

California

Harvard

Marxism

U.S. Politics

It would be easier for everyone involved if progressive social activists in higher education would just come out and be honest that they hate Jews and would rather see us killed off once and for all.
News broke the night of February 4 that the public City University of New York (CUNY) planned to host a <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanHaroun1/status/1754300986045124959/photo/1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">seminar</a> later this month that was originally titled “Globalize the Intifada: Mapping Struggles for Palestine between the Streets and our Classrooms.” For the sake of optics, the <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanHaroun1/status/1754300986045124959" target="_blank" rel="noopener">incendiary prefix</a> appeared to have been dropped before CUNY outright canceled the event.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨🚨 <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Breaking?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Breaking</a> &#8211; UPDATE 2: The title of this <a href="https://twitter.com/CUNY?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CUNY</a> seminar, scheduled for Feb 16, has now been changed with mention of “Globalize the Intifada” REMOVED. It is part of a broader course on: “Engagement, Equity &amp; Antiracism” <a href="https://t.co/gBQnXZbMFR">pic.twitter.com/gBQnXZbMFR</a>
&mdash; Jonathan Harounoff (@JonathanHaroun1) <a href="https://twitter.com/JonathanHaroun1/status/1754300986045124959?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
CUNY was right to <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article/update-cuny-cancels-globalize-the-intifada-panel-at-anti-racism-conference-not-a-podium-for-protest/24795">cancel</a> the event because no matter the language used, the seminar’s original “Global Intifada” title betrays the murderous spirit lurking beneath the event’s surface.
Intifada refers to the organized and indiscriminate killing of Jewish civilians through terrorism. Palestinian terrorists launched the <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/intifada-begins-on-gaza-strip" target="_blank" rel="noopener">First Intifada</a> in 1987 and the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7381378.stm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Intifada</a> in 2000. Both used bombings to kill innocent Jewish civilians.
Murder has no place in higher education. Like Mike Myers’ “Coffee Talk” bit on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58grYzCcfHI" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SNL</a>, I can only say that Intifada is neither educational nor a higher ideal. The would-be panelists and attendees do not express sophistication, intellectualism, or empathy when they invoke murder. Instead, they only appeal to the worst elements of human emotions and hatred.
The CUNY seminar operates in an axis of Jew-hatred holding together anti-Semitic social justice crusades both on and off college campuses. The event description accordingly states that it will “bring together organizers at Lehman College and the Bronx, and across CUNY and New York City, to highlight how students, workers, and our communities can act in solidarity to achieve justice in Palestine.” For social justice progressives, killing isn’t murder when it’s solidarity. 
Make no mistake. These people want Intifada everywhere. But they refuse to sacrifice their respectability and thus cloak their complicity with murder in the deceptively polite aura of scholarly discussions.
As a country, we cannot expect to defeat Jew-hatred as long as a critical mass of the public and academia buys into this deception and duplicity. Last fall, America got a glimpse into the true nature of the far-Left’s anti-Semitism from the other side of the country. 
On Oct. 10, University of California, Davis, Professor <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article/update-uc-davis-prof-still-employed-after-threatening-jewish-journalists-with-death-home-invasion-kidnapping/24222" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jemma Decristo</a> appeared to tweet murder and kidnapping threats against Jewish journalists, implying like-minded progressive academics and activists would carry out the acts: “one group of ppl we have easy access to in the US is all these zionist journalists who spread propaganda &amp; misinformation &#8230; they have houses w addresses, kids in school &#8230; they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Hey <a href="https://twitter.com/ucdavis?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ucdavis</a>, do you think it’s appropriate that one of your faculty advisors, @jemmaisOKeh, is publicly threatening to murder Jews at their homes and their children at their schools? <a href="https://t.co/xAx97LHYbr">pic.twitter.com/xAx97LHYbr</a>
&mdash; Jason Bedrick 🇮🇱 (@JasonBedrick) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonBedrick/status/1715036789730431299?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If you want to know what political desires motivate the CUNY seminar, imagine if Decristo’s threats actually happened. Mob massacres that eliminate Jews are the end-point of Intifadas and Jewish students are already the target of physical attacks on campus.
Last semester, university officials did not lift a finger to stop Jews from being <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article/4-times-jewish-students-were-attacked-on-campuses-in-2023/24482" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attacked</a> at Harvard University, Cooper Union, Tulane University, and Columbia University.
That’s why I filed 21 Title VI complaints against American universities – these colleges have failed in their duty to respond to campus antisemitism and Jew hatred. These events and rhetoric are neither benign nor examples of political speech that deserve protection. They are calls for violence.
So far, these complaints have resulted in seven opened investigations: Brown University, Temple University, Arizona State University, Northwestern University, Binghamton University, University of Wisconsin, and Indiana University Bloomington.
I feel encouraged by these investigations, but they will not stop Jew-hatred in this country as long as the public remains gullible to higher education’s lies and distortions. It is possible to rail against Israeli foreign policy without invoking murder &#8211; secular liberals in Tel Aviv do it all the time &#8211; but progressive academics and activists hardly seem interested in doing so. They relish in genocidal designs. 
The pro-Hamas invocation <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article/stanford-refuses-to-condemn-pro-hamas-banners-instead-vows-to-help-students-find-proper-place-to-hang-them/24123" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“by any means necessary”</a> that sprung up last fall from professors and students persists four months after October 7 as the slogan “<a href="https://twitter.com/HenMazzig/status/1753902546609938880" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You Don’t Get to Choose How We Resist</a>.” On campus and off, today and last fall, these chants endorse murder and rape against civilians. They envisage the genocidal promise of “From the River to the Sea.”
<div id="attachment_692733" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-692733" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="size-large wp-image-692733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/02/GettyImages-1981893206-864x576.jpg" alt="NEW YORK, NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 02: Protestors demonstrate near Columbia University on February 02, 2024 in New York City. The demonstrations were held in solidarity with Pro-Palestinian protesters that were allegedly attacked during a protest two weeks ago on the university campus. Pro-Palestinian University organizations alleged that two people attacked multiple protestors with 'skunk' stink-bomb during a January 19th protest on campus. Multiple arrests occurred following clashes between the NYPD and protestors as they marched around the exterior of the Columbia, and Barnard-Columbia, before being pushed down Broadway. (Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/02/GettyImages-1981893206-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/02/GettyImages-1981893206-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/02/GettyImages-1981893206-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/02/GettyImages-1981893206.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images</div>
These are the same tactics that Russian tsars used in the 1800s to execute their pogroms that killed hundreds of thousands of Jews. In a 2023 graduation speech, <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/article/bill-proposes-funding-cuts-after-anti-semitic-cuny-law-graduation-speech/23387" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CUNY Law student Fatima Mohammed</a> indulged in anti-Semitic tropes that maliciously link Jews to murder and global finance. It was this combination of stereotypes that fueled the pogroms and Holocaust.
No wonder Jewish students feel unwelcome in higher education. Every time they step on campus, they teleport back to a time and place when it was permissible – and popular – to persecute and kill Jews.
Jews are not safe in higher education, but history shows us that we are safer when we fully understand the threats against us. The Holocaust <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/nazi-germany-and-anti-jewish-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">developed</a> so gradually over the 1930s and early 1940s in Germany and Austria, that many Jewish contemporaries remained complacently in denial about the threat until it was too late.
That’s why we are better off if anti-Semites who indulge in murderous rhetoric and fantasies would just admit their deepest desires.
* * *
Zachary Marschall is the editor-in-chief of the Leadership Institute’s <a href="https://www.campusreform.org/profile?pid=6097122" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Campus Reform</a> and an adjunct assistant professor at the <a href="https://finearts.uky.edu/arts-administration/faculty-staff/zachary-marschall" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of Kentucky</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Pro-Palestinian Rally Held On Columbia University Campus

At Least Be Honest — You Want Us Dead

City University of New York (CUNY)

Gaza

Intifada

Israel

Jews

New York

The events of October 7, 2023, awakened me. They changed my relationship with Israel and opened my eyes to the decaying of this country that I love, that has now been my home for 32 years — the United States.
The US is becoming a laughingstock of the world, deservedly so. We are still the strongest democracy in the world. People still want to move here, but we are resting on the laurels of our past glory, which was achieved by elevating meritocracy and excellence. Our successes, and our grocery stores full of food, have gone to our heads and are turning us into a society focused only on pleasant outcomes, independent of how much work we put in.
We are a society that is losing its pragmatism. We used to be a country of practical, innovative problem solvers, and now we are turning into a country of useful idiots, where a tiny woke minority leads us into self-immolation.
Israel will not exist 50 years from now without a strong US. I have to fight for the US – it’s a two-for-the-price-of-one type of deal: A strong United States that supports Israel is mandatory for Israel to survive.
I learned an important lesson from longtime Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman Charlie Munger, who recently passed away. I have been attending the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting since 2008. At these shareholder meetings, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger would sit on stage in a giant sports arena and answer questions from shareholders for five hours. Buffett would usually have the first chance to answer the question, and then he would direct it to Munger.
If the question was controversial, Buffett would go into politician mode and give a non-answer answer. Munger would say what he really thought and didn’t care if his answer upset someone who disagreed with it. Buffett was shackled by the fear of public opinion, while Munger was free.
Munger said, “I think that one should recognize reality even when one doesn’t like it; indeed, especially when one doesn’t like it.” And thus, he told the truth because it mattered more than someone’s hurt feelings or criticism of him.
Buffett was afraid, Munger was not.
Today, the most important thing for us is to stop being afraid. This is how the loud minority gains power. They accuse the silent majority of bigotry or racism and make us afraid to speak up. And because we are afraid of being canceled, we stay quiet while the woke minority goes about killing our country.
Fighting against anti-Semitism and the woke cancer is one and the same fight, as we are fighting the same enemy.
We can no longer have tunnel vision. As my son Jonah reminded me, with greater power comes greater responsibility.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
Yes, this is the time to fight. Each of us has a different role in this fight, and we all have different strengths. Israelis are fighting Hamas. Some of my friends have gone to Israel and joined that fight, lending a hand wherever it’s needed (farming, cleaning, feeding soldiers).
I have another Jewish friend who was never involved in politics. He told me that after October 7 he realized, “I won’t need money in the concentration camp.” He is now contributing to opposition campaigns to replace anti-Semitic politicians.
If you are a donor to universities, work to defund those with DEI departments that are promoting racism and inequality. Redirect your money toward universities that promote free speech, the ones whose objective is not to coddle our youth but to challenge their thinking. If you want to change society’s future, change its universities.
We all have special gifts. Use them. Fight for what is right, while we still have something to fight for.
* * *
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-1-a-small-country-with-a-big-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 1: A Small Country With A Big Story</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-2-wokeness-is-destroying-america-one-student-at-a-time" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 2: Wokeness Is Destroying America — One Student at a Time</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-3-the-socialism-of-grades" target="_blank" rel="noopener">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 3: The Socialism Of Grades</a>
* * *
Vitaliy Katsenelson is CEO of <a href="https://imausa.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://imausa.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw30zrUEAHOucJkCFFh3YMfC">IMA</a> – a value investing firm in Denver. You can read his articles on <a href="https://investor.fm/">investor.fm</a>. He is the author of <a href="https://soulinthegame.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://soulinthegame.net/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0w8zHUpuqxRre_0scGo3hI">Soul in the Game</a> – The Art of a Meaningful Life (Harriman House, 2022).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

United States and Israel flags, Jerusalem, Israel

Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 4: One Way To Save America And Israel

Jewish

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” – Winston Churchill
Socialism is a terrific idea in theory. Who would not want everyone in society to have a house with a white picket fence, the job of their dreams, 2.5 kids and a dog? But plain vanilla socialism has failed every single time it has been implemented — the Soviet Union, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Venezuela — and it turned each of those countries (and others) into a totalitarian state.
In a socialist state, success is pushed down, and failure is elevated. This is how equality of outcome is created. In the Soviet Union’s version of plain vanilla socialism, we were taught to hate the wealthy and empathize with the poor. This empathy was easy for us because everyone (with the exception of the tiny ruling-class bureaucrats) was poor.
Capitalism does not offer the sexy, utopian promise of socialism, but it works in practice. Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty; but it is now under threat, ironically, from those who have benefited the most from it — academics. Universities  have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the wealth created by capitalism. 
As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people’s money.”
Universities used to be spartan gyms for our minds, places where opposing ideas collided and gave birth to new ones and where our thinking got challenged through healthy debate. This growth came with healthy pain, the type that accompanies and stimulates intellectual growth.
Today, many universities have been turned into day spas, where, for <a href="https://www.collegeessayadvisors.com/ivy-league-tuition-and-fees-2022-23/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$300,000</a>, a student’s mind will be pampered and coddled. Now they are “safe places” from opposing ideas, which are <a href="https://www.thefire.org/news/absurd-uva-microaggressions-case-shows-just-how-badly-schools-can-abuse-professionalism-codes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">considered</a> as microaggressions. This is where free speech goes to die, unless it calls for the genocidal extermination of Jews; then you can speak your mind.
It seems today’s college administrations are afraid to upset their spa customers (I mean students). They do not seem to be focused on challenging their thinking and producing the brightest but are instead fixated on making students feel better about themselves.
I was not surprised to learn that socialism is slowly poisoning our universities, but I was surprised by its new avenue — the socialization of grades. Professors at a local law school are required to grade to a B+. When professors submit their grades, if the average is below a B+, the system will reject it. The university is afraid of making students feel bad about a low, albeit deserved grade and wants every student to have a high grade-point average upon graduation.
However, what is inflation for one group is deflation for another. This practice punishes hard working students, as their work may result in a lower grade than they deserve, compared to classmates who are preoccupied with attending “TikTok University” during lectures.
Universities are on a quixotic mission to right a wrong — they are fighting against grade inequality. This is what socializing (equalizing) outcomes looks like. In fact, this seemingly innocent practice of equally high grades has the familiar ring of a Karl Marx slogan that I heard endlessly in the Soviet Union: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Law students need a B+, so they get a B+. 
With each graduating class, our capitalistic (equal-opportunity) society is being slowly diluted by equal-outcome dogma (socialism).
Grade inflation appears to be happening in virtually <a href="https://www.gradeinflation.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">every college</a> across the country. Colleges should not receive all the blame for this, however. Unfortunately, it starts in high schools, where super grade inflation is on the rise — grades have gone up while reading and math skills have fallen, with <a href="https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/secured/documents/Evidence-of-Grade-Inflation-in-English-Math-Social-Studies-and-Science.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">minorities experiencing</a> the largest grade inflation. 
Bad grades are a necessary part of education. How else would you know you had not learned something as well as you thought you had? I failed English as a freshman in college. I had been in the US for two years. My English was objectively horrible. I’m glad I didn’t receive special (woke) treatment for being “fresh off the boat.” I studied a lot harder, retook the class and passed it my senior year. If I had not, my English would not have improved and I would not have written several books or received national awards for writing.
The beauty of the Declaration of Independence is that you are guaranteed the “pursuit of happiness” — you are given an equal chance to pursue it. You are not guaranteed the outcome, just the opportunity. There is enormous value, and yes even happiness and meaning in the pursuit of happiness. This pursuit will often take you down a harder road, but it will result in the best version of you and bring a sense of pride and accomplishment.
* * *
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-1-a-small-country-with-a-big-story">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 1: A Small Country With A Big Story</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-2-wokeness-is-destroying-america-one-student-at-a-time">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 2: Wokeness Is Destroying America — One Student at a Time</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-4-one-way-to-save-america-and-israel">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 4: One Way To Save America And Israel</a>
* * *
Vitaliy Katsenelson is CEO of <a href="https://imausa.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://imausa.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw30zrUEAHOucJkCFFh3YMfC">IMA</a> – a value investing firm in Denver. You can read his articles on  <a href="http://contrarianedge.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://ContrarianEdge.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Ak6ognAG7cu6Z8Bx_j7L8">ContrarianEdge.com</a>. He is the author of <a href="https://soulinthegame.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://soulinthegame.net/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0w8zHUpuqxRre_0scGo3hI">Soul in the Game</a> – The Art of a Meaningful Life (Harriman House, 2022).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

optical form of an examination with pencil

Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 3: The Socialism Of Grades

College

Communism

Education

Socialism

Soviet Union

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell
I love the United States and want it to be strong and prosperous. I am embarrassed by the fact that it took a catastrophe in Israel to wake me up to the realization that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">American universities</a> have become epicenters of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/woke" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wokeness</a>” and green shoots of socialism that are gradually destroying our awesome country.
I know what you may be thinking: Wokeness is the enemy? Really? Next, he’ll be picking on Winnie-the-Pooh.
I don’t blame you.
I looked up <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/wokeness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the definition </a>of wokeness: “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” Sounds fair and innocent enough, right? Marvel should create a superhero: Wokeman — “fixing injustice 24/7, always stays woke.”
I am not a political science scholar, but I have an inkling of how wokeness started. It was an aftershock of the equal rights movements that tried to fix the side effects of our society’s ugly past and bring equality to everyone. It came from a good, kind place in people’s hearts. However, I am a student of economics and have learned that ideas should not be judged solely on their intent but also on their outcomes. We are often preoccupied with the intent and ignore second order effects, the unintended consequences that often make things a lot worse.
This is exactly what has happened to wokeness.
At some point, while we got up to get the popcorn, the wokeness movie went from being a Marvel superhero flick to an Orwellian dystopian Animal Farm nightmare: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/invasion-on-the-southern-border" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: &#8220;The Divided States of Biden with Ben Shapiro&#8221; on DailyWire+</a></h4>
Although the idea of elevating minorities may sound great on the surface, the U.S. took a wrong turn and started turning into a country where the majority is often penalized for not being a minority. 
Which brings me to the college HQ of wokeness — DEI. I am embarrassed to admit I did not know <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dei" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DEI</a> existed before October 7. If you think these three letters stand for some cool government agency, no, they are way cooler than that. They stand for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
How can anyone be against these three awesome words?
To my great surprise, DEI has turned into anti-Semitism on college campuses. Billionaire investor Bill Ackman explains DEI’s role very well in <a href="https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this essay</a>:
“Under DEI, one’s degree of oppression is determined based upon where one resides on a so-called intersectional pyramid of oppression where whites, Jews, and Asians are deemed oppressors, and a subset of people of color, LGBTQ people, and/or women are deemed to be oppressed. Under this ideology … one is either an anti-racist or a racist.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
In light of today’s news, I thought I would try to take a step back and provide perspective on what this is really all about.
I first became concerned about <a href="https://twitter.com/Harvard?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Harvard</a> when 34 Harvard student organizations, early on the morning of October 8th before Israel had taken any military…
&mdash; Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1742441534627184760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Ackman, a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/harvard" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harvard</a> University grad and major donor, goes on to say: “There is no such thing as being ‘not racist.’ Under DEI’s ideology, any policy, program, educational system, economic system, grading system, admission policy … that leads to unequal outcomes among people of different skin colors is deemed racist. As a result, according to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, corporations are racist, or in other words, any merit-based program, system, or organization which has or generates outcomes for different races that are at variance with the proportion these different races represent in the population at large is by definition racist under DEI’s ideology.” 
As a result, on some campuses the DEI objective became what Tabia Lee, a former equity director at De Anza College in California, to “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v_aME7tUuE&amp;t=9s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">de-center whiteness</a>,” and thus it allowed anti-Semitism to spread. If you fall under DEI “protection,” you become part of a superclass that plays by its own rules. Since Jews are not classified as a minority, they have now been put into the category of oppressors.
Yet, Jews are indeed a minority — there are only <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/global-jewish-population-hits-15-7-million-ahead-of-new-year-46-of-them-in-israel/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15.7 million</a> of us in the world! That’s right, in the whole world. During World War II, an estimated <a href="https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/estimated-number-of-jews-killed-in-the-final-solution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">six million</a> Jews perished in the Holocaust – an event whose occurrence is now up for dispute not just in Iran but among the TikTok-educated younger generation here at home. (According to an Economist survey, <a href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">20% of 18-to-29-year-olds</a> think the Holocaust is a myth.)
Growing up as a Jew — an underclass in the Soviet Union — I never wanted special treatment for being a minority. I just wanted society to be blind to the line in my passport that said “Jewish.” I don’t want my kids to be added to the DEI “superclass.”
So, if you are attending an American college and are not classified as an oppressed minority under the protection of the woke, you will be treated by a different set of rules. As we have learned from the presidents of Ivy League schools, cries for your genocidal extermination will require “context” and the actual death of Jewish students before college administrators will act — all while you can be expelled from a university for using the wrong pronoun.
A lot of this starts in colleges, but it does not and will not stop at colleges. Colleges are the factories of our future. They are the production lines of future workers and thinkers.
People cannot control their gender, the color of their skin, their ethnicity, or their sexual preference — this sort of discrimination was our sin of the past. People should not be punished for these traits; others should not be favored for them (this is the reverse punishment of others) — the current sin of woke.
I am going to say what everyone knows but doesn’t want to admit — there are differences between groups of people. Blacks <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dominate</a> the NBA — they account for 73% of all players. Whites are only 17%. (Something similar but less extreme is happening in the <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/1167935/racial-diversity-nfl-players/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NFL</a>.) Meanwhile, Asians account for only 0.4% of NBA players — they are clearly underrepresented. Yet we find the idea of creating an “equality” NBA by hiring 5’8” Asians so they can get crushed by 6’10” black athletes laughable.
However, in the effort to create “equality” in colleges — until the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in 2023 — we were fine with reverse discrimination against Asian students to limit their admission to elite colleges, which, just like the NBA and NFL, were supposed to be merit-based. But Asians are neither a superclass nor a protected group; therefore, we didn’t care.
When we hire people based solely on their identity (not on their merit), we do not elevate them but rather bring them down. On some level, they know that they got the job based not on personal strengths but on their superficial identity.
This creates a victim and victimizer mentality. It is anti-evolutionary: People possessed by the victim mentality don’t progress or evolve; they see obstacles in their lives as someone else’s fault and thus not their responsibility to overcome. As the eminent English rabbi Jonathan Sacks <a href="https://www.rabbisacks.org/videos/rabbi-sacks-on-victim-mentality-jinsider/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, if you are possessed by a victim mentality “you hand over your life to somebody else.”
Life is full of obstacles. History is often unfair, and not just to the DEI superclass. It has not been kind to Jews for centuries. Jews choose to not be victims but to be agents of change. This attitude is deeply ingrained in Jewish culture. Obstacles only make us stronger. If you have the attitude that obstacles are someone’s else fault, you’ll never try to grow beyond them. As Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic philosopher and Roman emperor, said: “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.”
America — the country of meritocracy — is turning into a country where your identity determines how you will be treated along the road of life. A person, be it a Supreme Court justice, a college administrator, or an employee at the local DMV, should get a job not because of their identity but because of their accomplishments and their character.
As a society, we must accept a hard truth: By acting solely based on our hearts and artificially trying to make things better for this or that group of people, we end up not improving things for them but instead creating different injustices. Everyone should be treated equally. Some people should not be more important (protected) than others. And yes, all lives matter, and that statement should not require context. Finally, we should stop living in fear of being canceled for saying the above.
I was shocked to learn that DEI is already nesting in large corporations and our government. Imagine if air traffic controllers, people who have the lives of hundreds of others in their hands, were selected based not on their skills but on their DEI status. Well, you don’t have to imagine this very hard — it’s already <a href="https://www.tampafp.com/biden-faa-pushing-diversity-hiring-as-air-traffic/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">happening</a>. Think about that the next time you board a plane.
It is not hard to visualize the consequences of someone hired solely based on their identity (not on their skill) colliding planes in the air and killing hundreds. If this woke cancer continues to spread through our economy, it will suck meritocracy out of it and weaken, or even worse, crash the economy. Unlike a plane crash, you won’t see it unfold on the news; it will happen slowly, one DEI hire at a time. 
I wonder how Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech <a href="https://www.thefp.com/p/coleman-hughes-is-ted-scared-of-color-blindness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">would be received</a> today on American campuses, especially when he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character.”
Orchestras have a perfect model for how to hire performers. During auditions, the jury sits in the audience. Each performer has a number assigned to them. They play behind a curtain; the jury cannot see them.
We should copy that model. When I came to the United States in 1991, I was told that in this country we treat all people according to their merits and values, by what they bring to society. I miss that US.
* * *
Author&#8217;s note: While this topic may have political overtones, I do not belong to a political party. You may decide to pigeonhole me as a member of a political tribe. Please don’t. I am registered as an independent and have voted for candidates belonging to three different parties in the last six presidential elections.
* * *
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-1-a-small-country-with-a-big-story">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 1: A Small Country With A Big Story</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-3-the-socialism-of-grades">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 3: The Socialism Of Grades</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/anti-semitism-wokeness-and-why-a-strong-america-is-essential-to-israels-survival-part-4-one-way-to-save-america-and-israel">READ: Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 4: One Way To Save America And Israel</a>
* * *
Vitaliy Katsenelson is CEO of <a href="https://imausa.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://imausa.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw30zrUEAHOucJkCFFh3YMfC">IMA</a> – a value investing firm in Denver. You can read his articles on  <a href="http://contrarianedge.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://ContrarianEdge.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Ak6ognAG7cu6Z8Bx_j7L8">ContrarianEdge.com</a>. He is the author of <a href="https://soulinthegame.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://soulinthegame.net/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1647635730858000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0w8zHUpuqxRre_0scGo3hI">Soul in the Game</a> &#8211; The Art of a Meaningful Life (Harriman House, 2022).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Columbia University Commencement Ceremony

Anti-Semitism, Wokeness, And Why A Strong America Is Essential To Israel’s Survival, Part 2: Wokeness Is Destroying America — One Student at a Time

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Social Issues

Wokeness

Colleges and universities are accredited on the backs of their faculty, on their degrees and academic achievements. But what if the qualifications that secure college and university accreditation instead secured accreditation for individual scholars, allowing them to offer accredited courses as private-practice professors, thereby opening the door to a host of free market innovations? With some imagination, this simple but radical innovation could mark a path for true education reform.
Several years back, I decided it was time for my teenage daughter to study philosophy. Being a philosophy professor, I was able to offer the necessary instruction. I determined that she would take my standard Introduction to Philosophy class one night a week. I was confident in her intellectual abilities, so there was no need for a new curriculum; I’d use the syllabus, assignments, and lectures I had developed for college freshmen.
Word quickly spread through our community. Several homeschooling parents reached out to me, asking if their high school son or daughter might join the class — adding quickly that they’d pay me. I had no objection to others joining us, but I warned that their child would not receive college credit; I’m just teaching the class in my living room.
This warning, however, raised a question for me: Why not? I had just taught the exact same class one mile down the road at the local university. Had my daughter taken the class there, she would’ve received college credit. Why could she, or any other student, not receive college credit for the exact same class taught in my living room?
I realize the answer is that the university is an accredited entity, and I’m not. But this, too, struck me as strange. Thinking back on when my prior university was up for accreditation renewal, the accreditors reviewed my credentials. It was my degrees, my publications — and those of my colleagues — that secured their accreditation. Yet, upon leaving, the university kept the accreditation; I did not.
My fateful homeschool class also cast light on some surprising economics. Having never handled the fees for my own classes, I had no idea what to charge. Five hundred dollars seemed like a lot, but I knew it was a far cry from what parents would typically pay for a college course — nearly $2,500 on average. So they gladly accepted the price tag.
I began to run numbers. Were I to teach this class as an adjunct at a college, I would receive only $3,000 — a pretty standard rate. With only six students, I could match this fee. Yet, I’ve rarely taught an intro class with fewer than 20 students. Such a crop in this independent context would earn me $10,000, all while offering the students a heavy discount. Naturally, my wheels got turning about how easy it would be to exceed my roughly $50K annual salary with equal or less teaching than my typical eight-course annual teaching load.
But the challenge, again, was that my credentials secured accreditation for the university, not me. So arose in my mind a proposal for education reform. What if accreditation followed the scholar, not the university? What if, just as we have licensed counselors and attorneys and physicians, we had private-practice professors — accredited scholars in various disciplines?
On this proposal, scholars could offer accredited courses in their discipline to anyone they wish. Such a shift would create a college alternative. The proposal would not eliminate the distinction between credentialed experts and novices. It would only remove from universities the sole power to bestow credentials and hand that power to the experts in the field. One need not attend a university to study a discipline; he could, instead, study under the experts of his choosing in order to achieve mastery and attain credentials.
Not only does the proposal have a commonsense ring to it, but it opens rather interesting free market possibilities to address the rising cost of higher education and pave the way for innovation.
 Consider a few possibilities.
<h4>Competitive Pricing</h4>
 Some scholars will inevitably be more sought after than others, and such experts could charge exorbitant fees for classes. The market would thereby provide upward financial possibilities for scholars that presently do not exist. Scholars who turn into public intellectuals often find avenues for financial gain, but the typical scholar who grinds away at building a body of research rarely does. Neither journal articles nor scholarly books pay, and universities rarely diverge from standard pay-by-rank models. Yet a reputable scholar whose work is known and insights coveted could set prices reflective of demand.
By contrast, the young, hungry, newly credentialed scholar could offer low prices to build his client base and reputation. Prospective students could decide for themselves what the class is worth. If cost is most important, they can take the untried scholar. If the established scholar is more important, they can pay the premium.
<h4>Income-Based Discounts</h4>
Such a model makes it easy for the government to incentivize tuition breaks. If tax breaks were offered to scholars for discounts to students from a certain income bracket, for example, such breaks would incentivize scholars to take on, at discounted rates, students from low-income families.
<h4>Innovation</h4>
We have already seen how COVID forced the world to rethink in-person instruction. The private-practice professor may invite similar innovations. Such scholars could determine whether they wish to teach over Zoom, travel from home to home, invite students into a common space, or teach onsite at historical locations. The proposal also opens the door to virtual schools. By “virtual,” I do not mean digital but cooperative cohorts of scholars. Independent scholars could very easily create a network that becomes a virtual university, one where students of one scholar know they will find like-minded scholars in other disciplines through his network.
<h4>Ancillary Industry</h4>
 Such innovation likely opens the doors to other business ventures. Just as office space rental has become viable post-COVID, for example, the rental of teaching space could become rather popular. I can also imagine a new insurance need. Just as medical professionals need malpractice insurance, independent scholars would not have the usual legal cover supplied by universities and may want some kind of liability coverage.
Worth noting is the current glut of PhDs unable to find teaching jobs. Higher education has, for years now, been granting graduate degrees to students at a rate disproportional to job openings. I remember applying for a position in 2014 and learning I was one of 400-plus candidates! I got the job, but a great many young scholars are unable to find a university at which to teach. This is a problem only because their credentials do not allow them to teach independently in any recognized way. This proposal opens the door for innovation among these hungry scholars eager to make a name for themselves and earn a living.
Undoing the norm is difficult, of course. Several obvious challenges come to mind. I expect accrediting entities would face heavy pressure from universities to resist this proposal. Hence, this innovation in higher education is likely to face an uphill battle.
There’s also the challenge of degree granting. It’s one thing to accumulate a series of accredited classes, but who will determine that someone merits a degree? And who will grant that degree?
I anticipate worries about oversight. Who holds these independent scholars accountable? How do we make sure they don’t simply sell credits without teaching or requiring work from students?
Such questions are fair but not insurmountable. Perhaps independent scholars might band together to form their own accrediting body.
As for degrees, perhaps cohorts of scholars or their accrediting bodies might become degree granting entities. Or maybe universities could serve as umbrella schools (for a fee), offering degrees to those who fulfill requirements from scholars approved by their accreditor.
As for oversight, perhaps accrediting bodies can serve this function. Just as one can complain to the American Bar Association about legal malpractice, so one could do the same with accreditors for private-practice professors.
Again, the proposal is not without its challenges. Yet, with some imagination, solutions can be crafted. We already have precedents in medicine, law, and counseling. Moreover, we’re in a time when the cost-benefit value of higher education faces serious skepticism, and yet typical proposals for education reform rarely move the needle. A proposal of this kind may offer the sort of revolutionary yet commonsensical shift that can bring about a true change in higher education as the free market does its work.
* * *
Nathan A. Jacobs, Ph.D. is Scholar in Residence of Philosophy and Religion at Vanderbilt Divinity School and is a writer/director/producer with the Wonder Project. You can follow his substack at <a href="http://nathanajacobs.substack.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://nathanajacobs.substack.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1704575183727000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3LeR9ERh3BTusIcPktin8Q">nathanajacobs.substack.com.</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Professor teaching in front of blackboard

The ‘Private-Practice’ Professor, A Path To True Education Reform

The 'Private-Practice' Professor, A Path To True Education Reform 

Professors

So, Claudine Gay is out.
The president of Harvard University — now the former president — is the shortest-tenured president of Harvard in its history.
Let us all remember just why. Lest we forget, Gay was unable to say that calls for genocide against Jews violated the college’s policies on speech.
This occurred after she issued a weak statement complaining about the “death and destruction unleashed” on October 7 in Israel, without any reference to Hamas. Harvard students testified about their feelings of unease on campus — unease underscored by actual attempted violence against some pro-Israel students, allegedly including members of the Harvard Law Review.
After that insane exchange with Rep. Elise Stefanik — after all, Harvard isn’t exactly a hotbed of free speech, being one of the most restrictive campuses in America on a variety of hot-button topics — Gay came under even more fire.
The Washington Free Beacon did Pulitzer-level work in uncovering her academic charlatanism. By mid-December, the Free Beacon had uncovered dozens of allegations of her plagiarism. Then, Monday night, the Free Beacon revealed even more examples of plagiarism — what Harvard euphemistically <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/harvard-claudine-gay-plagiarism.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">termed</a> “duplicative language without proper attribution.”
There’s a word for that: plagiarism.
But still, Harvard tried to keep her on.
They had to. She was the poster child for their core philosophy: diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. To allow that she should never have gotten the position — that her academic record was scanty, and that she had involved herself in no original groundbreaking work (emphasis on the word “original”) — would have been to admit she had been given the job because she was a black female.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1877-harvard-s-untouchable-woke-president-is-gone-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
And so the Leftist powers that be had to maintain she deserved the job. The head of the NAACP <a href="https://twitter.com/DerrickNAACP/status/1734720954952020330" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> those who wanted Gay to go were engaging in “nothing more than theatrics advancing a white supremacist agenda.” Dozens of black Harvard faculty members wrote an open letter <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harvard-faculty-alumni-letter-support-claudine-gay-house-testimony-antisemitism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proclaiming</a> “any suggestion that her selection as president was the result of a process that elevated an unqualified person based on considerations of race and gender are specious and politically motivated.”
Of course, that was a lie. She wasn’t qualified. But she had the right intersectional qualities to maintain her job. She wasn’t a black male with heterodox leanings like Roland Fryer, the economist who had debunked notions of disproportionate anti-black police shootings. She wasn’t a Jewish male like Larry Summers, who had pointed out that the lack of women in STEM might have something to do with both skills distribution and desire to enter the STEM world by women.
She was a far-Left black woman.
And her immunity was absolute.
Until it wasn’t.
Now the question is whether Americans will be satisfied to leave DEI in place with Gay gone. That narrative will rely on portraying Gay as either a grifter who abused DEI or a martyr.
The Left will never call her a grifter — that might open the door on the other grifters.
Predictably, those race grifters are <a href="https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1742266704653136069" target="_blank" rel="noopener">therefore</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1742319371882795315" target="_blank" rel="noopener">calling</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/CornelWest/status/1742350497460408326" target="_blank" rel="noopener">her</a> a martyr.
Who would have guessed?

Claudine Gay

Harvard’s Untouchable Woke President Is GONE

Ben Shapiro

Ibram X. Kendi

More than a year ago, in October of 2022, a Substack blogger named Chris Brunet published an <a href="https://www.karlstack.com/p/exclusive-leaked-document-proves?r=2k441&amp;utm_medium=ios&amp;utm_campaign=post" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> warning Harvard not to name Claudine Gay the president of the university. Here&#8217;s what he wrote. &#8220;I can’t stress enough how much of a tragedy a Claudine Gay presidency would be — this must not be allowed to come to pass. She will ruin Harvard. She’s an intellectual lightweight (her entire body of critical race theory &#8216;research&#8217; is flawed and/or fake), a far-far-Left DEI activist, and corrupt as hell.&#8221;
You might point out that it’s a little too late for anyone to ruin Harvard. Harvard’s credibility hit an iceberg and sank into the icy depths a long time ago. You cannot destroy that which is already lying in ruins at the bottom of the ocean. But even so, Brunet’s point was disregarded, along with all of his <a href="https://open.substack.com/pub/karlstack/p/exclusive-leaked-document-proves?r=2k441&amp;utm_medium=ios&amp;utm_campaign=post" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reporting</a> about Claudine Gay&#8217;s misconduct. Instead, Harvard announced that Gay, who had never published a book in her life and only had a handful of publications, would become the university&#8217;s next president. She formally took over this past summer. But in December, everything began to unravel very quickly. First, Gay told Congress that it&#8217;s not clear whether a call for Jewish genocide would violate Harvard&#8217;s code of conduct. She said it depends on the circumstances. You can’t condemn genocide in principle, she claimed. It really depends on the context and the nuances of the genocide, you see.
Then, shortly afterwards, Chris Brunet and Chris Rufo <a href="https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1733976372450853222?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published</a> evidence that Claudine Gay had plagiarized significant portions of her dissertation:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
EXCLUSIVE: <a href="https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RealChrisBrunet</a> and I have obtained documentation demonstrating that Harvard President Claudine Gay plagiarized multiple sections of her Ph.D. thesis, violating Harvard&#39;s policies on academic integrity.
This is a bombshell. 🧵
&mdash; Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) <a href="https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1733976372450853222?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 10, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Within 48 hours, the Washington Free Beacon followed up with many more examples of Gay&#8217;s plagiarism, including entire paragraphs she lifted for some of her peer-reviewed publications. Yesterday, Claudine Gay resigned.
Those are the very broad outlines of the story, which you&#8217;ve probably heard. 
What you haven&#8217;t heard is an explanation for how a blogger on Substack with a few hundred subscribers could possibly have more insight into Claudine Gay than Harvard&#8217;s board, which spent months interviewing hundreds of candidates before promoting Gay. How could a blogger — someone without any affiliation to Harvard whatsoever — understand that the university was going to destroy its own reputation — what’s left of it — in a matter of months? Is he some kind of Nostradamus, or was something else going on here?
The truth is that, regardless of what you may have heard, what happened to Claudine Gay over the past few weeks was not shocking or unforeseeable. It wasn&#8217;t even unique, really. It was, in fact, extremely predictable. Chris over at Substack was able to post about Claudine Gay&#8217;s corruption not because he had any special insight, but because he was one of the only people who were brave enough to publish what hundreds of academics have been saying in private, for years.
If you&#8217;re a conservative wondering when our national DEI fever dream is going to end, this is what makes the Claudine Gay story interesting. Beneath all the Ivy League trappings, this is yet another manifestation of a phenomenon we&#8217;ve seen repeatedly in just the past year. Once again, it&#8217;s a prominent brand that&#8217;s tarnished in a predictable fashion that, for some reason, the powers that be decided to ignore until it was too late. Target&#8217;s brand collapse was predictable, too. So was the collapse of Disney and Bud Light and Fox News. In every one of these cases, major brands have decided to ruin their own reputations in obviously preventable ways. 
All Bud Light had to do was talk to a single normal person before signing Dylan Mulvaney. All Target had to do was refuse to sell satanic merchandise and perverse clothing to minors. Disney could have simply continued doing what it did for generations, which is make cartoons that don&#8217;t sexualize kids or teach them to hate this country. Fox News could have decided to treat its viewers with some respect, instead of promoting Pride Month and shutting down the shows people actually watched. But they didn&#8217;t. In all of these cases, corporations decided to self-sabotage.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1285-harvard-s-diversity-hire-president-finally-resigns-is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-dei" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Now we can add Harvard and its governing body, the Harvard Corporation, to the list. All they had to do was listen to the warnings about Claudine Gay, or look at her resume, and go with a qualified candidate. Instead, they walked directly into this debacle. The question is why we keep seeing this happen, over and over again.
If you look deeper into the timeline of Claudine Gay&#8217;s removal, you start to see what Harvard was thinking. Put simply, as we saw in the case of all those other Left-wing corporations, it was hubris. They thought they could protect Claudine Gay. They knew she was a fake scholar long before Chris Rufo and Chris Brunet and the Washington Free Beacon published a single story about her. But they also believed they had enough power and influence to power through this scandal. That&#8217;s why in October, Harvard <a href="https://nypost.com/2023/12/22/news/plagiarism-harvard-cleared-claudine-gay-then-investigated/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">threatened</a> to sue the New York Post, which was working on the Gay plagiarism story. Specifically, Harvard&#8217;s lawyers told the Post that it was &#8220;demonstrably false&#8221; to say that Gay had plagiarized anything. The lawyers claimed that Harvard had conducted a comprehensive review into all of Gay&#8217;s writings and cleared her. They went on to promise that they would sue the Post for &#8220;immense&#8221; damages if they went ahead with the story.
The Post relented. They didn&#8217;t publish the story. And for a while it appeared that Harvard&#8217;s strategy had worked. It wasn&#8217;t until mid-December, two months later, that Chris Rufo and Chris Brunet did what the New York Post was too afraid to do. They circumvented the usual media channels and published the story themselves. They obtained documents from a source (probably a professor at Harvard or a similar university) who had meticulously documented several clear instances of Gay&#8217;s plagiarism, and they released that document on X.
And then — and this is the key part — they didn&#8217;t stop there. They kept up relentless pressure on Harvard. Even after Harvard&#8217;s board put out a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/12/business/claudine-gay-harvard/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> saying that they had cleared Claudine Gay of any wrongdoing, and stood with her 100%, Rufo and Brunet did not back down. Neither did the Washington Free Beacon and the New York Post, now that they felt emboldened enough to actually report the story. I checked, and these outlets published a new story on Claudine Gay pretty much every day from mid-December until now. They found new instances of plagiarism, or they spoke to some Nobel Prize winner who thought she had to resign, or they spoke to the black women that Claudine Gay had plagiarized. Whatever it took, they kept the story alive.
This is what Harvard wasn&#8217;t anticipating. They thought that if people like Barack Obama lobbied on behalf of Claudine Gay, and he <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-privately-lobbied-harvard-president-claudine-gays-antisemitism-controversy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">did</a>, then the story would die off in a few days. What they weren&#8217;t taking into account is the lesson that conservative activists have learned over the past year, which is that it takes relentless and consistent pressure to hold anyone accountable when they are protected by the system. Harvard and the media tried to circle the wagons around Gay until so many examples of her plagiarism piled up that it became unsustainable. By the same token, Bud Light thought they could make their crisis go away by sponsoring the UFC and hiring Peyton Manning to shoot some ads. But this kind of strategy doesn&#8217;t work anymore. It convinces no one. It just highlights how inauthentic and desperate they are.
In the case of Harvard, keeping the pressure on is important because the longer these frauds have to defend their position, the more obviously indefensible it becomes to every sane and reasonable person in the country. Here for example was a CNN expert&#8217;s effort to defend Claudine Gay today:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Bonkers explanation from CNN reporter Matt Egan on the Harvard plagiarism scandal:
&quot;We should note that Claudine Gay has not been accused of stealing anyone&#39;s ideas in any of her writings. She has been accused of sort of more like copying other peoples writings without… <a href="https://t.co/ONArO75NLE">pic.twitter.com/ONArO75NLE</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1742252559543193991?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 2, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
So Claudine Gay didn&#8217;t steal &#8220;ideas,&#8221; she just stole paragraphs of other peoples&#8217; work. She didn’t plagiarize, she simply just plagiarized. High school students know how absurd this all sounds. But they&#8217;re trying to pass this off to adults watching CNN, as the standard that should apply to the president of Harvard University. Again, it&#8217;s unsustainable. The more they have to explain their position, the more this is dragged out, the more ludicrous they sound.
Not to be outdone, over at NPR, Eric Deggans had this <a href="https://twitter.com/Deggans/status/1742257227916796231" target="_blank" rel="noopener">observation</a>. &#8220;The intimidation is the point. Will the next president at Harvard stand for diversity? Will that person be female? Will that person be Black? If not, they have forced several steps back. And everyone across the school gets the message.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The intimidation is the point. Will the next president at Harvard stand for diversity? Will that person be female? Will that person be Black? If not, they have forced several steps back. And everyone across the school gets the message. <a href="https://t.co/faMBUkja6p">https://t.co/faMBUkja6p</a>
&mdash; Eric Deggans at NPR (@Deggans) <a href="https://twitter.com/Deggans/status/1742257227916796231?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 2, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
It&#8217;s not even worth addressing what Deggans said there, but it is worthwhile to take a quick look at his bio. It turns out he&#8217;s an adjunct professor at Duke University, which makes you wonder about Duke&#8217;s academic standards. Deggans is also the author of a book entitled, &#8220;Race-Baiter: How Media Wield Dangerous Words to Divide a Nation.&#8221; That&#8217;s actually what his book is called. You know that saying about writing what you know? Deggans took that advice as literally as possible.
We saw many other examples of this obvious desperation. In her <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/us/claudine-gay-resignation-letter-harvard.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resignation letter</a>, Claudine Gay never apologized for her plagiarism. Instead, she claimed that she was the victim of racism. The Harvard board put out a statement basically agreeing with her. That&#8217;s especially galling, by the way, given that Harvard hosts <a href="https://twitter.com/gregg_re/status/1742300748958851497" target="_blank" rel="noopener">events</a> with titles like, &#8220;Disrupting whiteness in the classroom.&#8221; The racism is coming from inside the house.
For their part, the state propagandists at NPR complained that Gay had been targeted by extreme Right-wingers. Marc Lamont Hill <a href="https://x.com/marclamonthill/status/1742259954940076385?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">demanded</a> that, &#8220;The next president of Harvard University MUST be a Black woman.&#8221; Never mind the fact that Marc Lamont Hill can&#8217;t tell you what a woman is, or explain why it&#8217;s so important that the next president be a woman. He&#8217;s just making incoherent demands at maximum volume because he&#8217;s confused and agitated. This is what happens when the Right refuses to relent. The more these race hustlers are forced to explain themselves, the more they discredit all of their social engineering. They fall back on crude non-arguments that amount to racism and screaming into the void. They can&#8217;t defend anything that Claudine Gay actually did. All they can do is lash out at people based on their skin color.
That&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSqu9YNOEPM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Henry Rogers</a>, a.k.a. Ibram X. Kendi did. He wrote that, &#8220;Racist mobs won’t stop until they topple all Black people from positions of power and influence who are not reinforcing the structure of racism. What these racist mobs are doing should be obvious to any reporter who cares about truth or justice as opposed to conflicts and clicks.&#8221; So if you&#8217;re upset about the president of Harvard plagiarizing 50 separate times, or discriminating against whites and Asians in admissions, then you&#8217;re the racist. The word for this is projection. They always accuse you of precisely what they&#8217;re doing.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
All that said, there was one moment of truth in what these DEI pushers said yesterday. Al Sharpton called Gay&#8217;s removal, “an assault on the health, strength and future of diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Well, yes. That&#8217;s exactly what this moment represents. 
If the conservative movement follows through, this could be the beginning of the end of DEI, which by definition punishes certain Americans based on their skin color while rewarding others. Will that happen? Let&#8217;s see. According to the New York Post, Harvard&#8217;s current <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/01/02/news/claudine-gay-set-to-keep-800k-salary-despite-resigning/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plan</a> is to keep Claudine Gay on the faculty and pay her a salary of around $900,000 a year. I didn&#8217;t add a zero in there; that&#8217;s actually what they&#8217;re planning on paying her, even after she&#8217;s been outed as a fraud. That&#8217;s a pretty clear sign that they don&#8217;t actually plan to change anything. Harvard&#8217;s hoping the Right will celebrate this victory and then forget all about the broader war on DEI.
That would&#8217;ve been a safe assumption a few years ago. Thankfully for everyone who cares about merit and morality, and unfortunately for frauds like Claudine Gay, it&#8217;s not a safe assumption anymore.

University Presidents Testify

Harvard’s Diversity Hire President Finally Resigns. Is This The Beginning Of The End For DEI?

Harvard's Diversity Hire President Finally Resigns. Is This The Beginning Of The End For DEI?

Matt Walsh

The following is an adapted excerpt taken from &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Youre-Not-Alone-Conservative-College/dp/B0CPZYF1FR/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2BI3QV615VZ9C&amp;keywords=the+conservative+woman%27s+guide+to+college&amp;qid=1704295824&amp;sprefix=the+conservative+woman%27s+guide%2Caps%2C95&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You&#8217;re Not Alone: The Conservative Woman&#8217;s Guide to College</a>,&#8221; by Karin A. Lips, (Network of enlightened Women, January 2023)
<h3>Living With Social Pressure, Silencing, And Censorship</h3>
After the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization majority opinion on abortion was leaked, first-year Yale Law School student Shyamala Ramakrishna posted to Instagram that “the members of [Yale Law School’s conservative Federalist Society] are conspirators in the Christo-fascist political takeover we all seem to be posting frantically about on Instagram dot com.” She continued, “So why are they still coming to our parties/laughing in the library&#8230;with precious few social consequences and without unrelenting daily confrontation?”
“Social consequences” and “daily confrontation.” This student at one of the best law schools in the country, according to the U.S. News and World Report list of best law schools, called for her peers to be socially ostracized and harassed — simply because they were part of the Federalist Society, a group made up of conservative and libertarian law students, lawyers, and scholars.
While this example is from law school, this attitude toward conservatives is present on undergraduate campuses, too. To many of their liberal classmates, conservative students aren’t just peers with different views. Instead, conservative students are outcasts, treated as a threat that must be silenced or removed from social spaces.
This attitude creates social pressure for conservatives to keep their views quiet (or even change their views!) and self-censor. While some students self-censor because of concern over grades, others worry about how their views will impact their social life. When the campus environment sends the message that conservative views aren’t welcome, this creates a strong incentive for conservatives to go underground with their views.
This silencing pressure is bad for everyone on campus as they lose a valuable learning experience. Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota, wrote, “I often tell young people one of the best things they can do is decide to be a teachable person. You can learn something from everyone, even your worst critic.” The silencing pressure is bad for conservatives who don’t get to share their views, so they don’t get the chance to further refine them or find friends with similar views. It is also bad for liberals who don’t get the chance to listen to other points of view and be challenged by them. When I was in school, I remember attending events featuring liberal speakers. I’d hear other people ask what I thought were tough questions or ask my own. The speaker would often win those little exchanges, but learning to engage with the other side and being challenged to think in a more nuanced way was good for me. These exchanges improved my critical thinking skills. And it is bad for society for the next generation of leaders not to know how to have civil discussions or even coexist in a friendly way.
Here are some things you should know about the stifling atmosphere that could be present on your campus.
<h4>Self-Censoring Is Real (Especially For Conservatives)</h4>
One signal of the social pressure on young conservatives on campus is the extent to which they self-censor or remain silent. A report from the Knight Foundation found that 65% of students said they believed their campus climate “prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find it offensive.” According to the 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending free speech and free thought, 63% of students responded that they self-censor because they “worried about damaging their reputation because of someone misunderstanding something they have said or done.” Among the students surveyed, 22% said they “often felt that they cannot express their opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond.” There is a big difference between conservative and liberal students — 42% of conservative students said they self-censor compared to 23% of moderate students and only 13% of liberal students.
<h4>Social Pressure Shows Up In Different Places And Ways</h4>
You might face social pressure anywhere on campus, even in your own dorm room. In 2018, NeW published a book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Shes-Conservative-Triumphs-Americas-Campuses/dp/0578416220/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=PwPdC&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.cf86ec3a-68a6-43e9-8115-04171136930a&amp;pf_rd_p=cf86ec3a-68a6-43e9-8115-04171136930a&amp;pf_rd_r=139-7687216-7118362&amp;pd_rd_wg=91GOB&amp;pd_rd_r=62e4e886-c0f5-48e9-ad8d-507d4072df63&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">She’s Conservative: Stories of Trials and Triumphs on America’s College Campuses</a>,&#8221; which shared the stories of twenty-two young women on what it is like to be conservative in college. One of the themes that emerged from that book is that many of the women decided to keep their views quiet on campus because of the fear they wouldn’t be able to make friends. 
Grace Bannister, a Harvard student from West Virginia, said she was “paired with a roommate whose worldview was drastically different than” hers for her freshman year. Grace wrote, “My new friend characterized herself as a ‘woke’ feminist. For the first few weeks, we got along rather well. I worried that this would change if we ever talked politics, so for a time, I avoided it.”
While Grace didn’t lead off the dynamic with her conservative views, talking about opinions on issues is natural with your roommate. When Grace finally couldn’t avoid political topics any longer, she shared that she was a conservative. Her roommate dismissed Grace’s views due to her “background,” citing her upbringing in West Virginia. I can imagine the pressure Grace felt to stay silent in even casual conversations with her new roommate.
<h4>Use The Power Of Persuasion</h4>
Over the years, I have heard lots of speeches on different issues. The most memorable ones employed techniques of persuasion. These techniques can be used in everyday conversations and may make the difference between a civil conversation and social ostracization. I have found that stating clearly that I am supporting a certain position to help people is an effective strategy. While I was in college, I remember the living wage was a hot topic.
I heard a speaker make the case that the living wage, or a higher minimum wage, can end up hurting the people that it supposedly goes to help. It does this by making it more expensive for companies to hire people, so they expect their employees to have more skills even at the lowest levels. Thus, the companies hire fewer entry-level employees without experience. Instead of those employees getting paid more, they never get a job to start with. A higher minimum wage also invites companies to turn to automation, eliminating some jobs entirely. In the fast-food industry, for example, some companies have moved to kiosks or other automation to lower their labor costs when labor costs rise, such as when states raise the minimum wage.
The speaker won over audience members not by talking about how raising the minimum wage hurt companies by making labor more expensive, but by arguing that it hurt entry-level employees as there would be fewer opportunities for them. The speaker focused on people, which is often an effective strategy for winning an argument.
<h4>It’s Okay To Lose Friends — They Weren’t Your Real Friends Anyway</h4>
Lila Fraser, from Mercer University, shared her experience, “My social life has been impacted by my conservative beliefs. At first, my biggest struggle was losing friends. I lost a few friends in high school, and again when I started college after they found out I was a conservative. However, as I became more confident in my beliefs and found some like-minded friends, I treasured my true friends who stood by me. Over the last couple of years, I have struggled mostly with coworkers and members of my professional fraternity, who put me into a box when they discovered I was a conservative.”
Many of the students I work with lose some friendships, but they also make great new friends. Ariana Alonso, a student at William Paterson University, sums up the situation well. “I wear my conservative shirts, sweatshirts, etc. with pride. I love what I believe in, and if my friends can’t accept that, they are not real, true friends. Surround yourself with people who are going to be there and are going to support you. Let the negativity run off your shoulders and keep being yourself.”
Accept that some people won’t pursue a friendship because of your views. I have heard several stories like Lila’s from our leaders about losing friends. It was hard for her at first, but she agreed she was better off in the end.
By getting involved in conservative causes, they found a community that made them much happier, and they no longer felt lonely. Not only did they enjoy their time with these friends, but it’s harder to pick on someone when they are part of a strong community. And common values are a good foundation for lasting friendships.
If you are an outspoken conservative, you have likely experienced some social pressure before and found ways to thrive. Even with this pressure, you can have an amazing college experience.
* * *
Karin A. Lips is the Founder and President of the Network of enlightened Women (NeW) and author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CPZYF1FR?ref=myi_title_dp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You’re Not Alone: The Conservative Woman’s Guide to College.</a> She is a graduate of the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia School of Law and practiced law at Wiley Rein LLP. She was a Spring 2016 Resident Fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics. You can follow her on Instagram at @karin.lips and X/Twitter at @klips.
This is an adapted excerpt from &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Youre-Not-Alone-Conservative-College/dp/B0CPZYF1FR/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2BI3QV615VZ9C&amp;keywords=the+conservative+woman%27s+guide+to+college&amp;qid=1704295824&amp;sprefix=the+conservative+woman%27s+guide%2Caps%2C95&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">You&#8217;re Not Alone: The Conservative Woman&#8217;s Guide to College</a>,&#8221; by Karin A. Lips. Copyright © 2023 NETWORK OF ENLIGHTENED WOMEN. Reprinted by permission.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

Back view of two students walking and talking

Conservative Women In College: Living With Social Pressure, Silencing, And Censorship

Books

Censorship

Women

We’ve seen a lot of disturbing poll results over the course of the last few decades. But I’ve never personally seen a more disturbing poll result than those from the latest Harvard/Harris Poll, out over the weekend.
Now, to be sure, the poll says that the American public is basically in the realm of sanity.
Or at least, most of the American public. The olds are ok.
It’s the kids, Marty. Something has got to be done about your kids.
According to the latest <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HHP_Dec23_KeyResults.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harvard/Harris poll</a>, while a strong majority of every age group agree that the October 7 terror slaughter of 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of another 240 was, indeed, a genocidal terror attack, some 60% of people aged 18 to 24 said that genocidal terror attack “can be justified by the grievances of Palestinians.”
That’s correct: While two-thirds of 18- to 24-year-olds agree that Hamas’ terror attacks were genocidal in nature, six in 10 still said they could be justified.
It gets worse.
Every age group in America except for 18- to 24-year-olds sides with Israel against Hamas; the older you are, the less crazy you are, with those 65 and older siding 96 to 4 against Hamas. For the youngs, however, the numbers are split right down the middle: 50/50.
Just wait. It gets worse.
When asked about whether students on campus who call for the genocide of Jews should be punished for violating university rules, most Americans of all age groups say yes — and again, the older you are, the more you agree. That’s not because Americans oppose free speech. It’s because they realize every element of speech is policed on campus for microaggressions and offense-taking — so why precisely would genocidal Jew-haters be exempt?
Everyone agrees with that — except for the 18- to 24-year-olds, who believe that while such speech is “hate speech,” 53% believe students should be “told they are free to call for genocide.”
Yes, we’ve discovered the one thing fragile young people aren’t fragile about: saying the Jews should die.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1871-the-most-disturbing-poll-in-recent-memory-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
You think we’re done? It gets worse.
While a strong majority of young people — seven in 10 — agree that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties and 58% agree that Hamas would like to commit genocide, 76% of young people think Hamas can be negotiated with to create peace, despite their stated and clear goal of Israel’s destruction. 
And here’s the kicker: 51% of 18- to 24-year-olds think “the long term answer to the Israel-Palestinian dispute” is for “Israel to be ended and given to Hamas and the Palestinians.&#8221; 
That’s right. Young people admit Hamas is genocidal, uses human shields, rapes women, and commits evil atrocities regularly. And they want Israel destroyed and handed over to Hamas.
So, why do all these young people think all of these evil things?
Thankfully, the poll actually spells out the answer. On page 56 of the poll, we learn Americans were asked a simple question: “There is an ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment. Do you support or oppose this ideology?”
Pretty easy answer, right? No, of course you can’t simply assume white people are oppressors and non-white people are victims. That’s morally imbecilic. Some white people are oppressors and some are victims. Some non-white people are oppressors and some are victims.
The claim that white people are oppressors and that non-white people are the oppressed is ridiculous on the merits. After all, here is a partial list of ethnicities who earn more, on average, than white Americans do: Indian-Americans, Filipino-Americans, Taiwanese-Americans, Sri Lankan-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Malaysian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Pakistani-Americans … the list goes on.
And, as you might expect, most Americans believe this ideology is quite terrible: 65% oppose this ideology.
Not young people. They support it. Not only do they support it, but they support it 79% to 21%. Eight to two. Only a bare majority of 25- to 34-year-olds disagree with that sentiment, by the way.
Want to know why the younger generation hates Israel? Because, according to those same 18- to 24-year-olds, Jews are part of the oppressor class. Some 67% — two thirds — agree that “Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors.”
The evil of critical race theory — or, as we now call it more innocuously, diversity, equity, and inclusion — rears its head in all the ugliest places.
We shouldn’t be all that shocked by these numbers among young people for the oppressor/oppressed, white-people-versus-everyone-else evil ideology — the Barack Obama coalition of the supposedly marginalized, which for Democrats always meant racial and sexual minorities — is numerically strongest among young people. Just 52% of 18- to 24-year-old Americans are white; similarly about 20% of Generation Z-ers, disproportionately white, say they’re LGBTQ+.
Demographics aren’t destiny, of course. Hispanic voters in Florida, for example, are voting increasingly Republican. It shouldn’t really matter what the demographic breakdown of young people is. They should stop thinking stupid crap no matter their ethnicity.
But the Left’s core oppressor/oppressed philosophy is that all that matters is your group identity. If you are a minority (but not a Jew or an Asian seeking to get into college) then you’re a victim. As the radical Left wins ideologically, it’s no surprise that group minority identity — a demographically growing piece of the American pie — is driving anti-white hatred in larger numbers.
Because young people have been indoctrinated by three generations of this garbage, it’s becoming part and parcel of the Democratic Party playbook. Right now, there’s a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party itself, between the moderates and the radicals.
The moderates still think the system can be changed and shaped in order to accommodate the demands of those who feel excluded, but they don’t believe the system ought to be obliterated. The Biden administration is on this team; they wave their hands at equity but don’t actually seek to implement it in the ways the radicals would most like.
The radicals think the moderates are weak and foolish, and they’re happy to use them as their tools. That’s why the New York Times is suddenly all in favor of free speech, but only when it comes to students chanting for Israel’s obliteration. According to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/17/us/campus-crackdowns-have-chilling-effect-on-pro-palestinian-speech.html#:~:text=Universities%20are%20under%20tremendous%20pressure,fear%20and%20curbing%20free%20expression.&amp;text=Sign%20up%20for%20the%20Israel%2DHamas%20War%20Briefing." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Times</a> in a piece published over the weekend, “Universities are under tremendous pressure to stamp out antisemitism, but some say that is causing fear and curbing free expression.”
Free speech has never been much of a priority to the Times, needless to say. The same weekend the Times ran this rather long piece, former op-ed page editor James Bennet wrote <a href="https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a 16,000 word essay</a> for the Economist slamming the Times for its willingness to destroy him personally for the great sin of platforming Senator Tom Cotton, a sitting senator who advocated in 2020 for using the National Guard to put down violent riots. “The reality is that the Times is becoming the publication through which America’s progressive elite talks to itself about an America that does not really exist,” Bennet wrote. “The Times’s problem has metastasized from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether.”
But this is the same Times suddenly concerned about free speech.
Or they’re lying—and they don’t care about free speech and they are just radical.
My hunch: They’re lying.
<h3><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h3>
What the radicals want is to use the tools of liberalism in order to push radical, illiberal evil designed to tear down the West. That is what’s happening with young people, who are now suggesting that in the name of diversity and tolerance, Israel — the only tolerant and diverse country in the Middle East — ought to be destroyed and replaced with the shariah law terrorists of Hamas. That’s why young people are preaching diversity, equity, and inclusion in the United States, when what they really mean is anti-white oppression in the name of “reparative justice.”
This is why we see piece after piece in the mainstream media discussing the generational gap among young Jews, who seem not to understand their foolishly liberal parents, who spent decades telling their kids that they’re all for a variety of viewpoints, while their kids were indoctrinated with hatred of their own parents and civilization.
Take, for example, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/jewish-american-family-wrestles-over-israel-2b8019f1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a story</a> from today’s Wall Street Journal about the Wirtschafter family. Grandma Wirtschafter lived with her husband and children in Jerusalem during the 1973 war and is a Zionist. Her son, David, is a reform rabbi in Lexington, Kentucky, who calls himself a “progressive Zionist.” This is code for “a Jewish guy by birth who cares more about progressivism than Judaism.” He married another “progressive Zionist,” who herself “has studied right-wing religious movements and said she is troubled by ethnonationalism in all its forms.” Both consider themselves believers in the definition-less mush of tikkun olam — a term frequently used by Jews who don’t believe much that’s Jewish but are looking for a Hebrew phrase to hang their anti-Biblical Leftwing social justice politics upon. 
So, how did they raise their kids? According to the Journal, “They imparted [that Jewish concept of pursuing social justice] to their two children and encouraged them to think critically and speak up.” Their daughter and son, Emanuelle and Zachariah, now hate Israel and wish it to be disestablished as a Jewish state. Emanuelle said she wouldn’t attend post-October 7 events that featured Israeli flags.
That problem isn’t unique to Jews. It’s a generational problem across the West. Liberal parents breed radical children who use the cowardice of their parents as their leverage to tear down the entire system. Meanwhile, their milksop parents sit there and nod their heads weakly as they explain, as the Wirtschafters do, “I don’t agree with Emanuelle on every political issue, including aspects of this current crisis. But I’m tremendously proud of her for standing up for what she believes in.”
But what if she believes white people and Jews are the oppressors? What then? Still proud?
Radicals have been playing this game since the 1960s. Quietly, they’ve been winning. And they’ll continue winning until disaffected liberals realize they’ve been played for suckers and stop mouthing platitudes about the joy of tolerance and diversity as their own children prepare their defenestration in the name of weaponized social justice.

Harvard University And Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Campuses

The Most Disturbing Poll In Recent Memory

Gen Z

Hamas

Many today have a greater interest in the perception of virtue through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) narratives rather than making a real, tangible impact on improving the lives of others. This is particularly true on college campuses. The support for Claudine Gay at Harvard highlights the insulating powers of DEI, as President Gay fits into the “oppressed” role within the DEI framework, despite attending both an elitist high school and college in Exeter and Stanford respectively. This position of being among the “oppressed” gives her great power. In fact, DEI lays at the heart of the outbreak of the surge in vile behavior, including the recent calls for genocide centered around American college campuses.
The epitome of such moral bankruptcy is my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania. Penn has rightfully been blasted in the news over the past few months for both platforming calls for genocide and failing to protect female athletics, resulting in a hemorrhaging of key donors. The university announced that Penn President Liz Magill resigned due to her response to anti-Semitism on campus. Undoubtedly, the university hopes that this will put an end to the public scrutiny of UPenn. But Magill’s exit does nothing to change the core rot at UPenn. Magill, as a white woman, was relatively easy to displace within the DEI framework. While Magill was not quite as low as a straight white male on the DEI hierarchy, she was low enough to be removed without substantial backlash.
Magill’s resignation is a start, but the real problems at UPenn — and in our university system at-large — predate Magill’s tenure, and they will continue unless they are directly confronted and real change is made. The university’s embrace of the DEI victim matrix hasn’t just led to an outbreak of anti-Semitism, but to speech code policies that discriminate based on viewpoint.
For example, how did the university decide that calls for genocide were protected speech but questioning the differences between men and women wasn’t? The answer is the twisted moral framework of equity, which forbids students, professors, and university presidents alike from criticizing anyone who is part of an “oppressed” group.
The current system values diversity, equity, and inclusion over meritocracy and truth. Today, university leaders, professors, and fellow students cram down their views of equity-based morality on students, with no room for dissent, which is how we got to where we are today.
I personally experienced this when I tried to speak against having a naked man present when I changed in the locker room at Penn. I was censored because the individual I spoke out against had a higher “oppression” DEI score than I did. The DEI framework and hierarchy enforced at the university ensure that certain groups are protected at all costs, and I was not in that select group.
Taking a deeper look at Penn specifically, professors at Penn <a href="https://www.univstats.com/salary/university-of-pennsylvania/faculty/">receive</a> an average salary of approximately $172,360, which is almost triple the average household income in the United States. To put this in perspective, I made $17 an hour as a Head TA in the engineering school. These professors are highly incentivized to reinforce diversity, equity, and inclusion ideologies and their corresponding anti-meritocratic and anti-free speech behaviors. I even had a professor refer to 9/11 as a “cultural misunderstanding,” as an attempt to promote false anti-Western rhetoric.
So the question remains: How does Liz Magill’s resignation change this issue? After all, Magill is still a tenured professor at Penn Law School. The incentive structures are still in place to promote this radical ideology — and unless donors pull out for broader, sweeping changes, the progress around the recent resignations of Magill and Chairman Bok is all for naught.
To prevent such shameful behavior from occurring in the future, we cannot lose sight of the root cause of these issues. The failure of Penn’s leadership is symptomatic of the deeper issues embedded in DEI philosophies, and without removing those from our ethos, we will ultimately fail to protect future generations from falling into a morally bankrupt delusion. As a member of the next generation, I call on Penn donors, alums, and fellow Americans to continue this fight against this moral perversion and return to the American ideals of free speech and meritocracy.
* * *
Paula Scanlan is an ambassador with Independent Women’s Forum (iwf.org) and a former swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, where she was a teammate of Lia Thomas.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

University Presidents Testify In House Hearing On Campus Antisemitism

You Can Fire The Presidents, But The Deeper Issues On College Campuses Must Be Addressed

University of Pennsylvania

Women's sports

Menu