Elite schools often receive complaints from the elite themselves
Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman has weighed in on the issue of campus antisemitism, responding to some shockingly inadequate congressional testimonies. When questioned by Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, Harvard President Claudine Gay, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth refused to unequivocally state that calls for Jewish genocide go against their rules on bullying and harassment. Instead, they argued that it depends on the “context.”
Later that night, Ackman took to Twitter and tweeted, “If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour. Why has antisemitism exploded on campus and around the world? Because of leaders like Presidents Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth who believe genocide depends on the context.”
“To think,” he added, “that these are the leaders of Ivy League institutions that are charged with the responsibility to educate our best and brightest.”
Indeed.
My colleague Saagar Enjeti from ”Breaking Points” responded, “Ackman and those most upset over this core objection is that they are not included as marginalized within the DEI regime. This is wrong. The correct objection is that the DEI regime itself is illegitimate and unamerican.”
After Gay released a statement vaguely stating that Harvard would hold accountable anyone who calls for violence against Jewish students, Enjeti added, “Ackman and others leading the campaign do not care one iota about actually destroying DEI, defunding universities, destroying elite centers of power, or protecting speech. They only want those institutions’ ideology to respond to their grievances in the same way they do for BLM.”
This raises an important question: Will Ackman and other powerful Democratic donors now invest their significant resources in dismantling the vast ideological infrastructure that has led us to a point where university presidents evade questions about genocide with confusing legal jargon? What about the establishment Republicans who have expressed their outrage? Will Mitch McConnell take a bold stance against the nonsense in academia?
Unlike other issues like Black Lives Matter or LGBT causes, Israel is one of the few topics where elite opinion is genuinely divided. This explains the revolts among White House interns and The New York Times union, as well as the revolts of John Fetterman and Bill Ackman. (It also sheds light on peculiar patterns in corporate media coverage.)
Enjeti’s skepticism is justified because addressing the conditions that have brought us here requires confronting the consensus view on Western civilization taught in schools, popular culture, and now much of the business sector. Ultimately, it demands a reckoning with moral relativism.
For some radical individuals on campuses, antisemitism stems from a deep-seated hatred of Jews. Magill, Gay, and Kornbluth are driven by a relativist stance on the West, which posits that Western values are inherently tainted by whiteness, racism, sexism, homophobia, and more. According to cultural relativism, this undermines our moral authority, but the moral credibility of allegedly oppressed populations in the Middle East, for example, remains intact as their actions are seen as rational responses to imperialism.
This central argument now dominates K-12 education, academia, popular culture, and often the media and business world. Does it make sense? Not at all. In his book “Dominion,” Tom Holland convincingly argues that we are like fish swimming in the waters of Christian ethics without even realizing it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently announced her conversion from atheism to Christianity, citing Holland’s work as a contributing factor.
While Ackman expressed astonishment that these are the leaders of Ivy League institutions responsible for educating the best and brightest, it’s important to note that these same individuals have been leading our institutions for years. The students who have been taught to embrace this worldview are now entering the adult world, and their impact has been significant for quite some time.
This is the “double standard” that Jonathan Haidt
Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman has recently commented on the issue of campus antisemitism, criticizing the inadequate responses given by university presidents when questioned about calls for Jewish genocide. In a congressional hearing, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, Harvard President Claudine Gay, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth refused to unequivocally state that such calls go against their rules on bullying and harassment, instead arguing that it depends on the “context.” Bill Ackman took to Twitter that night to express his displeasure, highlighting the difference in treatment between CEOs in the business world and university presidents. He questioned why antisemitism has been allowed to grow on college campuses and around the world, pointing to leaders like Gay, Magill, and Kornbluth who believe that genocide depends on the context. Ackman’s criticism was echoed by Saagar Enjeti from “Breaking Points,” who argued that the focus should not be on including certain groups as marginalized within the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) regime, but rather on challenging the legitimacy of the regime itself. In response to the controversy, Gay released a statement vaguely promising to hold accountable anyone who calls for violence against Jewish students at Harvard. However, Enjeti commented that Ackman and others leading the campaign against campus antisemitism are not genuinely interested in dismantling the DEI regime or protecting free speech. They merely want universities to respond to their grievances in the same way they do for the Black Lives Matter movement. This situation raises an important question: will Ackman and other powerful Democratic donors invest their significant resources in dismantling the ideological infrastructure that allows university presidents to evade questions about genocide? Will establishment Republicans, such as Mitch McConnell, take a strong stance against this nonsense in academia? Unlike other social issues like Black Lives Matter or LGBT causes, elite opinion on Israel is genuinely divided. This explains the revolts among White House interns and The New York Times union, as well as the dissent of public figures like John Fetterman and Bill Ackman. It also sheds light on the biased coverage of Israel in corporate media. Enjeti’s skepticism is justified because addressing the conditions that have allowed campus antisemitism to flourish requires confronting the consensus view on Western civilization. It requires a deeper examination of the ideological framework that has led us to a point where university presidents can avoid condemning calls for genocide with confusing legal jargon. In conclusion, Bill Ackman’s criticism of university presidents’ inadequate response to campus antisemitism highlights the broader issue of the DEI regime and its impact on free speech and the protection of marginalized groups. It raises important questions about the responsibility of powerful donors and political leaders to address this issue and dismantle the ideological infrastructure that allows such evasion. What is the importance of addressing the ideological framework that allows university presidents to evade condemning calls for genocide?
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...