We have been discussing the rising intolerance for conservatives and Republicans on campuses around the country. My alma mater, Northwestern University has been increasingly intolerant as a university due in large part to the failure of its president and the administration to protect free speech and diversity of viewpoints. Now the student government has asked the university to remove the chairman of the board of trustees from a presidential search committee. The disqualifying element for Board of Trustees Chair J. Landis Martin is that he supported former President Donald Trump as a donor. Notably, the students emphasized that Northwestern is now so overwhelmingly liberal that even one conservative on the committee is offensive and threatening.
This was notably not some small minority of students or groups. The Daily Northwestern reported “the bill passed with 17 votes in favor and one nay vote from the NU College Republicans senator.”
The objection was due to Martin’s $30,000 donation to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign. Student senator Jo Scaletty told the Daily Northwestern “He donated to Donald Trump who has demonstrated significant sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia.” The resolution specifically states: “Whereas, the 2020 ASG survey demonstrates that the median student at Northwestern identifies with a Left political ideology.”
So the students oppose even a committee member who represents an opposing view. It is the ultimately example of viewpoint hegemony and hostility. These students have been taught that they should actively seek to exclude opposing views and that they have a right to expect the faculty, and presidency, to reliably liberal.
To their credit, they are at least more honest than most of their faculty. Many faculty members continue to pretend that they are not hostile to conservative or libertarian faculty candidates despite virtually purging top faculties of such colleagues. Whenever a conservative or libertarian scholar is proposed, faculty members declare that their work is not sufficiently interesting or probative — the same argument once used against liberal academics. The prejudice against conservatives (including on academic journals) is shocking and stifling but few faculty members are willing to admit that the small number of such faculty members is not a weird accident.
One recent poll shows the already small population of conservative and Republican students has been cut by roughly half. The Crimson survey covered over 76 percent of the Harvard College Class of 2024 and found that the class contained 72.4 percent who self-identify as either “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Only 7.4 percent self-identify as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.” Another Harvard study showed that 35 percent of conservatives felt that they could share their views on campus. As faculties continue to block the few remaining Republican and conservative faculty, there is an open shunning of such academics in publications and conferences. At the same time, conservative speakers are routinely banned or opposed in speaking on campuses. Academics have called for even more open and direct purging of universities of Republican faculty. Others have called for banning such figures from campuses. Blacklisting and banishments are now in vogue.
This is not the only attack on conservatives on boards recently. A University of Massachusetts Professor wrote a column alleging that universities are actually “Right-wing institutions.” He relied on the fact that many board members are CEOs or MBA holders.
What is so chilling about this resolution is that it tells the over 70 million Americans who voted for Trump that they are not welcomed at Northwestern. Moreover, it tells conservative or libertarian alumni that they can give money to the university but they will not be tolerated in playing any role in shaping the university.
Martin received both a bachelor’s degree and a J.D. degree from Northwestern. He worked as an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis and was chief executive officer of NL Industries. He founded the private equity firm, Platte River Ventures. He was also the founding chairman of Crown Castle International Corp. These students of course do not object to being the recipients of his considerable financial support, including working out at the athletics complex that was built in part with a $15 million donation from Martin.
The ultimate responsibility for this insulting resolution is the Northwestern faculty and administration. They have created a culture where the student representatives almost unanimously declare that no Trump supporter will be tolerated in having a voice on the future university leadership. Northwestern is now viewed by the students as committed to the maintenance of “a Left political ideology.”
239 thoughts on “Northwestern Students Demand Removal Of Trustee Chair From Presidential Search Due To Trump Support”
Svelaz, has been posting up a storm responding and claiming others do not know what they are talking about. Not just me, but others as well. He states a lot of people don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to CRT. He also states he gave a definition of CRT and explained it which to my knowledge isn’t true. I responded with two post one after the other s but Svelaz didn’t bother to comment on either so I am posting the second of two responses here.
A Partial Explanation of CRT: (Svelaz said: “it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. )
“reality that out history is rife with racism”
That is a chronic problem worldwide, but again, you cannot define CRT or tell us how it gets rid of racism.
Is equity your answer? Let’s start everyone on a different place in the race track, so they all finish equally? That sounds pretty stupid.
We should be looking for equality under the law, not equity. CRT is not interested in breaking the color boundary, CRT is interested in making the color boundary more prevalent, more racist. They say that the white guy who won the race won it because of his whiteness, not his athletic ability. That, of course, is according to CRT. Therefore, to produce equity rather than equality under the law, tie a ball and chain to his sneakers.
“Just like the Holocaust we learned about it and know why it happened because it is taught in school. CRT is no different”
That is pure ignorance talking. What CRT is actually creating is the German equivalent of the Holocaust. It is determining the lives of people based on color and race. It is Nazism of a different sort. It is creating a mirror image of the racism seen in the racists of the past.
CRT seeks to destroy colorblindness, individual rights, private property, school integration, freedom of speech, and meritocracy. CRT wishes to do this by replacing equality with what they consider equity.
The above parallels the Marxist push of the 1960’s. Cheryl Harris early on wrote a paper, “Whitenes as Property” She is a critical race theorist. She proposed seizing land and wealth from rich people, suspending property rights and redistributing the land based on race.
The Marxist type push used to be based on class. Now it is based on color. You cannot see that Svelaz because you push an ideology without knowing what it is. I am telling you what it is based on one of the foundational papers behind CRT.
Start reading what you are talking about. You might be ignorant, but I can’t believe anyone can be as ignorant as you sound. In the end, these people see the end of capitalism and its replacement with collectivism.
Many of us have been providing sources from CRT advocates describing exactly what you’re saying here. It’s in their own words, and yet Svelaz is denying that truth. Svelaz reminds me of what Yuri Bezmenov described as demoralized. The following from Bezmonov is exactly what these Marxist ideologues are infecting into our culture:
“The essence of subversion is best expressed in the famous Marxist slogan, (if you substitute “proletarians” for a more appropriate word): “Useful idiots of the world — UNITE! To achieve the desired effect, the subverter must first — make idiots out of normal people, and DIVIDE them, before turning the people into a homogenized mass of useful and united idiots. Tanks and missiles may or may not be needed at final stage. For the time being they are simply the means of terrorising people into inaction and submission.”
“500 years before Christ, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu formulated the principle of subversion this way:
1. Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent’s country
2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time
3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means
5. 4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy’s country
6. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.
7. Turn the young against the old
8. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices.”
“Sound familiar? About 2500 years later we can read this very same instruction in a secret document, allegedly authored by the Communist International for their “young revolutionaries”. The document is titled “Rules of Revolution” (these “rules” are almost a literal interpretation of those theories and practices which I learned from my KGB superiors and colleagues within the ‘Novosti’ Press Agency:
1. Corrupt the young, get them interested in sex, take them away from religion. Make them superficial and enfeebled.
2. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial issues of no importance.
3. Destroy people’s faith in their national leaders by holding the latter up for contempt, ridicule and disgrace.
4. Always preach democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.
5. By encouraging government extravagances, destroy its credit, produce years of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.
6. Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of the government towards such disorders.
7. Cause breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, faith in the pledged word.”
Ollly, where Svelaz is concerned none of the points by Y. Bezmenov apply. Svelaz doesn’t have the slightest idea what he is talking about. He is blind, deaf and dumb. He is like an echo or a record player that merely repeats what was already said. He has no critical thinking skills as you can see in his replies to you, me and others. One statement conflicts with the next and the statements are divorced from the discussion.
The other day I hit a gnat with a newspaper. All I could think about was that the gnat had more brain power than Svelaz.
There is far more to Bezmenov’s description of these subversion tactics. Svelaz would be a poster boy of what he describes as the demoralized among us. Svelaz is not a one-off. We now have multiple generations of those just like him.
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible.
“You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information”
I fear I am dealing with this as I converse with a family member. If I continue the written conversation, I am going to have to break ideas down into single questions.
Highly regarded citations aren’t even working!
I feel your pain.
This blog has been a great forum to witness this phenomenon. Natacha, Fishwings, Svelaz, Book, Paint Chips, ATS and EB, all haven’t changed their views despite overwhelming evidence to prove them wrong. It took me awhile to understand why. It frustrated me until I learned of the psychology behind the Marxist/Communist subversion techniques. They are functionally a more lethal plague on humanity than any strain of coronavirus, and those in power are enabling it’s spread.
“I learned of the psychology behind the Marxist/Communist subversion techniques.”
Could you point me to papers or books that explore this? What have you found to be informative?
Are the Big Five traits being manipulated, not just emotions?
This website by far has the most comprehensive research I have found. Lots of podcasts as well. I’m looking forward to receiving my copy of Levin’s new book, American Marxism.
I don’t know if I posted this earlier or not so I am sorry if it is a reposting. I thought those with children or grandchildren might be interested. This is extracted from a much larger article.
Gainesville, FL (June 16, 2021) – A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.
The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:
• Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)
• Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)
• Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)
• Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)
• Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics)
• Escherichia coli (food poisoning)
• Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)
• Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)
• Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires’ disease)
• Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)
• Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)
Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.
The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11. One was worn by an adult. A t-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks were tested as controls. No pathogens were found on the controls. Proteins found on the t-shirt, for example, are not pathogenic to humans and are commonly found in hair, skin, and soil.
The full article is at: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-group-of-parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-for-analysis-heres-what-they-found-n2591047?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=06/16/2021&bcid=4cb87ad72d407b1376b5772e827d6b90&recip=23903827
You wish to focus on data that is not comparable. You want to stay away from anything that smacks of the truth. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.
Anonymous the Stupid, what you bring to the table demonstrates the lack of integrity you have.
Comments are closed.