In my recent law review article at Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, I discuss the recent student survey showing that over 82 percent of Harvard faculty self-identify as liberal or very liberal. What is striking is that, even as Harvard is ranked as one of the most hostile academic environments for free speech, students are rallying in support of the effective purging of conservatives from the faculty.
The survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson revealed that 82.46% of faculty surveyed identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.” Only 16.08% self-identified as “moderate” and a mere 1.46% identified as “conservative.” Not a single faculty member identified as “very conservative,” but the number of faculty identified as “very liberal” increased by another 8% in just one year.
At the same time, conservatives have been virtually eliminated from the student body with only seven percent of incoming students identifying as conservative. With virtually no faculty and few students identifying as conservatives, it is not surprising that only 35 percent of that dwindling number of students feel comfortable in voicing their views or values in class.
Recently, one of the last remaining conservatives on the faculty spoke out. He is 90-year-old political scientist Harvey Mansfield and he decried the loss of intellectual diversity and the increasing association of Harvard University with far left positions:
“The Harvard Commencement is something like the Democratic National Convention. And that’s a hell of a way to run a university, to maintain its impartiality and its devotion to veritas, to truth, just to go out of your way to provoke people who happen to have different politics, instead of inviting them to come and even just give a talk. How can that be in Harvard’s interest?
As to hiring, I don’t think a conservative has been hired in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in the last decade. And it’s probably been going on longer than that. Maybe there’s one or two, but if so, they stay hidden. Because if you’re conservative and want to get on with your colleagues, you have to indulge in self-censorship, and I think a number of students do that as well. But I can’t get my colleagues to think of this as a problem.”
One would think that these studies and objections would deeply concern everyone at Harvard about the loss of diversity of viewpoints and the rising of an orthodoxy that is either by design or de facto in light of these statistics.
Think again. The editors of the Crimson insisted this week that there is no reason for concern that conservatives have virtually been removed from the entire faculty.
The editors of the Harvard Crimson wrote:
Where our board disagrees with Mansfield — and rather sharply, we may add — is in his notion that a more even distribution of faculty along a conservative-liberal binary would increase productive disagreement in any meaningful way. We find little reason to believe that. In fact, boiling down ideological and intellectual diversity to such limited labels strikes us as downright reductive.
So reducing the number of conservatives on the faculty to a statistical nullity is “downright reductive.” After all, there remains a vigorous debate at Harvard that runs from the left to the far left.
A recent large-scale survey put Harvard at 170th in terms of free speech, close to the bottom of the 203 schools.
This is the face of orthodoxy, which does not lend itself to self-evaluation or self-criticism. The purging of the faculties of conservatives or libertarians is simply not a problem when this survey is based on the self-identification of faculty. These universities are allowing liberal faculty to replicate their own values and to exclude opposing views. They have created an echo chamber within one of the greatest universities of the world, destroying the essential intellectual diversity needed to sustain higher education.
The fact is that the reduction of viewpoint diversity is not just a reflection of intolerance and intellectual rigidity. It also offers greater opportunities for faculty in access to conferences, publications, and speaking events. Other faculty, including some who have contacted this blog with accounts or controversies, are fearful of being publicly targeted by their colleagues or students. In three decades of teaching, I have never seen this level of intolerance and the general lack of support for free speech on many campuses.
Of course, even in unanimity, there can be subtle nuance and dissent.
134 thoughts on “Crimson Tide: Harvard Virtually Eliminated Conservative Professors … But Apparently That is Not a Problem”
These Ivy Leaguers take all the government and bureaucracy and power positions, NGO’s, other gov outreach and all the top paying jobs – so soon we will be a commie H-hole.
The Nobel Committee for the Peace Prize is different than the Nobel Committee for the 3 science awards each year. As for Harvard Medical
which you were to lazy, or ignorant, to find yourself.
Oh, so I’m “lazy, or ignorant” because I didn’t try to prove your false, bogus point? How stupid is that? I didn’t raise your red herring. You did. Don’t you think that if you raised that red herring that you have an obligation to prove the basis for the red herring, assuming that can even be done?
But like all leftists you resort to projection when backed into a corner and proven a fraud. And I’m somehow “lazy” or “ignorant” or “racist”–or whatever supid accusation you want to make when you’re really talking about yourself.
As the umpire said “I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.”
You’re no umpire. And Stevie Wonder does a better job of calling them as he sees them.
You post a Wikipedia link that you think proves the bogus point that you tried to make. But if you bothered to look at the link you would see that it it has no research or sources cited to purportedly support the claims made. That makes the claims essentially worthless.
For example, your Wikipedia link claims that Harvard was “associated with” (whatever that means) “Comprehending of the role of vitamin B12 in treating anemia.” Notably no names, no dates, no research papers, “no nothing” were presented with this claim. I realize that that’s good enough for someone of your “mental caliber,” but it says little to any thinking person.
But since I know something about vitamin B12, I can shed some genuine light on the claim. First of all, the connection between B12 and anemia wasn’t made by Harvard or anyone working for Harvard. You have to go back to 1926 to find the connection to Harvard, well before B12 was discovered. In 1926, some unnamed physicians at Harvard observed that eating half a pound of liver every day seemed to prevent pernicious anemia in most of their patients.
That’s it as far as Harvard was concerned regarding the connection between B12 and the treatment of anemia. So, 96 years ago, when Harvard wasn’t a Leftist Indoctrination Entity or LIE, some physicans made some useful observations. And Harvard did no substantial research on the subject since.
And this example ranks with the discoveries of Dr. Kummerow, whose research has saved millions and millions of lives?
As for the real work here, Karl Folkers, a researcher at Merck, isolated B12 in 1947. Dr. Folkers attended the University of Texas. And the connection of B12 to the treatment of anema was credited to E. Lester Smith, in his groundbreaking research, Purification of anti-pernicious anaemia factor from liver, Nature (1948). E.L. Smith was a researcher at Glaxo.
This ends today’s lesson in medical research. And my point still stands. Today’s LIEs, such as Harvard, regardless of their billion dollar endowments, aren’t doing any genuine groundbreaking medical research.
Note the very first entry:
And the date of the last entry.
I think that puts paid to your prejudice.
No, the first entry establishes nothing substantially new, except that 88 years ago a researcher at Harvard did do some additional work on the same work that that physicians at Harvard observed 96 years ago. The two reserchers in 1934, George Minot and William P. Murphy, merely reestablished that eating liver did, in fact, treat anemia. But they didn’t know how or why. That didn’t come until the non-Harvard researchers did some real innovation. And, in any event,1934 was still a time when Harvard wasn’t a Leftist Indoctrination Entity (“LIE”).
As for the last entry, from 2019, yes, Harvard had well begun the process of evolving into a LIE. And you can see it’s adverse effects on achievments from the list in your link, as the acomplishments grow thinner over time. William Kaelin did work at Harvard, but the research he did on oxygen required the work from Peter J. Ratcliffe, University of Oxford and many others that weren’t from Harvard. Their research presumably tells us more about how different oxygen levels regulate physiological processes and the mechanism by which oxygen benefits the body. However, at the end of the day, their research hasn’t improved health or lives.
Moreover, their research is nothing compared to the truly groundbreaking accomplishments of Dr. Fred Kummerow, whose work has saved millions and millions of lives. Now, Dr. Kummerow was not given a Nobel Prize for his genuine accomplisments and advancements of how the body actually works. But that merely informs us that the Nobel Committee is a politically-driven, not merit-driven, organization. And the Nobel Committee wasn’t about to celebrate and bring further attention to Dr. Kummerow’s towering achievements, since Dr. Kummerow had to sue the FDA to finally bring about changes in the practices of the billion dollar food industry, which wanted to continue to include deadly transfats into peoples’ diets. Dr. Kummerow was not only the greatest medical researcher in recent memory, but he was a genuine hero.
Finally, Dr. Kaelin was in his 60s when he did his work on oxygen functions in the body, so he is still from the old school. And although Harvard today is a full-fledged LIE, that doesn’t mean that all of the faucets of development have been shut off. That will take some more time. But over time, as the older generation dies out and is replaced by the student products of the LIEs, the pipeline of developments at Harvard will grow thinner and thinner.
liberalism is as much religion as it is ideology…..it can’t be countered by rational debate, logic, or evidence….it is comparable to trying to persuade a muslim to cease being a muslim or persuade a christian that Jesus was just a carpenter with a good PR team.
the solution is a new country that has a constitution which forbids islam and socialism/communism/marxism….in much the same way as our present constitution forbids monarchy and royalty.
Being a liberal means never having to sharpen your argument or wit. This is an intellectually lazy position, and that’s where these schools are heading. What Harvard and the rest of the ivy league zoos are proving is that they have finally gone intellectually bankrupt. Their faculty can sit around and glad-hand one another and never hear a word of dissent, but they will be intellectually poorer for it. Living in an echo chamber never enriched anyone’s life. The lazy buggers shouldn’t be paid more than your average secretary.
This issue is probably the largest, and certainly one of the largest serious problems facing the county. The public teaching profession is so left wing that they have long since mandated the elimination of civics and study of the Constitution. We are left with at least one generation who has no understanding of the 1st Amendment and it’s importance. The only way to fight this is to recognize the teachers and their unions for what they are, extreme left wingers that teach anti-American, anti-capitalist concepts and want to sexualize our children.
Civics and the Constitution are important. But, only if they are nested in an education that includes history and the Great Ideas of the past. Thinking and discussing the more modern Great Works of the Arts would be good, too. What good is it to learn civics and the Constitution if you do not know much of what the Founders knew that undergirded their thoughts on liberty and self-governance?
Can a place that only allows one view of everything still be called a University? The academia nuts at Harvard should change the name.
Okay, so they want an echo chamber.
Let them have it.
We are beginning to see pushback against wokeism with the formation and start of the UATX.
Ron Paul wrote an article about the one good thing about the COVID lockdowns is parents could see the indoctrination going on in public schools. As a result, homeschooling has gone up, and has stayed there. What was it, out of 30 school boards in FL, 25 flipped from liberal (the extreme leftist “liberal,” not the classic Liberal) to conservative.
Parents see this wokeism for what it is: Insanity.
And it is not just white conservatives either. A whole lot of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks and other minorities see the insanity. Reflects in their voting.
Wait and see if this trend continues. More and more will either homeschool, or form new private schools, new colleges will be created, and businesses will hire accordingly.
Someone will say, “I am a Harvard graduate,” with pride . . . the rest of us will say, “Oh, I’m sorry.”
Harvard, the Alabama of free speech.
When an institution becomes intellectually conformist, it hurts its own members even more than the people excluded. Since Truth tends to reside on the Right rather than the Left, these arrogant, incurious, self-satisfied students will be cutting themselves off from viewpoints that could help illuminate the nature of reality. Rather than dealing with realistic historical issues, they will amuse themselves with fantasies generated by the Left Wing media: e.g.: Trump-Russia collusion; man-made global warming; White terrorism. What is probably the most momentious quesiton of the 20th century – why Communism failed – will not even arise in their minds as a question, let alone having any answer.
“Truth tends to reside on the Right rather than the Left”
Maybe the Right, right now, is aiming more for the Truth. But, Truth is at the center of things, overall, I think.
You cannot predetermine where the truth will lie.
Neither is it the province of a particular political or personality persuasion.
It is like hitting the bullseye or finding your center to be balanced. The Right needs to remember the importance of community. Not the Borg-like tribal “community” that seems to be on the Left. It is responsibility individuals have to their communities/towns/etc, to their neighbors. As we on the Right have tried to defend the preeminence of the individual in a free society, an invaluable thing to do, we have forgotten the bigger picture and we have let our institutions and cities and schools, etc crumble. I hear, too often, comments from people indicating they have lost their sense of duty and responsibility towards not only their present community but to the future of the community. “I’ve served my time.” Or, “Why do I need to be involved with the school? I don’t have kids there.” Sheesh. Short-sighted. I guess if we all forget or ignore the struggles, failures, and hard-won achievements of the past then we fail to think of the future. Only animals live wholly in the present and run on instinct. I’d hazard we have less instinct than a flock of domesticated turkeys or sheep.
Progressives are losing across America.
49 year old, lapsed Catholic, Beto is getting his arse kicked by a 64 year old man in a wheelchair married to a Mexican uber-Catholic with a Masters Degree in Theology, First Lady of Texas Cecilia Abbott.
Abbott lead over O’Rourke in Texas governor’s race widens as voters focus on immigration over abortion
Updated: Sep. 23, 2022
Such greatness in political circles should be showcased to encourage others!
Texas First Lady Cecilia Abbott
Cecilia Abbott’s story reminds us all that the American Dream is alive and well in Texas. The granddaughter of immigrants from Mexico, Cecilia was raised in San Antonio by parents who were both educators, and who instilled in Cecilia, her sister, and two brothers a love of learning and helping others. Cecilia took their lessons to heart and studied at the University of Texas at Austin before subsequently earning three degrees from the University of St. Thomas in Houston: a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology, a Master’s degree in Education, and a Master’s degree in Theology.
Cecilia then devoted her life to serving others. She has been a teacher, vice-principal, and principal at several Catholic schools across Texas. Most recently, she served as the principal of the Cathedral School of Saint Mary in Austin from 1996 to 2001. Cecilia then went on to another noble calling working in senior health care services, where she served as Managing Director of Community Relations from 2004 to 2013 for a health care company specializing in senior adult health care facilities and services.
Cecilia has been equally devoted to helping others in her personal life as well. She currently serves on the Cathedral School of Saint Mary Advisory Board and on the board of the Taya and Chris Kyle Foundation. Cecilia is also a volunteer for Meals on Wheels Central Texas.
Maybe this will retire Beto.
Does anyone think of the ivy legue as impressive anymore? There is a mill that feeds it, a mill that makes it impossible to tell the parents drive and accomplishments from the child/students drive and accomplishments. Once in, just parrot the talking points and graduate summa cum laude. Should you actually form the ability think and question, you will be driven from campus.
in medicine Ivy League schools have some truly great medical researchers particularly Columbia University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University. I tell locals all the time that if they have a run of the mill medical illness, most university hospitals will likely be sufficient for treatment. However, if the illness is rare, complex or poorly understood, Harvard, Yale and Penn would be wise, as well as a few other non-Ivy schools like John Hopkins, Duke and Emory on the East Coast.
Ivy schools have formidable endowments as well, which translates into medical research, among other arenas
They are good medical centers that have been heavily funded and have existed a long time. From the private sector without so much government funding we have notable places of excellence. People should also think of Cleveland Clinic and Mayo, both very common destinations for those looking for top notch medical care.
I make my living and made my career in those environs, you are misguided.
I respect your knowledge, but you are not the only one with such knowledge. Are you saying you don’t think Cleveland Clinic and Mayo are top notch institutions?
I agree there are many top notch institutions as you say.
What I find disturbing is the number of them requiring DEI statements from medical students in application to schools.
We have already seen a med student allegedly admit to causing pain on a patient due to political ideology differences.
We have seen medical professionals deny treatment if a patient did not have the COVID vaccination.
Are we going to see hospitals or medical facilities that will only care for patients who conform to a political ideology?
Upstate, this PC attitude has been in medicine for decades but recently has gotten so bad that even the general public is becoming aware. History tells us that what we see is the left abandoning our Constitution and liberty-based Republic.
You characterize Ivy League Leftist Indoctrination Entities (“LIEs”) as having “truly great medical researchers.” Can you name even a single researcher who has produced anything of long-term significant value? And formidable endowments don’t translate into valuable medical research. The reality is that genuine quality medical research stems from a desire to improve health and lives. And that desire is virtually non-existent among today’s LIEs. Rather, the LIEs create production line research primarily to benefit big pharma and big food corporations.
However, I will name one of the greatest of all medical researchers, who passed away in 2017: Dr. Fred August Kummerow, a German-born American biochemist and professor of comparative biosciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Dr. Kummerow was one of the pioneers in establishing the connection between trans fats and heart disease and also helped discover that it is oxidized cholesterol, rather than the cholesterol, that causes heart disease.
NONE of the LIEs with their formidable endowments accomplished anything remotely near Dr. Kummerow’s towering accomplishments–which have saved millions and millions of lives and will continue to save millions and millions of lives into the future, for those who practice his wise guidance.
One quickly checks that Harvard Medical has 15 Nobel Laureates in Medicine or Physiology.
And that means absolutely nothing. Award are given out all of the time. Terrorist Yasir Arafat won a Nobel Prize too. On a forgotten day in history, March 2, 1973, on Arafat’s orders, the PLO carried out a terrorist attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, and murdered U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission George Curtis Moore (a Black American), U.S. Ambassador Cleo A. Noel, Jr. and Belgian Chargé d’Affaires Guy Eid. Strangely, the Nobel Committee didn’t mention this when they gave Arafat his award.
But since you’re butting into the discussion, what has any of those researchers actually accomplished to help advance or protect health or to improve lives? And be specific and express the benefit (assuming you can find any) in plain English, as I’ve done.
The reply is at the top of the page, current;y.
OT: “The average American has lost $4,200 in annual income since President Biden took office — entirely wiping out gains made under the Trump administration”
Well clearly it’s Trump’s fault. If Trump had left the citizens to languish under Obamanomics, Bidenomics wouldn’t be so painful. What an evil man. /sarcasm off
And this is big news? The student body at No Hope U appreciate having all sorts of diversity and inclusion except conservatives and real Christians. There are a few conservative colleges left like Hillsdale and one in Pennsylvania. That’s about it.
I don’t want my tax dollars or portion of the national debt funding this one minded institution.
3 P’s of Prestige at Harvard:
Oh and: Price Price And Price
I think it’s about time Harvard is took down a few Notches.
Elitism has been counter to Egalitarianism at Harvard,
to the point of being completely oxymoronic.
Stanford, U of Chi, Princeton, etc. included.
They have brought this upon themselves, for their using elitism as a basis to draw money.
They encourage it. Everything that’s going on with College Sports Programs ($$$$$) currently is wrong.
(College Sports: is a whole other discussion about where money should be spent – I’ll leave it at that. My apologies)
Colleges are a few things:
They are an Enlightenment Mechanism (philosophically: as universal mechanism and anthropic mechanism)
They are a Proving Grounds (for the Theoretical)
They are a Social Incubator (of Psychological Development)
They are a Social Science (repository of Knowledge and Research*)
Maybe the answer is to make ALL Public & Private Collages (Universities) go GENERIC – Plain White Label.
Then it wouldn’t matter where the Candidate came from. One would have to rely on what they really know.
I learned something that you can’t learn in College, You can’t teach ‘CLASS’ (to be a Classy Individual).
It’s something you get from Your; Home, your experiences, your choices, in life.
There are just as many Harvard’ Clods as there are appointed Classy Folks.
It’s a mix across the Board.
(P.S.: My vote is still out on Turley, you just can’t tell these days, and besides His Dog doesn’t like J. Madison. 🙂 )
It’s always fun to read the right wing snowflakes, Turley included, freaking out.
Harvard is a private school. They can hire 100% liberal if they choose.
Does Turley think Hillsdale College hires many Liberals? Right wing hypocrites
Hillsdale. HOW MANY “universities” in the Western world are “conservative”? It’s clear you have NO problem with intellectual dishonesty.
“Does Turley think Hillsdale College hires many Liberals?”
Sure. Classical liberals.
Reading some of the comments by those embracing total censorship of any viewpoints other than their own punctuates both this article and the lament of 90-year-old political scientist Harvey Mansfield. Had prior generations been as closed-minded echo chamber anti-science and anti-knowledge throwbacks, we would still be living in caves and hunting and gathering for our food.
As a college intern working on my undergraduate degree in physics in the 1960s, I was selected to participate in the Apollo Program for NASA, where we put men on the moon and recovered them safely multiple times using slide rules (I still have and use my K&E slide rule). The lead for our team was 29 years old and had 3 PhDs. If we had relied on the junk pseudo-science called “AGW” or originally known as “GlowBULL Warming,” we would never have been able to build the rockets or launch them, and if we had, the project would have ended in disaster if we made calculations that incorporated such a rubbish theory.
I doubt the group-think trembling Tribbles at Harvard would even understand the concept of the slide rule, let alone be able to use it with any accuracy. Is Elizabeth Warren, Princess of the Cherokees, still charging $400 to teach one course at Harvard? A fool and his money are soon parted, and it appears there are plenty of fools at Harvard who prefer to live as mushrooms.
Make that $400,000 per course that Elizabeth Warren charges for her course….shake my head.
It helpful to remember that, for the Hard Left, there are only three venues where they can find decent work without having to keep their mouths shut about their politics: (1) academe; (2) government; and (3) non-profits. In any other type of workplace, the peer pressure for them to leave is stratospheric. They know that, and that’s why they congregate in (1), (2), and (3).
That is a downright lie.
Look into the political demographics of any Big Tech company, such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, or YouTube. Which political persuasion do you think is more likely to be censored in that context? Actually, it goes beyond censorship to actual concerns for job security. Look at the high-profile firing of James Damore, for example.
Look into the political demographics of accepted media sources such as the New York Times, CNN, NBC, Washington Post, etc. Which political persuasion do you think is more likely to be censored in that context? Consider Bari Weiss, who isn’t even conservative, and her resignation letter. Were her observations just a delusion?
Look into the political demographics of investment and banking institutions like BlackRock, Bank of America, American Express, etc. Which political persuasion do you think is more likely to be censored in that context? Do you really believe conservatives are driving ESG standards, or calling for new, trackable designations for firearm sales?
I truly cannot fathom how you could honestly make your claim. Even if you are only considering MSNBC, it must have been evident, at some point, to you that a particular political persuasion was being protected outside the scope of academia, government, and non-profits when Twitter and Facebook decided to censor mention of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
It’s NOT “a downright lie,” you numbskull. It’s a careless oversight. There’s a huge difference, but it’s too subtle for your simple mind.
You’re a Hard Lefty, and perfect in every sense, no doubt, so the idea that anyone who disagrees with you because of an accidental oversight is completely alien to your totalitarian mindset.
Get a life.
“It helpful to remember that, for the Hard Left, there are only three venues where they can find decent work without having to keep their mouths shut about their politics: (1) academe; (2) government; and (3) non-profits.”
Let’s zero-in: “there are — only — three venues”
You issued a definitive statement of fact. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy your “careless oversight” claim, as you apparently consider the exclusion of companies and institutions outside the scope of academia, government, and non-profits to be an oversight. That’s the bulk of America. That’s not an oversight.
Maybe you’re operating with an extremely slanted view of things, in which case, you should probably have considered your position before issuing a retort to an article noting the problems of operating with an extremely slanted view. Or maybe you just thought you could slip a falsehood under the radar to obedient nods.
In either case, I consider your eloquent “numbskull” rebuttal to be projection.
Is the bulk of America comprised of Big corporations like those you mentioned? Or, is the bulk of America in the mid to small corporation-business range?
Yes, MN, words matter, and WM made an error when he referred to “only” three venues ( academe, government, and nonprofits). The word “only” should be used with caution because even in the case of rules, there are exceptions. But the word “lie”–that you used–should also be used with caution. A “lie” means an intentional or knowing falsehood. And while WM overstated his case, he wasn’t “lying” by any stretch.
So, you have introduced vitriol where none was needed. But, I understand where you’re coming from. After all, we now have a President openly encouraging rage, hostility, and even violence against anyone who does not adhere to Official Propaganda and Mandates. And the Mainstream Media Presstitutes applaud these new “values.” And the inevitable result of this? A young leftist responded by running over and killing another young man merely because the leftist disagreed with the other young man’s political views. See: https://nypost.com/2022/09/22/man-accused-of-mowing-down-republican-teen-appears-in-court/
But, returning to the specific subject at hand, as PR suggests on this thread, the businesses employing the greatest number of total employees are small and medium size businesses–not the large corporations that you cite. And, in fact, about 47% of all employees are employed by small businesses (defined as having 1,500 or fewer employees). So, when I read WM’s post, I understood him to be referring to the real job-generators in the US economy: i.e., small and medium sized businesses. And in that context, his general message, as I infer he intended, was true.
That said, MN, you’re also correct that there is a trend among very large corporations to go woke. But this is a relatively new trend, and a dangerous one, in my opinion. We’re now in a period where major corporations are more than willing to attack important segments of their customer base to pursue some bogus leftist agenda, even if this means substantial losses for shareholders. This was unheard of not too long ago. Traditionally, large businesses were generally very careful to reduce their risks related to such factors as political risk, sociocultural risk, and demographic risk (with the other major risks being technological and global risks). But that is no longer true among some of the largest corporations, as they plunge headlong into leftist waters. Hence, the apt expression, “Go woke, go broke,” has emerged.
So, where did this pernicious trend in big business originate? In my opinion, it started with the so-called “educational” institutions that have produced the new generation of leaders in the corporate big business world. As I’ve pointed out many times before on this website, genuine educational instituttions hardly exist today. Over time, they have evolved into Leftist Indoctrination Entities (or “LIEs”), which is a term I’ve coined to describe their new and primary purpose. Hardly a week goes by without mention of some incident in which a LIE has shut down free speech, critical thinking, or any form of independent thinking of any kind.
Many years ago, there was a TV science fiction show called The Outer Limits that started in the 1960s. One of my favorite episodes, and a precient one, from the original series was entitled, “The Special One.” The story concerned an alien from another planet, who looked much as we do, who was sent to Earth to find exceptionally gifted students and to indoctrinate them with the alien’s values and to turn the students against their parents. The aliens viewed such indoctrination of young people to be the stepping stone to world domination and control. The closing narration by Vic Perrin, one of TV’s greatest voices, drives home the implicit message of the story:
“The mold of a man stems from the mind of a child. Educators and emperors have known this from time immemorial. So have tyrants. We now return control of your television set to you.”