Ali Malekzadeh, president of Chicago’s Roosevelt University, has joined the “My Bad” School of Higher Education. In criticizing the election results, Malekzadeh is only the latest academic leader first to discard core principles of neutrality and inclusion and then offer a shrugging apology.After the GOP election victories, various university presidents and academic leaders denounced the results, and some pledged to join “the resistance.”Wesleyan University President Michael Roth was, if nothing else, honest. He called for universities to openly support Kamala Harris and resist Trump.Others signaled that they were appalled by the majority of voters in this country and then asked for forgiveness. This includes the heads of academic journals. The most bizarre was Laura Helmuth, the editor-in-chief, of Scientific American who posted a profanity-laced attack on the majority who voted for Trump and the Republicans. She then asked people to disregard her diatribe (She later resigned).It is obviously a complete jettisoning of the core political neutrality expected from presidents, and some, after currying favor with the political left, issued perfunctory apologies.
According to Campus Reform, after the election, Malekzadeh wrote, “Like many of you, I am discouraged by the final results and disheartened that many voters selected a candidate who casts aside unity and empathy in favor of divisiveness and fear.”
He denounced the “alarming trend” of not “welcom[ing] new immigrants,” “romanticizing the past” instead of “look[ing] forward,” and moving away from “reinforc[ing] democratic norms.”
This was an official statement coming from a university president to all faculty, students, and staff. Even in the solidly democratic Illinois, roughly 44 percent reportedly supported Trump. Harris won the state by roughly 55 percent. That means many voters associated with Roosevelt University likely voted for the GOP, particularly those on the Schaumburg campus.
These university statements are usually the subject of considerable drafting and editing. They are not simply dashed off like a posting on X. Malekzadeh was fully aware of the criticism of bias and intolerance at universities and the deep divisions in this election. However, he chose to pander to one side and then offer a muttering “my bad” response to criticism.
Malekzadeh’s biography states that he is “passionate about women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, [and] affirmative action.” That is all well and good. However, as university president, he is tasked with representing all those who teach, work, and learn at his institution.
Malekzadeh must have known that his statement would thrill the left and alienate the right. He is not a clueless halfwit. He did it anyway and then asked for forgiveness. In that way, he showed the flag to the political left while maintaining the pretense of regret.
Imagine if a president issued statements after the election praising Trump and celebrating the rejection of liberal policies on immigration or transgender issues. The response would be overwhelming and likely result in removals. No shrugged apology would suffice.
The message to all those who voted for the GOP could not be more clear. They are not particularly welcomed in the “inclusive environment” described by Malekzadeh. Like most universities in the country, the sense of orthodoxy and intolerance is unmistakable and unavoidable.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
The horrific behavior of the Left, including politicians, media personalities, academics and Hollywood celebrities, has created an environment advantageous for Conservatives. We love it! Those segments of society lived for so long in their bubble, their echo chamber, that they foolishly believed that the majority of Americans agreed with them on their beloved issues. That belief reinforced their aggressive rhetoric and behavior. They created a persona that didn’t draw average Americans in, but pushed them away in ever greater numbers. Now, they are recognizing it, and it’s fueling an intense anger. The more they lash out, the more rational people are turned off. The language and intensity of their attacks are directed toward the very people they tried to enlist in their causes. Personally I hope that they continue. Another few years and they will make themselves into the pariah element that they attempted to create for us. Keep it up. Deliver victory to Conservatives. We don’t have to convince others to join us. You are doing it for us.
* This is like the previous article and Wolfson. This is an attempt to seize control of colleges and the creation of indoctrination camps. 1st amendment? Where does it fall? Make some guesses.
The only unity from the DNC is a single party system like those found in Communist countries.
Unity in thought where if you don’t agree, you get reeducated.
Not much of a unity there…
That’s exactly what the Hildabeast said; they was all gonna unify and put us all in reeducation camps.
Check President Malekzadeh’s thesis for plagiarism. His statement does not sound original.
“ Imagine if a president issued statements after the election praising Trump and celebrating the rejection of liberal policies on immigration or transgender issues. The response would be overwhelming and likely result in removals. No shrugged apology would suffice.”
There is absolutely no rule or law that requires a University president to remain neutral on any issue. They are free to voice their viewpoints and opinions just like anyone else!
Turley seems to be looking for an opportunity to stir the pot and ignite the cravings of conservative readers.
“No law” is hardly the point. He CAN say whatever he wants, of course, But, people who say whatever they want and that “whatever” doesn’t meet the approval of authorities can count on things like being assigned to re-education training or dismissal. Consider what Prof Turley said re the “shoe on the other foot” argument. Can educators really say “whatever they want”?
Here is who all these crying people are, and all the ones acting like the world has just come to an end. It is theater, and all about being lick spittle toadies, sucking up to the DNC, for most of them, and is about as genuine as this:
* social points for more and most hysteria?
Wow, someone censored Floyd’s vid.
* Take a look at foreign donors. These are funded by middle eastern countries. Ya gotta pay the boss, right Ali?
* It’s the broken window theory. Contagious. It just means more decay ending in ruin or communism. Wolfson from a previous article is merely a communist. ..
* The entire movement is based on envy, morality, and the failure of a system to incorporate immorality.
In fairness to Roosevelt University, their mission was social justice from the get-go. That’s where a friend’s Black father, fresh from the Air Force, met his Jewish mother. This guy’s rant is wholly congruent with its history.
I might have missed a step or two. Roosevelt U has always been a social justice institution and the reason is a black man met his Jewish wife there?
“These university statements are usually the subject of considerable drafting and editing.”
One wishes likewise of a posting on this blog. For example, one alternative to the predicate “is obviously a complete jettisoning of” is simply “tosses”.
* not really…toss makes a bean bag toss in the mind whereas jettison puts it in a 🚀.
“jettisons”, then.
* just jet..
“After the GOP election victories, various university presidents and academic leaders denounced the results, and some pledged to join “the resistance.””
“Insurrectionists,” screeched Joe Scarborough!
“Traitors,” bellowed Lawrence O’Donnell!
“Election deniers,” whooped Whoopi Goldberg!
“Read’em and weep,” said the Gambler.