David Gerlernter -- a conservative academic.

From inside the walls and halls of academia, the bastion of liberal thought and inspiration, there is at least one brave and committed conservative voice:  David Gerlernter  professor of computer science at Yale and the author, most recently, of America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats), just published byEncounter Books.  He asks this question to introduce the themes of this new book:

There is a mystery about this election.  The slanted national press and Romney’s weaknesses are well understood, but a large gap separates these explanations from the fact that needs explaining: this election will be close.  How is that possible when Obama has shown himself to be the worst president in modern history?  And when Romney (on the other hand) is unexciting but safe, serious, solid—just the right sort of man to shelter all sorts of tempest-tost Americans in a storm?

Indeed!  Maybe there isn't a mystery about this election.  Maybe we are simply seeing the fruits of a massive breakdown in our society.  The end of the can-do, self reliant individualism philosophy that  built the country and  the morphing to a welfare statism, collectivist philosophy that levels incomes and results in a"fairer" society premised on social justice.  This is an important election.

Yale's latest failure of nerve

Like many other institutions of higher learning, Yale caves in the face of anything smacking of political correctness. This story in PL is the latest example and begs the question exactly how much money now flows to the school's coffers from Arab sources.

ADDED:   This link sheds further light on Y's decision to cancel the program mentioned above.

Yale and free speech

Anyone who remembers the Duke rape case must by sympathetic to the letter Harvey Silverglate writes here on behalf of the president of Yale. Speech codes and restriction of free speech rights, conferred by the First Amendment, as practiced by schools all over the country are the subject of Silvergate's book on the subject as well as this letter.  It is hard to argue with Silverglate's basic argument that compromising free speech rights is a slippery slope leading to unfree speech rights and, by extension, totalitarianism. This argument makes sense.

Yale does the right thing

Today is a good day for Yale and for the country.  The school has reversed its policy and is now actively recruiting Naval and Airforce ROTC programs for undergraduates.  For some years I have withheld contributions to Yale for its lack of support for our Armed Forces.  While I was not a participant in the NROTC program at Yale as an undergraduate, several of my friends were.  Like many others, I believe that a strong defense is essential to protecting and preserving our Republic and participation by leading schools in developing this capability is needed and important.  For far too long many schools have turned away from supporting ROTC programs on the grounds of the government policy of DADT.  But their brief is with the Congress which passed the DADT law and not the military which has simply been abiding by the law.  I suppose the schools will claim that now that DADT is being overturned they are justified in returning these programs to the curriculum.  I personally believe the real reason schools rejected the programs was an anti military bias extant since the Vietnam War.  Whatever the case I have renewed my pledge and sent in my contribution in today's mail.

Yale's latest PC encounter

Receiving an email letter from President Levin describing Yale's latest encounter with politically correct forces, this time involving 16 Yale students and recent graduates and the federal government's Civil Rights office, probably no longer comes as a  surprise to most graduates of the school.  Formal speech codes have been in place on many college campuses for a number of years and have been written about and attacked by David Horowitz's FRONT PAGE Magazine also for years.  Warrior that he is,  Horowitz travels to campuses all over the country trying to convince students and school administrations that these codes are the antithetical to the mission of a liberal education, free speech, and the democratic way of life.

In this WSJ article by Peter Berkowitz, a Yale College and Law School graduate, makes many of these same points.  The bottom line argument of both Berkowitz and Horrowitz is that limiting free speech in any way by schools or the federal government, other than with "suasion, example, and discussion"* is a dangerous and slippery slope leading inevitably to thought control and a loss of freedom.  What muddies the water at Yale, and other schools, is the federal purse strings and the threat that if the government endorsed and sanctioned correct language and speech is not observed, the subsidy spigot will be turned off.  In Yale's case that amounts to 500 million dollars directed largely to the school of medicine for research.  The prospect of losing these dollars results in the servile email from Levin announcing university-sponsored study groups and the like to get at the bottom of the complaints registered with the Civil rights Office by the 16 graduate and undergraduate female students.  It grates to think that the head of a leading institution of higher education could possibly value federal subsidies over freedom of expression and inquiry.  Just maybe Yale would be better off dipping into its juicy 15 billion plus endowment and funding research that way as opposed to groveling before some statist bureaucrats in the federal government who could care less about free speech and inquiry.

** The conclusion in 1975 of a committee appointed by the then president of Yale, Kingman Brewster to explore the conditions of free expression on the Yale campus:  "If the university's overriding commitment to free expression is to be sustained, secondary social and ethical responsibilities must be left to the informal processes of suasion, example, and argument."

Yale's latest PC encounter

It probably no longer comes as a surprise to most graduates of Yale to receive an email letter from President Levin describing the school's latest encounter with the politically correct forces including recently 16 Yale students and recent graduates and the federal government's Civil Rights office.  Formal speech codes have been in place on many college campuses for a number of years and have been written about and vigorously fought by David Horowitz's FRONT PAGE Magazine also for years.  Horowitz travels to campuses all over the country trying to convince students and school administrations that these codes are antithetical to the mission of liberal education, free speech, and the democratic way of life.

In this WSJ article,  Peter Berkowitz, a Yale College and Law School graduate, makes many of these same points.  The bottom line argument of both Berkowitz and Horrowitz is that limiting free speech in any way by schools or the federal government, other than with "suasion, example, and discussion"** is a dangerous and slippery slope leading inevitably to thought control and a loss of freedom.  What muddies the water at Yale, and other schools, is the federal purse strings and the threat that if the government endorsed and sanctioned correct language and speech is not observed, the subsidy spigot will be turned off.  In Yale's case that amounts to 500 million dollars directed largely to the school of medicine for research.  The prospect of losing these dollars results in the servile email from Levin announcing university-sponsored study groups and the like to get at the bottom of the complaints registered with the Civil rights Office by the 16 graduate and undergraduate female students.  It grates to think that the head of a leading institution of higher education could possibly value federal subsidies over freedom of expression and inquiry, the primary mission of any university.  Just maybe Yale would be better off dipping into its juicy 15 billion plus endowment and funding research that way as opposed to groveling before some statist bureaucrats in the federal government who actually want to see less freedom of thought and more restrictions on free speech.  One also has to wonder if those 16 students and graduates are representative products of a Yale eduction these days.

** The conclusion in 1975 of a committee appointed by the then president of Yale, Kingman Brewster to explore the conditions of free expression on the Yale campus:  "If the university's overriding commitment to free expression is to be sustained, secondary social and ethical responsibilities must be left to the informal processes of suasion, example, and argument."