What’s Fair for the Goose
Vladimir Lenin used a military term to explain how to conduct a successful revolution. He said take the high ground. In warfare of his era in a ground engagement the army occupying the high ground had a decided advantage. He considered the high ground to be entertainment and education.
Harvard, MIT, U Penn, and a plethora of other colleges and universities did what? They are considered the pinnacle of the high grounds.
Believing in academic freedom I ask whatever happened to academic responsibility and accountability?
I have served as a trustee of two faith based universities and one seminary. Often at question was were faculty members required to be of the sponsoring denominations faith. I enquired of the president of Notre Dame if their faculty members had to be Catholic. His reply was no, but they had to know the University was and act responsibly, meaning they were expected to uphold the standards of the university.
That is logical. A witch doctor teaching his philosophy of medicine in a respected med school isn’t reasonable. However, having a Catholic soundly teach principles of physics in a Methodist University, or a Baptist accountably teach chemistry in a Presbyterian University is reasonable if they uphold the standards of the school.
Having a person teach the virtues of Communism in an American University is highly irresponsible. A tenured teacher on the faculty of an American university advocating antisemitism isn’t acceptable.
The universities in Germany were hot beds for antisemitism and hence supporters for Hitler’s assault on Jews that burgeoned into a horror.
The First Amendment “protects speech no matter how offensive its content,” according to the ACLU. Why then do they not protect conservative apologists who are invited on campus by responsible student groups? Why do they allow radical groups to shout down and force off campus conservative advocates?
How would the administrators of liberal universities respond to student groups applying the same liberal techniques to Jews if applied to blacks? Would such be accepted? No, and it should not be. If not why then is such treatment of Jews allowed.
Fewer than one quarter of 1 percent of the world’s population is Jewish. Why then are they such a hated group? Though often asked, the question remains unsatisfactorily answered.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, expressed the fear that “we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s — if not a greater one,” but he could find no better explanation for its persistent presence other than calling it “a spiritual and psychological illness.”
Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only member of the United Nations whose right to exist is regularly challenged and whose elimination from the world map is the aim of others.
What then is the answer to the reason for anti-Semitism?
The rabbis of the Talmud saw it in the very name of the mountain on which the Ten Commandments were given. “Sinai” in Hebrew is similar to the word “sinah” — hatred. It was the Jews’ acceptance of a higher law of morality and ethics that was responsible for the world’s enmity.
Unless there is a dramatic change Christians can expect to be the next target of hatred for the same reason.