Washington Marches on Cambridge

I despise Harvard, but it is mostly in the right.

This video is available on Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, Telegram, and X.

Elite universities are hives of racial and cultural subversion, so it’s no wonder President Trump has opened fire on the Ivy League.

Look at political contributions by Yale faculty. Blue is Democrat, red is Republican.

In the latest year, 2023, 98.4 percent of contributions went to Democrats. 2020, of course, was the second Trump campaign, and look at that sky-high blue column.

Here are the results of a 2023 Harvard faculty survey: 77 percent said they were either liberal or very liberal, 20 percent moderate, and only 3 percent conservative or very conservative.

When a Harvard prof calls himself “moderate,” I suspect he’s a serious lefty.

It is scandalous that the most prestigious and influential universities are prisoners of the left — the loony left — and utterly out of touch with half the country.

And they brook no dissent. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ranks 251 campuses on how much they value free speech. This year, Harvard—along with Columbia—ranks at the bottom, with a score of 0.00. All Ivies rank low.

[link] But it’s a very strange group that’s leading Mr. Trump’s attack on universities: It’s called the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. Leading it is this guy Leo Terrell, of all people. He is a former “civil rights” lawyer and friend of OJ Simpson, who claimed the slasher was innocent.

Now he says he’s MAGA.

Is anti-Semitism such a scourge it needs a federal task force to fight it? Campuses were in an uproar after the Hamas attack and the Israeli response that many people considered barbaric.

Yes, people said rude things about Israel and Jews, but it’s our right to say rude things. [link] This lad, Patrick Dai, was a junior at Cornell.

He posted messages saying he would “stab” and “slit the throat” of any Jewish man he saw, “rape and throw off a cliff any Jewish woman he saw,” “behead any Jewish babies,” and “bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig Jews.”

Well, he got 21 months in the big house, to be followed by three years of supervised release. What was Cornell supposed to do about him?

On other campuses, Jews have reportedly been spat on and threatened. Just this month, after a talk by a former Israeli prime minister at Princeton was disrupted, a Jewish student said protesters called her “inbred swine” and told her to “go back to Europe.”

This is no doubt disturbing, but students and faculty have been threatening whites for years without sympathy from any administration, including Donald Trump’s.

It is hard to imagine the Ivy League ginning up anti-Semitism. The Presidents of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, and Cornell are all Jewish — that’s five out of eight Ivies — and Jews are greatly over-represented as students. This is the Jewish center at Harvard.

Nevertheless, in two weeks of discussions, the anti-Semitism task force got Harvard to boot the top two leaders of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies — said to be anti-Israel — call off a partnership with a Palestinian university, and start one with an Israeli school.

The Harvard people therefore say they were shocked on April 11th to get a letter from the task force that went way beyond anti-Semitism.

It threatened to withhold billions in federal grants unless Harvard guaranteed “viewpoint diversity” in all departments, and submitted to outside supervision if it couldn’t achieve that. Harvard had to abolish five student groups that were allegedly “anti-Semitic,” run a plagiarism test on all faculty, refuse admission to foreign students hostile to “American values”—whatever they are—and submit to an outside audit of all hiring practices. And it had to abolish anything that smacked of DEI.

When Harvard publicized the letter, the administration squawked and claimed it was just the opening round in a negotiation and shouldn’t have been released. Maybe so, but on April 14, Harvard wrote back, saying it had made “robust structural” changes to fight anti-Semitism, and refused to do anything else.

The administration immediately froze $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard, including funding to the school of public health. The next day, Mr. Trump threatened to lift Harvard’s tax-exempt status, and six days after that, April 21st, Harvard sued to get the money back.

Another $7 billion for Harvard could now be pulled, and funding for scores of other top universities are on the chopping block. Last month, Columbia swallowed administration conditions to get $400 million.

Believe me: No one despises Harvard more than I do. So, it pains me to say that Harvard is right. There is no legal justification for the administration’s demands, except one: stamp out DEI. Nine times out of ten, DEI means race or sex discrimination in brazen violation of civil rights law. Harvard has been guilty of that for decades.

The White House has said, “All the President is asking, don’t break federal law, and then you can have your federal funding.”

That’s true for anti-discrimination laws, but even they require clear, procedural steps before the government cuts off the money.

As for denying tax-exempt status, 26 U.S. Code 7217 bars government officials, including the President, from pressuring the IRS to audit anyone.

That includes a review of tax exemption.

However, the IRS can strip a university’s tax exemption because of racial discrimination. It happened to Bob Jones University in 1974.

Every school that persists in DEI could get the same treatment.

But like it or not, no law bars Harvard from having a faculty of nothing but anti-white fanatics—so long as they are hired on merit and not race. There are plenty of mooncalf whites fully qualified for those jobs.

I know it’s tempting to cheer when Harvard squirms, but the school can now cast itself as David fighting Goliath. I suspect some grant money does go to horrible anti-white rot, but if you believe the Washington Post’s report of what Harvard claims, it’s mostly for medical research.

Should Uncle Sam spend our taxes on research? If so, who gets the money and on what conditions? Those are good questions, but this is the system we have, and Harvard is probably not cooking the books any more than everyone else.

Finally, anything Mr. Trump can do, a future president can do. If he can weed out lefty loonies, President AOC could weed out MAGA Republicans.

If he can ban foreign students hostile to “American values,” she could say that anyone who wants a white America is “hostile” to American values.

I don’t want a country in which “academic freedom” means top universities that cheer the Great Replacement.

I want a county in which academic freedom means celebrating our people. Only if our survival depended on it would I want a government that required white advocacy. But we won’t get that even from the Trump administration. The best we could hope for is colorblindness. That means only that we fade away more slowly. In the meantime, any precedent for government control of private universities is likely to hurt us.

By all means, let’s reform what we can, but our goal is a clean break.