In a previous blog I referenced campus brownshirts at universities around the country, by noting the vandalism and violence visited on students who dared to take a pro-life position.
In case you think this attack on free speech is a random, or one-issue event, I thought I’d put this up too.
Excerpted from Joy Pullmann’s article at thefederalist.com:
Campus administrators are trying to calm down students after a week of outrage over DePaul University professor Jason Hill writing in The Federalist to support Israel’s right to create defensible borders and repel Islamist attempts at genocide.
“Jason Hill, you can’t hide, we know you want genocide!” shouted students throwing papers over bannisters during a protest last week. The protesting students demanded that the university formally censure Hill, require him to take “racial sensitivity training,” and him to publicly apologize for writing that Israel has a “moral right” to annex the West Bank because it is territory it won during a war initiated by enemies who believe Israel and Israelis should be wiped from the earth.
Several student groups have denounced Hill’s praise for Jewish and Western civilization’s achievements as “racist, anti-Palestinian, xenophobic, sexist and Islamophobic,” characterizing his criticisms of Sharia law as “uncivilized,” “barbaric,” and “primitive.” More than 3,000 have signed an online petition denouncing him.
Omigod. A professor supports Israel. Boil him in oil.
Boy, that guy must have written something really ripe to get this kind of reaction from the well-informed, well-educated champions of free speech at DePaul, right?
Well, here are a few of the key paragraphs (click here for the entire article). You decide:
Israel made an altruistic mistake toward the Palestinian people after the 1967 defensive war with Jordan. Rather than regard them as “war settlers” or refugees or, after legally occupying conquered territory, as “illegal occupants,” they made the Palestinian people their political and moral problem.
Under a different set of political sensibilities, the Palestinian people would have been militarily removed from the area because, morally speaking, after the 1967 war, they never belonged there. The proper response from Israel should have been to immediately annex the land and make the people there the responsibility of their original political homeland: Jordan.
There can be no such thing as legitimate “Palestinian Territory” in a geographic region legally seized in a defensive war instigated by a foreign aggressor.
Israel was forced into a war, which it won. It was then expected to renounce and repudiate the consequences of its fairly won war by capitulating to the conditions of its vanquished enemy, which included, among other self-sacrificially undertaken goals, granting statehood, autonomy, right of return, and the ultimate elimination of Jewry from the region.
Given the voting patterns of Palestinians—towards Islamicism and terrorist organizations for the most part—that openly advocate and work for Israeli and Jewish destruction and annihilation, a strong argument can and ought to be made to strip Palestinians of their right to vote—period. The regional hostilities towards Israel in the Middle East are such that Israel must take those threats seriously.
Do you agree with everything Professor Hill wrote? Some of it? None of it?
Who cares.
The point is that Professor Hill is entitled to his opinion. And this is a college campus, where opinions are supposed to be voiced and discussed.
But not in an academic environment where you either say what the loudest, most strident voices want to hear or you say nothing at all.
How I wish I could end by assuring you this is atypical. Aberrant. Something that rarely happens in academia.
But I can’t do that. And, truth be told, I can’t do that about a great many el-hi public schools either.
We are living in very troubling times.
