I'll 'hazard' some answers :)
Reader comment on article: From the Halls of Academia

Submitted by F.H.Vondell Jr. (United States), Dec 30, 2002 at 16:16

"We have met the enemy, and they are ours."
- Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry

Since none have, I'll hazard (pun intended) to answer.

* Why do American academics so readily see their own country as the problem?

Because (human nature being what it is) it is easier than confronting
the fact that there are institutions and populations that are existentially
incompatible with the thesis on which the U.S. is founded, namely the right
of the individual to freedom of thought, religion/conscience and self-governed
life. Because of this existential incompatibility, the two philosophies are
destined to conflict until (1) extreme Islamists give up the Jihad idea or (2)
the U.S. becomes an Islamic nation. The policy of containment worked with the
Soviet Union because the principals were not amenable to suicide via nuclear
exchange - the same cannot be said for (1) that portion of Islam committed to
'killing the infidel', and (2) possibly the kooks running North Korea.

From what I understand, Hussein is not of the 'Islamist extremist' stripe,
but has managed nevertheless (with his words and actions over the years) to
paint a bullseye on his back. Now that the U.S. is arriving at the conclusion
that it can no longer afford to absorb a 'first strike' from an anonymous
adversary, Hussein finds himself (along with Al Qaeda) as the visible portion
of the Islamist extremist 'iceberg'. The argument that the U.S. created this
'iceberg' is a fiction. The truth is that the governing organs of many
Islamic nations have been incubating, for political purposes and for many
years, hatred toward the U.S. using an extreme interpretation of Islam. If
blame must be assigned, that would be a good place to start (and maybe end).

Because the (so-called) liberal mindset is founded in emotion rather than
reason, there is a feeling that such populations will befriend the U.S. if
we can say or do the right thing so they will like or pity us. Reference
the statement by (I believe) A. Gore commenting on the squandering of global
goodwill (read pity) following 911. For extreme Islamists; however, the only
right thing to say is "I surrender", and the only right thing to do is
convert to Islam.

* Why do universities hire people who relentlessly apologize for U.S. enemies?

The answer is obvious - Either university administrators favor hiring of
apologists, or they are following a law compelling them to hire apologists,
or apologists are the only ones applying for the jobs.

More interesting questions:

* Why do bureaucrats do anything?
Desired gains are:
1 Job security with increasing leisure time
2 More money with increasing access to public assets
3 Increased political advantage to access more money/assets
and overcome possible opposition
4 Maintain professional and social credibility independent
of productivity.

* What would make someone a relentless apologist? Someone who either (1)
empathizes with an enemy of the U.S. or (2) has sustained a (real or
perceived) wrong done to them by the U.S. government.


* Are relentless apologists the only ones applying for the jobs? I don't know.

* Why do professors consistently misunderstand the most important challenges facing the country, such as the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War and now the war on terror?

Because reading a book about Stalin is different than living in a gulag.

* What long-term impact does a radicalized and repressive university atmosphere have on students?

Repression will yield conformity, by moulding the plastic and jettisoning the
non-conformist.

The country needs its universities to become more mature, responsible and patriotic. To achieve this change means taking the wayward academy back from the faculty and administrators who now run it.

And giving it to whom? Their replacements will will reflect the values of their
funding sources as their predecessors did. If you intend to correct university
administration then you must address the way they are funded.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.