No one can convince me that the point of all this is not to discredit all that America stands for — and the ultimate goal, I firmly believe, is the destruction of the capitalist way of life, the destruction of free enterprise, and the establishment of socialism, because socialism to these people equals fairness. De Tocqueville observed, ""Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
When you look at what's being taught in the schools today, as Dr. Schlesinger has shown, the primary culture of America is being ripped apart, criticized, denigrated, and people are being told to look to their ancient ethnic roots for salvation and goodness.
If you think about it, multiculturalism flies in the face of what this country is all about. This country was built by people who were fleeing the oppression of the societies in which they were born. You know, there is something to those old cliches about America being a beacon of hope and prosperity. These may be cliches but they really are true. When there's a food shortage anywhere in the world, where do those suffering go for help? The United States. When somebody needs technology, where do they go? The United States. When somebody needs a donation, a handout, a loan, they come to the United States. And when somebody wants to escape oppression, where do they go? The United States. The people fleeing Haiti did not go to St. Thomas or to Cuba. They tried to come to the United States.
The reason all those people from different countries have been coming to America is that America is different from the countries they left. America offers individual freedom and the opportunity to make something of yourself. But multiculturalism is the exact opposite of that. We are now supposed to teach these people the values and the alleged virtues of the oppressive societies which they fled, rather than the values and virtues of the free society they sought. Please cogitate on that for a moment. We're even trying to teach it to the kids who never lived in those oppressive societies — we're supposed to teach them to champion the very things their parents escaped, many of them risking their lives in the process.
Let me say it again: Ethnic communities that are committed to preserving some of their cultural values and their heritage should be free to instill these values in their children — at home, at church, in the neighborhood. Surely it is not the office of public schools to promote separatism and heighten ethnic tensions. The bonds of national cohesion in the republic are fragile enough as it is. Public education's aim should be to strengthen, not weaken, them.
- The way things ought to be, by Rush Limbaugh, 1992
It was set up to be this way, as explained by a review of Dinesh D’Souza's outstanding 1991 book lliberal Education
What we are witnessing on our campuses is a tyrannical combination of extreme license with an almost puritanical censorship. Re flecting on the new demand for intellectual conformity, Donald Kagan, Dean of Yale College, notes that he “was a student during the days of McCarthy, and there is less free dom now than there was then.” It is a strange situation. Ail indications are that American society is far more tolerant of diversity now than at any time in the past. Yet in their zeal to nominate themselves as victims of a repressive society, our academic radicals pretend to find sexism, racism, elitism, “heterosexualism,” and various other “isms” everywhere. Thus we have Donna Shalala, Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, claiming that “The university is institution ally racist. American society is racist and sexist. Covert racism is just as bad today as overt racism was thirty years ago.” In addi tion to being grossly irresponsible (especially in the mouth of a university president), such unfounded charges of racism, sexism, and so on make it all the more difficult to discern or criticize the real thing when it does occur. As the philosopher Sidney Hook observed in his review of the onslaught of multiculturalism at Stanford,morally offensive as is the expression of racism wherever it is found, a false charge of racism is equally offensive, perhaps even more so, be cause the consequences of a false charge of racism enable an authentic racist to conceal his racism by exploiting the loose way the term is used to cover up his actions. The same is true of a false charge of sexism or anti-Semitism. This is the lesson we should all have learned from the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Because of his false and irresponsible charges of com munism against liberals, socialists, and others among his critics, many communists and agents of communist influence sought to pass them selves off as Jeffersonian democrats or merely idealistic reformers. They would all complain they were victims of red-baiting to prevent criti cism and exposure.
Mr. D’Souza locates the origin of the academy’s problems in the ethos of victimhood. “By converting victimhood into a certificate of virtue,” he writes, “minorities acquire a powerful moral claim that renders their opponents defensive and apologetic, and immunizes themselves from criticism and sanction.” As we see on campuses across the country, the elevation of victimhood into a sign of political and moral election has con verted victim status into a weapon that stu dents, faculty, and administrators use to stifle debate and enforce intellectual conformity. Mr. D’Souza’s courageous and clear-eyed ex amination has provided us with an astute anatomy of this phenomenon and its baneful effects on liberal learning. But it is not clear that the “victim’s revolution” he discerns is itself the cause of the university’s embrace of what he calls “illiberal education.” Behind the cult of victimhood is the insinuation of a Sixties-style radicalism into the center of academic life. It is this radicalism that is primarily responsible for the attack on the curriculum and the rise of politically correct thinking. Mr. D’Souza laments that “the middle ground seems to have disappeared as a consequence of ideological fracas and polarization.” But the point is that “the middle ground” is now occupied by radicals, which is one reason that the traditional ideals of a liberal-arts education can be blithely dis paraged as “conservative.”
The issue is not the politics of this or that individual but the attempt to politicize education tout court, the attempt, as John Searle put it, to convert the curriculum “into an instrument of social transformation.” Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a much-courted black professor of literature who is moving from Duke University to Harvard next se mester, was quite frank about the nature of this political ambition. “Ours was the gen eration that took over buildings in the late 1960s and demanded the creation of Black and Women’s Studies programs,” he wrote recently in The New York Times, “and now ... we have come back to challenge the tradi tional curriculum.” A professor from Middlebury College whom Mr. D’Souza cites was even balder: “Now we have tenure and the work of reshaping the university has be gun in earnest.”
The noble goal of Mr. D’Souza’s book is to reclaim higher education for a pluralistic democracy. This means reclaiming for the academy the ideals of advancement accord ing to merit, color-blind justice, and the rights of the individual. It means resuscitat ing the ideals of rational inquiry and disinter ested judgment as the strongest bulwarks against parti pris indoctrination. Critics warn that we must prepare for the multicultural society of the future by “democratizing” excellence. But the United States has always been a diverse, multicultural society. The best way to preserve equality and liberty in the future will be the same as it has always been: by rewarding merit and doing every thing possible to insure equality of oppor tunity. As Mr. D’Souza observes, “High standards do not discriminate against anyone except those who fail to meet them.”
I encourage people to listen to the audio of the Tucson Unified School District board meetings
May 3, 2011 meeting discussion from the beginning (where not many attendees can be heard Pledging allegiance to America) but especially from 54:00 (the Patriotic AMERICAN from Peru says what Rush says at 1:08:00 !!!), head of Pima County DemocRAT Party supports the ethno-fascist anti-American subversives and calls opponents nazis and segregationists at 1:20:00
May 10, 2011 meeting discussion on "Ethnic Studies" starts 1:13:00
June 14, 2011 meeting discussion starts 5:30
For the true History of US-Mexico relations, including MEXICO'S INVASION OF THE UNITED STATES (the new state of Texas) THAT STARTED THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR, see the Heritage Foundation's 1988 report "A Review of 150 Years of U.S. -Mexican Relations" . Also see the history of commie "Mexico / US Labor Solidarity" (by a member of CPUSA) and a Heritage Foundation report on Soviet subversion of Mexico, and see what Marx REALLY thought of Latinos and the Mexican-American War here .