Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determine Kyle Duncan was invited to give a talk on campus on March 9, 2023 by the Federalist Society’s Stanford Law School book. Duncan’s liberal and pro- living views aroused the indignation of a crowd of student demonstrators, who showed up to destroy the event with signs bearing messages including,” Judge Duncan Can’t Get the Clit”. One protester yelled at Duncan,” We hope your daughters get raped,” as he tried to make his speech frequently.
Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach immediately arrived on the scene. Instead of attempting to restore order, Steinbach gave a long, caterwauling presentation to Duncan, suggesting that his speech “literally denies the society of people”, and asking,” Is the wine worth the press”?
This group of third-rate school students was not protesting an anti-conservative partisan like Milo Yiannopoulos ( although, to be fair, even propagandists have free speech rights ). This was an assortment of law students, most properly into their middle- twenties or older, at one of the best law schools in the nation, speaking to a nicely- regarded member of the national judiciary. Our future constitutional stars, our next generation of magistrates, and law academics, are the students who yelled down Judge Kyle Duncan.
A large number of left-wing voices who have recently refused to raise a hand to support Kyle Duncan or any other 100 students like him have now decided the wine is for the squeeze in light of the recent wave of anti-Israel protests on campus. They are now willing to accept the idea that the emotional suffering experienced by anti-Israel and, in more than a few cases, boldly anti-Hamas and racist protests on school is a fair compromise for the benefits of a lively open debate on a pressing political issue.
A philosophical defender of free speech may, of course, have up for all kinds of free expression, including that of ideas he does find horrible. The First Amendment does indeed protect anti- Israel, and even antisemitic, speech, although it does not protect trespassing, harassment, or violence. However, what kinds of speeches one will support enthusiastically and those that one will reluctantly and reservedly support reveal a lot about one’s priorities. Administrators on these campuses have finally discovered a form of free speech that they will fervently defend: the right to demand the genocide of Jews.
Where’s the Return on the Investment?
The federal government gives$ 149 billion annually to American universities, including “private” ones such as Harvard. This is far more than what we provide in foreign aid to Israel or Ukraine. For the American taxpayer, this juice is no longer worth the squeeze. It is time for American universities to stop receiving federal funding because they are no longer serving the noble societal goal for which they were intended.
The case for public funding of universities is straightforward: By investing in the human capital of bright young minds, we stand to collectively benefit, both economically and non- economically. Citizens who are educated have valuable practical skills that tangentially enhance our quality of life. In a less quantifiable way, people who have been educated in the Western tradition, who have had the opportunity to develop their thinking and understand the ideas of great thinkers, and who have been influential in shaping the moral leadership of the future, are in good shape.
This is why, in Plato’s Apology, when Socrates stood trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, he audaciously proposed that, instead of being sentenced to death, he should be rewarded with “maintenance in the Prytaneum” — that is, free meals so he could philosophize on the public dime. Socrates was educating the populace, which underpins the public modern university.
An ideologically committed economic libertarian would fundamentally oppose any government funding for higher education. One does not even need to agree with me when I argue that this camp is sympathetic to me. For those who take a more pragmatic approach, the question becomes a straightforward, if not always simple, one of cost versus benefit. And by any standard, the great universities of this country no longer offer the kind of benefit we would anticipate from our collective investment.
Molding Morons, Not Luminaries
The universities do not uphold the Western tradition. They make a clear denunciation. Unlike Socrates, they do not produce new generations of Platos and Aristotles. Instead, they churn out morons who spout half- baked slogans about colonialism and oppression. These prestigious institutions have no luminaries emerging. Many students at our top universities openly despise America, and any nation would never fund its own destroyers. This is no secret conspiracy. They will say so if you ask them, explaining in elaborate ( albeit erroneous ) detail how our nation is built on” stolen land” and” the backs of slaves”.
Whatever our opinions of the current conflict may be, the protesters ‘ hatred of Israel should alarm all patriotic Americans. They primarily do this because they despise America and the West, and they, to be fair, consider Israel to be their home base. Upon graduation, these products of elite colleges, bolstered by the skills they have learned and the connections they have made, quickly embed themselves in every major institution in the country: entertainment, media, law, science, and business.
It would be mistaken to say that our universities are überhaupt beneficial. Many of our top campuses are still able to provide a world-class education in STEM fields even today. And while not to the objectionable departments, a large portion of the federal funding for higher education is undoubtedly allocated to legitimate scientific and technological research. Even with this targeted aid, far-left disciplines can use up additional funds to pursue their own interests. Revoking the funding would force universities to prioritize: Do we jettison physics and biology? Or jihad studies and lesbian dance theory?
In any case, postmodernist ideology has eroded the ideological framework that underlies scientific rationality. When used in the search for the good, these technical skills only have a positive impact. In an immoral society, they are useless or actively harmful. The great technological advancements we enjoy were the result of a Western tradition, and if that tradition is overthrown, it cannot continue.
These campuses, as most of us know all too well, have been ideological cesspits for years.  , In 2020, as America burned from the Mostly Peaceful Protests, presidents of top universities fell over themselves in their efforts to see who could , most obsequiously heap praise , on Black Lives Matter. The rot extends even further, to the infamous 1960s violent student uprisings. The campus radicals ‘” Finest Hour,” which was unfairly portrayed in the media, is the era to which all subsequent demonstrations revert. Many of the current anti- Israel protests have, indeed, been quite open about the fact that they are  , coasting on nostalgia , for the Vietnam- era antiwar movement.
However, the Oct. 7 response may have been a meaningful turning point. Many people thought it was too far for students and even some professors at major American universities to support a brutal Islamic terror attack on civilians. It surprised a lot of casual observers, but it did not surprise anyone who had been paying attention, especially since the university-sanctioned Black Lives Matter riots, since it had been occurring since. Take the decisive action now to capitalize on the public’s dissatisfaction.
With fewer resolute concerns about funding anti-American ideology, there is a chance that defunding these universities will put them further into the hands of foreign donors, including those who are known to be from openly hostile countries like China. Well, let them. It is our responsibility to assist the institutions if they begin a death spiral.
Campuses such as the Ivy Leagues, with their storied centuries- old history, should optimally be salvaged and rededicated to their laudable mission, but if they cannot, then scuttling them will suffice. On top of their ashes, perhaps, something fresh can emerge. These universities can at most be frightened of losing their federal funding.
With Democrats currently in charge of the White House and Senate, it is of course impossible to defund universities. But one day, whether in 2025 or later, Republicans will again have tripartite control. When they do, they should make defunding them a top legislative priority and not for a moment forget how badly America has been damaged by universities. We ca n’t afford to wait any longer.
Freelance writer Jason Garshfield.
