Victor Davis Hanson (8:49)
Well, I mean, they're absolutely right for all practical purposes, the universities, especially the elite ones, and that can be private and public, but they tend to be private. I'm talking about the Ivy League or the seven Sisters undergraduate or Stanford, Duke, things like that. They're all, I mean, when you look at political donations, they usually go up 90 to 95% to Democrats. If you look at the zip codes at Stanford on voting, it's usually 90% to the Democratic candidate. Then when you look at the Bill of Rights, there is really no First Amendment. They keep what I don't understand is there's all these people that are complaining that Mr. Khalil has been denied his First Amendment rights. He can say whatever he wants. That's not the problem. The problem is he's distributing, promoting a terrorist entity, and he is negotiating on the part. And. And he is one of the spokesmans for this apartheid group at Columbia that has taken over two halls and has committed $30,000 in damage. And when you have the president of Barnard blasting his group and there's going to be suspensions. But my point is, why don't they talk about freedom of speech if they really believe in it? When a speaker is shouted down, why didn't they come out and say Judge Duncan had a perfect right to speak his mind at Stan Law School rather than to be shouted down and people yell at him, we hope your daughter is raped? Or why, when Ben Shapiro came to Stanford, why were people plastering the university with these posters that said, ben be gone with a picture of a raid can, as if he was a Jew to be sprayed away in Zyklon B or something? So they don't protect freedom of speech. They don't honor the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment. So if you're on a campus and you go out on a date and you are a male and a young woman in a he said, she said environment says that you took advantage of her sexually and you say, no, I didn't. Maybe he was a cat. He didn't reciprocate with kind talk in the next week or so after sexual Congress, I don't know. But the point is, he will not be allowed an attorney. He will not be allowed cross examination. He will not be allowed to see his accuser in a court. He doesn't have any constitutional protections. Ask Joe Lonsdale what happened to him at Stanford. And then they violate the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts. Jack, how did. How in the world did we get to a point where you could have an auxiliary subsidiary graduation ceremony based on race? I remember when it happened at Cal State Fresno, the Chicano graduation. What was the purpose of that? What was the purpose of it? And only people of a particular race there. There was the Asian graduation, there was the gay, there was a black. If they had a white graduation people, and that was the minority. When I was at Cal State Fresno, people would have gone crazy. And they should go crazy. But the point I'm thinking is they have racially separate dorms and they call them theme houses. They have racially separated safe spaces where people of particular races can't go on campus. Just like Jim Crow, only they think they're liberal. So you can't use that simile. And at particular universities you can pick the racial profile of your potential roommate in a university dorm. This is all in addition to the fact that they are been charging, not the Bill Gates foundation, not private vacations, 50, 60% overhead on individual faculty grants or team grants. I'm talking about 55 to 60% charging the national Science foundation or the National Institutes of Health and skimming that money off. And that is in addition to these multi billion dollar endowments that give you 6, 7% multimillion dollar tax free income when they're not nonpartisan. And so now they're looking at a crisis and they are in crisis mode. They're anti Semitic. We just had a 900 page investigative report at Stanford University by mostly liberal professors and they found systemic, if I could use that term, antise across the board at Stanford University. And we are going to lose about $200 million if we have to abide by what we charge private foundation, just 15% overhead and can't gouge the government anymore. And should the House and Senate reconcile on somewhere between 15, 10 or 20% tax on endowments and Stanford would lose another 3 or $300 million. And so at a time when people are saying this is a dangerous, if I'm a Jewish student, this is a dangerous place to be on a elite campus because they will not or will not or cannot discipline radical, pro Hamas, pro Hezbollah, pro Palestinian protesters who think they have a perfect right. They just did it yesterday at Cornell, I mean Friday they went into a Cornell seminar on the Middle East. Former Ambassador Crocker was there, he was moderating and they disrupted it and they've done it. They just did it to Larry Summers at Stanford. A group came in and disrupted him. But they feel that they alone can do that and there's no consequences and the university won't enforce their own rules. And then the other thing very quickly, Jack, is that in the hysteria post George Floyd most of the major universities suspended the SAT or ACT exam and they suspended the comparative ranking of high school GPAs. So they let in people who were not according to their own prior standards, qualified at Stanford University. They put on their website, I have no way of knowing, they let in about 9% of white males who make up about 30 to 35% of the population. So they were saying to themselves, we demanded the SAT of you and we ranked you, Victor. So if you were applying from Selma High school with your 4.0, it wasn't the same as Palo Alto's 4.0. Okay, I get it. It probably wasn't. But the reason they were doing that all these years is because they said the following. I'm just taking Stanford, I'm not picking on it. As an example, we have a rigorous, rigorous general education program. Science, math, Western civil philosophy, seminal text, exegesis required and deep thought papers. And the only people who can do this rigorous work are those with a certain SAT or GPA from an accredited, top ranked high school. Now our curriculum is necessary and we're not going to have great inflation because we have to have to impress law school, Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Duke Medical School, I don't know, Ford Motor Company, DuPont. All of these hires have to know if you get branded with a Stanford BA or you're going to graduate program, it reflects the top notch quality aptitude that you had. And we're not Cal State Fresno, where Victor's from, this is. And so then they threw it all away. And within four years you would get employers saying, hey, I got this guy from Stanford and we hired him. He's not only obnoxious, but he doesn't know anything. He's not analytical, he can't write very well, he speaks poorly. How did he get through? And so that's happening right now. So what do they do? They just quietly started. Well, you know, kind of sort of. We're going to quietly reinstate the racist act and the ultra racist sat and the ultra, ultra racist comparative examination of GPAs by the quality of their high school. So that's what, that's who they are. And we saw Claudine Gaine and the rest of them that knew that they were institutionalized anti Semitism and they thought nobody would care because the Jewish community puts a high price elite education. They'd always give money, they would always support them, they could always lie to them. There's no anti Semitism on campus. And also foreign students. It was, the idea is that the United States has no standards. The universities hate the United States as much as we do. We're just going to come over from Gaza or Syria or Morocco or Algeria. We're going to enroll and then we're going to start protesting and supporting terrorist causes. And if you don't like it, we'll say, you're depriving me of my first Amendment rights. Get used to it. That was their attitude. Now people are saying it's non sustainable. When you get people like Elon Musk or Bill Ackman or Mark Andreessen and they all say, you know what these places are Toxic. And they teach a certain creed that does not lead people to happy lives. And it attacks the nuclear family, it attacks fertility, it attacks traditions, that attacks patriotism. And we don't want to put up with it anymore. So if they, if, you know, they said to Hillsdale College, you're too conservative, you're too patriotic, you're too traditional, you're too analytical, don't take money from us. And they said, fine, we're not going to take money from you. Why don't they do the same thing? They just said, you know what? We don't take your stupid dollars. We at Stanford want to be Stanford. We don't want any federal money. We have a 9, we have a 30 billion dollar endowment. Harvard can say we have over 50 billion dollar endowment. Take your stupid cash. We don't need no badges, just that's it. And they don't do that. So they want, they want the money, but they don't want to abide by any basic standards of decency. And I've been at a lot of universities. I've probably spoken at over 2 or 300 in the last 50 years. I've traveled on university lecture series, I've been given honorary degrees, I've given graduation talks. And I come to the conclusion at 71 that I'm not sure that on a plus minus evaluation, cost benefit analysis, that they are a force for good. I think the engineering and the science and the math is critical. But when I look at the ge, I don't see that very many of them, the professors are teaching Shakespeare or Hegel or Socrates, Plato. I don't see that at all. I just don't see it happening to the degree they are. It's always negative and people are just tired of it. They don't want to send their kid off to college at 18 and pay 100 grand and have them come back at Thanksgiving and say, I didn't know you were a white settler oppressor. They don't need that in their lives. Especially from this neurotic bunch of academics.