Brandeis

I'm a graduate of Brandeis University. Class of 1960. I met my wife there and one of our sons also attended and met his wife there. I got a fine education and, overall, had a very good experience there. When I started the school was less than a decade old. It had been founded after the Shoah and one of its important purposes was to take in Jews, who had long faced quotas and additional barriers to admission at other academic institutions. Face it, no one wanted Jews. Some places accepted them without putting obstacles in their way, but that was not because they were enamored of Jews or objected to the practice of other schools. They just wanted the best students they could get, and that often led to a disproportionate number of Jews. More than would be anticipated based on numbers alone. Quality was the deciding criterion, not quantity.

Not Brandeis though. It was founded with the recognition of a mission. It was a setting where Jews were not only welcome, but which specifically made conditions comfortable for them. It was a school which, in addition to being among the best in the country, provided for the gustatorial and spiritual needs of Jewish students – not by exclusivity: its three chapels attested to its openness to non-Jews. It was a superior school that recognized both the historic bias against its people, an a historic future for that people – a future in which it would play a part.

I went because it was Jewish, favoring it over MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Cornell, having been admitted to all of them. I wasn't among the most religious there, but I wanted to be part of a principled effort to bring my people into the world community. I was proud, and I encouraged and welcomed others to a principled and defiant place, where all people and all ideas were appreciated.

But times have changed.

I am no longer proud of my alma mater. I no longer encourage others to send their children there. The school had fostered liberalism, but in recent years liberalism has metamorphosed into fad, fashion, protest, and anti-semitism. It has become the mouthpiece for dissenting minority groups, and has taken the position of providing support for them irrespective of the justification for that support. And it espouses the position that any ideas which don't echo its ideology are wrong.

In the academic world this leads to the substitution of subjectivity for objectivity in classes and discussions, and the indoctrination of students into a political philosophy. Even if the school does not itself promote this behavior, acquiescence to the spreading of such a gospel – the cowardice of a wish to be like the institutions it emulates – is an encouragement to faculty and students who loudly advocate these actions. And the more virulent the protests by individuals and groups, the more likely that the next cohort of impressionable youth will uncritically accept the most popular philosophy.

Brandeis has assimilated. It has assimilated much like the less religious Jews of the last century, and now this one. The school seems to have a wish to emulate the Ivy League schools that it was founded to make up for. It has adopted the fashions and practices of those institutions in an effort to be seen as one of them and earn their reflected prestige. Along the way it has flirted with, and frequently adopted, such practices as (among many others) the silencing of unpopular opinion, support of popular causes even when they contradict the principles on which the school is based, "diversity" and affirmative action – intended to have a student population more reflective of America (or overrepresented by minorities) whatever the academic cost, non-kosher food so that new students can enjoy the foods they are used to, and advocacy for causes like BDS and Palestinian "rights" despite the fact that they and their students have no knowledge of the facts related to these issues, only the propaganda.

It is current practice to demean those with whom you disagree: to rename sites named in their honor or in gratitude for their contributions and to destroy anything favorable to them, like what is written and what is displayed. Monuments are defaced, destroyed, covered, or removed if they affect the "sensitivity" of some viewing the lives they represent out of the context of their times. Most recently that has resulted in demands to remove statues of Christopher Columbus among others from public view. And many of our major academic centers – including some admired by Brandeis – have taken such steps. Louis Brandeis was Zionistic, but there are many, especially liberals, who view Zionism unfavorably. They are sensitive to the plight of those who, even if they arrived and squatted in "Palestine" after Jews resettled the land in which they have lived for thousands of years, claim the land for their own.

But Brandeis was a Zionist. If sensitivity is adequate justification for protests and a denial of history, it would be logical to change the name of the university and remove his statue from the campus. At the current time the students might even celebrate its renaming as Linda Mansour University in view of her courageous denunciation of Zionists.

There is no denying the excellence of much of the education provided by Brandeis, but much of the education they receive is tainted by the political stances of some of the faculty and students, and the administration's failure to require the honoring of the principles for which the school was founded. And the failure to reassert their own authority over those on the campus – students, faculty, and visitors. Right now Brandeis is disappearing into the fashionable mass of expensive academic centers that cater to the whims of those who pay the bills, and those who instigate them.

It's not the school it used to be. It's not the school I went to.

He Who Pays The Piper

A fascinating – and, to a degree amusing – article appeared on the front page of today's (May 23, 2016) New York Times. Its title was “Adelson's Era: Do Billions Erode Press Freedom?” and it was written by Sydney Ember. The article contends that the owner is putting pressure on the Las Vegas Review-Journal staff to conform to his views in the publication of the news. A specific concern is that newspaper management is guilty of “editorial interference.” The owner himself denies any participation in the nature of the stories carried, and the editors also state that he has played no part in their decisions, but it would be naïve to claim that the same editors, knowing a little about their boss, weren't eager to please him.

It's certainly a significant fear, but perhaps it is unwarranted. Before I discuss its validity, however, let me digress.

I mentioned my wedding last week, but let me make one additional comment which is apropos in light of my discussion today. We chose the band. And while we didn't have a precise play list, we let them know what kind of music we liked, and they were happy to present it for us. By and large the specifics were their choice. Not a big surprise. At least it wasn't then. But times change.

Courts have taken to deciding the nature of a baker's or a photographer's services, and who is entitled to them. Specifically the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court argues that various aspects of cohabitation are covered by the Constitution under the rubric of “privacy” (which, however, is not a right identified in the Constitution). Based on those views it's hard to claim that the choice of music at our wedding might not be considered by the Judiciary to be just as much a Constitutional issue as “Press Freedom.”

The concept of a free press began in this country with the acquittal of John Peter Zenger, in 1733. His trial established the right of a newspaper publisher to air his views. That was before there was a First Amendment or, indeed, a Constitution, but it was a freedom needed then, one that's still the basis of our liberty. And it is a freedom that includes the right of property [newspaper ownership and the right of the owner to publish what he wants], also viewed by our founders as a basic principle upon which our country was grounded.

Press freedom, as I said, is one of the pillars on which our country and our liberty stand. (Some restrictions on it exist but they are limited and governed by, among other things, the laws of libel, sedition, and public safety.) All of the media enjoy it, but it doesn't guarantee that all press organs will be objective – nor should it. They needn't all be fair and balanced. And they're not. All have editorial policies which reflect the biases of their management. And all observe the five esses (in addition to the five double-u's) of journalistic messaging: selection, size, space, slant, and spin. (It's funny to see one paper accuse another of tampering with the news. They all do it. Even on-line, “trending,” and “social media” sites. So we have a lot of sources available and can choose the point of view to which we already adhere.)

The New York Times is a good example. It's a “liberal” paper (reflecting the views of those who own and run it), which means that it is left-leaning, anti-Republican, and anti-Israel (pro-Palestinian – favoring the “weak minority” of Muslims in the Middle East). That's not an accusation, it's a fact. [Adelson is a Pro-Israel conservative Republican which justifies his selection for a front-page condemnation.] And that's what the Times's readers want. It's been in business long enough that the staff knows what is expected of them. Applicants are likely to share the same philosophy, and those hired can be relied on to tell the stories that management wants, and tell them in a way that is desired. (Indeed, they may be “advocacy journalists” who include opinion in what readers assume is objective reporting.) The staff has been selected. Of course when there is new management of a paper the shaking-out process has not yet occurred and staff, who might not have sought employment under the old ownership, are not yet in place. And when such a change occurs current members of the staff may decide that they don't want to hew to the new line.

Selection plays another part in the process. The choice of stories, and their placement, also reflects the paper's (management's) perspective, and is aimed at getting the “right” message to those who only read the front page or the editorials. Those stories that cannot be ignored, but which may conflict with the approved message, are likely to be buried inside or otherwise inconspicuously. The same is true of (small-print) corrections which, though undesirable, must be made when the (prominent large-print) news presented is in conflict with reality.

Size is another criterion considered when a story is published. More space (including number of or articles as well as their length) is devoted to what carries the preferred message, and less to what opposes that viewpoint – if it is published at all. Look at the letters to the editor and you'll see that those questioning the paper's view tend to be short, and they are overwhelmed by those that support the agenda. Strange, then, that the Times was critical of the Review-Journal for shortening stories critical of its owner.

First paragraphs of stories – the ledes – present the slant. They tells the impatient reader all (s)he needs to know in order to have the correct perspective on a subject. While a more accurate understanding of the situation might result from reading the full story – with important facts “clarifying,” and possibly contradicting, the premise of the writer found deep in the story. Fortunately most readers don't get far beyond the first paragraph, so they know only what they are directed to “know” based on the initial slant.

But the icing on the cake – what tops it all off – is the headline. And that is the artfully written spin that directs the thinking of the laziest of readers. Once they've seen the headline they know, and probably agree with, the outlet's message.

All in all, when, for example, the public reads an editorial supporting a President who has knowingly misled the electorate, they will know that the editors are only laying out the organ's dogma. Readers expect the media to present the views their owners are trying to sell. After all, no one is surprised when an auto company fails to disclose all its product's problems or a lawyer tells only what is favorable to the jury. We believe what we want to believe – but we probably believed it before someone tried to convince us. It doesn't take billions to do so, but we'd take it if it were offered to us.

96 Elephants On A Slippery Slope

I heard on the radio this morning of a terrible problem requiring my immediate attention. Ninety-six elephants are killed daily for the ivory in their tusks.

• Stop the killing with on-the-ground anti-poaching efforts;
• Stop the trafficking using intelligence and law enforcement;
• Stop the demand by increasing awareness among consumers.
  

That's the program of the African Wildlife Foundation – at least as it applies to elephants.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare adds

In Africa, elephants are being slaughtered at unprecedented levels to feed the insatiable global demand for ivory. Americans are among the largest consumers of this cruel luxury, but by pledging not to buy ivory jewelry, trinkets or any other ivory product, we can serve as an example to the world and help protect elephants for the generations yet to come.

There are several other organizations that support the same goal, and the point they make is one that merits our consideration. But it also raises questions that are similarly worth discussion. The first involves our determination to “serve as an example to the world and help protect elephants for the generations yet to come.” And the obvious question is “Why?” Have we an obligation to the generations yet to come, or are we opposed to the cruelty of the “slaughter” for the purpose of providing Americans with a “cruel luxury.”

Additional thought should be given to the economic implications, especially to poor African countries that benefit from the trade. As well as to the joy of those fashion-minded individuals who covet the beautiful objects that are produced from ivory. The consequences also merit thought. I don't propose to discuss those consequences – any of them – but to put forward additional questions that come to mind as I ponder the concerns of these funds.

Are we only to protect elephants? And is our concern only for their tusks? Would we be interested in protecting these mammals if they didn't make ivory? What is the implication of such an idea on the sale of furs, or leather, or, for that matter, on wool and silk? There are many who oppose the use of any animal products – meat, dairy products, eggs, and honey, for example – as exploitation of non-human species for our benefit. Isn't their claim just as valid? And should we eliminate zoos? I'm not sure, however, that generations yet to come would support such an idea. Especially those generations that live where there are no elephants, and who lack the resources necessary to see them otherwise.

I wonder as well about our obligation to protect elephants and other wildlife from their enemies in the wild. While elephants have few natural enemies, they occasionally fall prey to lions, tigers, crocodiles, and hyenas. If we protect elephants from humans, shouldn't we defend them against other predators as well? And shouldn't we protect other animals, including oppressed people, from their natural enemies? Do we need this idea to condemn slavery? Were we justified in fighting the Nazis simply because they made use of human possessions and human bodies? (Is this a variation of Godwin's Law?)

Have I entered the world of reductio ad absurdum? Is this a “slippery slope” argument? Are we capable of compartmentalizing particular issues, or must we view them merely as points on a spectrum? Can we draw lines that separate the individual elements and their implications from what appear to be analogous issues, or do the lines we draw connect those issues? (A similar question might be raised about the law in general. Are jurists incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in individual cases? Must they base their decisions on precedents?)

Fear of the slippery slope pervades many of our other arguments. For example, isn't the restriction of sale of automatic weapons in general, especially to known terrorists, certain to lead to a prohibition on all weapons for every law-abiding citizen? The NRA would certainly argue so. Don't sugared drinks lead to obesity? Many have that view and would outlaw them because some obese people are diabetic. Are we incapable of finding other solutions to the problem? If it is a problem. Is a court decision to permit the medical treatment of an ill child whose Christian Science parents oppose it going to lead to elimination of the Freedom of Religion? If we permit capital punishment, shouldn't we also permit abortion, even at term? And vice versa?

When the ACLU defended neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie, Illinois, they claimed they were defending Freedom of Speech because if it is lost to those who abuse it, it is lost to everybody. But they were wrong. We have “hate speech” laws now but we still have a First Amendment. I abhor those laws and I'm free to say so. I'm convinced that (most) people are able to compartmentalize, to decide right and wrong on the merits of the case, and not be compelled to take a particular position because of precedents and similarity to prior cases. Only conspiracy theorists and lawyers take an all or nothing approach.

I oppose killing elephants for their tusks, but I'm not concerned that it inevitably means that I have to give up steak. I may be wrong, however I think that these issues and others can be separated.

Make War, Not Love

                                                                                  

It's said that “Man is the only animal that makes war.”ⁱ Don't believe it. We're not alone in that respect.ⁱⁱ

War is inevitable. It's what evolution has given us.

War and aggression are common in animals, and for the same reasons as in man: territory, power, sustenance, resources,ⁱⁱⁱ sex, self-protection (including – and especially – the protection of offspring). We may not like those reasons. We may view them as immoral, but that's the hand we've been dealt.

An animal stakes out his territory and attacks another that impinges on it. Split-off groups and neighbors are enemies. Male animals fight for dominance of a group and for the sexual favors of the females. Females defend themselves and their offspring, even at great risk. Animals kill for food, and sometimes just to kill. When a cat drags in a dead, but uneaten squirrel or bird, it's demonstrating a killing for killing's sake,^iv though it is merely acting on instinct. Perhaps that's not war, but it informs human actions.

People need “space. That's our claim on territory. We cannot tolerate others who are “in our face,” whether that attack is reflected in their physical presence or by their words. “Freedom of speech”^v wasn't instituted simply because it was a “Good Thing.” It was a result of the need to keep others from reacting legally or physically to what someone thought, but they disliked.^vi The verbal expression of opinions, however unpopular, was to be protected. Conscientious objection, on the other hand, – turning the other cheek – and the belief that if you use methods that are more extreme than you might want you become like your enemy, have a noble sound but they result in disaster. Your enemy doesn't concern himself with such ideas. He wants to kill you. “An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” suggests that after our enemy blinds us in one eye we should turn our heads so he can blind us in the other. Then only we will be blind, but he will see. Isn't that much better?

People didn't invent war but they did invent

1. Guilt. We try to satisfy ourselves that we are fighting a “Just War,” even though we're just fighting a war – usually for some other benefit. We consider the enemy to be worthy of death by attributing to him some evil. Too often, this is in the form of a general – and usually unformed and uninformed, prejudice – such as a hatred of all immigrants, of gypsies or foreigners; or it may be well formed. For example, Jews are racially inferior – they are sub-human and killing them is no more to be condemned than stepping on an ant. With that as a background there is no need to feel guilt.
2. Sacrifice of others. When aggressors hide among non-combatants for their own protection they risk injury to those others. They consider that to be justified to satisfy their aims even if those are not the aims of those among whom they hide. When they do so in order to win public opinion through the injury or death of those others they are employing a tool not used by any “lower” animal. Evolution may condition an animal to give up his life for the group, but not to select others to do it for him.

Even if we recognize and deal with mankind's two inventions, there will be many who will still be ruled by the instincts they have inherited, and they will continue to make war. It's “in their blood” and they feel no guilt about it. If they have to invent justifications or adopt existing prejudices, so be it. They follow ancestral patterns and there is no need to seek alternative methods for attaining their goals.

There's a special kind of aggression for members of a group that has split off from yours, and there is antagonism toward you that is felt by those who leave your midst. It may not develop initially but it does develop. There is hatred of a “turncoat.” The justification for the change of allegiance doesn't matter. It is irrelevant if the cause was money or philosophy, or even the malfeasance of leaders of your group. There is contempt, for example, for dissidents, even if the reasons for their unhappiness make sense. Too often the result is their further oppression. So there are revolutions, and the ruthless response to them.

On the other side of the dispute, as is obvious, there is a hatred by those who have changed positions for those who have not done so. It's a form of self-justification. Sometimes it's rational, but that's not really the basis for the animosity. The fiercest anti-smokers (or anti-anything else) are those who were once smokers (or supporters of something else). They tend to be intolerant of those who have not renounced the habit, and they are hypersensitive to second-hand smoke. And it's been noted often that those who adopt a new religion are often more observant than most of those born into it.

And there are those who need to be destroyed because they have what you want, whether it is land, resources, or power. Why should they have what you lack?

Depressing. It's likely there will always be war. There's not much to be done about it because we're human. We'll always have a reason to hate or fear someone else – or they, us. So when others speak of peace – when they try to convince us that there is a more rational approach to whatever the problem is that they face – it is evidence that they're living in a dream world, a non-existent Utopia.^vii Rationality has nothing to do with the issue. And, morals aside, there's only one basic rule of war.

It's better to win than to lose.

Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For” – Perhaps it's the piper.

Go back to August 7, 2011. This one is out of place.

i      Mark Twain: “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” I don't think he meant it to be humorous, but it certainly isn't factual.

ii     Or, if you prefer, “disrespect.”

iii    Nowadays that's oil.

iv     Another commonplace is that man is the only animal that kills for sport.

v     As noble as that sounds.

vi    However dangerous, stupid, or ill-founded their beliefs were, they are entitled to them as long as they are not dangerous to others. The ACLU makes a point of protecting the views of those who may support (selected) causes inimical to most others.

vii  Actually, that's redundant. All “Utopias” are non-existent. That's the definition.

Where Seldom Is Heard

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.ⁱ

Congress doesn't have to. As a people we do it all the time. Speech may be free – in theory – but the economic and social costs are staggering. Of the two, the economic costs are the lesser consideration. Loss of business because of political views and boycotts, legal costs associated with libel and other trials related to speech issues, and penalties imposed because of what some view as intemperate speech are costly, but only to a few.

But the greater cost is social. Whoever is listening may take issue with what we have to say. Consequently, much of the limitation on the significant part of our “Freedom of Speech” is self imposed. Whether as a result of self-censorship or self-delusion, being PCⁱⁱ is better than being honest. Too often we avoid saying what is controversial, substituting the acceptable and familiar. Why look for trouble? Why risk accusations of insensitivity,ⁱⁱⁱ bullying,^iv or verbal sexism^v and abuse? Why chance alienating someone whose help we may need or whose friendship we want? It's said that “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” Similar wisdom in the past told us that the earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe.

While, for the most part, we are not limited in what we can say, there are some restrictions which the State places on speech (shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is the most famous of these) but by and large these are minimal. There have been various pieces of legislation (like the “Alien and Sedition Acts”) that have limited speech – at least for a time – but, unlike some other countries, an individual who speaks out against the American government is not likely to disappear. Some secrecy is necessary in order for a government to function and to carry on relations with other countries,^vi though the Freedom of Information Act and the courts provide something of a break against the abuses which may result from unwarranted secretiveness. And otherwise we're free to say whatever we want, however mindless it may be.

But, in view of the risks, an argument can be made that an “excess” of silence is sometimes wiser than complete candor. Too many “leaks,” though sometimes orchestrated by those who complain most about them, may be counterproductive. Better to remain neutral and quiet. Silence is golden. But, as Churchill said, “The hottest place in hell must be reserved for those who, in the face of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Sadly, too many people fear that it is better to say nothing than the “wrong” thing. Conformity^vii is safer. No one has to know your views. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees privacy to all citizens,^viii but there are many legal and non-legal ways around such restrictions.

Our words are also limited by what we can think. To some degree the language we speak, crafted by our forebears, determines what we mean when we use particular words. Orwell, in 1984, demonstrated how that might play out if a strong government used language to limit and fashion the thoughts of the people ruled. Only the virtues of the government and its leader could be expressed.

At the other end of the spectrum, but equally misled, there are many who view self-criticism and criticism of their leaders, as a demonstration of “objectivity,” fairness, and an openness to the views of others. Some of America's greatest critics are Americans. They are not blind, but they wear blinders. Predisposed to favor the weak, they assume the strong are always wrong. They view their adopted position as one of justice and impartiality. Many see it as self-hatred, noting, correctly, that we are often critical of our own group to the exclusion of others.

At least that's our public persona: highly principled and laden with introspection and progressive philosophy. More privately,^ix however, especially on one of our electronic communicators,^x we indulge in the same inane gossip and sophomoric comments as everyone else – revealing much more of ourselves than we might if we reflected on the messages we transmit before hitting the “send” button. And once out of the can it is public forever. People are eager to “share” their thoughts,^xi but everything is recorded, and nothing is forgotten. There are no private thoughts on these media. You don't know the size of your audience or when your “secret” words may go “viral.” The only way to have private thoughts is to keep everything to yourself.^xii After all, we're all prejudiced against something, even if it's only prejudice itself. So we're better off if others don't know of our biases lest we be lambasted for them. Or accused of hate speech.

But it is difficult not to wonder how long that will last. With prostheses now available that respond to thoughts, it is likely that sooner or later there will be other devices that will transmit more complex thoughts to others. Or devices that they use to transmit their thoughts to us. Authorities have strong views on many subjects (not only the wish to guarantee their own acceptance by the individual^xiii) and they will want us to share their perspective. Mottoes, slogans, the “bully pulpit” and the power of the press may work for now,^xiv but more powerful tools will be available in the future.

What can I say? The monks have it right. Silence is golden. But not for long. Mind-reading and thought control are in the wings.

What can you say? This is one of those cases where “less is more.” Or at least it's more desirable. Silence may be golden now, but it won't work forever. Take advantage of it while you can. So, for the moment, say as little as possible, and only to those you trust. Then, when your trust is violated, and that, unfortunately, is inevitable, you won't be too much at risk of misinterpretation.^xv But it will happen. So whatever you're thinking or saying, fuggedaboutit.

Next episode: “The Root Of All Evil” – And, in the words of Milton Berle, “I'm right in there rooting.”

i     First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1791.

ii     Politically Correct.

iii    For example, we never speak of “blind” people when referring to the visually challenged. Nor do we ever talk about Islam except to praise it. Saying anything else labels us as bigots.

iv    Any criticism may be viewed as bullying.

v     Never speak ill of the opposite sex. Or your sex. Or at all.

vi    Even businesses and labor unions require some degree of privacy, as do politicians. Negotiations and compromise are difficult in public where more posturing is necessary.

vii    With the ideas of whatever group you currently adhere to.

viii   Even if that idea is nowhere to be found in the document.

ix     At least we believe it's more privately.

x     Dick Tracy's wrist radio has grown up.

xi     They assume that others actually care.

xii   “Thoughts” by public figures seem to be public by design. They're formed to elicit publicity.

xiii   Typical examples are the Church's reaction to Galileo and science, the Nazi response to music – especially that by Jews, and the Communists' view of art and realism.

xiv    See 1984.

xv    Human nature is human nature. Don't expect it to change for you.