The Closing of the Harvard Mind
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
A
while back, after a German soccer team upset the favored British
national team, a columnist tried to console his distraught countrymen.
"Not to worry if the Germans beat us at our favorite sport," he
wrote. "After all, we beat them twice at theirs."
The
point of the joke, of course, is a German aptitude for war even
Napoleon recognized. "Prussia was hatched from a cannonball," said
the Corsican. After conquering Prussia, he led his officers to the
tomb of Frederick the Great, who had fought France, Austria and
Russia all at once. "Hats off, gentlemen," said Napoleon. "If he
were alive, we should not be here."
Vietnam
war hero Jim Webb in his splendid new book, Born
Fighting, pays tribute to the warrior qualities of the Scots-Irish
clan whence he came. From the Scottish lowlands to Ireland to the
Confederate army, Scots-Irish warriors have shown a bravery and
ferocity in battle, exemplified by the great Andrew Jackson.
Other
ethnic groups have excelled in other ways. Italians have produced
many of the world's great works of art and sculpture. African-Americans
invented the only original American form of music. If one were to
list the greatest running backs in NFL history, the greatest players
in NBA history, the greatest athletes in track and field, blacks
though 12 percent of our population would have several times
that representation in the respective halls of fame.
In
intellectual and academic pursuits and Nobel Prizes, one finds an
extraordinary overrepresentation of Jewish-Americans.
In
short, it seems not irrational to conclude God sprinkled his gifts
and talents unevenly among individuals and peoples. Early in the
20th century, Americans like Sen. Albert Beveridge argued that the
English and Americans were uniquely endowed with the gifts of governance
to rule the world.
Among
friends, at bars and around dinner tables, such things are commonly
discussed. The late great Murray Rothbard, the famed libertarian
and polymath, once confided to me at a most politically incorrect
dinner, "All stereotypes are true."
For
the "proles" of Orwell's 1984,
it is acceptable to loudly discuss such ideas. But in the house
of Big Brother, such heresies are hanging offenses, as Harvard's
president has found.
As
much of the country now knows, Larry Summers, at a closed session
in Boston to discuss the progress of women in academia, suggested
their under-representation might be due to the fact that boys outperform
girls at the highest levels of math and science.
Statistically,
this is undeniable. But Summers' suggestion there might be a link
between heredity and intelligence, between maleness and an aptitude
for higher math, just as there is between gender and strength, caused
one female Ph.D. to react as though she had been gassed.
"I
felt I was going to be sick," said biology professor Nancy Hopkins
of MIT. "My heart was pounding, and my breath was shallow."
"I
just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically
ill." Had she not fled from the room, said Hopkins, "I would've
either blacked out or thrown up."
Economics
professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, however, spoke up at the inquisition:
"I left with a sense of elation at his ideas. ... I was proud that
the president of my university retains the inquisitiveness of an
academic." As of now, count has been lost as to how many times Summers
has begged forgiveness.
So,
what does this tell us about Harvard, and about America?
Nothing
that is good.
That
a Ph.D. at MIT almost collapsed at hearing a central tenet of her
liberal orthodoxy questioned, that Summers has been forced to grovel
and apologize for an honest opinion, testifies to a neo-Stalinist
intolerance of politically incorrect thought at Harvard. Why are
U.S. taxpayers being forced to subsidize these liberal madrassas?
Harvard
is apparently home not only to the close-minded, but the snobbish.
"It's one thing for an ordinary person to shoot his mouth off like
that," sneered Hopkins, "but quite another for a top education leader."
What Hopkins is saying is that "ordinary" folks may be so stupid
as not to believe in egalitarianism, but no Harvard academic may
disbelieve and remain part of the intellectual elite.
But
Jefferson had it right. All men are created equal only in the sense
that they are all born with God-given rights to life and liberty.
As for who should rule, Jefferson wrote, it should be a "natural
aristocracy" based upon virtue and talent.
These
are to be discovered in the competition of life.
As
for the demand for more "diversity" at Harvard, for more women professors
of math and science, whether or not they are the highest achievers
which was the reason for the conference at which Summers spoke
it is born of a Marxist mindset.
This
is a mindset that cannot abide freedom and a meritocracy, for, all
too often, they fail to produce the equalities of result to which
all else, including justice, must be sacrificed.
January
31, 2005
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide,
is editor of The American
Conservative and the author of eight books, including A
Republic Not An Empire and the upcoming Where
the Right Went Wrong.
Copyright
© 2005 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|