Pamela, over at Atlas Shrugs, comments on the growing problem of banning conservative truth tellers from speaking at Columbia University. Michelle Malkin also provides her two cents worth.
This campus double standard actually evolved over a period of time only to reach its ugly pinnacle in recent years. A now classic book,The Closing Of The American Mind
In his introduction Bloom says about the modern student:
They are unified only in their relativism and their allegiance to equality. And the two are related in a moral intention. The relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it. They have all been equipped with this framework early on, and it is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional grounds for a free society. (p.25)
He further elaborates by suggesting that the understanding of what it means to be an American has changed. He goes on to say:
The old view was that, by recognizing and accepting man's natural rights, men found a fundamental basis for unity and sameness. Class, race, religion, national origin or culture all disappear or become dim when bathed in the light of natural rights, which give men common interests and make them truly brothers. The immigrant had to put behind him the claims of the Old World in favor of a new and easily acquired education. This did not necessarily mean abandoning old daily habits or religions, but it did mean subordinating them to new principles. There was a tendency, if not a necessity to homogenize nature itself. (p.27)
Bloom concludes with this compelling paragraph:
The recent education of openness has rejected all that. It pays no attention to natural rights or the historical origins of our regime, which are now thought to have been essentially flawed and regressive. It is progressive and forward looking. It does not demand fundamental agreement or the abandonment of old or new beliefs in favor of the natural ones. It is open to all kinds of men, all kinds of life styles, all ideologies. There is no enemy other than the man who is not open to everything. But when there are no shared goals or vision of the public good, is the social contract any longer possible?
Bloom cuts to the heart of the issue indicative not only of our universities but of our society as well- moral relativism. The enlightened soul possesses no absolutes. The uneducated, regressive mind, espouses absolutes. Conservatives and religious people represent this absolutist regressive mindset. Moral relativism incarnates itself in multiculturalism among other isms. Multiculturalist thinking, within the context of relativism, declares that even the jihadists must have their say, and we must listen to them. Universities institutionalize this new progressive thought. To question its actions on the basis of traditional moral values, threatens the very institution.
Moral relativism itself represents a form of close minded fundamentalism. This particular fundamentalism exists on the opposite end of the scale from religious fundamentalism.
Yet, it embraces many of the same principles. In essence relativism declares that we must look at life through a single lens- the lens of everything goes except absolutes. The danger of this mentality lies in its own kind of absolutism. It places little value on human life. It prizes only the philosophy that the human being holds dear. If an individual places utmost value in relativism he is welcomed and highly esteemed. On the other hand, if he bases his beliefs on absolutes he is of little worth and must pay a price for his evil. The worst case scenario ends in utter chaos and despotism.
Bloom's book, written in 1986, will leave you saying to yourself, "That's why these intellectual morons do what they do."
Comments