Universities and the attack on religion

The primary purpose of university presidents is to raise funds for the university.  The university boards select the person that can best relate to the hot buttons of the potential donor base.

In the case of Ivy League institutions (not to be confused with “mental institutions”, although I understand the confusion), the most lucrative potential donor base is comprised of leftist, mostly atheist, woke, white rich people who feel guilt about slavery. 

Who better to fit that role than a black, female leftist whose academic specialty is the advance of globalism and increasing diversity, except for Jews.  Enter Claudine Gay of Hahvid.

Over the past several years there have been numerous instances of conservative speakers being banned from university campuses.  The reasons given focused around other students feeling “threatened” or concerns about violence from leftists who objected to free speech, although the excuses were never quite that transparent.  Free speech was taboo for conservatives on campus.

But when it comes to promoting the extermination of Jews (or probably any religious group except Islam) free speech is protected and condoned.

Going to the nub of the matter, universities have a strong bias against religion.  They believe they take the high moral road by defining the group they believe are “oppressed” (blacks, Muslims, Palestinians) and tailoring their warped sense of morality and fairness to defend and promote those groups, no matter what crimes or atrocities they commit.  US urban riots, George Floyd and October 7th come to mind.

The consequence of this warped mindset is that the rule of law and traditional morality go out the window.  Rioting, acts of terror, and atrocities become justifiable because they are committed by the “oppressed.”

Most religions have a set of immutable moral standards.  These absolutes get in the way of the leftist mindset.  The leftist college president, university donors and professors, and most students don’t tolerate any constraint on addressing their version of the “oppressed.”  Religious people are in their way because morality is in their way.  So they create their own morality:  Extremism in defense of liberation is no vice, to mangle the words that Goldwater was condemned for.

Even plagiarism by a university president has been declared A OK by the university that alleges such high standards. That is just another instance of a corrupt system not wanting to be shackled by old fashioned rules so they can promote their own agenda of “liberation.”