|
This frightening ideology has not only blurred the line between liberalism and radicalism – it has destroyed it. This ideology cannot truly be called liberalism – it can only be called evil. And this evil must be eradicated before it spreads and engulfs the aspiring youth of our nation in its dark and shadowy tentacles.
The case of Sara Jane Olson has revealed the ugly and dangerous thought processes of the professorial ilk. Olson, 54, stands accused of the attempted murder of Los Angeles Police Department officers. Prosecutors say that the former member of the radical Symbionese Liberation Army planted bombs under the cars of two police officers in a "wide-ranging conspiracy to overthrow the government" in 1974 ("Judge may reject olson guilty plea," LA Times, Nov. 2). Olson pleaded guilty to this charge on Nov. 1, signing an agreement stating that she "is pleading guilty because she is in truth and fact guilty." However, she stated immediately afterward, "I pleaded to something of which I am not guilty." Why this sudden reversal?
Ostensibly, she fears that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 would hinder her ability to get a fair trial. With broad public support for government institutions, she fears that her attempted murder of police officers would seem like ... (gasp) attempted murder. Never mind that given a trial by jury, she could reject jurors she believed to be biased. And her guilty plea couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the prosecution had "an overwhelming case" against her.
Despite Olson's guilty plea, support from her comrades in the educational community comes streaming in. "I support Sara Olson," says Mary Brent Wehrli, a professor of social work at UCLA. A self-described radical, Wehrli has taught at UCLA for eight years. "Olson has been denied the right to a fair trial," says Wehrli. Erwin Chermerinsky, a professor of law at USC, concurs – his name, as well as Wehrli's, is on the Sara Olson Defense Fund Committee's official Web site.
Would these passionate defenders of public justice support an anti-abortion radical suspected of murdering an abortion doctor? Highly doubtful. Support for Olson is not based on an underlying fear of the criminal justice system. It is based on nothing less than support for Olson's anti-government, anti-establishment, radical ideals. These ideals can, according to the educational establishment, justify even murder.
Support for Mumia Abu-Jamal is another example of dangerously twisted thinking among the intellectuals at universities. Abu-Jamal is a former member of the Black Panthers and an influential writer and radio host, as well as a backer of the radical black group MOVE. He is also a murderer. He murdered Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, shooting him in the chest and in the neck. A jury of 12 citizens, two of them black, all 12 accepted by Abu-Jamal himself, sentenced him to death, and he currently awaits execution on death row. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court have both heard Abu-Jamal's evidence and upheld the judgement of the jury ("Mumia Abu-Jamal deserves punishment, not attention," Daily Bruin, Feb. 10, 2000).
On campus, Mumia Abu-Jamal is a hero. Wehrli says, "His case is a blight on the democratic process we all believe in." If so, how was he convicted? "Information which would have changed the outcome of the trial was not admitted," she states, "and the judge appeared to be racist and not open-minded – not unbiased." This despite a strong case against Mumia, including eyewitnesses, people who heard Abu-Jamal scream, "I shot the motherfucker and I hope he dies," and powerful scientific and ballistic evidence.
Still, Albert Boime, a professor of art history who has taught at UCLA since 1978, maintains, "Mumia is definitely innocent – he deserves another trial. He was unjustly persecuted, no doubt about it. He was probably persecuted for reasons ranging from personal reasons, such as his frequent verbal attacks on the police department, to political reasons, such as his defense of MOVE, which infuriated the police. They had a vendetta against him." This faith in the innocence of a convicted murderer is touching to be sure – it is highly unlikely that these same professors would support the killers of James Byrd. Only professors would be able to excuse the murder of a policeman by a Black Panther on ideological grounds.
This perverse and twisted thought process has been stuffed down the throats of the students with respect to the Sept. 11 attacks – and it has to stop. University professors blame the attacks on American foreign policy, American prosperity, the capitalist system, or any other Western ideology. The killing of more than 6,000 Americans is dismissed by saying that America has been asking for it. Says Marc Trachtenberg, a professor of political science at UCLA, "Despite the death of millions in the Middle East, we opted instinctively from the very start to turn a blind eye." Aamir Mufti, a Muslim professor of comparative literature at UCLA, states, "I am skeptical that we have even learned anything from this attack" ("Panel gives insight into Sept. 11," Daily Bruin, Oct. 4).
These are the people who will shape the youth of this country. These are the men and women who will forge college students into adults. They excuse murder. They promote terrorism. They stretch their arms toward their vulnerable students, leading them into moral oblivion. This is not a free speech issue; free speech cannot justify the willful endorsement of murder. This is an issue of good versus evil.
Their thoughts and actions cannot justify hatred and violence. Promoting these can only indoctrinate the students with hatred toward America, morality and Western values. Now is the time to demand that those shaping the future elite consider the ramifications of their actions.