As readers know, the “Diversity” opposition to our Free Harvard/Fair Harvard Overseer campaign did absolutely everything it could to avoid allowing a public debate between our respective positions, refusing to participate themselves and then heavily pressuring Harvard’s Chinese Students Association to withdraw their sponsorship of a public debate.
Fortunately, they failed, and the two hour debate was still held, though under different sponsorship. While on campus, I was told by one student that if he published an op-ed in the Crimson critical of Affirmative Action, he would be subjected to a massive campaign of vilification and there would be widespread demands for his immediate expulsion. Hence our public debate on closely-related issues was almost unprecedented in Harvard’s current intellectual climate of fear. Regardless of whether you are a liberal or a conservative, I think this is an outrageous state of affairs at one of world’s most prestigious centers of higher education.
Due to the miracles of modern technology and YouTube, our debate is now online and available for the entire world to see, discuss, and easily share on Social Media.
I was quite pleased with how it came out, especially since I’d only gotten a couple of hours sleep on the red-eye flight out from California which had arrived earlier that morning. And a few hours later I was back at the airport on my way home again, making this an exhausting but very productive East Coast trip.
And a couple of days earlier, my 35m discussion of our campaign with Ralph Nader on the Pacifica Radio Network, America’s leading leftwing media group, had been released, which was highly informative and also went very well:
Meanwhile, some of you may have heard of the totally ridiculous article the Crimson published a couple of days ago luridly presenting my alleged connections to “rightwing extremists.” They initially indicated they would be willing to publish my reply, debunking their nonsense, but after reading my submission now seem to have changed their minds, perhaps fearful that the effectiveness of my response might risk “confusing” their readers. So I’ll probably have to publish it elsewhere.
It’s a sad day when freedom of speech and thought are under siege at my old university, while the campus newspaper engages in what might reasonably be called “character assassination based on guilt-by-association” and does not even provide reasonable right-of-reply.