David Horowitz

Leon Lemmer: Michael Rectenwald smelt sneeuvlokkies

Die inligting wat Suid-Afrikaners via die inligtingsmedia bereik, is meesal in Engels en dikwels uit Amerika en Engeland afkomstig. In hierdie lande is sneeu ‘n veel meer alledaagse verskynsel as in Suid-Afrika. Amerika is by uitstek die bron van nuwe woorde, asook die toekenning van nuwe betekenisse aan woorde. ‘n Woord wat sedert 2010 in die politieke literatuur gewild geword het, is “sneeuvlokkies”. Polities byderwets is die simmetriese struktuur van alle sneeuvlokkies eenders. Wat in daardie geledere glad nie aanvaarbaar is nie, is dat alle sneeuvlokkies wit is. Maar die broosheid van sneeu, bv as die son daarop skyn, speel ‘n deurslaggewende rol by die keuse van sneeu as simbool vir die selektief geïdentifiseerde kwesbares in die samelewing.

In die konteks van die politiek word die volgende betekenis deesdae aan die woord “sneeuvlokkie” (snowflake) toegeken: “An overly sensitive or easily offended person, or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics” (Oxford English Dictionary). Byvoorbeeld, Wim de Villiers ervaar “pyn” namens bruin mense omdat in ‘n akademies-wetenskaplike studie bevind is dat ‘n groep bruin vroue, wat intellektuele vermoë betref, ondergemiddeld presteer. Sowel De Villiers as diegene wat vanweë hierdie bevinding na bewering seergekry het, kan as sneeuvlokkies geëtiketteer word; brose, emosioneel oorsensitiewe wesens wat nie ‘n stelling kan hanteer wat met hulle eie (openbare) mening verskil nie. Hulle verstaan nie die wesenlike aard van die universiteit en akademies-wetenskaplike navorsing nie (Praag 19.01.2019 en 9.02.2019).

Michael Rectenwald (gebore in 1959) kom uit ‘n Duits-Amerikaanse Rooms-Katolieke gesin. Hy het boeke oor Britse sekularisme, vrye denke en agnostisisme gepubliseer. Sy volgende boek, Google archipelo: The digital gulag and the similation of freedom, sal vanjaar in Augustus gepubliseer word. Ek beperk my aandag egter tot sy boek wat onlangs gepubliseer is: Springtime for snowflakes: ‘Social justice’ and its postmodern parentage: a memoir (Nashville: New English Review Press, 2018, 151p; Amazon Kindle $11,49). Die outeur verwys hierna as “this controversial book” (Kindle 1959). Rectenwald het die graad BA aan Pittsburgh University (1983), die graad MA in Engels aan Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland (1997), en die graad PhD in Literary and Cultural Studies aan die Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2004), verwerf. Hy het aan laasgenoemde twee universiteite gedoseer, asook aan Duke University, North Carolina Central University (NCCU) en vanaf 2008 as professor in Liberal Studies aan New York University tot sy aftrede in Januarie 2019.

Die NCCU in Durham is ‘n histories swart universiteit (1519). Wat Rectenwald daar ervaar het, is “teaching vastly underprepared students” (1650). Diesulkes het ná 1994 in Suid-Afrika gesogte studentemateriaal aan die histories blanke universiteite geword. “Leaned forward” is die ingesteld wat ‘n dosent moet aankweek, wat eintlik “left-leaning” beteken (1542). Rectenwald het ‘n “writing-across-the-curriculum- (WAC)” program as ‘n gesamentlike onderneming van die NCCU en Duke University, albei in Durham, tot stand probeer bring (1602), maar sy pogings is telkens deur ‘n swart kollega, Karen Jackson, gefnuik. Daarna het Jackson WAC suksesvol tot stand gebring en groot lof daarvoor ontvang terwyl sy in werklikheid Rectenwald se idee gesteel het. “Jackson had surreptitiously buried, then subsequently stolen and taken sole credit for this idea, an idea that one might say was my idea. Yet she was the proprietary one, only the property she claimed wasn’t hers” (1616). Hierdie diefstal is soortgelyk aan die onteiening sonder vergoeding van blankes se plase. Die swartes ontvang die plase sonder inspanning en suiwer op grond van ras terwyl die blankes die barre grond tot suksesvolle plase ontwikkel het. Hierdie strategie word deesdae sosiale geregtigheid genoem.

Wat opval, is enersyds die laat stadium waarin Rectenwald gevorderde formele kwalifikasies verwerf het, wat sy kort akademiese loopbaan verstaanbaar maak. Die verklaring hiervoor is dat hy aanvanklik voltyds in die advertensiebedryf werksaam was en daarna deeltyds studeer het. Dit het groot opofferings geverg, wat onder meer daartoe gelei het dat hy en sy vrou geskei het. Hulle het drie kinders. Andersyds kan afgelei word dat linkse politiek in die Engelsdepartemente van baie Amerikaanse universiteite ‘n oorheersende rol speel, vandaar die verwysings na Cultural en Liberal Studies in die voorlaaste paragraaf hier bo. Dit is soortgelyk aan wat in departemente van bv kulturele/sosiale antropologie en sosiologie aan plaaslike universiteite gebeur; kortom, kulturele marxisme word gepredik.

“As its founders Stuart Hall, Raymond Williams and EP Thompson suggested, Cultural Studies was invented to be a politically radical engagement with culture, especially ‘low’ forms, including mass media and other popular culture.* Hall, Williams, and Thompson were Marxists. They saw culture as a form of power and a carrier of capitalist ideology. Combined with Antonio Gramsci’s [1891-1937] ideas about ‘cultural hegemony’, Cultural Studies, and not the Frankfurt School, is the real source of anything like ‘Cultural Marxism’, the menace decried by many on the right. Cultural Studies accounts for a good share of our ‘radicals in the academy'” (721). Plaaslik was Jakes Gerwel ‘n Gramsci-aanhanger.

[* Dit kan “McDonaldization” genoem word (751).]

Hoewel Rectenwald in sy boek die postmodernisme, sosiale geregtigheid as sy spruit, die tere sneeuvlokkies wat hierdie idees predik en die sogenaamde brose benadeeldes wat beskerm moet word, uitmuntend uitbeeld, voel hy sterk daaroor dat hy nie regse politiek onderskryf nie. Dalk is dit só bloot om nie te erken in watter mate hy hom regs geheroriënteer het nie. “I was not a Trump supporter; I was never a right-winger, or an alt-right-winger; I was never a conservative of any variety. Hell, I wasn’t even a classical John Stuart Mill [1806-1873] liberal. In fact, for several years, I had identified as a left or libertarian communist … I became a well-respected Marxist thinker and essayist. I had flirted with a Trotskyist sect, and later became affiliated with a loosely organized left or liberarian communist group” (368). Deur wat hy was te beklemtoon, probeer Rectenwald om homself te beskerm teen kritiek oor wat hy geword het.

Rectenwald het mettertyd marxisme afgesweer en polities minder links geword. “I could no longer identify as a leftist” (398). “I now saw the authoritarianism and embryonic totalitarianism that had been hidden beneath a thin veneer of egalitarian rhetoric … I could not call myself a communist” (1831). Rectenwald se verlede dien blykbaar as ‘n soort versekeringspolis sodat hy nie as regs – wat deesdae meesal as “verregs” verdoem word – geëtiketteer word nie, want dit sou vir hom ‘n onhoudbare situasie in die universiteitswese geskep het. Daarom verwys hy graag “to my own quite visible historical support for the disadvantaged and oppressed” (1550) en “I rejected an essential difference between racial groups” (1557).

‘n Mens tref hierdie selfde vrees vir etikettering as regs by talle mense aan wat andersins voortreflike werk doen. Byvoorbeeld, Tommy Robinson (gebore in 1982) het met voorbeeldige ywer sy patriotiese English Defence League ingespan om die nadelige gevolge van Moslem immigrasie op die Britse kultuur wêreldkundig te maak. Hy is ook in Pegida (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) bedrywig. Robinson skryf: “To make things clear from the outset, I really, really don’t care about the colour of those people’s skin or the nature of their religion” (Tommy Robinson, Enemy of the state, Press News, 2015, 326p; Amazon Kindle $11.49, 92). Hy opper geen beswaar teen swartes in die Britse samelewing nie en verbroeder selfs met hulle. Sy weerstand is uitsluitlik teen die Moslems gemik, maar hulle gedrag is juis die direkte gevolg van die religie wat hulle aanhang. In die Wikipedia word Robinson sonder meer as verregs beskryf. Smeerveldtogte en intimidasie maak baie mense lugtig vir etikettering as polities regs.

Afgesien van my eerstehandse ervaring het ek eerder te veel as te min oor die Amerikaanse universiteitswese gelees. David Horowitz het uitstekende boeke daaroor geskryf, bv One party classroom: How radical professors at American top colleges indoctrinate students and undermine our democracy (2009, 338p; Amazon Kindle $5,74) en The professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America (2013, 448p; Amazon Kindle $11.56). Een van hierdie gevaarlike dosente is Ward Churchill (Praag 19.02.2017). In Robert Maranto, Richard E Redding en Frederick M Hess (reds) se boek, The political correct university: Problems, scope, and reforms (2009, 346p; Amazon Kindle $18,98) word statistiek aangebied om aan te toon hoe uiters linksgesind die oorgrote meerderheid dosente aan Amerikaanse universiteite is, bv 62 tot 72% linksgesindes teenoor 12 tot 15% regsgesindes (Kindle 1257); in Engelsdepartemente 85% liberale dosente teenoor 3% konserwatiewes (1238) met 69% wat die Demokratiese Party ondersteun teenoor 2% wat die Republikeinse Party aanhang (1238).

Hierdie linksgesindes word veral in die sosiale wetenskappe en humaniora aangetref, met die Engelsdepartemente polities meer radikaal as enige ander departement. Rectenwald verwys na die “primary incubator of the social justice creed: the field of English Studies” (413). ‘n Soortgelyke situasie doen hom in Brittanje voor. Wat te meer ontstellend is, is dat die verlinksing van die akademie neig om al hoe groter afmetings aan te neem (Maranto 1314). Die resultaat kom neer om niks anders nie as die indoktrinasie van studente deur hoofsaaklik linksgesindes; ‘n verskynsel wat ongetwyfeld ook in Suid-Afrika al hoe groter afmetings aanneem. Jon A Shields en Joshua M Dunn was braaf genoeg om ‘n waarderende boek oor ‘n verdwynende spesie te skryf: Passing on the right: Conservative professors in the progressive university (2016, 255p; Amazon Kindle $15,17).

Rectenwald kom uit ‘n werkersklasgesin, die sewende van nege kinders. Sy pa het huise in Pittsburgh gerestoreer. Weens klasverskille was Rectenwald as skolier nie vir die hoërskool van sy keuse aanvaarbaar nie. Dit verduidelik in ‘n mate sy vroeë marxisme, maar sonder dat hy studente daarin wou indoktrineer: “I asserted and defended intellectual pursuits for their own sake” (480). Hy het vir mediese onderrig aan die University of Pittsburgh geregistreer, maar na twee jaar eerder tot die Engelse letterkunde aangetrokke gevoel, onder meer omdat hy ‘n aspirant digter en kortverhaalskrywer was.

‘n Semester lank was Rectenwald die assistent en student van Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997) – die Beat-geslag se anti-materialistiese, anti-kapitalistiese, pro-dwelms, Boeddhistiese homoseksueel – aan die Naropa Institute (Naropa University sedert 1988) in Boulder, Colorado. “He knew that I had been having my own season in hell and that he was a major character in it” (587). “Ginsberg did prefigure postmodernism, if not contributing to it directly. The electicism of his poetry, the inclusion of everything that crossed his mind, the juxtaposition of low and high culture [etc] … are among the features that marked him as a postmodern forerunner” (640). “I believe that Ginsberg would be utterly appalled by and severely critical of the social justice left’s authoritarian character – its censorious, censoring, and prohibitionist proclivities” (647).

Rectenwald was reeds in sy dertigerjare toe hy besluit het om nagraadse kwalifikasies te verwerf en ‘n dosent in die Engelse letterkunde te word – “what I took for the last remaining haven of intellectual independence – academia. I would learn much later that academia demands as much if not more conformity than any other corporate field. In fact, the conformity penetrates much more deeply. You not only have to buy into the ideology, you must rehearse and recapitulate it without fail. Otherwise, you are deemed politically regressive. You might even be a ‘Nazi'” (698). Dit is waarom ons deesdae dikwels aanhoor dat ons moet “bykom” of “aanbeweeg”. “I resented that [someone] somehow saw me as politically regressive based on an apparent preference for literature over anthropology or sociology” (744). “Little did I know, although the field never ceases to critize the capitalist marketplace and the commodification of the worker and culture, English Studies is no less commodified than any other profession. In fact, the attention and consideration required to ‘package’, ‘brand’ and ‘re-brand’ the scholar and her [!] work is as thoroughgoing if not more so than anything I’d done as a pitchman for consumer brands” (736).

Hy wou ‘n sinvolle beroep beoefen. “The main requirement for meaningful work as I saw it was intellectual autonomy, the freedom and independence to think, write, explore, and teach what I came to know” (660). Rectenwald is ‘n aanhanger van individualiteit, gevolglik is hy teen televisie gekant. Oor televisie skryf hy: “It ironized, ridiculed, and eroded individuality by virtue of appealing to the exclusive existence of a non-descript and self-effacing mass selfhood” (667). “Exactly like other industries, culture is now mass-produced … cultural products exhibit homogeneity and erase all signs of individuality – in the artistry, the artists, and in their consumers. Most importantly, the ultimate yield is not the cultural products themselves, but rather the formatting of leisure time and thereby the consciousness of the consumer-producer” (781).

Toe Rectenwald vir sy eerste graad studeer het, het hy kennis met Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) se boek, The structure of scientific revolutions (1961), gemaak. “Kuhn described major revolutions in science in terms of ‘paradigm shifts’ … By suggesting that science responded to shifts in convention, authority, and social beliefs, Kuhn seemed to leave the door open for sociologists and others, who saw in his work a confession of sorts, an admission that science could be impacted by cultural and social forces, which sociologists could study, and thereby explain the very content of scientific knowledge in terms of social factors … Kuhn disavowed such interpretations … He saw science as driven by its own impetus and internal logic, and not by such external factors as ideology or social interests” (729).

Wat hier gebeur, is soortgelyk aan wat die linkses in die konteks van oorerwing/genetika (DNS) en aanlering (“nature and nurture”) doen. Dit is ‘n onbetwisbare empiriese feit dat sommige mense, selfs binne dieselfde gesin, slim en ander dom gebore word; dat opvoeding en onderrig daardie fundamentele aanvangsverskil nie kan uitwis nie. Desnieteenstaande predik die linkses dat almal net dieselfde geleenthede gegun moet word; dan sal dit glo blyk dat ons almal fundamenteel eenders en (bv intellektueel) gelyk is. Wanneer dit by die kwessie van homoseksualiteit kom, speel die linkses die spel presies andersom. Daar word meesal beweer dat alle homoseksuele so gebore word. Dit is egter baie duidelik dat ons in ‘n era lewe waarin homoseksualiteit ‘n modeverskynsel geword het wat as hoogs eerbaar aanbeveel word en wat gevolglik in baie gevalle aangeleer word.

Die wanvertolking van Kuhn se wetenskapsleer het aan die daarstelling van die postmodernisme meegehelp. Op sy beurt “postmodern theory can be understood as the philosophical response to the failure of Marxism” (835). “I retained postmodern theory as a ‘supplement’ … it served as both an addition to Marxism, and as a possible substitute for it” (880). Dit is nodig om duidelikheid oor die aard van modernisme en postmodernisme te verkry. Modernisme: “(1) die gees van wat nuut is op allerlei gebiede; (2) rigting in die kuns en letterkunde wat poog om die bande met die klassieke en tradisionele vorme te verbreek; (3) vrysinnigheid op godsdienstige gebied” (HAT). Postmodernisme: “denkrigting in onder meer die argitektuur, kunste, kultuur en filosofie wat voortvloei uit en reageer op die modernisme van die twintigste eeu, onder meer gekenmerk deur ‘n wantroue in teorieë en ideologieë” (HAT).

Die postmodernisme is vir Rectenwald van belang omdat dit in 2016 (20) die euwel van sosiale geregtigheid (“social justice”) as stiefkind in die akademie gebaar het (13). “Postmodern theory may be properly understood as the ‘missing link’ between the older Marxist left and the contemporary social justice left … it is necessary to understand social justice as ‘practical postmodernism'” (1890) en as “the political expression of postmodern theory” (152).* Postmodernisme is ‘n ideologie wat uit die jare sestig dateer en wil afbreek wat vóór dit kultureel daargestel is; vandaar die groot rol wat dekonstruksie daarin speel (797). “Postmodern philosophy has even been characterized, by [Jean-François] Lyotard [1924-1998], as preceding modern philosophy” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed, 1999, p 725).

[* Dat dit wesenlik om (linkse) politiek gaan, blyk uit die postmodernistiese standpunt dat “‘truth’ is merely a reflection of the dominant culture, [therefore] we have a duty to deconstruct that truth and so empower those who lack power” (Edward Dutton, Race differences in ethnocentrism, London: Arktos, 2019, 276p; Amazon Kindle $12,64, 450).]

Postmodernisme kan ‘n teruggryping na paganisme en primitiwiteit insluit. Op hierdie manier “[it] sought to dissolve the divisions between art, popular culture, and the media” (Collins World Encyclopedia, 2003, p 746). Kortom, ontwikkelde of hoë kultuur en (Westerse/Europese) beskawing word verdag gemaak en afgewater. Wysgerige stelsels, omvattende wêreld- en lewensbeskouings, sogenaamde meesternarratiewe, word afgewys. Maar daar word selektief te werk gegaan. “Marxism was a totalitarian master-narrative” (Rectenwald 912), maar dít word nie deur die postmoderniste verwerp nie. Hulle skep alternatiewe meesternarratiewe. Byvoorbeeld, polities word (blanke) prestasies as bevoorregting (“privilege”) asook as onverdiend bevoordeling (“unearned advantage”) afgemaak (28); dus as onregverdigbare toe-eiening (“unjustifiable appropriation”). Nie net bv plase nie maar hele lande (bv Suid-Afrika) behoort nie aan diegene wat eeue lank geswoeg het om hulle te ontwikkel nie maar dikwels eerder aan hedendaagse niksnutte wat hulle bv tot misdaad en selfs terrorisme en volksmoord kan wend om hulle bose doel te bereik. Die ANC se beoogde onteiening sonder vergoeding van blankes se eiendom, dus diefstal, is eie aan kommunisme: “Marxists argue that ‘natural rights’, such as the property rights, are not natural at all but rather cultural, economic, historical – political arrangements supported by a particular socio-economic structure” (865).

Naas Lyotard het ander Franse filosowe ‘n leidende rol in die ontwikkeling van postmoderne teorie gespeel, bv Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) en die obseen-vernietigendste van almal, Michel Foucault (1926-1984) (797). In die sielkunde het Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) en in bv die letterkunde en feminisme het Julia Kristeva (gebore in 1941) die postmoderne ideologie aangevul (805). In die sosiologie het Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) as teenhanger vir ekonomiese kapitaal die begrip kulturele kapitaal staangemaak (927), gevolglik word daar vir ons in die nuwe Suid-Afrika vertel dat blanke plase in swart geledere blanke mag simboliseer wat as historiese erflating vernietig moet word. Swartes is vry om enige benaming vir blankes toe te snou, maar as blankes sommige geykte woorde met onvervangbare seggingskrag gebruik, loop hulle die gevaar dat buitensporige boetes en selfs tronkstraf aan hulle opgelê word. Blankes wat plase en ander eiendom besit of tradisionele benamings vir nie-blankes gebruik, pleeg volgens Bourdieu simboliese geweld. Werklike fisiese en liggaamlike geweld word swartes egter nie (in dieselfde mate) toegereken as die simboliese geweld wat blankes glo pleeg nie. Uit die oogpunt van beskawing is daar myns insiens ‘n fundamentele verskil tussen fisiese en simboliese, bv talige, geweld; laasgenoemde is nie eens ‘n vulletjie in vergelyking met fisiese geweld, bv in die Nelson Mandela-tradisie, nie. (Kyk hier onder vir diskursiewe geweld.)

In die letterkunde het postmoderniste teruggegryp na die linguistiek van Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), wat die nie-noodsaaklike verband tussen woorde en hulle betekenisse aangetoon het. Die betekenis van bv “stoel” en “tafel” kon goedsmoeds omgeruil gewees het. Postmoderniste misbruik die werk van De Saussure om die meervoudige betekenis (“polysemy”) van woorde te oordryf. Byvoorbeeld, Roland Barthes (1915-1980) oorbeklemtoon die oopheid van tekste. Lesers kan inderdaad dieselfde teks verskillend vertolk, maar dit kan net binne perke geregverdig word. Oordrywing kan tot wensdenkery lei. Dink bv aan hoe mense soos André Bartlett, Chris Jones en Frits en Laurie Gaum die Bybel vertolk om hulle pro-homoseksuele agenda te pas.

Derrida verabsoluteer die seggingskrag van tekste in so ‘n mate dat hy beweer “there is no outside of text” (820). Taal word dan ‘n geslote, selfdienende stelsel wat van sy eksterne verwysings, bv fisiese objekte, gestroop is. Dit herinner aan George Berkeley (1685-1753) se ekstreme idealisme/vergeesteliking: “to be [real] is to be perceived – nothing exists apart from perception.” Bruno Latour en Steve Woolgar het in hulle boek, Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (1979), die objekte wat die natuurwetenskappe bestudeer tot teks gereduseer (1223). Dit het aanleiding tot “the Science Wars” gegee, as teenhanger vir “the Culture Wars” (1238).

‘n Teks het ‘n konkrete skepper, die outeur, maar ook dié word afgebreek in Barthes se The death of the author (1968). Die teks word beskou as ‘n multi-dimensionele ruimte waaraan die leser betekenisse heg, met die outeur wat volgens Foucault beperkend hierop inwerk (941). “The author is not the source of meaning but rather a limiter of it … authors do not create works. Works create their authors. The author is a function of the text, a product of language, not its source … Subjectivity itself is a function of language … The self is a product of text. This notion forms the basis of the transgender theoretical position that one’s gender identity depends, finally, on naming” (949). Dus: Jy is wat jy jouself noem. Jy besluit self wat jou identiteit is, bv of jy ‘n man of vrou of ‘n geslagsmengsel is.

Die outeur (972) en talle ander verskynsels, veral dié waarvan polities byderwets nie gehou word nie, word konstrukte genoem. Direk teen die empiriese feite in word beweer: “The facts of biology have nothing to do with the ‘reality’ of gender identity” (1260). “Radical constructivism can be found in the social justice movement, particularly in transgender theory. Transgender theory holds that empirical data – chromosomes, anatomy, physiology, and hormones – do not determine gender. Gender is determined by beliefs about empirical information, and ultimately, by naming, by language” (1315). Sowel Barthes as Foucault was homoseksueel. Dit is diesulkes wat die grondslag vir ‘n nuwe sonde gelê het: “I was guilty of a social justice version of original sin – the inexpiable sin of being born into white straight masculinity” (1199).

Homoseksualiteit het deesdae skynbaar ‘n hoër en onaantasbaarder status as heteroseksualiteit. As modeverskynsel dank homoseksualiteit sy opgang aan Karl Marx en Friedrich Engels wat in 1848 geskryf het “that the modern family was a product and function of capitalism” (1409). Dit verduidelik die fel aanslag deur kulturele marxiste, dikwels in feministiese (insluitende lesbiese) gewaad, teen die tradisionele gesin. Samevattend: Hoewel die aanhangers van postmodernisme soms ‘n greintjie waarheid beet gehad en veral dogmatisme laat wankel het, is dit ‘n benadering wat uitmunt in dwarsheid en deurlopend deur eie gerasionaliseerde retoriek gevoed word, sodat die resultate kultureel oorwegend destruktief is.

Ná die era van postmodernisme het sosiale geregtigheid in 2016 in die akademie op die voorgrond getree. Rectenwald se nagraadse studie was eerder in tekstuele politiek as in Engelse taal- en letterkunde. “Dead white men had ruled the English canon long enough” (1027). “Other suspects were singled out for prosecution – including an exclusive focus on the text itself (New Criticism), assuming the centrality or superiority of European culture (Eurocentrism), implicitly endorsing heterosexuality as a norm (heteronormativity) … and the privileging of the masculine in the construction of meaning (phallogocentrism” (1035). “In 1955, the sexologist John Money seeded the gender jackpot when he introduced the term ‘gender roles’ … gender was a ‘social construct’ – the woven product of socialization and social environment, as opposed to nature” (1096). “The transgender movement has since turned gender into a matter of individual whimsy, treating gender ‘choice’ like an ice-cream flavor preference” (1103).

“The social justice notion that each person has their own truth … can be traced to [György] Lukács” (1885-1971), ‘n marxis – soos so baie van diegene wat ‘n leidende rol in postmodernisme en sosiale geregtigheid gespeel het en steeds speel. “For social justice believers, knowledge is personal, individual, and impenetrable to others” (1177). Subjektiewe kennis word onbetwisbare kennis geag en neem die plek in van neutrale en objektiewe kennis (1035). “According to postmodern theory, the very idea of ‘objective truth’ is a master narrative. Under social justice ideology, objective truth is a legacy of patriarchal white supremacy” (1192).

Die stryders vir sosiale geregtigheid kry dit reg om net so absurd soos die postmodernes te wees. “Social justice ideology does not foster egalitarianism. Rank is maintained, only the bottom becomes the top when the totem pole of identity is inevitably flipped upside-down and stood on its head. (Rank is established on the basis of intersectionality, a grid for determining the number of ways that a subject is subordinated based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and so forth.) Is it any wonder then that social justice warriors compete valiantly for the status of ‘most subordinated’ in the games derogatorily referred to as ‘the Oppression Olympics?’ The race to the bottom is really a race to the top – although the race is downhill” (1185).

Die hooggeprese Belydenis van Belhar (1986), waarmee die VGK te koop loop en die produk van mense soos Jaap Durand en Allan Boesak se politieke wensdenkery eerder as Bybelgebaseerd is, is deurdrenk met dieselfde sterk gif van sosiale geregtigheid. Daarvolgens hoort die onderstes ook bo: “God … op ‘n besondere wyse die God van die noodlydende, die arme en die verontregte is.”

Hierdie proses, waarvolgens die onderstes bo móét kom, het Rectenwald as egte akademikus tereg gegrief. “Resorting to blatant tokenism in hiring and promotion jeopardizes the integrity of higher education” (1710). Maar dit het ook aan Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite algemeen aanvaarde praktyk geword: dosente word in groot mate op grond van ras gewerf, aangestel en bevorder pleks van suiwer ingevolge akademiese verdienste. “There is no necessary connection between identity and ideas, identity and talents, identity and aspirations, or identity and beliefs … if we want to foster real diversity in higher education, we had better consider not only diversity of identity but also diversity of thought and perspective. It is this kind of diversity that we are supposed to recognize and foster in the first place” (1717). Dit is diversiteit van idees wat skromelik aan die oorwegend linkse Amerikaanse en Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite ontbreek.

Hier bo is aangetoon dat ‘n mens ingevolge postmoderrnisme en sosiale geregtigheid na bewering die (onvervreembare) reg het om jou eie identiteit te kies, bv of jy ‘n man of ‘n vrou of ‘n mengsel van hierdie twee is. “Oregon and California have implemented a third gender choice on driver’s licenses and other forms of identification” (1784). “Gender (or even sex difference) is determined by beliefs … and ultimately by language … Gender identities exist along a spectrum … sliding between the distant poles of ‘cis’* and trans … gender can ‘change from day to day'” (1748). “Under social justice ideology, belief claims trump empirical evidence. Scientific evidence itself is deemed white supremacist, sexist, and patriarchal” (1756).

[* cis: “Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth” (Wikipedia).]

Die jaar 2016 was die keerpunt in Rectenwald se lewe. “The University of Michigan [in Ann Arbor] instituted a policy whereby students were offered a carte blanche pronoun preference opportunity. Students were encouraged to choose existing pronouns or create pronouns of their choice, without limitation … they could then demand to be called by these pronouns inside the classroom. No matter what pronouns a student chose, the university promised to honor their choices. One clever student entered ‘His Majesty’ as his chosen pronoun … The satirical trope hilariously underscored the absurdity of gender and pronoun proliferation, and the institutional lunacy that has attempted to keep pace with it. It was a send-up of the university administrators who enacted such a policy but also underscored the absurdity that the social justice movement had managed to have codified within institutions of higher education” (1726). “The social justice creed … was made official policy in most colleges and universities in North America” (127). Rectenwald was keelvol hiervan. Die besluit van die University of Michigan was die sneller wat hom in opstand laat kom en hom tot aksie laat oorgaan het.

“That very night [September 12, 2016 – 156) I created the Twitter account – the notorious DeplorableNYUProf, with the @antipcnyuprof handle” (1741) – NYU = New York University, pc = politically correct. In die boek is daar ‘n bylaag met sy “best tweets”, bv “Political correctness is a code to silence dissent as Western society is razed” (2022). Hy verwys na die “PC Gestapo” (178, 337). In ‘n ander bylaag is daar ‘n seleksie van sy Facebook-inskrywings. In sy twiets en elders toon Rectenwald aan dat “social justice activism is limited to particular forms of textual signaling, primarily to ‘virtue signaling’ and ‘call-out’. Virtue signaling is the announcement of one’s political (and moral) worthiness and virtue, often by means of an implicit or explicit comparison of oneself to politically ‘evil’ others. Call-out refers to the ritualized, direct denunciations of politically evil individuals and groups. It sometimes calls for their loss of employment in addition to their loss of social standing” (1929). Wat Rectenwald in die sosiale media geskryf het, het binne enkele dae tot gevolg gehad dat hy verplig is om met betaalde verlof te gaan. Hy is eers die jaar daarna toegelaat om sy doseerpligte te hervat, terwyl sy kantoor na ‘n ander gebou as dié van die Engelsdepartement verskuif is.

“On college [university] campuses, social justice is evident with the prevalence of [1] ‘safe spaces’, [2] ‘trigger warnings’, [3] ‘bias reporting hotlines’, and [4] the ‘no-platforming’ of speakers – to say nothing of speech codes” (43). Laasgenoemde is plaaslik aan ons bekend as bv “haatspraak”, waarvolgens nie-blankes, veral swartes, nie geëtiketteer mag word met benamings waarvan hulle nie hou nie.

[1] “In colleges and universities, safe spaces are areas set aside for victims of unpleasant speech acts or ‘discursive violence’. I have argued that in the context of higher education, safe spaces constitute a means of self-imposed cultural containment … a corked ‘jug’ of cultural isolation” (50). Veilige ruimtes beskerm studente teen die aanhoor van idees waarvan hulle nie hou nie, terwyl dit ‘n wesenskenmerk van universiteite behoort te wees om alle studente met ‘n wye verskeidenheid van idees te laat kennis maak. Die gebruik van die k-woord word ingevolge sosiale geregtigheid as diskursiewe geweld beskou en ‘n groot bohaai word daaroor opgeskop, maar werklike misdadige en terroristiese geweld, bv plaasmoorde, word nie naastenby met dieselfde felheid veroordeel nie. ‘n Vindingryke verwikkeling is dat Dan Roodt die woord “kaderboetie” gebruik (Twitter 6.06.2019).

[2] “Originating in feminist social media sites and blogs, the trigger warning migrated to the academy, where it became expected on syllabi for alerting students about course content that may be stressful, or ‘triggering’ of negative emotions. Not only do trigger warnings curtail expression … the trend can lead to the removal of offensive texts from the curriculum entirely” (58). In die praktyk kom dit daarop neer dat lesings en voorgeskrewe materiaal polities byderwets moet wees; dat linkse (nie-blanke) studente as tere sneeuvlokkies beskou moet word wat nie ontstig mag word en tot ander en dalk beter insigte gebring mag word nie.

[3] “Basic reporting hotlines are means for students and others to contact bias administrators or ‘bias response teams’ when they experience or witness a ‘bias incident’. A bias incident, bias infraction, or micro-aggression is an event that results from biases toward members of marginalized groups, including races, sexual orientations, genders, or ‘non-gendered’ people” (58). “Although the University of Chicago does not abide safe spaces or trigger warnings, like over 230 other colleges and universities nationwide, it has a bias reporting hotline” (66).

[4] “No-platforming is the blocking of ‘dangerous’ speakers from speaking on campuses, especially those expected to commit ‘discursive violence’. The alt-right necessarily commits discursive violence. But many other speakers do too” (66). Hy noem dan Milo Yiannopoulos (Praag 7.10.2017), Charles Murray, Ben Shapiro en Dave Rubin as voorbeelde van sprekers wat op kampusse verbied is. Universiteite wat sosiale geregtigheid onderskryf “have tragically abdicated their roles as politically independent institutions for the advancement and transmission of knowledge and wisdom … In mandating social justice ideology, universities have abandoned this legacy of open and free inquiry” (120). “On matters of gender, sexuality, and identity broadly construed, whole avenues of inquiry were foreclosed on the basis of sancrosanct tenets deemed immune from scrutiny” (163).

Soos ek in vorige rubrieke uitgewys het, is universiteite nie meer die tuiste van uitdrukkingsvryheid, insluitende akademiese vryheid, en universitêre onafhanklikheid nie; allermins Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite sedert 1994. Navorsingsvryheid bestaan nie meer nie, soos onlangs aan die Universiteit Kaapstad en Stellenbosch geblyk het. Navorsingsresultate moet polities byderwets, dus ooreenkomstig die voorskrifte van postmodernistiese teorie en sosiale geregtigheid, wees. Dit verskans alle nie-blankes teen akademies-wetenskaplike resultate wat vir hulle “pyn” kan veroorsaak, soos Wim de Villiers daarna verwys het.* “The derailment of academic institutions harms not only students but it also threatens the broader society, not only by undermining faith in knowledge claims but also by prejudicing the institutions supposed to cultivate the well-versed, thinking, and reasonable people required in a democratic society – people capable of open inquiry, debate, disagreement, and conflict resolution, without recourse to masks and knives” (127).

[* “Science is not moral and the morality of a position is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is logically and empirically justifiable … biased scholars will tendentiously argue that there is never sufficient proof for hypotheses that they dislike” (Edward Dutton, Race differences in ethnocentrism, London: Arktos, 2019, 276p; Amazon Kindle $12.64, 1102).]

Met sy verwysing na “masks” kry Rectenwald ‘n steelhou in teen die Ku Klux Klan. Sy verwysing na messe kan toepaslik in Amerika wees. In ons “jong demokrasie” word sake, in navolging van die vredesikoon Nelson Mandela, dikwels eerder met geweld as polities besleg. Naas messe word bv brandstigting (soos met petrolbomme) en vuurwapens in aanvalle gebruik. Die rehabilitasie van akademiese vryheid, van oop gesprekke aan universiteite, sal in Suid-Afrika, met sy kolossale getal ongeletterdes en oningeligtes, ‘n veel kleiner trefkrag as in Amerika hê. In landsbelang moes ons “jong demokrasie” liewer nooit die lewenslig aanskou het nie.

Wat die voorafgaande uiteensetting duidelik maak, is dat die sosiale geregtigheidsbeweging ‘n uitvloeisel van postmodernisme is, wat op sy beurt sy wortels in marxisme het. Nadat marxisme as ekonomiese stelsel veral sedert 1990 in onguns veval het, kan die linkse politieke spektrum in sy geheel as kulturele marxisme geëtiketteer word. In kulturele marxisme speel militante feminisme en haar troetelkind, homoseksualiteit, ‘n sleutelrol in pogings om bv die tradisionele huisgesin – bestaande uit ‘n manlike man, ‘n vroulike vrou en heteroseksuele kinders – te ondergrawe.* Wat die situasie in Suid-Afrika nog meer onverkwiklik maak, is dat ons sedert 1994 deur kamerade regeer word wat in baie opsigte marxisme steeds in sy tradisionele gewaad aanhang. Die rooi gevaar het hom in ons midde gevestig; nie as tjommie nie, maar as heerser. Soos Raka het hy ingesluip. Dit lyk nie asof hy verwilder en uitgesluit gaan word nie, want daar het nie eens protes opgeklink toe bv die hoof van die plaaslike kommuniste as minister van hoër onderwys aangestel is en hy jare lank in daardie pos gefunksioneer het en weer terug daarin is nie.

[* ‘n Hooftema by die Noorweegse Nobel-pryswenner, Knut Hamsun (1859-1952), is “rediscovering one’s roots in the simple life, in family, and in children” (KR Bolton, Artists of the Right: Resisting decadence, San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012, 208p; Amazon Kindle $6.89, 1286). “The rearing of children is the purpose of Being of the wife and mother, as much as that might be sneered at now, but as [Oswald] Spengler [1880-1936] noted, there is nothing more important than the continuation of a family lineage, generation after generation … there is nothing more dreadful than being the last of a family’s line” (1324). In sy boek, The hour of decision (1933 – Praag 12.11.2016), skryf Spengler: “A woman of race does not desire to be a ‘companion’ or a ‘lover’, but a mother … the instinct of a strong race speaks in the pride that large families inspire, in the feeling that barrenness is the hardest curse that can befall a woman and through her the race” (1332).]

Leon Lemmer: Milo Yiannopoulos as ‘n problematiese regse verskynsel

Milo Yiannopoulos (gebore in 1984) se boek, Dangerous (Boca Raton, Florida: Dangerous Books, 2017, 288p; Amazon Kindle $11,39) sou aanvanklik, volgens ‘n aankondiging op Amazon se webwerf, op 14 Maart vrygestel word. Dit is eers op 4 Julie gedoen. Die uitgewer was nie meer Simon & Schuster nie, maar Dangerous Books. In plaas daarvan dat ‘n bekende uitgewer die boek gepubliseer het, was Milo verplig om dit self te doen (Kindle 3541). Simon & Schuster het sy kontrak met Milo gekanselleer (69).

“The tremendous outcry among social, online, and print media to this book being announced” het veroorsaak dat “Simon & Schuster was paralyzed by it” (182). “Even I was surprised by the onslaught. The Chicago Review of Books announced to great fanfare that they would not review another book published by Simon & Schuster, in response to Dangerous. The establishment’s real fear is that this book will deeply affect readers, especially young people. In particular, they fear that young people at the epicenter of political correctness in America’s universities will begin to question the ideologies foisted upon them, thanks to [this] book” (188). Elders is daar beweer dat Simon & Schuster die kontrak gekanselleer het omdat Milo pedofilie goedgepraat het.

JH du Toit het reeds oor die Milo-manie op Praag (11 Februarie) geskryf. Milo lyk en is in vele opsigte anders as die stereotiepe beeld wat aan regses gegee word. Dit maak dit moeilik om hom sonder meer te ondersteun. Lees bv die omvattende Wikipedia-artikel. Maar Milo het veral op Amerikaanse universiteitskampusse ‘n oorwegend heilsame invloed, waar – soos deesdae in Suid-Afrika – regse standpunte feitlik nooit gehoor word nie. In hierdie konteks word Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) soos volg deur Milo aangehaal: “The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any” (2955).

‘n Mens moet maar geestelik sterk wees wanneer jy Milo se boek lees. Hy gebruik in oorvloed wat hy noem “flippant language” (100). “I use exaggeration and bombast, often outrageously” (313). Milo “delights in causing outrage” (1999). In daardie sin is dit eerder ‘n Amerikaanse as ‘n Britse boek. Ann Coulter is een van die regses wat hy om haar vriendskap bedank (3561), maar die aanslag in haar boeke, hoewel makliker verteerbaar as dié van Milo, staan my ook nie aan nie. Ek beveel eerder die meer wetenskaplik-akademiese boeke van David Horowitz, wat ook deur Milo bedank word (3561), aan.

Van die groot voordele wat die lees van die boek inhou, is dat ‘n mens kennis maak met die huidige geestesklimaat in Amerika; veral hoedanig die alledaagse politieke ingesteldheid is. Die National Review, eens die fontein van behoudende politiek (Praag 4 Desember), word beskryf as “home of anti-Trump establishment conservatism” (120). Milo is ‘n sterk ondersteuner van Donald Trump, bv “We’ll put a lid on Muslim immigration” (140). Sommige van die Moslem-inkommers word “rapefugees” genoem (2570). “There is a real rape culture in the West. And there is real homophobia in the West. And there is real out-group intolerance in the West. It all comes from Islam” (2588). “Here is a religion that sanctions forcing women into submission, a religion that sanctions the execution of gays, a religion that sanctions the killing of non-believers. And they’re spreading” (2582).

Hy noem Trump “Daddy” (bv 1920, 1992). “I coined the nickname “Daddy” for him, which annoyed just about everyone” (2081). Wat deesdae regstelling, korrektheid en byderwetsheid genoem word, is eintlik almal polities oordraagbare siekte; tentakels van dieselfde sindroom. Sowel Trump as Milo is gekant teen verslawing aan hierdie soort politieke ingesteldheid (169). Sodanige teenkanting word deur die liberaliste as “hate speech” geëtiketteer (201). “‘Hate speech’ means anything they disagree with” (2971). Die liberaliste verkies die eufemistiese frase “undocumented American” pleks van “illegal alien” (201). In Suid-Afrika het dit ook mode geword om onwettige inkommers nie as misdadigers te beskou nie.

Milo tref ‘n duidelike onderskeid tussen liberaliste (hulle word veral in die Demokratiese Party aangetref) en libertyne (wat meesal in die Republikeinse Party is). Hierdie twee groepe het verskillende opvattings van vryheid. “Libertarians and conservatism are the new counter-culture” (182; ook 3179). Later skryf Milo: “I’m no libertarian” (1595). Elders noem hy homself ‘n “cultural libertarian.” Hy haal ‘n universiteitsrektor, Robert Bachi, soos volg aan: “Freedom is fundamental to our [Rutgers] University, our society, and our nation” (3248).

Die saak waaroor Milo die sterkste voel, is vryheid van uitdrukking; dat ons so vry moontlik moet wees om te praat, skryf en publiseer wat ons wil, gebaseer op vryheid van denke; uiteraard verkieslik kritiese denke (214): “Your right to speak freely, honestly, and rudely, no matter who doesn’t like it” (140). Milo noem homself “a free-speech fundamentalist” (169, 2479). “The only cause I represent is that of free speech, where I consider myself part of a long list of boundary-pushers who shocked the mainstream” (1180).

Ek dink valse stellings en laster moet vermy word en daar moet nie onnodig aanstoot gegee word nie. Maar in polities byderwetse geledere is daar oordrewe sensitiwiteit vir die moontlike gee van aanstoot aan enigeen wat nie wit is nie. Daarvolgens moet alle uitdrukkings “inoffensive” wees (221), wat meebring dat diegene wat die samelewing skade aandoen, nie die waarheid vertel en aangemoedig word om te verbeter nie. “The Left … seeks to patronize [American] minorities by preventing them from coming into contact with anything that might offend them” (1653). Kritiekvrye ruimtes, “safe spaces,” word vir diesulkes geskep.

Die linkses redeneer “‘free speech should not trump safety’ … These students truly believe that open discourse is a form of violence” (2995). “I was freely romping into their cherished safe spaces” (3014). “Well-educated people are generally unshockable … progressive students … have no intellectual hinterland and no curiosity about the world around them or about anything that has preceded their own lives. Centuries of history, culture and wisdom are dismissed as the products of ‘dead white men'” (3051). Dieselfde misleide geestesingesteldheid het die plaaslike studente-opstand van 2015/16 gekenmerk.

“Progressive intolerance had gone too far on college campuses” (3279). ‘n Kultuuroorlog (of “cultural lunacy” – 554) woed waarin Westerse/Europese waardes ondergeploeg gaan word as daar nie openlik en daadwerklik ‘n veldtog ter behoud van daardie beskaafde waardes gevoer word nie. “It’s culture that matters. ‘Politics is downstream from culture,’ as Andrew Breitbart [1969-2012] used to say. Politics is just a symptom” (401).

Selfs Barack Obama het hom uitgespreek ten gunste van die blootstelling van studente aan idees wat vir hulle vreemd en moeilik verteerbaar is. Dit klink asof hy ten gunste van akademiese vryheid is, maar dalk is dit omdat hy weet hoe oorweldigend linksgesind die klimaat op Amerikaanse universiteitskampusse is: “I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ’em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, ‘You can’t come because I’am too sensitive to hear what you have to say.’ That’s not the way we learn either” (3273).

Nicholas Kristof, ‘n linkse joernalis, het in 2016 met ‘n uitsonderlike erkenning vorendag gekom: “Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological [political] and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us” (3279). Wanneer ‘n universiteit soos Stellenbosch deesdae diversiteit propageer, gaan dit om die obsessie om ‘n verskeidenheid rasse en kulture op die kampus te hê; nie om die studente ook aan nie-linkse, bv regse, idees bloot te stel nie.

Jay Ellison se benadering is meer aanvaarbaar: “Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community [the University of Chicago]. The members of our comunity must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas” (3292). Met ander woorde, ‘n universiteit “is not a ‘day care'” (3372).

Milo verwys na “Facebook’s policy of discrimination against conservatives … ‘We choose what’s trending'” (741), dus wát polities byderwets is. “The #BlackLivesMatter [BLM] movement originated on Facebook” (754). Milo bestempel BLM as “one of the most destructive movements in the country’s history” (1633). Hy noem Twitter “a sharia-compliant conservative-free zone” (811). “If conservatives thought mainstream media bias was bad, just wait until they see the effects of search engine bias” (992). Google “display[ed] negative search terms for [Hillary] Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders … and for Donald Trump” (972). Google het ‘n intieme verhouding met die Obama-administrasie gehandhaaf (978).

In Suid-Afrika laat die gedrukte hoofstroomkoerante en elektroniese media skynbaar ruimte vir meningswisseling. My ondervinding is dat dit meesal slegs toegelaat word in soverre dit polities byderwets is. Soos Milo dit stel: “It’s okay to laugh at white people but no one else” (271). “White men can’t dance, jump or sexually satisfy their partners. These are all socially acceptable jokes” (459).”Leftists are the cultural elites, censoring dissident conservatives” (296). Hy haal George Orwell (1903-1950), vir wie ek groot waardering het, soos volg aan: “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act” (277).

‘n Ander ding waaroor Milo sterk voel, is om nie slagofferstatus te aanvaar nie. Hy verwys na die “victim-centric doctrine of Cultural Marxism. The Left is committed to defending a worldview which arranges women, [American] minorities, and gays in a league table of oppression, with straight white men as the eternal oppressors at the top of the list” (428). Daarvolgens word “a fat black disabled [homosexual] Muslim woman” (434) een van die uitnemendste voorbeelde van slagofferskap. “[American] minorities, both real and imagined, engage in an endless competition for supreme victimhood status” (490). “In an America where victimhood is a currency, it’s highly profitable to be oppressed” (1495); ook in Suid-Afrika, as jy die status van ‘n voorheen benadeelde, dus tans bevoordeelde, het.

“I never saw myself as a victim” (76). “Even though it seems like victim status is the best way to earn a living right now … I assure you, it’s not … No matter how bad your experiences, victimhood and self-pity are … We must challenge the forces of oppression in society, and we can’t do so from a therapy session” (82). “We’re going to do so without self-pity, without a cult of victimhood, and certainly without safe spaces” (140). Milo noem “safe spaces” ‘n vorm van ‘n “return of segregation on campuses” (1167). Hy rebelleer teen die establishment. Terwyl hy in Wes-Europa gereis het, “I developed my love for all things anti-establishment” (94).

Naas die Nuwe Regses, waaroor dikwels afkeurend berig word, is daar die Nuwe Linkses. Let op hoe knap Milo omgaan met ‘n hele reeks hedendaagse Amerikaanse politieke verskynsels: “The New Left, as they came to be called, were responsible for the early stages of the Left’s pivot away from the traditional class politics and towards the divisive, politically-correct world of gender, racial, and sexual politics we know today. They were the ones responsible for making issues like abortion, the reversal of gender roles, ‘racial justice,’ pacifism, and multiculturalism into major platforms of the Left. If they could keep their ‘rainbow coalition’ acting and voting as a bloc, and focus all their hatred on the weary white male working class, then political dominance would soon be assured. Thus began the reign of identity politics” (365).

“Identity politics is universally attractive because it enables failures and weaknesses to be spun as the products of oppression and historical injustice. Personal responsibility is removed from the equation” (484). “Another byproduct of the 1960s leftism is the unabashed hatred of white males, who are (correctly) identified as the architects of western culture” (395). Die linkses is gepreokkupeer met ras- en geslagsake. “I joked that after transgender people, the next frontier of left-wing identity politics would be transracial. I didn’t expect to be proven right so soon (1495).

Milo is teen hedendaagse of derdegolf-feminisme gekant; nie teen tradisionele feminisme nie. “The fight for women’s rights started in the late 19th century, and focused almost completely on women’s suffrage … This is known as the first wave of feminism. The second wave, starting in the middle of the twentieth century, was broader, but also grounded in laudable goals: ending sexual harassment in the workplace, ending discrimination, repealing archaic laws enabling marital rape, and, above all, establishing full equality of opportunity for women” (1039). “Third wave feminism reared its fishy head in the 1990s … Look at what they spend their time on now. Manspreading: a term used to describe the practice of spreading your legs apart on public transport” (1045). “Mansplaining: the grievous sin of explaining something to a woman whilst being male. Manthreading: doing the same, on social media … Eggplant emojis* … [are] ‘the next frontier in online harassment.’ Eggplants look too similar to purple penisses … Instagram banned the eggplant … Air conditioning is also sexist. Men can deal with the cold better” (1050). [* Emojis: Small digital images or icons used to express ideas, emotions, etc, in electronic communication.]

Hedendaagse (veral Amerikaanse) feminisme gee uitdrukking aan “a vindictive, spiteful, mean-spirited festival of man-hating” (1058). “The lynchpin of the feminist argument that women are made, not born, is the claim that girls are socialized into their female roles during their early childhood” (1303). Volgens Milo toon navorsing egter “gender roles are largely governed by nature, not nurture, as feminists would have you believe” (1296). Milo som sy standpunt oor hedendaagse feminisme soos volg op: “Feminism in the West serves little purpose other than hating men, making absurd demands, lying about inequality and obsessing over trivial issues. It has poisoned relations between the sexes, nearly destroyed due process, and constantly saddles businesses with pointless gender diversity requirements based on bogus economics” (1429). “Everywhere feminism exists it is a threat to happiness and freedom” (1455). Ter bevestiging van die waarheid hiervan, lees gerus Amanda Gouws se rubrieke in Die Burger of Christi van der Westhuizen se periodieke uitbarstings. Ek vermoed dat mans iets het wat hulle nie het nie en dat hulle jaloers daaroor is; iets waaroor Sigmund Freud reeds in 1908 geskryf het.

Aansluitend by sy besware teen hedendaagse feminisme is Milo se teenkanting teen aborsie. “Abortion is obviously bad for the future women it murders (sex selective abortion is becoming common in the UK and other countries with growing Muslim populations), and also has disastrous effects on the lives of the women that kill their children. It doesn’t surprise me that feminism promotes abortion, because feminism seems to always go against the actual interests of women” (1251). Dít kan deels verklaar word met verwysing na die prominente rol wat lesbiërs in die feministiese beweging speel. “Abortion is particularly horrifying given the widespread availability of contraception” (1251).

Om oor lewe en dood te beslis, is ‘n gewigtige saak. Dit is dalk relatief maklik om ten gunste van aborsie te wees by groepe wat geneig is om meer kinders te hê as waarvoor hulle kan sorg. Maar die tragiese gevolge van ongebreidelde aborsies is by my tuisgebring toe ek gelees het oor die huidige situasie in Duitsland. Die invloei van miljoene moeilik integreerbare inkommers word deur sommige goedgepraat omdat die ekonomie glo jong werkers nodig het. Terselfdetyd word erken dat hierdie inkommers die plekke inneem van Duitsers wat weens aborsie nie die kans op lewe gegun is nie. Hierdie situasie geld eintlik die hele Wes-Europa, insluitende Brittanje.

[“Europe’s future depends first and foremost on whether it bears and raises its children or kills them in the womb and then throws them into the garbage bin” (Jürgen Graf, White world awake! Stopping the planned extermination of our volk, Marlboro, Maryland: Barnes Review, 2016, 540p; Amazon Kindle $4.55, 4342). Dít is ‘n “shameful crime against humanity” (4329). “A people which within 38 years kills off over 7 million of its children for ‘social reasons’ but, at the same time, entices millions of people of other religions, cultures and race to their country, is guilty of a sin, whose payment is their death” (595).”Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe” (5726). “Europe runs the risk of turning black from illegal immigration, it could turn into Africa” (4763). “Those who are fleeing the African countries are needed most [in Africa] to help overcome their underdevelopment” (545).]

Daar is so baie dinge wat deesdae skeefgetrek aangebied word en dan aanvaar pleks van gekritiseer word. Uitsluitlik blankes word oor slawerny verwyt. “There are no movies about Ottoman or Middle Eastern slave-owners. I suppose we’ll have to wait for Muslim guilt to become a thing” (459). “A conservative in Hollywood is like a gazelle in a pack of lions” (2202). Uitsluitlik blankes word as rassiste uitgekryt. “There are some people who argue that racism against white people doesn’t exist” (1673). In ‘n artikel in The Huffington Post word geredeneer rassisme by nie-wittes is onmoontlik “because racism is ‘prejudice plus power’ and whites ‘control the system and economic structure in society'” (1673). Maar in Suid-Afrika is die blankes deesdae polities magteloos. Die oorweldigende swart massa is (ondoeltreffend, chaoties) in beheer. Is swart rassisme in sulke omstandighede steeds onmoontlik?

In Suid-Afrika voel dit deesdae (soms) asof die Menseregtekommissie en die howe as die “culture police” (3396) en as Orwell se denkpolisie funksioneer, met blankes feitlik deurgaans die enigste slagoffers: “About how we should shut up if we knew what’s good for us, about how we need to make up for a history of racism, sexism, and every ‘phobia’ under the sun, about how entertaining this dangerous thought or making this dangerous joke [comparison, proverb, etc] would be the end of our careers” (3427).

Leon Lemmer: Akademiese vryheid

Die ANC-regering het geswig voor die onlangse studenteprotes en ingestem dat daar in 2016 geen verhoging van klasgeld gaan wees nie. Die regering is gevolglik verplig om meer staatsgeld na universiteite te kanaliseer. Hierdie sluwe ANC-kamerade het besluit om in ruil daarvoor universitêre onafhanklikheid verder in te kort. Vorentoe sal daar van universiteite verwag word om in selfs groter mate as tans na die pype van die ANC te dans. Dit is in ooreenstemming met die kommunistiese versugting na die sentralisering van mag.

Wilhelm Jordaan

Onder die opskrif, “Universiteite is g’n knegte van ideologie” (Die Burger, 4 November, p 10), skryf Wilhelm Jordaan: “‘n Universiteit se outonomie en akademiese vryheid is intiem vervleg.” Hy verwys na ‘n herontplooide kader wat verlang dat wat ‘n universiteit doen tot voordeel van “ons mense” (dus swartes) moet wees. Dit lyk vir Jordaan asof “die universiteit, as ‘n rentmeester van kennis, se dae getel” is; dat “toenemende ideologiese verknegting” ons voorland is. Hy merk tereg op dat wetenskapsbeoefening nie ideologies gedikteer mag word nie; dat onafhanklike, kritiese rasionaliteit nie prysgegee moet word nie.

Byvoorbeeld, myns insiens behoort ‘n egte universiteit dit te verwelkom as vergelykende navorsing oor die intelligensie van verskille etniese groepe, bv wittes en swartes, gedoen word. Dit is ‘n onderwerp waaroor betroubare wetenskaplike kennis broodnodig is. As ons betroubare inligting oor die intelligensie van etniese groepe het, sou ons weet of die ANC-regering, met die oog op doeltreffende administrasie, reg of verkeerd doen deur by voorkeur swartes in poste aan te stel. Ons sou ook weet of Wim de Villiers akademies wys of dwaas is deur as teiken te stel dat daar teen 2020 ‘n oorwig swartes op die kampus van die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) moet wees. Weens die vloek van politieke korrektheid en beperkte universitêre outonomie sal geen Suid-Afrikaanse universiteit egter sodanige noodsaaklike navorsing toelaat nie.

Jordaan val egter uit die bus wanneer hy skryf: “Universiteite is maatskaplik verantwoordbaar en ís veronderstel om die skade van kolonialisme en apartheid te herstel deur gepaste onderrig, navorsing en ‘n verteenwoordigende personeelkorps.” Universiteite moet myns insiens daarna streef om die hede en die verlede ewewigtig en so objektief moontlik met die oog op die toekoms te benader. Jordaan is hier beklemmend in die hede vasgevang. Daar moet nie net oor kolonialisme en apartheid krities besin word nie, maar ook oor die gewelddadige “bevrydingstryd” met sy vernietigende voorkeur vir vandalisme, terrorisme, volgehoue misdaad en geweld, asook anti-blanke rassisme. Sedert 1990/1994 het beskawing plaaslik ‘n groot terugslag ondervind. Die universiteitsverskynsel is ‘n produk van Westerse beskawing en behoort sensitief op sodanige agteruitgang en verlies te reageer.

Dat universiteitspersoneel demografies verteenwoordigend moet wees, is ‘n uiters skadelike modegier. Dit betaam geen egte akademikus om sulke dwaasheid te onderskryf nie. Daar is geen wetenskaplike bewys dat nie-wittes en vroue beter akademici as blankes en mans is nie. Om by voorkeur swartes en vroue aan te stel en te bevorder, kan nie akademies geregverdig word nie. Uit hoofde van die universiteit se wesenlike aard behoort suiwer akademiese oorwegings (bv formele kwalifikasies, ondervinding en publikasies) deurslaggewend by die aanstelling en bevordering van dosente en navorsers te wees. Die tragedie is dat (seker) geen universiteit in die nuwe Suid-Afrika akademiese verdienste in afdoende mate vooropstel nie.

John Kane-Berman

Op 28 November is ‘n landswye Afrikaanse Alumni-vereniging op Stellenbosch gestig; nie net om Afrikaansbelange te bevorder nie, maar ook bv akademiese vryheid. By daardie geleentheid het John Kane-Berman, voorheen die uitvoerende hoof en tans ‘n konsultant van die Suid-Afrikaanse Instituut vir Rasseverhoudinge, ‘n toespraak gelewer, wat in verkorte vorm onder die titel, “Hou aan veg vir dié vryhede,” gepubliseer is (Netwerk24, 5 deser). Kane-Berman dink dat akademiese vryheid tans in groter mate as tydens apartheid bedreig word. Sowel die massamedia as die akademie ly aan selfsensuur: “Politieke korrektheid is besig om die land te regeer.” Dit is onvryheid en nie vryheid nie. Vryheid impliseer immers “vryheid van intimidasie en dwang.” Geweld, bv tydens studente-onrus, lê vrye besluitneming aan bande.

Vryheid van spraak is deel van akademiese vryheid. “Die wese van ‘n universiteit is dat sy lede in staat is om die waarheid te soek, om aan die stryd om idees deel te neem en om na hartelus te argumenteer … Deel hiervan is om konvensionele wysheid aan te val, maak nie saak hoe wyd dit gehuldig word of hoeveel ondersteuning dit mag hê onder diegene in magsposisies nie. En dit is tog duidelik dat studente en lektore [eintlik dosente] by vrye universiteite noodwendig regeringsbeleid sal onderwerp aan diepgaande kritiek. Dit is deel van hul werk.”

Maar dit gebeur myns insiens in afnemende mate in Suid-Afrika. Erger, daar is die neiging om studente in regeringsbeleid te indoktrineer. Op inisiatief van en met die seën van Jonathan Jansen vind dit reeds plaas in die vorm van ‘n verpligte eerstejaarkursus aan die Universiteit Vrystaat. Wim de Villiers beoog om Jansen se poging aan die US te oortref. “We want our students and staff members to develop a transformation competency. A compulsory, credit-bearing first-year module – a kind of Maties 101, which I want to expand to 201, 301 and 401 – is currently being developed. And we are also working on compulsory courses for members of faculty and other staff. The aim would be to sensitise students and staff to transformation” (Cape Times, 6 Oktober, p 9). “Sensitise” is ‘n eufemisme vir indoktrinasie of breinspoeling.

Die slagoffers van hierdie soort programme is (feitlik) uitsluitlik blankes. Daar word gepoog om hulle eensydig sensitief/sag te maak vir enersyds verswelging deur swartes en andersyds verswelging deur Engels. Dit is vir my duidelik dat De Villiers net personeellede wil aanstel wat entoesiasties oor rasse-integrasie, swart teikens, swart bevoordeling, demografieverslawing en gevolglik ook verengelsing is en wat verkieslik geen kritiese geluid oor die ANC se outoritêre sosialisties-kommunistiese beleid maak nie. Dit is ‘n propagandisties anti-akademiese beleid wat lynreg teen die grein van ‘n ware universiteit ingaan. David Horowitz (bron hier onder, Kindle 1167) noem dit “intellectual corruption”. “The growing power of faculty radicals … has led to the creation of academic programs that are overtly ideological in nature, and to agendas that are shaped by political rather than scholarly goals” (1167). Dit is “political indoctrination masquerading as academic discourse” (1489).

Kane-Berman karakteriseer die (ANC se) transformasiebeleid soos volg: “Terwyl dit dikwels voorgestel word as die eenvoudige regstel van die onregmatighede van die verlede, is dit eintlik deel van ‘n meer omvattende agenda wat probeer om die nasionale demokratiese revolusie (NDR) tot stand te bring. Die term ‘transformasie’ mag dus miskien vaag en skadeloos lyk, maar in der waarheid is dit snelskrif vir die NDR.” Waarmee rektore soos Jansen en De Villiers besig is, is om die ANC te help om die ideale gestel in sy Vryheidsmanifes (1955), bv nasionalisering en ‘n kommunistiese staat, werklikheid te maak.

“Die NDR is ‘n bloudruk vir rassenasionalisme en partypolitieke beheer. Dit behels toenemende ingryping in die ekonomie, die onteiening van private eiendom, die vervanging van onafhanklike regulatoriese liggame en die verskraling van private instellings. Dit is ‘n groter en meer omvattende gevaar vir akademiese vryheid en vryhede in die algemeen as die vorige regering se inmenging in universiteite.” Hierteenoor stel Kane-Berman: “Ons het die vryheid om akademiese en ander vryhede te verdedig. Ons het ook die vryheid en die intellektuele vermoë om idees te propageer wat fundamenteel verskillend is van dié wat nou heersend is.” Praaglesers weet dit is wat Praag op ‘n voorbeeldige manier doen.

John Higgins

John Higgins, ‘n Engelsdosent aan die Universiteit Kaapstad (UK), het ‘n boek gepubliseer, Academic freedom in a democratic South Africa (Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2013, 288p, R290). Hy is ook die outeur van boeke oor Raymond Williams (gepubliseer in 1999 en 2011). In Higgins se jongste boek is daar ‘n hoofstuk elk oor die idees van Terry Eagleton, Edward W Said en Jakes Gerwel. Wat my hinder, is dat Williams, Eagleton, Said en Gerwel almal onredbaar links was en in die geval van Eagleton, die enigste een van die vier wat nog lewe, steeds links is.

Die geval Connor Cruise O’Brien word onder meer in Higgins se boek bespreek. O’Brien was ‘n besoekende Ierse akademikus wat in 1986 weens die weerstand van swart studente nie toegelaat is om voort te gaan met sy lesings aan die UK nie. Die rede vir die swartes se ontevredenheid was dat O’Brien teen die akademiese boikot van Suid-Afrika gekant was. Deur hom die akademiese vryheid te ontneem om lesings aan te bied, het ingedruis teen die UK se beleid van ideologiese neutraliteit (Hermann Giliomee, Politicsweb 5 Oktober). Ek kon egter nog nie toegang tot Higgins se boek kry nie.

Dit is nodig om in groter mate duidelikheid te verkry oor presies wat akademiese vryheid is. Om die frase “akademiese vryheid” te verstaan, is dit nodig om enersyds die akademie, oftewel die universiteitsverskynsel, en andersyds vryheid te verstaan. ‘n Universiteit is veronderstel om ‘n ideologies-neutrale platform vir die vrye uitruiling van idees te bied. Vryheid dui op ongebondenheid maar behoort met verantwoordelikheid gebalanseer te word. Vryheid kom in verskillende vorme voor, bv vryheid van denke en vryheid van uitdrukking/openbaarmaking, bv spraakvryheid en publikasievryheid, bv persvryheid en klank- en beelduitsaaivryheid. Vryheid strek dus baie wyer as akademiese vryheid, want laasgenoemde is die beoefening van vryheid in ‘n bepaalde konteks.

Aanvanklik, dus in die Middeleeue, het universitêre studie ‘n aanvang geneem met die trivium en die quadtrivium, wat studente in onderskeidelik sake van die gees en die natuur georiënteer het; dus studente gehelp het om ‘n eie lewens- en wêreldbeskouing te ontwikkel, wat neerkom op filosofie in die breë, tradisionele sin van die woord. Dit is waarom die woord “filosofie” deesdae steeds in baie graadbenamings voorkom, bv MPhil en PhD, al het die meeste graduandi nooit filosofie as vak bestudeer nie. Die kern van die saak is dat vakke nie gepreek (“preach”) nie maar gedoseer (“teach”) moet word. Onkritiese ideologiese voorskriftelikheid hoort nie tuis aan ‘n egte universiteit nie. Dit is so dat ‘n professor betuig/”profess”, dus tot die duidelike formulering van ‘n eie standpunt in staat moet wees, maar dit moet hom nie verhoed om ook ander, insluitende teenoorgestelde, standpunte onder die studente te aandag te bring nie, asook bronne waarin meer inligting daaroor beskikbaar is.

Die kernprobleem aan hedendaagse Amerikaanse universiteite is dat die dosente oorweldigend linksgesind en daarby aktivisties is. “Self-described ‘liberals’ outnumbered self-described ‘conservatives’ by more than seven to one” (Horowitz 476). In Amerika is Jonathan Jansen en Wim de Villiers aan ideologiese indoktrinasie blootgestel. By hulle is daar nie die ruimheid van gees, dus die nodige insig, om hierdie soort beïnvloeding na behore te evalueer en hulle daarvan te distansieer nie. Maar Jansen se gees is reeds in die jare sewentig aan die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland polities vergiftig. De Villiers roem daarop dat hy al as US-student links en OS-gesind was: “Lede van Open Stellenbosch sal dalk verbaas wees om te verneem ek was in my studentejare lid van ‘n groep genaamd ‘Stellenbosch moet oop!’ … Toe ek op die studenteraad was, was ons daardie jaar vier sogenaamde linkses in ‘n studenteraad van dertien” (Matieland, 2015, p 41). De Villiers en Nico Koopman is myns insiens ondersteuners pleks van geswore vyande van OS se politieke agenda.

Ek baseer die res van hierdie rubriek op ‘n boek van ‘n Amerikaner, David Horowitz, Indoctrination U: The Left’s war against academic freedom (New York: Encounter Books, 2009, 196p; Amazon Kindle $13,67). In die handleiding vir dosente aan die University of California staan daar: “The function of the university is to seek and to transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be made known. To covert, or to make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty. Where it becomes necessary in performing this function of a university, to consider political, social, or sectarian movements, they are dissected and examined, not taught, and the conclusion left, with no tipping of the scales, to the logic of the facts … Essentially the freedom of a university is the freedom of competent* persons in the classroom. In order to protect this freedom, the University assumed the right to prevent exploitation of its prestige by unqualified persons or by those who would use it as a platform for propaganda” (37). Die Universiteit Kaapstad het ‘n soortgelyke voorskrif vir sy dosente. Die probleem is dat dit plaaslik, soos in Amerika en elders, in die praktyk dooie letters is. Vandaar die O’Brien-geval. “The problem had never been devising an academic freedom policy, but implementing one” (517).

[* Aan ‘n universiteit, soos die US, wat om ANC-gedienstige, politieke redes openlik daarop ingestel is om ras- en geslagsteikens te haal pleks van dosente suiwer ingevolge akademiese oorwegings aan te stel en te bevorder, is daar eintlik geen moontlikheid dat al die dosente werklik akademies bevoeg/”competent” kan wees nie. Die tragedie is dat hoe langer met hierdie dwaasheid volhard word, des te meer versleg die akademiese gehalte.]

Die ideaal is dat ‘n dosent se ideologiese oortuigings onbekend moet wees sodat die studente vertroue in sy aanbieding kan hê. Maar vergelyk hierdie ideaal met die ideologie-gestremde openbare beeld van aktivistiese dosente soos Anton van Niekerk, Amanda Gouws, Piet Croucamp en Pierre de Vos, wat blykbaar in woord en daad dissipelskap van hulle hoorders en lesers begeer. Dit gaan lynreg in teen akademiese vryheid waarvolgens die universiteit “a free marketplace of ideas” moet wees (64). “What faculty may not do is to impose their bias on students … by presenting their personal prejudices as established wisdom” (85). Die resultaat van aktivistiese dosente se optrede is ‘n “decline of intellectual standards” (208). Van deurslaggewende belang is dat ‘n duidelike onderskeid tussen “academic discourse and political proselytizing” gemaak moet word (562). Aktivistiese dosente “regard their scholarship as a partisan activity and the university as a platform from which they hope to change the world” (243). “For academic radicals who hope to ‘change the world,’ teaching is not a disinterested intellectual inquiry but a form of political combat. The banner of this combat is ‘social justice’*, the emblem that signifies to the post-communist left the triumph of the oppressed over the oppressors” (276).

[* Nico Koopman kan nooit genoeg preek oor wat hy as geregtigheid beskou nie.]

Daar is ‘n verskeidenheid/pluraliteit van menings. Nie almal dink transformasie (dus, aan die US, verswarting en verengelsing), rasse-integrasie, nie-Westerse kultuur en beskawing, ens, is voortreflik nie. Pleks van verpligte indoktrinasiekursusse in te stel, behoort daar eerder ruimte te wees vir “respect for intellectual disagreement as the necessary condition for the development of independent minds. In the modern era it embraces the idea that research and teaching are professional disciplines, which observe the scientific method and require intellectual objectivity and restraint; it insists on a perspective that is expert, skeptical and dispassionate; and it respects the uncertainty of human knowledge and the pluralism of views” (269). In die konteks van akademiese vryheid is daar behoefte aan die herlewing van drie waardes: “professionalism, political* neutrality and intellectual diversity” (283). “Professional restraint is the very basis of the academic freedom privileges to which professors are entitled” (637).

[* Politieke aktivisme is die hoofsondaar, maar ideologiese neutraliteit omvat ook religieuse neutraliteit; iets wat grootliks aan die Middeleeuse universiteite ontbreek het; minder so in die gesekulariseerde hede.]

“Freedom to teach and freedom to learn are inseparable” (2348). In 1915 het die American Association of University Professors ‘n “Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom” uitgereik. Dit “proposed two basic rights – one for faculty and the other for students. Professors were guaranteed freedom in their professional research, but they were also warned not to use their classroom authority to indoctrinate their students. In the words of the declaration, a teacher should avoid ‘taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own'” (390). In latere soortgelyke verklarings (bv in 1940 en 1970) word dosente gemaan “to be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject” (397), want oor daardie sake beskik die betrokke dosente nie oor deskundige kennis nie (404).

“The purpose on an education is to teach students how to think, not what to think” (1154). Die doel van universitêre onderrig, in die woorde van die bogenoemde 1915-verklaring, “is not to provide … students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently” (1154). “In other words, a democratic education should not force-feed students opinions on controversial issues that teachers deem ‘politically correct’. It should create citizens who are able to figure out what conclusions they wish to draw on their own” (1154).

In Temple University, Philadelphia, se voorskrifte staan: “As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for the truth” (2348). In navolging hiervan “student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis and by reference to the professional standards that sustain the University’s pursuit and achievement of knowledge, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to the academic subject” (2348). Dit gaan om “the student’s right to learn, free from political harassment and indoctrination” (2355).

“The overarching goal of the academic freedom campaign was to end political advocacy by professors in their classrooms, regardless of whether their politics were left or right. It was also an effort to restore traditional academic standards that promoted scholarly neutrality and objectivity … the purpose of publicly supported educational institutions in democracies was to create free citizens who were able to think for themselves and not to instill approved doctrines” (451). Dit toon hoe akademies dwaas en fundamenteel verkeerd Jakes Gerwel se standpunt was toe hy as rektor van die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland (1987-1994) daardie inrigting gekarakteriseer het as die tuiste van linkse politiek en politici.

Ek vind dit interessant dat Die Burger jare gelede in ‘n hoofartikel (16.04.2003) die vrees uitgespreek het “dat die US beweeg in die rigting van die Amerikaanse stelsel van diskriminasie ten gunste van swart studente (affirmative action) wat beteken dat diversiteit van ras eerder as idees die wagwoord word” (Pieter Kapp, Maties en Afrikaans, 2013, p 94-95). Sedertdien is hierdie vrees massaal bewaarheid. Regstellende aksie word deesdae transformasie genoem. Nie net word ‘n diversiteit van idees onderdruk nie (bv almal móét ten gunste van transformasie wees), maar ook ‘n diversiteit van taal is ongewens weens die De Villiers-US se uitgesproke begeerte om Engels tot dié onderrig- en administratiewe taal te verhef.