WashU protest and James O'Keefe interview

Uploaded on Nov 10, 2009

Wash U students celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall by building a gulag on the quad to remeber those who died under socialism. James O'Keefe was there. I interviewed him about citizen journalism.  

NJO: Title, video and blurb from Darin Morley's YouTube channel Darin RebootCongress.

Minions / fellow culture warriors involved: 

Jonathon C. "Jon / John" Burns (a founding member of St. Louis Tea Party) 
Joseph "Joe" Basel 
Dirk Doebler (then president of the WashU chapter of Young Americans for Liberty) 
Emily Piontek (then member of the WashU chapter of Young Americans for Liberty) 
Phil Christofanelli (then member of the WashU chapter of Young Americans for Liberty)
Ben R. Wetmore (He implies his involvement in this blog post, mirrored here.)
 

James O'Keefe, Jon Burns, Ben Wetmore, Joe Basel, 2011

Print the Cartoons

An email sent to the staff of the Centurion:

The Rutgers Centurion is the paper that put a picture of a black Rutgers icon on its cover with a phrase "GLORY TO STALIN." at the university with the highest african american concentration and ratios in the country. Not only did all of you applaud this decision and others like it, many people outside Rutgers did - Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard did, so did G. Gordon Liddy and Ronald Reagan's son when I personally handed him a copy at Radio America last summer. So did hundreds of marginalized conservatives at Rutgers. We did not only because nobody would or could do it. the weekly standard couldn't get away with it. The real reason we did or at least I did print that was because IT WAS TRUE.

BY doing so, (hopefully) we created debate, we intiated the gears of thought in rusty, indoctrinated minds, got them thinking a bit about the Soviet Union, about the cold war, about racial injustice; and no, we walk no fine line in danger of becoming the medium, our journalistic integrity is canyons away from that of the medium - They are a piece of shit; a rag and don't put yourselves down by making a comparison. But Kian and I did The Robeson spot spontaneously, I believe, because we knew that we were balancing, not dominating, in the same way a prosocuter would allow the defense team to pursue justice. Liberals professors and deans were furious by our progress. In the same way Islam has rules against drawing Mohammed, the pulpits in the Rutgers ivory tower prohibit speaking out against their beloved Robeson. This was far more polemic than any cartoons.

In that same issue, Kian authored an excellent article entitled "Condi Rice: the Black women liberals love to hate;" it was so good, it caught the eye of a young journalist Justine and I met in DC and he wrote about The Centurion at Salon.com. That Salon.com article brought us national publicity. At an ISI conference in Princeton last summer, whordes of brilliant intellectuals, including Princeton professors, were huddled together laughing at the stunts we pulled. Some had even heard of us, through the grapevine, some had even read that Salon.com article.
Again, stunts far more polemic than cartoons.

In another one of our proud, super-polemic moments, Jeff's awesome idea, we printed a picture of the towers under attack; a very taboo image. All of us supported that decsion, because deep down in parts of our conservative hearts we can't expain, we can't stand the thought of letting those people dictate our architecture, brand taboos on our buildings, our city, our culture, our media. Moreover, nothing discusts us more than cencoring their destruction, not rebuilding taller and higher, maybe even building the same. When the letter attacked us for sensationalism; we responded with a sarcastic "I'm sorry." This was great, but far more polemic than printing cartoons.

People don't seem to understand in europe right now it is war betweeen hemispheres. The populations of Italy, Spain, Britain, France, to a certain degree Switzerland, are all declining as a result of feminist single parenting, islamic immigrants are quickly taking their place. The peaceful Danish consolates and being burned down, their products boycotted. Liberals/Europeans are in a panty twist becaues in general, they hate organized relgion, but they're all worried about hurting minorities' feelings; and in Denmark although the prime minister hasn't apologized, Chiriac has apologized and criticized the danes, who were meanwhile holding candlelight vigils, a candlelight vigil, why their consulate was being burned to the ground... in Europe everyone's afraid of the reprisal.

If you lived in Europe, you should be afraid.

But we (you), don't live in Europe; we live in the United States of America. We are adults living in civilized societies; we do not murder and pillage whenever our sensibilities are offended. We don't negioate with terrorists, we don't tolerate violence and arson in response to speech. We're a funny people that way. Our founding, our consitution, our currency is based on christian principlies, not islamic principles. We have earned our right to go to colleges like Rutgers, and publish papers like The Centurion. In God we Trust. Hyperbole aside, If you don't like that get the fuck out of our free and historically prosperous land.

Go back to where you came from.

Where they burn and stone women alive, go to Europe where the economies are planned, go to European union where the beurocracy is so bad the permits are obtained with bribes; where citizens won't stand up for themselves or their rights to go as they please, purchase as they please, innovate as they please; stand up for their culture and peaceful way of life against an islamofascist bayonette; a pervasive fear that I can sense in the air even in Lugano. The same people that whine about our imperialism are now hiding under their beds afraid to build tall buildings, afraid to speak out against murder, afraid to defend their borders and way of life.

To those of you who are afraid of the New Jersey Solidarity Groups, you will be yielding to the authors of this post, WHO ARE ALL TALK.

http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/17526/index.php

in the words of W. Bush, "Bring 'em on." Fuck 'em. Print the cartoons.

NJO: Originally posted on the blog Feathers of Steel at liberabit.blogspot.com.

18-0

That was the vote count when the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the 1990s, and it should have been the vote for John Roberts yesterday, instead of 13-5. The two Bill Clinton appointees are every bit as liberal as Judge Roberts is conservative, and they were just as unforthcoming during their confirmation hearings on how they would vote on specific cases.

Instead, five Democrats voted "no" yesterday. Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy claimed they didn't know enough about how Judge Roberts would rule on specific precedents. Joe Biden was, well, Bidenesque. Dianne Feinstein apparently thought the candidate had been nominated for Chief Family Man instead of Chief Justice. "Rather than talking to me as a son, a husband, a father -- which I specifically requested he do -- he gave a very detached response," she said yesterday. Imagine that: A judge who is restrained.

NJO: Originally posted on the blog Feathers of Steel at liberabit.blogspot.com.

Inside the Mind of the Rutgers Professor, Part I: Multiculturalism

Indoctrination has Led to the Decline of Our College Experience

BY JAMES O'KEEFE

Multiculturalism

Every student at Rutgers is required to take a “non-western” course in the humanities or social sciences, though there is no required course in “western” humanities or social sciences. The multiculturalist administration wants to incorporate “excluded” works of literature, art, and philosophy into our curriculum that have been unaccounted for due to prejudices of our culture. To the multiculturalist, appreciation for American Culture is completely baseless, founded only in prejudices and propaganda perpetuated by ignorant, racist dead white men. Furthermore, the multiculturalist says principles like natural rights, which unite us, are not grounded in any sort of truth, but are arbitrary and hostile to “diversity” and our differences. Although the word “multiculturalist” sounds like an appeal to a sense of community, to them, an isolated non-Westerner is more “cultured” than a Southern American Christian, even though the Southern American Christian is far more exposed to people with different beliefs and lifestyles. Thus, eventually culture turns into a sort of non-conformist individualism – exactly the type that is celebrated by Davey Thoreau. This explains the contempt American liberals have for rural folk in the heartland with common virtues and a strong sense of community and tradition. It also explains the contempt for patriotism and civic virtue. One often sees Rutgers students in class or on a bus, walking or sitting with their heads down, drowning out their environment with music playing on their Ipods. These students have evolved in educational institutions that have enforced so much independent thought, they find solace in isolation, in virtues they can find only in themselves (thanks to Instant Messenger, students rarely need to leave their dorm rooms). The emphasis on the self is further promoted by the influence of Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud and his perverted philosophies. Students sometimes congregate (due at times to things like mandatory meal plans), but state universities like Rutgers, despite their numbers, are remarkably lonely places. This is because the virtues that bring us together, like respect for the (or any) concept of God, allegiance to the ideals of Country, and reliance upon ethics to govern our actions toward one other, are despised.

The multiculturalist connoisseur desires a “transcendent” view, a “cultured” view, a “different” view, other than that native to his homeland. Multiculturalist Rutgers professors have become eccentric elites, sadly out of touch with American culture, family and purpose.

NJO: Originally printed in the September 2005 issue of The Centurion.

Dear Freshmen, ahem... "First-Year-Students"

A year ago, this publication did not exist. Since then we have violated 37 copyrights in our satire of The New York Times, done a review of the most decorated liberal professor doors, investigated the rampant fiscal and electoral corruption of NJPIRG, documented our speech code, and investigated faculty contributions to political parties to find out professors gave 104 times more money to John F. Kerry than George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. We have exposed the Stalinism of Rutgers favorite son, Paul Robeson, and printed the appropriate forms to relinquish your United States Citizenship if you are ashamed of your American identity. Additionally, we have filed a “bias incident report form” on one student who wrote “Die” all over one of our issues. We sent Valentines to NJPIRG requesting our money be refunded while documenting threats made to us by our old faculty advisor who told us “not to f*** with him.” We investigated our bureaucracy to find over 33 distinct offices, committees, programs, projects, caucuses and councils that advance nothing but diversity of skin color. As a response to Campus Censorship of the Grease Trucks' sandwiches, we attempted to ban Lucky Charms from the dining halls in a form of satirical protest. We, tragically, succeeded. And we got it on tape. We interviewed Bret Schundler for Governor and confronted a Professor who chased a student out of his classroom because he disagreed with the professor’s worldviews. We responded to the "Vagina Monologues" with the “Penis Monologues.” At Tent State, we counter-protested with patriotic country music and an affirmative action bake sale where we sold brownies for less money to minority customers. Students signed our petition to ban water. Anarchist ninjas assaulted us when we told them about the state scandals. Professors have tried to expel us when we exposed their lies, and the administration has disavowed us when we printed the truth. We have been assaulted, betrayed, and, at times, ignored. But we will never surrender in our pursuit to challenge the academic monopoly of thought. We will never surrender at trying to get students to look at both sides of an issue. We will never surrender in upholding our motto, Veritas vos Liberabit.

Read on.      - THE EDITORS

NJO: Originally printed in the September 2005 issue of The Centurion.

The New McCarthyism

“You have no first amendment rights,” said Richard Dienst, Director of the Rutgers Undergraduate English Program, to Rutgers College Republican Darren Cimillo, when he dared to challenge Duke University guest speaker Susan Willis on March 8th, 2005. Willis “consider[ed] the history of the Ku Klux Klan and its relationship to current U.S. foreign policy.” Richard Dienst and English Department Chair Richard Miller called the police and physically chased Darren out of Murray Hall and onto College Avenue. A police report confirms this.

On March 10th, Justine Mertz and I confronted Mr. Dienst with a video camera and asked him a) why the English department’s procured student fees are sponsoring a highly politicized event with no relation to the subject of English Composition and b) why he doesn’t believe in the United States Constitution. He told us to take it to “judicial affairs.” The video can be viewed at www.rucenturion.com.

On March 11th, a letter written by Richard Dienst and Richard Miller was sent to Dean Kirschner of Rutgers College and Dean Stauffer of Mason Gross in what apparently was a request for disciplinary action against Justine and myself for our “misguided actions.” The letter continued, “If there is a pattern of disrupted and improper behavior…we hope that an appropriate response will be made by University officials.”

From The Alien and Sedition Acts, to the silencing of Abolitionists to the McCarthy era of the mid 20th century, throughout history this country has learned to accept the First Amendment. John Stuart Mill’s argument for unfettered free speech was simple: if one’s ideas are not constantly discussed and challenged, their ideas will become prejudices and we would be unable to explain why we believe in them. The moral philosopher would undoubtedly find it ironic that an institution as morally relative as Rutgers would begin espousing that there exists a”right and wrong” political view and way to speak. No professor or bureaucrat is omniscient or qualified enough to make such determinations. For in America, the “free marketplace of ideas,” all things compete for public acceptance without restriction, especially on college campuses where debate and discourse are needed.

But from recent events at Rutgers, it is has been established that higher learning and free speech are incompatible. Rutgers, a public university that must comply with the 14th and 1st amendments of the Constitution, has four draconian speech codes (www.speechcodes.org) that silence minority opinion and suppress speech that is vaguely deemed “offensive” or does not comply with the university’s political orthodoxy. It has also developed a resume of constitutional violations that undermine the pursuit of truth and threaten the very foundation the Academy is supposed to rest upon.

In September 2002, Rutgers violated the US constitution by banning the InterVarsity Multi-Ethnic Christian Fellowship from using campus facilities and stripped the group of university funding because it “violated anti-discrimination policies” by requiring that its leaders be committed to InterVarsity’s “basis of faith and purpose.” John Leo, a columnist from townhall.com, pointed out that after the campus sponsored witch hunt, Rutgers anti-defamation laws would require the RU Democrats to “allow a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying president, and a Muslim group to accept a leader who believes in Christianity, animism or voodoo.” Touché.

Then on March 6th, 2005 THE CENTURION was banned from participating in Tent State University, apparently due to our views; clearly a violation of the university’s anti-discrimination policies. The organizers of TSU, an anti-war demonstration in support of state-funded education, published staff meeting minutes on their website at www.tentstate.com. Organizers of the event declared illegally “THE CENTURION as an organization is not welcome at TSU under any circumstance” and “[T]hey cannot be affiliated officially with TSU in any way.” No action taken by University officials.

On February 10th, 2005 Rutgers violated the US constitution by censoring fast-food sandwiches names, locally known as “Fat Sandwiches,” because the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered communities deemed sandwich favorites, including the Fat Bitch and the Fat Dyke “offensive.” Meanwhile, the LGBTQI (the ever expanding acronym) community has not been “offended” by Bitch Magazine (www.bitchmagazine.com), whose mission statement reads that they seek to be a “voice for feminism.” The magazine advertises its readers to “Join TeamBitch!” “Host a Bitch event!” and “Talk Bitch up on the street and on campus!” On the website, the editors of Bitch Magazine advocate taking the insult “bitch,” as a compliment, because it is another name for an “outspoken woman.” Rightfully so, but notice the contradiction.

While feminists and queer communities at Rutgers are successfully banning sandwiches and reforming language, they have been failing to recognize football players who get away with beating their girlfriends. Last semester, Rutgers Athletic Director Bob Mulcahy cleared starting defensive end Alfred Peterson to play football after he was indicted for allegedly assaulting a female student. Peterson was exonerated by a university judiciary committee before the season began, but pleaded guilty to assault charges last month. Given identical circumstances and considering the testimony he heard, Mulcahy said he would make the same decision. And where is the outcry by feminists? At a newspaper called The Medium.

Last semester, 5,000 copies of the The Medium were stolen by self-described “progressive activists,” who combated the paper’s feminist-mocking not with debate, reason, or due process, but with thievery and deception. Worse, before the crime, students of the class “Woman, Culture and Society” were required to sign a calling for a campus-wide ban. Barbara Balliet, Director of the Women’s Studies Department, disassociated the petition with the missing papers saying, “I don’t even know that they’re stolen… Do you have evidence that they’re stolen?” While women on Douglass Campus were “offended” by nude pictures of women in The Medium, the all-female staff of the of Douglass’s self-described “progressive” magazine The Caellian recently printed graphic pictures of a softball sized sphere lodged inside of a young girl’s anus. Aren’t men repugnant?

In March 2005, Rutgers violated the US constitution and academic freedoms by prohibiting The Daily Targum from investigating the University’s spending habits of a budget of more than $1.2 billion, some of which comes from our rising 9% state user taxes. John Palvik, the Chairman of the Rutgers Journalism Department, refused to allow students to make such investigations since Pavlik and his department were subject to an investigation about how student athletes receive special perks including reserved courses in communications.

Luckily there exist organizations which fight constitutional violations, such as the non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (theFIRE.org), a group dedicated to uphold freedom of speech, legal equality, due process and religious liberty on increasingly repressive campuses. Groups like InterVarsity continued to exist, but that took a lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance and Students for a Free Tibet are not required to consider for leadership students of opposing beliefs. Groups like Tent State are free to discriminate on the basis of belief, simply due to their views.

At Rutgers, a school that prides itself on “making diversity a way of life,” “diversity” is only about skin color. Freedom is given to those who have the “correct views.” The academic core values of freedom of thought and expression are in danger of extinction. In the words of Charlton Heston, we must not “let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.”

Depending on how seriously Richard Dienst’s false threats and accusations are taken, THE CENTURION may soon be victim to another of the Rutgers’ witch hunts, where constitutional rights are not a defense.

NJO: Originally printed in the March 2005 issue of The Centurion.

"Tell me more about this class and any of the remarks your professor has made"

NJO: Originally appeared on the Rutgers Centurion's forum.


Topic: I can't believe I have to do this

hlcobassoon:
I can't believe I have to do this « on: January 24, 2005, 07:03:20 PM »
First, I apologize for not being able to make it to the meeting tonight.  I am sick and don't want to be too far from a bed.
For multiple reasons, most of which are too complicated to explain here, I have to take a women's studies course this semester (Douglass requirement).  I went into this hoping I would get a decent teacher who would stick to the original point of feminism and not be too extreme.  Well, for the course that fit in with the rest of my schedule, called Feminist Practices, I am required to read "The W Effect: Bush's War on Women," which has this awful charicature of him on the cover.  Now, I'm just assuming this is going to be dreadful, but before I assume too much, has anyone read this book and is it really as bad as it sounds? 

jokeefe:
Re:I can't believe I have to do this « Reply #1 on: January 25, 2005, 05:46:35 PM »
Tell me more about this class and any of the remarks your professor has made

James  

A Dose of Conservative Thought

Where is the truth?

Certainly it is not in some obscure interpretation of Marx's Capital or in the works of Trotsky or Spinoza or Friedrich Engels, Clement Atlee, Julius Nyerere or Noam Chomsky. Maybe it lies within the graves of the human beings slaughtered throughout the 20th century coerced into being equal by a government of armed thugs they didn't have a choice but to trust. Complete state ownership and collective ownership have both lead themselves down a path of good intentions to a hell so barbaric it's amazing rationalizations for their existence still exist. Especially given the empirical evidence. Your professors make the death list a cliché, a footnote and in some cases, even an impediment. Mao Zedong's butchering of 65 million people. 25 million in Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia slaughtered. Cambodia. Africa. Eastern Europe. Latin America. Your professors can hide behind textbooks and theories – even the promise of a socialist utopia – call the atrocities anti-socialist. (I could call racism anti-American and anti constitutional.) The Problem lies in their belief in this mysterious utopia which has never manifested itself ever. A belief which makes them more religious than Pat Robertson. In order to succeed, even in theory, they must confront arguments made by F. A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises about the inevitable failure of a controlled market. Have professors had their students read objections to socialism by Aron, Popper, Oakeshott, Sowell, Strauss, Blool, Kirk or Friedman? Absolutely not. Are your professors constituting a breach in academic responsibility by not offering you these extremely legitimate and historically proven objections to socialism? You betcha.

Have arguments been raised against these "utopian" paradises that currently exist on the planet earth anywhere at in the Academy? What about Sweden? Is this place heaven on earth or what? "Highest Standard of Living," they say. This tidbit seems to be based on wealth redistribution and median income. Not factored in are GNP, innovation or exchange rate. Neither is unemployment in the private sector (which has been close to 12%). Recent reports by the Swedish Institute of Trade indicate median income in Sweden is $26,900, compared to $39,400 in the United States. This is before taxes, and in Sweden taxes are everything. You're education and health care are certainly not "free." There is a national income tax of 55% not to mention a 22.5% sales tax on all items sold. Their socialized health care is on the verge of economic collapse, due to a funding dependency on a 30% private ownership of the means of production that is shrinking. Canada is facing similar problems. Meeting the costs of such welfare policies are barely possible in countries with 10 million people. Then how are they possible in America, with almost 300 million people?

I have seen students at the "Death of Humanity" rally as well as the extremist left-leaning conferences held throughout the month at Rutgers not address any of these objections. Should it be the responsibility of a couple of undergraduate students at THE CENTURION to challenge them? No. It should be the responsibility of Rutgers University. Professors should openly discuss both sides of the ideological coin as well as the benefits of electing both candidates for a presidential election (Especially if Students fees are sponsoring such conferences). In addition, our administration should pursue academic, conservative intellectuals to come speak who can pose defenses for our market structure, instead of conservative talking heads like Ann Coulter. It is the least they can do, if as our study indicates, the partisan ratio at Rutgers is a high as 13 Democrats to every 1 Republican.

Our Journal of conservative thought focuses upon the Rutgers Community and seeking balance within it as well as taking a stab at the current events. We recommend for students who want a conservative perspective devoted exclusively to current events read the impeccable prose of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or the columns of the National Review. Perhaps read one of the books we occasionally suggest. The differences between us and these other journals is our distinction of having the luxury of covering things that happen on our campus. By virtue of our firm belief in individualism, morality, and tradition our main goal is to challenge the students to see things through a different perspective.

Contrary to the sentiments of the angry and reactionary academic left, we are not on a coalition against benevolent causes like supporting of the environment and the need for racial equality. Our logic dictates that affirmative action programs should be based on socioeconomic need, not skin color. The majority of our student fees allocated from us towards NJPIRG, if collected from us without our informed consent, should go directly towards environmental causes. They should not go towards liberal lobbyists who pursue things other than the environment. We will attempt place needed scrutiny upon policies such as these because others seem not to for fear of some politically correct reprisal. Why call these arguments "racist" or "pro-pollution" when they could actually increase opportunity and decrease pollution, based on an increase in efficiency?

So you may very easily reject our humble attempts at introducing you to new perspectives. Laugh at us. Mock us. Call us "clueless." Our own faculty advisor did so in his December 1st entry of his weblog listed in the margin below. But in doing so, you'd just be rejecting yourself. Because our paper is not just a collection of legitimate or illegitimate points about particular political issues, rather it is the embodiment of the spirit of marginalized and isolated conservative students whose beliefs have much in common with the majority of citizens in the United States of America. Rutgers has an unchallenged partisan majority as witnessed in our study of campaign contributions. This threatens the impressionable youth who will soon depart the ivory gates of unregulated intellectualism into a real world, where contrary to the teachings of their sociology professors, anything is possible.

There is a world out there where is punishment for people who do bad things and there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a world out there where your theories will be governed by consequences, your hard work rewarded by success and your destiny contingent upon your actions. Because that section of the world we live in is America, our potential as human beings is infinite.

And that is the truth.

James O'Keefe

NJO: Originally printed in the December 2004 issue of The Centurion (Issue 2) and also posted on the Centurion website.

The truth shall set you free

General George Patton once said "When everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking at all." Throughout my life, in all my pursuits of obtaining knowledge, the one thing that has stimulated me most has been a good challenge. Everyone is in agreement that the only way to learn is through constant stimulation.

Conservatives and traditionalists are in this respect very fortunate in college. They are challenged. They learn material through postmodernism, historical revisionism and the plight of the disenfranchised. The are forced to disect morality and examine the ethical obligations of the West. They are lectured about the injustices and struggles of those who have been victim of systems favorable to those in power. They are drowned in relativism, concepts of distributive justice and redistribution of wealth. They are taught that there is no such thing as truth and you are not allowed to make judgments upon anyone or anything, except America. They are taught to be sensitive and defensive, emphasizing artifice and political correctness over fact. For Rutgers students who have not taken any classes in the liberal arts, look no further than your mandatory Expository Writing course. You read about the evils of capitalism and the gluttony of America. You read about the corruption of the elections processes which elect diplomatic morons. You learned about the consequences of globalization, the need for cultural contexts and the corruption of an all men's institution discriminating against women. Liberals are very unfortunate in college. They aren't really challenged at all.

Have advocates for progress with an alleged pursuit of tolerance ever attempted to understand or listen to their conservative counterparts, the same way they tell their America to listen to their political enemies? Have they been forced to read the Nobel Peace Prize winning works of free enterprise by Milton Friedman (A Rutgers graduate) or Friedrich Hayek the same way I have been forced to read the communist works of Karl Marx? Have they studied Ayn Rand's objectivism, Edmund Burke's belief in "sound practice" or William F. Buckley's "Up from Liberalism?" Do they see they are living in the most fruitful and prosperous country in the world, admiring egalitarian systems that in 20 th century have lead to more barbaric cruelty, famine and death than any privileged American intellect could ever fathom? Have those in academia been challenged morally? Have they studied the principles that this country was founded upon? Have they studied principles of liberty, freedom, justice, and equality, and truly compared them to the principles of other societies?

Why, in a country that is at least half conservative, do we not have this ratio represented in higher learning? Some will say conservatives shouldn't have a right to express themselves. Some say principles of limited government, personal responsibility or of an objective standard are flat out wrong. In the words of Michael Moore, "let's have that debate." But let's not have it through the filter of a professor who has endorsed a certain candidate or who always comes from a certain ideological perspective. Let Rutgers be a place as President McCormick envisioned in his Inaugural Address "where there is tolerance for the student who challenges the professor's ideas." If our arguments are so flawed, so unsound and so problematic, then let us expose them for everyone to criticize. Then we will rest our case.

There is nothing academic about an ideological majority. There is nothing liberal about a monopoly of thought, nothing enlightening about blatant partisan endorsement, and nothing equitable about discriminating against conservative students and professors because their beliefs are different than your own. Rutgers is a diverse research university with a goal not only to represent the citizens of New Jersey, but views and theories from all over the country and the world. More importantly, it is an academic institution that pursues something even deeper, beyond knowledge or ideology, beyond the rhetoric of a debate.

"Sol Iustate et occidentem Illustra." "Sun of righteousness shine upon the west also." For the past 200 years and to this day Rutgers lives by that motto. Give us virtue, give us justice, give us truth. So read about our truth to challenge yourself politically in the process. Find out that although we go about it differently, we are in pursuit of the same things you are. Disguising truth has helped every blood-thirsty tyrant and dictator keep the shackles on humanity throughout history. Let us rock the foundations of academia and challenge the thrones that have for too long indoctrinated us about our world and the context in which we live. As the Journal of Conservative thought at Rutgers university THE CENTURION will try its hardes to serve to that end. Turn the page. You may read things you agree with and you may read things that you disagree with. But at least you'll come closer to realizing your own truth, and in the words of Jesus Christ, "The truth shall set you free."

Cordially,
James O'Keefe
Founder, Editor-in-Chief
THE CENTURION
Veritas Vos Liberabit






NJO: Originally printed in the November 2004 issue of The Centurion (Issue 1) and also posted on the Centurion website.

So, some perspective.

James and some other students have just started a conservative-leaning college magazine. You pick up a copy of this new magazine, and right there on the front cover, James is telling you that if you get an abortion from an unregulated and unsafe practitioner and as a consequence suffer some horrible bodily harm which causes you to die, then as far as he's concerned it's really all a bit of a giggle because fuck you you dirty whore. It gets your attention in a trollish sort of way, so you turn to page 3, and you read the editorial above.

What are you supposed to think?

The conservative manifesto

By James O’Keefe

Published: Thursday, October 16, 2003

Updated: Sunday, February 22, 2009

There is a spectre haunting Rutgers - the spectre of liberalism.

At 19, I am a conservative Republican and an ideological minority. This country has gotten to a point where tolerant, "diverse" colleges and universities that advocate fairness and equality are beginning to ostracize those who don't hold one universal belief - that of liberalism. My social views have been bashed and underrepresented by the liberal majority at Rutgers and around the collegiate United States.

Registration records indicate the ratio of voting professors at top schools is ten democrats to every one republican, a documented fact and a pitiful, self-perpetuating tragedy, according to studentsforacademicfreedom.org. The ratio of commencement speakers on the left and right is even worse - a deplorable 15:1, according to www.frontpagemag.com. This is completely out of balance. On campuses there is more support for the Green Party than there is for the Republican Party! There is a hatred and loathing of conservatives, a trend that continues to flourish because colleges obsess with superficial diversity rather than intellectual diversity. I am intimidated and unable to express myself because there are overwhelming prejudices against what I believe in.

Witnessing 60 professors last week inappropriately label Rutgers Hillel and its Israel Inspires event as being "right-wing," and expecting that characterization in itself to be an accusation, has led me to believe conservatism has apparently become a crime. When was the last time there were 60 professors protesting all of the "left-wing" things that permeate campus? Never. Remember that these are the professors that teach us. Are there any significant forums for conservatives to express themselves in college? None. Can they say or do anything without being targeted or protested? Of course not. Rutgers promotes an intellectual imbalance, and in the process it distances conservative students. The majority doesn't care because the majority isn't conservative.

As a citizen of this country, it is my right to have a balanced education. Attention is not focused on the imbalance, but rather that it's stubborn for people like me to still remain conservative. Conservative reason is viewed as intrinsically wrong. This logic is beyond flawed - it's pathetic. Students can't defend its reason because their fundamental way of being taught is skewed!
 
"How so?" the skeptic wonders. In philosophy it is the professor's preference of theories of the self over theories of utilitarianism, of the libertarian over the communitarian. In sociology it is the preference of social conflict theories over functionalist theories - blame-society approaches rather than blame-individual approaches. In economics it is the questioning of capitalism, the bashing of "laissez faire" or "hands-off" (although many professors humorously teach void of ideological regulation). I'm not even going to mention subjects like history or political science. It is this fundamental favoritism in departments, the subtle imbalances that trusting student must embrace to get a good grade and the biased administration promoting it that enrages me. While everybody else happily jots down their daily notes, satisfied and gullible, writing in their blue books every liberal theory their beacon of academic insight taught them, I wonder what happened to the support for my beliefs. Where's my beacon?

In the first class I ever took at Rutgers, the professor begged the question, "Why is 'Communism' such a dirty word?" All the students in the class nodded and there was a chorus of "I knows." Then another student stood up and said, "If our country was socialist it would be a much better place to live." The entire class erupted in agreement.

Finally a student exclaimed, "Those conservatives are nazi bastards!"

Lovely.

The poor drones of Cuba could kindly explain to my professor, if they weren't being tortured by Fidel Castro, why "Communism is such a dirty word." So could the poor souls of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. But I encourage gratuitous statements praising extremist left-wing tyrants, as long as there are statements praising extremist right-wing tyrants as well. Extremes are dangerous, but if presented, must be taught in a balanced format.

However, Marxism is taught freely at colleges throughout America, while it is regarded as perfectly normal for the theories of Friedrich Hayek or Leo Strauss to be ignored. (They were conservative fundamentalists, and it figures you have never heard of them). Sadly, many of the professors who embrace the "Communist Manifesto" have never had a chance to live in a Communist regime and experience its harsh realities. Perhaps only then would they we able to understand why so many of their descendants fled to Capitalist America.

I'm tired of President George W. Bush being used as a scapegoat for every social problem. I'm tired of people questioning the need for a military defense after madmen bomb and threaten us. I'm tired of frivolous lawsuits and obese children suing fast food restaurants and patients driving up insurance costs by suing the doctors that protect their health. I'm tired of the incessant protesting for the sake of protesting, and the constant belligerence against America without the acknowledgement of how much opportunity and freedom we have.

I realize right now I'm appealing to a collegiate audience that hates everything I stand for. I know there are those who will deny this imbalance, or who will tell me my views are wrong. (Did I say your views are wrong?) Politics aside, I implore you to desire an objective and balanced education. There is no conspiracy I speak of, just a sad truth. I am concerned for your welfare. One day when you graduate from this liberal oasis and enter the real world, you will find that half the country will be just like me. An unlikely state like California just ousted their governor because they were getting fed up with liberal politics. Perhaps you will work some day for a boss that is conservative, no doubt for a company. This is your wake-up call.

So go ahead. Criticize my conservative column. Continue to nurture the lack of political balance at universities everywhere. Do it to conform. Do it because you love ignorance. Do it because you're young, gullible, and you're manipulated into thinking it is your collegiate duty to hate the status quo. Do it because 60 brilliant Ph.D.s at Rutgers actually think conservative propaganda is beginning to become a problem, when at one of the only conservative rallies last year (supporting the troops - not the war), there were more protestors than there were supporters. Do it because people like me are evil and shouldn't have the right to express themselves on campuses where extremists have the right to spit on my American flag and slander my American character.

Call me names, and frown at me because of my beliefs. It happens in my classes every day and I'm used to it. Maybe you liberals will realize I'm the one who's the underdog, and you'll start rooting for me.

James O'Keefe is a Rutgers College sophomore majoring in philosophy. His column, "Feathers of Steel," appears on alternating Fridays. 

NJO: Originally published in The Daily Targum.