US-Leitmedien berichten immer kritischer über Situation an Universitäten

Insbesondere nach den feministischen Attacken auf die Feministin Laura Kipnis widmen sich immer mehr US-amerikanische Medien kritisch der Tatsache, dass die Universitäten des Landes eine Hochburg für radikale Ideologinnen geworden sind.

Die feministische Revolution frisst ihre Kinder befindet etwa die New York Post. Deren Autorin Naomi Schaefer Riley gibt zu bedenken:

It’s hard to work up too much sympathy for Kipnis, though. One wonders where she’s been for the past two decades when kangaroo courts were set up at institutions of higher education all over the country.

Has she been rushing to defend all the men convicted by campus courts of sexual assault with no lawyers present? (...) Anyone with a political agenda and an ax to grind can get professors reprimanded, students kicked off campus and commencement speakers disinvited.

(...) Perhaps these women can work hard enough now to make up for the sins of their past, but it’s probably too little, too late.

Der National Review sieht infolge des feministischen Irrsinns eine schwere Niederlage der ideologisierten Linken am Horizont:

Conservatives have long argued to leftists who were indifferent to the plight of campus conservatives and Christians that PC would prove hard to contain, that the PC police would one day turn on their own. Well, now it’s happening, and many on the left are suddenly realizing once again that free speech has some value, especially when their speech is under attack. The bottom line is that the current wave of intolerance is too self-righteous, too joyless, and too malicious to survive in an otherwise open society. But as the wave breaks, it’s exacting a dreadful cultural and professional toll — stifling debate, ending careers, and eroding the intellectual foundations of liberty.

Political correctness will fail, but it will fail in the way that leftist revolutions always do — at great cost, with high casualties, and with the revolutionaries themselves largely unrepentant and unbowed, ready to try again the instant the culture forgets their last failure.

Selbst die stark feministisch geprägte New York Times spricht inzwischen von Campus-Kreuzzüglern:

When you witness how this movement is actually being felt on campus, you can’t help noticing that it sometimes slides into a form of zealotry. If you read the website of the group FIRE, which defends free speech on campus, if you read Kirsten Powers’s book, "The Silencing," if you read Judith Shulevitz’s essay "In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas" that was published in The Times in Sunday Review on March 22, you come across tales of professors whose lives are ruined because they made innocent remarks; you see speech codes that inhibit free expression; you see reputations unfairly scarred by charges of racism and sexism.

(...) A crime occurs when someone feels a hurt triggered, or when someone feels disagreed with or "unsafe." In the Shulevitz piece, a Brown student retreats from a campus debate to a safe room because she "was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against" her dearly and closely held beliefs.

Today’s campus activists are not only going after actual acts of discrimination — which is admirable. They are also going after incorrect thought — impiety and blasphemy. They are going after people for simply failing to show sufficient deference to and respect for the etiquette they hold dear. They sometimes conflate ideas with actions and regard controversial ideas as forms of violence.

Warum fallen all die bekannten Vergewaltigungsvorwürfe an Universitäten auseinander? fragt sich schließlich verstört die Washington Post:

If you were to ask an average person today to name a prominent story about rape on college campuses, odds are pretty good that among the top four or five replies would be the Duke lacrosse case, the Rolling Stone cover story about Jackie and the University of Virginia, Columbia University “mattress girl” Emma Sulkowicz and one of the stories from "The Hunting Ground." Yet in all of these stories, either the accusations were later shown to be a complete fabrication or at least serious questions were raised about them.

Each time a new high-profile story falls apart, a larger portion of the public becomes less likely to believe the next one. (...) The anti-campus rape activists often claim that false accusations of sexual assault are practically nonexistent. (...) But that so many of the accusations that they themselves have chosen as emblems of the cause have been proved false or debatable suggests that they’re either wrong about the frequency of false accusations or that the movement itself has had some extraordinarily bad luck.