the “adversary” culture into the university was Dr. Evron M.nKirkpatrick, former director of the American Political SciencenAssociation. He summarized the position of the left arrayednagainst contemporary political science by saying that the “newncritics” were taking for granted that nonleft political scientistsnhad accepted “the false gods of reason, objectivity and freedom.”nThe nonleft political scientists were condemned by thenNew Campus Politicians “for making understanding, notnaction, the goal.” As far as Kirkpatrick was concerned, then”new critics” were opposed to “scholarly inquiry.”nProfessor Bertell Oilman of New York University’s Institutenof Marxist Studies is quite correct in saying that “[a] Marxistncultural revolution is taking place today in American universities.nMore and more students and faculty are being introducednto Marx’s interpretation of how capitalism works. … It is anpeaceful and democratic revolution, fought chiefly by booksnand lectures.” The field of American history, says ProfessornJohn P. Diggins, “has come to be dominated by Marxists andnfeminists. . . . What killed liberal historiography, whether political,nintellectual or diplomatic was Marxism.”nAt Harvard we have a strange situation. Professor JohnnWomack, chairman of the university’s history department, hasnsaid publicly, “In politics as I was ten years ago, so I remain — anCommunist. This keeps me busy.” Harvard President DereknBok said Womack’s political loyalties didn’t trouble him so longnas Womack didn’t “seek to indoctrinate his students.” Thisnwould be fine in a world where the left played fair, but how cannindoctrination be avoided when the index of taboo subjects isnadded to almost daily?nIt was not so long ago that Harvard Professor James Q.nThe Marxist professoriat has reached its pinnacle ofnpower particularly in the social sciences — the willingnessnof modernist intellectuals to serve the interestsnof power that promises drastic societal changersnboth a long and an old story.n16 / CHRONICLESnWilson was arguing that what passes for a liberal educationntoday is inconsistent with liberalism and its traditional values:ncivility, free speech, equality of opportunity, and “the maintenancenof a realm of privacy and intimacy from the constantnassaults of the political and the societal.” Writing in 1972,nWilson said:nIn the last two or three years, the list of subjects thatncannot be publicly discussed there [at Harvard] in anfree and open forum has grown steadily, and nownincludes the war in Viet Nam, public policy towardnurban ghettos, the relationship between intelligencenand heredity, and the role of American corporations inncertain overseas regimes … to be specific: anspokesman for South Viet Nam, a critic of liberalnpolicies toward the ghettos, a scientist who claimednthat intelligence is largely inherited and a corporatenexecutive who denied that his firm was morallynresponsible for the regime in South Africa have allnbeen harassed and in some cases forcibly denied annopportunity to speak.nnnIn May 1987, Asst. Professor Randall Kennedy of HarvardnLaw School defended a student blockade which prevented anSouth African diplomat from speaking on the campus bynsaying that “Toleration has its limits.” Professor Kennedy, whonis a board member of the Massachusetts Civil Liberties Unionnand a black, was asked how he would respond if a lecturer hendidn’t like was beaten or killed during a protest. He replied:n”It’s a close call, something I’d have to think deeply about.”nIn the 1950’s, the New School of Social Research graduatenfaculty and the general faculty adopted a statement which theynprobably would not adopt today:nThe New School knows that no man can teach wellnnor should he be permitted to teach at all unless he isnprepared “to follow the truth of scholarship wherevernit may lead.” No inquiry is ever to be made whether anlecturer’s private views are conservative, liberal, ornradical, orthodox or agnostic: views of the aristocrat orncommoner. Jealously safeguarding this preciousnprinciple, the New School strictly affirms that anmember of any political party or group which assertsnthe right to dictate in matters of science or scientificnopinion is not free to teach the truth and thereby isndisqualified as a teacher.nThe attempt to endow the American university with a corporatenidentity has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of itsnfomenters. The mutation of the academy has been going onnopenly for a long time, with little opposition to those who arentransforming it into Marxist revolutionary theater. John KennethnGalbraith was boasting almost 20 years ago that “it wasnthe universities . . . which led the opposition to the Vietnamnwar, which forced the retirement of President Johnson, whichnare leading the battle against the great corporations on the issuenof pollution, and which at the last Congressional electionsnretired a score or more of the most egregious time-servers,nmilitary sycophants and hawks.”nHow did this coup against the traditions of the universitynbegin, and why has Marxism become the driving motor of thisncoup? At a time when Marxism has over and over againndemonstrated its failures on every level in the U.S. and Britishnsocial sciences, it is more influential than ever.nThe Marxist professoriat has reached its pinnacle of powernparticularly in the social sciences — the willingness of modernistnintellectuals to serve the interests of power that promisesndrastic societal change is both a long and an old story. A.J.P.nTaylor described the revolutionaries of 1848 as those whonbelieved in “movement: therefore only those elements whondesired change were democratic [and] since movement andndemocracy were synonymous, only those who desired socialismnwere the people.”nBut there were later intellectuals, in the 1920’s, who foundnreaction and the early fascism congenial because like socialism,nfascist doctrines seemed to afford an opportunity for them tonestablish their preeminence as custodians of morals andnculture. The antidemocratic nature of these doctrines madenthem particularly appealing to an extraordinary number ofnleading artists and writers. In the U.S., there was a surprisingndegree of support for Italian fascism among American intellectuals.nThe New Republic in the late 1920’s was urging “ansympathetic hearing” for Italian fascism because it promotedn