CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnFOUR YEARS AT HARVARD havernmade me much thicker-skinned than Irnused to be. To be sure, it was more thanrna Uttle unsetthng when my freshmanrndormitory held a mandatory sensitivityrnsession at which each student was forcedrnto say: “Hello, my name i s . . . , and I’mrngay.” But after seeing Angela Davisrnwelcomed and feted by the John F.rnKennedy School of Government andrnSpike Lee given a multiyear professorshiprnto teach a course on “ContemporaryrnAfrican-American Cinema,” I had longrnsince become desensitized to the anticsrnof the Har’ard left. I was therefore preparedrnfor just about anything at the recentrncommencement exercises, whichrnprovided a fitting conclusion to an oftenrnbizarre college career.rnThe baccalaureate service, a Harvardrntradition dating back to 1642, openedrnwith selections from the sacred texts ofrnall the major religions. A representativernof each religion ascended in his turn,rnread several lines, and was seated, givingrnthe ceremony the feel more of a theologicalrnEpcot Center than of a solemnrnreligious service. Some organizers norndoubt thought this broad representationrnwould add to the religious significance ofrnthe occasion, but its effect was just thernopposite. J.F. Stephen was correct tornobserve that “when religious differencesrncome to be and are regarded as mere differencesrnof opinion, it is because therncontroversy is really decided in the skepticalrnsense, though people may not likernto acknowledge it formally.”rnEfforts to accommodate the politicallyrncorrect crowd actually becamernamusing. Whenever one of the speakersrnmentioned God, for example, he wouldrnhastily add: “er, by whatever name yournmay invoke him.” One woman brokernthe monotony by closing a prayer withrn”in Jesus’ name, Amen”—no doubt thernlast time she’ll be heard from at Harvard.rnThe predictable result of this was tornreduce the religious content of thernservice to a decidedly uninspiringrndeism—the lowest common denominatorrnof the religions represented. Allrnwe could agree on was the existence ofrna Prime Mover, out there somewhere.rnIt was therefore funny when RadcliffernCollege President Linda S. Wilson remindedrnus that diversity had been ourrnstrength over the past four years. Diversityrnwould prove to be South Africa’srnstrength as well, she assured us, as thernheretofore frustrated potential for arn”prosperous” and “stable” South Africarnwould finally be realized under the leadershiprnof Nelson Mandela.rnApart from the occasional scholar orrnscientist, the honorary degree recipientsrnwere p.c. to a person, though none morernso than retiring Supreme Court JusticernHarry Blackmun. Blackmun, we wererntold, concerned himself much more withrnthe “real people” involved in his decisionsrnthan with legal formalities (e.g.,rnthat antiquated document from America’srnhorse-and-buggy days). I remainedrnseated as the entire assembly, led byrncheering law school graduates, gavernBlackmun a standing ovation for his effortsrnon behalf of the oppressed.rnThat afternoon, Vice President AlrnGore delivered the Commencement Addressrn—a lengthy harangue on the needrnfor “faith in government.” Cynicism,rndefined by the Vice President as a lackrnof appreciation of the central state as arnforce for good, is the bane of democraticrngovernment. Gore even tried tornblame the crime problem on cynicism.rnCynics, you see, are crippling federal effortsrnto find a solution. Imagine that:rnwhile the police stood by and did nothingrnas mobs terrorized Los Angeles,rnCrown Heights, and Atlanta, the massesrnremained skeptical of solutions that involverntaking their guns away from them.rnThe rest of the speech was distinctly forgettable,rnthough I do recall rolling myrneyes quite a bit.rnOn that note, the ceremony, and withrnit my undergraduate career, came to arnclose. I will, of course, always lookrnfondly on my years at Harvard. But partrnof me can’t help agreeing with John DosrnPassos, that until most of Harvard isrn”blown up and its site filled with salt,rnno good will come out of Cambridge.”rn—Thomas E. Woods, Jr.rnSTANFORD is adding to its fame as arnsite of cultural conflict. When a disturbancernbroke out during the showing onrncampus last May of a short film aboutrngrape pickers and the perils of insecticide,rnlocal print media played up thernclaim that viewers had chanted “BeanersrnGo Home” during the ten-minute film.rnIn fact, the 1,700-seat auditorium wasrnfilled with chanting, but it was started byrna group of 20 Hispanics who forciblyrntook a cluster of seats in the back nearrnwhere I was sitting. They physicallyrnmoved a young Chinese woman out ofrnthe seats they chose to occupy as a group.rnAs the lights dimmed, they startedrnchanting, “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, AnglornGringo, You Got To Go.” They repeatedrnthis loudly four times. The chantrnrefers to radical Hispanic belief that Californiarnneeds to be cleansed of Englishrnspeakers (black, white, Asian, and others)rnso that the Spanish language is completelyrndominant. Then the state will bernrenamed “Aztlan” and will be permanentlyrnHispanic in population.rnThis chant annoyed some of those inrnattendance, and two black male studentsrnand a Japanese-American female studentrncommenced the counter chantrn”Beaners Go Home,” which was joinedrnin by about 100 students. Local printrnmedia, in particular, reported therncounter chant and ignored the initialrnchant of hostility toward English speakers.rnRadical Hispanics are unchastised atrnStanford and retail the most unpalatablerndoctrines. Their rhetoric is full ofrntalk about “blood” and “soil” and thernneed to reclaim California, ignoring thernfact that the Mexicans stole Californiarnfrom the Spanish and then controlled itrnfor only about 20 years, failing to developrnits industry, agriculture, or commerce.rnRadical Hispanics at Stanfordrnprefer the label “Chieano” and talkrnabout “Chicanismo” as the body of ideasrngoverning their thinking and politicalrnactivities. Several radical Hispanicrngroups are chartered and approved byrnStanford’s student government and receivernuniversity funds for their activities.rnMany students privately refer to thernspeech of the radical Hispanics asrn”Brown Racism,” inasmuch as it promotesrnthe division of society into severalrngroups, one such group to be “Chieanos”rnwho are descendants of Mexican immigrantsrninto the United States. “Chieano”rnliterature and speeches openly claim thisrnland for their culture and for their peoplernand demand a kind of ethnic cleansingrnof blacks, whites, and Asian-Americansrnwho speak English or who uphold Amer-rnSEPTEMBER 1994/5rnrnrn