commits a Hate Thought is in dangernof getting the ax and being permanentlynbarred from the “free marketplace ofnideas” that our Establishment likes toncrow about.nMurray N. Rothbard is a professor ofneconomics at the University ofnNevada, Las Vegas. He also lives innNew York.nLetter From thenLower Rightnby John Shelton ReednAn Academic RemnantnAs a rule I don’t use this letter fornacademic shoptalk. Most of younaren’t college professors, and few thingsnare more tedious than another profession’sngossip. Besides, there’s nonregional angle to this stuff, except thatnthe trendy foolishness currently plaguingnAmerican campuses may afflictnSouthern schools (Duke Universitynaside) marginally less than those elsewhere.nStill, if you don’t know about annorganization called the National Associationnof Scholars, you should. Back innJune I went to a meeting of that groupnin New York, and I’d like to tell younabout it.nThe NAS aspires to be an umbrellangroup for faculty members concernednor at least annoyed by what’s going onnaround them. This gives it, to say thenleast, a broad agenda. At one time ornanother the organization and its quarterly,nAcademic Questions, have deplorednentropy in the curriculum; thenmetastasis of race, ethnic, and gendernstudies; the denigration of excellencenand Western civilization in the namenof “diversity” and “multiculturalism”;nthe deformation of humanistic learningnby tendentious or self-indulgent “theoretical”nwork; the proliferation of raceandnsex-based hiring and admissionsnpolicies; and no doubt other enormitiesnthat I don’t recall at the moment.nOf course, not every NAS membernis exercised about all of these issues.nSome of us are soft on multiculturalism,nfor instance. Others doubtnthe efficacy of imposing a core curriculumnon unwilling students, or fear whatn44/CHRONICLESna core curriculum designed by today’snprofessors might look like. A few try tonlook on the bright side of literary theorynand victim studies. Some (mostly tenured)naren’t wild about the alternativesnto affirmative action. Others just questionnwhether it is politic for the NAS tonbundle all of these issues: after all, thenbroader the agenda the narrower thenconstituency.nStill, the issues do tend to come as anpackage, and from pretty much thensame promoters. And most of the NASnprogram ought to appeal not just to usnreactionaries but to liberals of the oldfashionednsort who have had enoughnand aren’t going to take it any more.nThat’s certainly true when the organizationnsteps forward to defend thentraditional academic freedoms ofnspeech and inquiry.nIt’s hard to talk about the threats tonthese freedoms without sounding hysterical,nbut they are threatened. That’snnot new, of course; they usually are.nWhat’s new is that the threat thesendays comes from what we might as wellncall the left, and that the usual defendersnof academic freedom (notably thenAmerican Association of UniversitynProfessors) are strangely supine in thenface of what they would ordinarily callnMcCarthyism.nIn my own discipline, for instance,nthe American Sociological Associationnwas called upon a few years ago toncensure James Coleman of the Universitynof Chicago for producing a studynof busing with conclusions that werennot politically correct. At Harvard,nwhen historian Stephan Thernstromnwas denounced for “insensitivity” innthe classroom, his accusers at first declinednto specify the charges further;neventually they produced a list of offensesnthat included Thernstrom’s observingnthat 19th-century Chinese immigrantsnpracticed an “Oriental”nreligion, and remarking that familyninstability contributes to present-daynblack poverty.nNow, Coleman and Thernstrom arenbig boys, bull elephants of the academicnjungle, and they weathered thesenepisodes without permanent damagen— although they’ve both become activenmembers of the NAS. But whatnabout students and junior faculty?nWhen the Sensitivity Police come fornmen and women without named chairsnand international reputations to protectnnnthem, a new double standard is appliednwithout shame. Last year a studentneditor published some stupid slurs onnDuke’s black cafeteria workers; he wasndrummed out of office without onensolitary bleat from the usual FirstnAmendment fundamentalists. Whennan art student’s offensive painting ofnChicago’s former mayor in ladies’ underwearnwas torn down — well, actuallynI think it should have been tornndown, but then I feel the same aboutnMr. Serrano’s Piss Christ. (Even ifnJesus Christ’s reputation is on firmernground than Harold Washington’s,nhow about some concern for the feelingsnof Christians?) But where werenthe defenders of the supposed rights ofnthat student “artist”? Hell, he wasn’tneven receiving NEA funds.nIt’s probably the 98-pound weaklingsnof academia who need the NASnmost, and one of the great pleasures ofnthe New York meeting was hearingnfrom some of the Charles Atlases ofnour profession. One session dealt withnthe question “Can the ProfessoriatenReform Itself?” The consensus seemsnto be that, no, it can’t, but everyonenseemed pretty cheerful nevertheless.nWhen you hear sense being spoken bynpeople like Coleman and Thernstrom,nby Gertrude Himmelfarb and DeannDonald Kagan of Yale — well, it’s encouraging.nYou realize that you’re notnjust right, you’re in good company.nIt’s like the famous Asch experiments,nwhich Intro. Psych, students ofna generation ago may recall. Aschnasked groups of people to say which ofnseveral lines was the longest. The actualnsubject of the experiment was thenlast to be asked, after several pseudosubjectsnhad confidently and consistentlynmade the wrong choice, andnoften the poor schnook simply caved innand went along with the group. Somenjust felt it wasn’t worth arguing about,nbut others were actually led to doubtnthe evidence of their own eyes. A few,nunusually suggestible, even saw one ofnthe shorter lines as longest, when thenothers said it was. Even subjects whonmade the right choice usually did itnhesitantly and apologetically.nApparently it takes a real hero, or anreal jerk — anyway, someone unusuallynstubborn or arrogant or courageousn— to insist that everyone else is simplynwrong, even when they obviously are.nThat’s the bad news. The good news.n