STOPPING THE LONG MARCHnTHROUGH THE UNIVERSITY by Arnold Beichmann”A Leninist cannot simply be a specialist in hisnfavorite branch of science. . . . He must be annactive participant in the political leadership of hisncountry.”n— Slogan of Moscow UniversitynSubstitute “professor” for “Leninist” and the quotationnwould appear almost a cliche to many American academicians.nYet such corollary Leninist themes and variations havenbecome a commonplace in the American university. They arennot put forth by the U.S. government, university boards ofntrustees, or university presidents. They are practiced by membersnof the academy themselves. There are professors atnreputable universities who insist that merely teaching Marxistnradicalism is not enough—the teacher must also be “an activenparticipant” in the oncoming revolution.nProfessor Howard Zinn argues that “to be a radical and notnan activist is a contradiction.” Then he adds that only activistsncan write the best “history” and that “the binding power ofnsocial action itself” will bring about “value-directed history.”nProfessor Zinn claims that “in a world where justice isnmaldistributed, there is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ ornrepresentative recapitulation of the facts. . . . Truth must benshaped by present conditions and future requirements.”nAnother example of the New Campus Politics is an articlenby Richard Lewontin, a Harvard biologist. After asking, “Whatndoes Marxism have to ofFer the bourgeois university?” Lewontinnreplies: “preferably, nothing.” He explains:nThat is, Marxism can do nothing for the university:nthe real question is what can Marxists do to and in thenuniversity. . . . For the natural and social scientist thenanswer is very clear. The university is a factory thatnmakes weapons — ideological weapons — for classnstruggle, for class warfare, and trains people in theirnuse. It has no other leading and important function innthe social organization.nLewontin goes on to say:nThe social university is not primarily concerned withnthe abstract pursuit of scholarship, but with thenutilization of knowledge obtained through scholarshipnto obtain social change. There, it does not recognizenthe right of its members to do anything they wishnunder the name of academic freedom: instead itnassumes that all its members are committed to socialnchange. To give an example, a course in riot controlnwould simply be declared out of place in such anuniversity, while a course in methods of rioting mightnbe perfectly appropriate.nHow much longer can non-Leninist, non-Marxist, non-nArnold Beichman is Research Fellow at The HoovernInstitution. A version of this essay was delivered at annAccuracy in Academia conference in the summer of 1987.nCommunist academics continue to ignore this jihad within thenuniversity, against truth, knowledge, and the fundamental ideasnof academic freedom? Doing his best to establish a system ofnMarxist “adversarial education,” as Professor Balch and Londonncall it, former professor of French literature at Yale now atnDuke University, Frederic Jameson writes:nTo create a Marxist culture in this country, to makenMarxism an unavoidable presence and a distinct,noriginal, and unmistakable voice in American social,ncultural, and intellectual life, in short to form anMarxist intelligentsia for the struggles of thenfuture—this seems to me the supreme mission of anMarxist pedagogy and a radical intellectual life today.nNobody would suggest that the majority of Americannacademics are radicalized Marxists. But the non-Marxifiednacademicians are doing little to resist a widespread andnrelentless Marxification which seeks to subvert our academicninstitutions. Sidney Hook writes, “The enforcement of thenacademic ethic must rest with the faculties themselves.”nAt a recent convention of the American Political SciencenAssociation in Chicago, the Marxist-Leninist Michael Parentinextolled the superiority of Soviet trade unions over the U.S.nvariant. There was nothing remarkable in Parenti’s pro-Sovietnposition; he is as candid about his Stalinism as Angela Davis isnabout hers. What was remarkable is that the non-Stalinistnmembers of the panel, all distinguished academics, plus thenaudience of several hundred political scientists listened tonParenti’s propaganda without a murmur. Had another speakernsuggested, say, that trade unions in South Africa (whichnactually do exist) were superior to those of the United States,nlet alone to those of the Soviet Union, he would have beennbooed off the platform as an extremist, and the panel wouldnhave led the booing.nPerhaps the political scientists who allowed this Marxist-nLeninist schlock to pass unchallenged at a scholarly meetingnbelieved that the Marxist academics are losing the battleneverywhere and needed no rebuttal. Unfortunately, while thenMarxist academics may (debatably) be losing in the worldnbeyond the academy, they are most definitely not losing theirnwar to establish a Marxist infrastructure in the social sciencesnand the humanities.nMoreover, the Marxist academics are today’s power elite innthe universities, and by the magic of the tenure system theynhave become self-perpetuating. Instead of a proletariat to benliberated, we today have a professoriat which has already freednitself from the academic mandate. It has also successfullynsubstituted Marxist social change as the goal of learning,ninstead of a search for objective truth. The influence of thenMarxist professoriat and their New Campus Politics extends tonother sectors of the “New Class”: opinion leaders and institutions,nthe radio and television networks, and the prestige press.nIn the face of such domination the life of the anti-Marxist ornconservative faculty member without tenure is Hobbesian:n”solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”nAmong the social scientists first to recognize the intrusion ofnnnJANUARY 1988/ ISn