Universities Pass off
Left-Wing prejudice as Intelligent Thought
Peter Zohrab (2003)
Open Letter to Salient (a student newspaper) -- edited.
Your interview with Professor John Pratt (September 2003) revealed the loose
thinking that you get from Left-Wing ideologues at universities. He explained
Tony Ryall's criticism of "ivory tower academics" as anti-intellectualism.
This is a self-serving misunderstanding. The point is that academics -- having
lots of power to fail students but no one (in practice) to whom they are answerable
when they abuse their power -- routinely pass off Left-Wing prejudice as intelligent
thought. I, for one, would certainly not characterise Victoria University's
Criminology staff as "intellectuals"!
Professor Pratt quoted his colleague Jan Jordan
as saying that politicians such as Ryall had been wrong to focus on crime
at the last election, since the murder rate had remained steady. However,
on the page http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0205/S00562.htm
you can see that Tony Ryall on 23 May 2002 referred not to murder rates but
to "bashings and thuggery".
Irrespective of whether crime rates are going up or not, however, any
level of crime is a legitimate cause for concern. The public's level of concern
may well be a result of the amount of crime-reporting that surfaces in the
media, but that does not invalidate the public's concern, either. Arguably,
one cause of the increased crime since the 1960's has been the break-up of
the traditional family, with step-parents and step-children unable or unwilling
to have the same non-sexual and disciplined relationship with one another
that real parents and real offspring generally have. The break-up of the traditional
family, in turn, is the result of the Sexual Revolution and of Feminism's
brainwashing of women out of the home and into the workforce -- where temptations
to new relationships abound. Without even looking at the relevant webpages,
I can be certain that Victoria University's Left-Wing ideologues will not
have researched those sorts of topics -- in case they got the "wrong"
results, from their pro-Feminist perspective,
Pratt mentions public concerns about crime rates and soft sentences, but
offers no solutions. Instead, he says that high rates of imprisonment are
"worrying". That change of topic -- from the evaluating the problem
to criticising what is usually considered to be the solution -- is irresponsible.
The most important issue is obviously the crime rate. Members of the public
feel that the solution is deterrence and prevention by means of longer sentences.
Almost no one at University dares to challenge bullying Feminazis by researching
the causative role of Feminism in crime, which might lead to a more realistic
solution. Inevitably, the need for a solution must take priority over Pratt's
worries about imprisonment rates.
Pratt falls back on calling New Zealand a "modern, democratic, liberal
society that values freedom and liberty" as an argument against imprisoning
people, but those platitudes cut no ice. Present-day countries are always
"modern", by definition. Nazi Germany was also "modern"
in 1940. Also, it is patently ridiculous to say that freedom and liberty should
be extended to criminals. Moreover, I don't agree that New Zealand is democratic
and liberal, since most politically relevant information is controlled by
the unelected, Leftist MUC (Media University Complex), of which Professor
Pratt's own university is a particularly totalitarian part. A Leftist lecturer
has complete freedom to brainwash her students and force them to regurgitate
her propaganda at exam-time, for example. Those students then go on to apply
the results of the brainwashing in their careers.