Lanny Griffith, Tammy Bruce, Ron Robinson and Dr. Candace De Russy speak at Restoration Weekend on "Political Bias In Our Colleges and What We Can Do About It."

*

LANNY GRIFFITH: I've known of David Horowitz and admired his work for many years. In the last couple of years I've had the chance to work with him first-hand, and have participated in the last three or four Restoration Weekends. I'm serving on his Board now, and am just a huge fan of what it is he does in terms of helping us understand the methods and the strategy of the left, and how it impacts on our lives.

Nobody spends more time on college campuses, in understanding what's going on there, than David. He's got a huge following all over the country, and largely it's because of the valuable work he's done on college campuses. So it couldn't be more appropriate to start this panel by giving David about five or ten minutes to kind of set the tone for it. David?

DAVID HOROWITZ: The electoral map in 2000 was pretty evenly divided; now we're told it's 53-47 Republicans. But on our college campuses, on the administrations of our universities and on the faculties, a Republican is as hard to find as a unicorn. And this is – it's wherever you go in this country. I've been on 200 college campuses, a lot with the help of Ron Robinson here, who is head of the Young Americans Foundation and whose business it is to send our people out. And it's very important what Ron does, because the left controls all the funds in the university, so there's no money and no invitations coming from the universities themselves.

I've been on 200 college campuses in the last ten years. I have been to Ferrum College, which is in the capital of moonshine country, in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, where the nearest big city, Roanoke, which is a hundred thousand people, is a hundred miles away. And the left controls that campus. It's really a nightmare in this country, what's happened to the universities.

Everywhere I go, I am invited by a small group of college Republicans or smaller groups yet. At Vanderbilt, I spoke at a group that Ron sponsors called Wake Up America. I always ask them how many professors are available to sponsor their club, because that tells me who the Republicans out of the closet, so to speak, are – those who are brave enough to speak. And it's invariably two or three.

At Vanderbilt, actually, it was zero. They found a Professor of Business Administration to sponsor their club. He's actually a businessman who lives and works in San Francisco, and flies, commutes, two times a week to teach this business course. This is the premiere university in the state of Tennessee.

At Ohio State – Ohio is a state where Republicans have controlled both houses of the legislature for ten years, and the governorship. Ohio State University has 60,000 students. When I asked the college Republicans how many professors are available to sponsor their club, the answer was two or three.

How does this happen? Well, universities are feudal hierarchies. They're run like the Communist Party. A central committee of Senior Professors in every department organizes the PhD programs, and elevates students who are like-minded. It's a normal human instinct to want to perpetuate yourself and what you think, so of course, students who spout the party line are the ones who get the greater honors and are encouraged. When it's time to hire, there's a faculty committee which passes on people, called the Tenure Committee.

Shortly after 9/11, I was at an eastern university. I'm sure Ron's organizaton sponsored this speech. The kids'll take me out to a local diner before the speech, and the faculty advisor will often be there. And here he was, and he was a white-haired – all of the conservative professors are white-haired – a white-haired professor in the History Department, Senior Professor of History. And I said to him, "How does it work?" And he said, "Well, they haven't allowed me on a Search Committee since 1985." He said, "In that year I chaired the Search Committee and of course we hired a Marxist. And I said, "Of course." Because conservatives believe in process and educational values; you should be exposed to diverse viewpoints.

The left, as John Diggins once said – John Diggins is a kind of Johnson liberal, or Hubert Humphrey liberal, who were liberals when liberals were actually liberal. I was at a American Studies Association meeting with him, in a room full of academic leftists, and he said, "You know, we liberals let you in, and you came in, and you closed the door behind you."

So this Senior Professor said, "They hired a Marxist." Then, he said, "This year we had an opening for a Professor of Asian History, and I saw that the most qualified candidate was from Stanford. And he didn't get the job. So I asked the Chair of the Search Committee what happened? And he said, 'Well, you're absolutely right, he was the best qualified for the job, and we had a terrific interview. But then we all went out to lunch, and he let on that he was for school vouchers.'" Did you get that? If you have the wrong position on school vouchers, you must be politically incorrect about the Ming Dynasty.

I wish that that was all it was, but what it really is, is power. The idea of academic leftists is, "We cannot afford to let somebody in who is not with the program, because they might let another one in, and another, and we would lose control.

There were 150 campus demonstrations against America defending herself within 2 or 3 weeks after 9/11. This is reflection of the dominance of the left on America's campuses.

At Brown, when I did my Reparations campaign, the leader, the faculty leader of the left, is somone who publishes in the Communist Party's "theoretical journal." He's a specialist in "black philosophy." The Brown Daily Herald printed my ad; my ad was about why reparations was a bad idea. The left attacked the Brown Daily Herald as a racist paper. You have to understand these kids, the editors, had debated the big debate six months before – this was the spring of 2001 – was whether to endorse Ralph Nader or Al Gore; that's who these kids are. They were attacked as racist. The entire issue of the Brown Daily Herald was stolen and destroyed by the left. The President of the university made a very mild statement saying that we shouldn't be destroying newspapers at Brown. Sixty – sixty – members of the Brown faculty signed a statement attacking the President and defending the theft of the papers. That's the situation at Brown.

I think there were four professors who actually came out and defended me, which was four times as many as came out at any other university. Two in the medical school and one botanist, who had written a book on Darwin and design theory. And one music professor whose career and life had been ruined for many years by a false accusation from the feminists – he looked at somebody the wrong way or something. Those were the four who defended me.

This translates into the fact that what students are regularly taught in universities, to put it bluntly, is to be ashamed of their country; to look on America as a racist, sexist, imperialist monster. In other words, the Great Satan, which is why you have so much sympathy on college campuses for our enemies.

I actually think something can be done about this situation, and I think that the root causeS of our problem at this point are the Republican party and conservative complacency. There attitude is "Oh, the universities are run by communists – well, you know, they're intellectuals, they're tweedy and, you know, they never met a bottom line, so what can you expect? That's just the way things are." In a state like Colorado or Ohio, all the trustees of these state university systems are appointed by Republican governors. Hank Brown, who used to be a Republican senator, is the President of the University of North Colorado. All of these schools need money; they need variances; they need a ton of things, and they come to the governors and the legislatures all the time. They have to; they're dependent on them.

How do Democrats look on universities? In my state of California, when they were preparing to build a ninth campus of the University of California, Jesse Unruh, who was the most powerful politician in the state and a Democrat, said, "I'm going to build this campus in Irvine, and make Orange County a Democrat County." That's the way they look at it. Right now the entire admissions system of the University of California – and this is affecting admissions all over the country – is being revamped according to the dictates of the political left. UC altered the SAT requirements because the Hispanic caucus in the state legislature told Atkinson -- the President of the entire University system -- "You are going to increase the number of Hispanics that get into the school regardless of how you do it, or we're going to have your job."

I always have a bad conscience because I kind of feel I've been sent as an ex-radical to conservatives, to teach them bad manners and bad politics. I don't advocate quite the heavy-handedness that the Hispanic caucus is using in California. But it seems to be me reasonable that a Republican governor in a Republican state – where, just as everywhere else, you have two or three Republicans on a faculty of a thousand -- could say, the next time the university comes to him for help, "Look, this is an intolerable situation; my constituents don't understand; this is a patronage system that the Democratic party is running in our state institution. It's illegal. Moreover, it's unconstitutional to hire or fire people on the basis of their political opinions. Obviously, you have a bias in the hiring process. Unless you're going to tell me that Republicans like myself are stupid and can't be professors. [Which they will, if you let them.] This is intolerable; I want you to do something about it; I'm not going to tell you how, but I want to see a change here, if you want my help."

And university presidents are – what are they? They're fundraisers; that's basically what they are. And as my writing partner, Peter Collier, once said, the profile for a university administrator is a cross between Saul Alinsky and Neville Chamberlain. They don't want trouble. And the way the left gets its way is by causing trouble. I don't advocate that our students occupy buildings, but we need to make a lot more trouble for these administrators so that they change.

Our biggest mission, then, is affecting the mentality of the Republican Party. It's got to focus on this as an issue. I'm going to make this my mission, if it takes me ten years, until I get results. You all got a pamphlet called "You can't get a good education if they're only telling you half the story." And I can tell you from my experience, particularly at the University in Michigan, the non-conservative students are very affected by this argument. They want to hear both sides of the story.

LANNY GRIFFITH: Great, David, thanks. Thanks for remarks and also thanks for all that you're doing there. It must be a great experience to be traveling around to all those campuses. You know, I was thinking, as I was looking at David's background, that he was a Communist revolutionary, which would have been sort of in the sixties. I've got a daughter who's 17, and we're sort of thinking in terms of colleges and where to go – and for the first time she's sort of interested in that.

I went to Old Miss, or the University of Mississippi. I was actually there in the 70's, but by Old Miss standards, that was sort of Haight Ashbury. The 60's kind of arrived in Mississippi sort of in the early 70's there. So my daughter's wondering what it is, did I do anything in the radical 60's there? And I told her that I thought the most radical thing I did was organize a rally to support President Nixon's mining of the [Hai Phong] [phonetic] Harbor. So I suppose at the time that David was being a radical Communist agitator all around the country, I was doing my part to advance radical ideas like supporting our President in an unpopular war.

On college campuses, you hear a lot about diversity. We actually have a lot of diversity for you today, and a lot of different takes on this idea. And let me introduce – let me give you -- I'm going to run down through each one of these folks, give you a little sense of their background, and then they're just going to start, come through for five, ten minutes, and then we'll take your questions.

The first is going to be Tammy Bruce. In terms of diversity, she's an openly gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, voted for President Reagan, progressive feminist. Now, that's pretty good – now that really brings some real diversity. She served two years as a member of the National Organization for Women Board of Directors, which ought to give us some particularly good insight into what's going on there. Her show, The Tammy Bruce Show, is the first radio talk show with an openly gay woman in the country, and it's to be hosted on mainstream talk shows. She has a new book out, which I hope we're going to get a chance to buy from her, The New Thought Police, and it warns of the danger of the rise of left-wing McCarthyism. So Tammy's going to be a great addition.

Ron Robinson, I guess, is the oldest college Republican in the country. Ron is President of the Young Americans Foundation; he's been working in college campuses and organizing conservative causes there for three decades. And he's a native of Buffalo, New York. He was Executive Director of Young Americans for Freedom back in the 70's, President of the United States Youth Council, and he's President of the International Youth Year Commission, and advisor to President Reagan at the U.S. Department of Education.

Among the other great things that he does, in terms of working with colleges and college students, and organizing getting people like David onto the college campuses – the other thing that Ron has done that I think is extraordinary is the work he did in saving the Reagan Ranch out in Santa Barbara. The Young Americans organization has bought that ranch and preserved it for us. And of course, the longer we get away from the 80's, we realize how important it is that we save everything, and remember how valuable the contributions of President Reagan.

We also have Dr. Candace de Russy. She'll have a different approach, which is more from higher education and working sort of within that. She's a member of the Board of Trustees at State University of New York, which she's done since 1995. She's on the Board of Visitors at the U.S. Air Force Academy, appointed by President Bush in 2002. Throughout her career, she's worked, had the deep commitment that she's shown, in improving elementary, secondary, as well as higher education. She's led efforts to raise academic standards, strengthen general education, promote school choice, and bring accountability and efficiency to the academy. Wow, that's a pretty impressive agenda. She holds a doctorate in French from Tulane University, so she's spent some time in the South, which is good, in my favorite city, New Orleans. She has a Master's from Middlebury College and a B.A. from St. Mary's Dominican College of New Orleans.

And our last person down at the end of the row here is somebody that is a great buddy, and somebody I've been a fan of for years. Starting at the age of 33, he became the first Republican elected as the mayor of Jersey City since the First World War. He was reelected with 69 percent of the vote in 1993 and reelected again in 1997 in a landslide that made him the longest Mayor of that city in 50 years. I think all of you know Brett Schundler's remarkable political story.

Just in case you've forgotten how huge his political accomplishment is, Jersey City is a city that's 65 percent minority, largely working class. He starts with a Republican base of 6 percent, and so it is really a remarkable thing that he wins – he's been a national – his work there as Mayor in Jersey City is a national model for urban reform. His tax cuts, the work he's done in reducing crime, securitizing the property tax liens, past charter school legislation in New Jersey, establish medical savings accounts; privitize the management of his library, raised a million dollars in scholarship money so low income Jersey City kids could have real choices of schools. I guess I got to know him first because the work he did was national president of an organization I was involved in, starting Americans For School Choice back sort of – about the time we got booted out by the Clinton folks back in the early 90's, and we went out to organize – go back to our revolutionary beginnings and organize on that.

Jack Kemp called Brett the gold standard; Newt Gingrich says he's the most exciting Republican in the country. He, too, spent a little time off in the wilderness working for Gary Hart's Presidential campaign in 1984, but he, too – I don't know whether it has to do with the fact that he spent time in the securities industry at Solomon Brothers, but somewhere along the way in that experience, he's become an active Republican. Probably – I don't know if he would want to be viewed that way -- but I think he was a compassionate conservative before we understood that term and before we'd even defined it, he was probably – nobody probably with a career in politics defined compassionate conservative as much as Brett did, and he's put it into action.

He was also – I forgot to mention that he did another remarkable thing, which is, he became the Republican nominee for governor in the last election in New Jersey, and sort of took on the Republican establishment there, sort of decided - they're kind of heavy-handed, the way they do things in New Jersey, and they sort of like to decide in the back rooms who's going to be the nominee and who's going to be their candidates. And Brett decided to take it directly to the people and let the Republican voters of New Jersey decide who their nominee would be. And of course, once he did that, they chose him. He's, I'm sure, hopeful – it was an exciting campaign; he didn't make it, but I'm sure hopeful that what he's about and what he's going to share with us is some of the stuff he's doing t help them become not only the nominee but the governor of New Jersey. He'll do a spectacular job there.

So anyway, let me turn it over to Tammy. We'll move through there, and I'll be back with you on the other end of this. Thanks.

TAMMY BRUCE: Thank you. I want to obviously thank David Horowitz for making this kind of event possible, and providing a forum as an activist, which I've been, gosh, now, for close to fifteen years. It really comes down to being able to speak directly to each other to make the difference.

Interestingly, through my feminist activism – I was partly instrumental in the establishment of N.O.W. clubs throughout universities. And at the time - you know, my politics really haven't changed. Although a lot of people wonder what happened to me, the reality is, not much. When I went into feminist activism, I had and still have an ideal view that something like feminism should transcend party lines, should transcend politics; that there really is no one in this room who doesn't think that women should have the right to vote and be free from violence and choose the careers they want and attend every university they want. So when I was helping establish these clubs in my late 20's and early 30's – now seemingly a very long time ago – I had the idea that that was the message that was also going to be imparted.

Now, with my book The New Thought Police, I'm being invited by very few, certainly never the feminists, to come to some campuses. And I've been doing so, and it's been a fascinating experience. Because I also was a supporter of the special interest classroom; the ideas of the special interest programs, like Women's Studies. And Black Studies. And Gay and Lesbian Studies.

Now, in my mind, I also always thought, as an example, that Women's Studies would be a good thing because men might find that interesting. And Gay and Lesbian Studies might be an interesting thing to impart a different culture in the embracement of diversity, as it should be, to people who might not normally have an experience – which is what you do when you go to college. You're supposed to be meeting and having exchanges with all these people you normally wouldn't know or get a chance to meet in your town or even afterwards.

But of course, as we know, and as I've found, only in the last few years – because of my limited history within the left itself – is the fact that those particular programs, in fact – although they say it's for diversity – really serve to isolate. That the grasp on kids – and this is what's been interesting in meeting these kids – and this is kind of an odd good news in a way – when I've been invited, it's been by college Republicans and -- the federalist societies at law school love me. But when I've been invited – because it's been so limited – what I've found is the manifestation of this as well, is that the feminists on campuses, although unlike David, who gets very aggressively attacked and shouted down, the students and these other – the feminists, the Women's Studies – because of my history – President of Los Angeles N.O.W. for seven years, on the national N.O.W. Board of Directors, an openly gay woman and a feminist – they don't – they can't scream 'homophobe' or 'sexist' or 'racist' at me. So they don't use – they haven't used yet, the heckler's veto – but what they do, these different programs – obviously, and I think this has probably happened to David as well – program opposing programs. So that kids are divided.

And what I've found, within the program itself, and within this effort, and again, the good news in an odd way, is that they know if these kids are exposed to an alternative point of view, which is why the newspapers are burned, which is why David is so dangerous, which is why speakers coming to campuses are so resisted when they come from a moderate or conservative political framework – when these kids are exposed to an alternative idea, they do respond. So there is this frantic effort, mostly maintained through the special program studies, to keep everyone isolated.

Which is, of course, the foundation of the left itself, through multiculturalism. So within the campus structure itself, you're looking at Feminist Studies, as an example, is not attended by non-feminists or men. It's attended by girls who think they're feminists. Black Studies are for black people. Gay Studies are for gays. So that I guess we can revel in our gayness, or revel in this thing that makes us separate and special. And that's what's reinforced. That everyone else on campus who maybe isn't political or is that dreaded straight white male feels also isolated within his own group as well.

So you have the special programs reinforcing within the individual special interest groups on campus, with these young people, reinforcing the victimization. Which is shocking to me, because of course, I always thought Women's Studies was supposed to be about empowerment. Was supposed to be about moving us back into the mainstream. And mixing with people who were different, imparting a message. Whereas, in fact, it has become a separate victim group itself on campus. It's become a way to keep young women, as an example, away perhaps from people who are Christians. People who are heterosexual. People who think differently than the way they think. People like David Horowitz coming to campus. People like myself, who now talk about things that challenge the status quo.

And so this special interest group classroom, of course, is not – kind of the ultimate in New Speak – whereas it supposed to be about diversity, whereas in fact it reinforces the isolation that happens. And the frantic effort to do that is specifically because they know. That the moment a different message is heard, which is why we think maybe going to a campus and even getting shouted down, or having newspapers burned which everyone writes about, serves a tremendous purpose. Because the kids who are afraid, even, to come to the meetings, read about the responses. It is the natural liberal progressive thing to want to have everyone participate. And when they see that being obstructed – at least this has been my experience – it is a little bit of a crack in the wall of what leftists on campus have established, which is this pristine little hermetically sealed cultural dynamic within each little classroom, each little program.

And every time David Horowitz either gets to speak or is shouted down, there is a little bit of a crack. Because it's the antithesis of what we were hoping for. And what the left – what liberals on campus, what kids - are thinking should be happening. And they also find out when they meet and talk with or hear about a David Horowitz that ironically, that we are the ones who are supposed to be intolerant. We're the ones who are supposed to be the ones who are oppressing people. And they're able finally to see it manifesting from their own camp. They finally themselves as the burner of books. As the people who are shouting down an individual with an alternative point of view.

The problem is, when you've got say a Women's Studies or a Black Studies, and you've got these groups coming together, isolated from other groups, also now with the fraternities that help manifest that and perpetuate it -- fraternities and housing only for blacks or only for Filipinos or only for gays and lesbians -- there is a furthering of that isolation, and no one's talking to anybody else. Of course, the professors help perpetuate this as well.

And the only real breakthrough – certainly there's many different fronts. Clearly, what David is talking about is fundamentally important. But I do think, regardless of what happens, when it comes to how someone gets on a campus, if it's a small group that brings someone in, who you know, whether it be at Berkeley or at Penn State or at college in the Appalachians, that it's imperative within the coverage of what happens to that person, it breaks the silence. Just a little bit.

And that's why I think professors, and those who run the program of keeping everyone isolated, are so afraid of bringing people in. Not because everyone is so secure within what it is they believe on campus, but because specifically they're not. And they know it. That's what's fascinating. They know that they don't have a stranglehold on what America, especially American youth, really do want. So they can't allow the idea to be heard. That's why the newspapers are burned; that's why we're shouted down. That's why, for me, what's interesting – because they don't quite know what to do with me – is either monitors in a hallways, which have – and this is the level of intimidation – I have found it to be quite very much a fringe-based framework. You have kids who are willing to come who are out conservatives, who - you know, they're known already. And the kids who are curious find monitors in a hallways and will be noticed, and their names will be written down.

A young woman who brought me to Berkeley has been literally spat upon by the other side in the commons. Because there is this revulsion for new ideas and intellectual freedom. Because with new ideas and intellectual freedom, leftists lose, and they know it. Because we have a natural love for those new ideas. And I think that's why, certainly as we sit here wanting to make a difference and learning about, yes, campuses are controlled by leftists, and why is that so – but the reality about being able to make the change, I think, is much more at hand if we realize that it's not this brick wall; that it's really quite fragile.

And that every idea and every person who comes – and frankly, I think, you know, all the books that are now the best sellers – Anne Coulter's book, my book which has done well – the books that --David's books – are being read by people who – and these examples serve, at least allow everyone who's not sure about what's going on, on campuses – just like the Wellstone Memorial – serve as the click, as the ah-ha for people, that something has gone terribly wrong. And that those are not, say, my liberals, or my progressives; it's something very, very different that's going on, on campus.

And the young people who have booked me in, I think, the same as booked David, as we come from the same political spectrum, interestingly, is that we are still progressive. And the left has gone so far, and are now fascist, that this pro-choice lesbian is now a conservative. That's how campuses have defined me and how the leftists who come into these speeches that I've given insist I'm a conservative, and that's what's fascinating. And I'll take that label.

But the difference is, is for us to remember, within the other comments you're going to be hearing, is that this is not a lost cause. I thought it was when I started speaking, when I realized that these young people want more. They're being artificially controlled by totalitarians. And it's against our nature. And I think that's why this kind of work, and why I've been enjoying what I've been doing -- and part of the problem, of course, is in programming, like special interest programs.

I think that if you're going to have Black Studies, only white people should be able to enroll. You know, let's – when we talk about unity through diversity, which is the new Penn State kind of mantra – of course, it's an oxymoron for them, because again, it isolates – if you're going to have Gay Studies, only heterosexuals. How these programs would survive – that's the question. But the reality is, to give a degree to a gay person on studying their life is a little absurd. You know, we live our lives every day and the whole point, of course, is true diversity.

But of course, that would never happen. But maybe it would, with this kind of activism. So that's been my experience, and I see it as being, again, kind of a freakish odd benefit of the fact that they're so desperate to keep our voices out – it's because they know, in fact, how weak their hold really is, ultimately, on young minds. Thank you.

RON ROBINSON: We all celebrated the election results last week. I think that what we have to recognize is those results would not have come about if there wasn't a considerable – first, if there wasn't a goal to achieve victory, and second, if there wasn't the resources applied to that end, that gives us a chance of victory. Presidential leadership. Individual donations. Recruiting the right candidates. Activating the right campaign workers. All that contributed, ultimately, to a victory. And I think when we talk about reaching young people -- because I think that's ultimately what we're talking about on the college campuses today; that is an important audience – we have to have that same type of commitment that the left has historically had, if we expect to have the same type of results that the left historically has had.

We can sit back and try to shame the left into saying there ought to be balance, but the left is shameless, and they will never accept that principle, as long as they simply can have power. We know that in the political field, and it's a challenge to take a look at that question in the educational field as well. We're going to have to do the job ourselves, and we may motivate our base by pointing out the imbalance, but we can never expect that the left will make those changes themselves. And I think that's part of the reason why David talked about Ohio and Colorado. Because there, we're not seeking to embarrass the left into making reforms; we're seeking to activate our own governors, our own people, into making those reforms.

I want to talk about how we can achieve our goals without necessarily further analyzing the leftist nature of the campus. But there is one item that I do want to say post-911, about the problem on the college campuses today. And that is a struggle that's been going on at least for thirty years, and that is for the rightist students to attend ROTC and to meet with defensive intelligence recruiters. The students who are willing to defend this country, and to defend our freedoms, they're the champions o on the college campus that we ought to look to, and that we ought not to stigmatize and label and call vicious names, or treat them as second-class citizens.

And I would remind this audience over one year after 9/11, at our most prestigious colleges, for example, Harvard and Yale, students are still today prohibited from participating in ROTC in the normal classroom. At Yale, they have to go to the University of Connecticut; at Harvard, they have to go to MIT. And it's inexcusable that students who are willing to defend this country, to prepare themselves to defend our freedoms, are stigmatized, not only by the left on the college campus, which calls them vicious names and treats them very cruelly, but the administration and the faculties as well.

George Orwell said there are some ideas that are so preposterous, only intellectuals would believe them. And I think that is unfortunately where we stand, even in the defense area today, where we want to enjoy, and the universities want to enjoy, our great freedoms, but they don't want to even take the elementary step of congratulating, and at least not discriminating against those fellow Americans that are willing to defend our freedoms.

Why are the young people so important? Why are these issues critical? Why do I spend my life working on them? Why does David spend so much of his time on it? Basically, every four years, there's 13 million new young people going through the university system. These are the people who will be the future leaders of our country. But I look at it as a target of 13 million people at the college level alone, every four years, and we also have school programs as well, and that's even a larger base. So we don't have to wait for the universities to be totally reformed in order to reach new audiences, to affect young people today.

And I think that when you recognize that the university is, as Tammy suggests it should be, a place to get new ideas, to consider different points of view, it is extremely important to reach that audience. A young person spends four years, or in the case of my children, at least four years, on college campuses, trying to get new ideas, being away from home, oftentimes for the first time in their life. And if we're not competitive for their thoughts and their ideas at that particular point, we're not going to make it up when they go directly into government, they go directly into entertainment, or they go directly into other opinion-forming activities or careers. So it's an extremely important time in their lives.

If we do reach a young person, he or she has decades of activism ahead of them. So to me, it's always been the most attractive audience. Not only have they been most impressionable, but if we win that audience over, they have probably, God willing, the longest period of time to participate in our activities. So to me, this audience is one that we can never relinquish to the left, we can never give up, no matter what the odds are, because it's so important, and so many of our leaders have come right off these college campuses. I've always believed in doing what you can right now, with what you have right where you are. And that is really the approach that we take at Young Americas Foundation on how to reach young people, and how to reform the college campuses.

I would commend the period piece, "Political Bias in America's Universities," that David put in all your packets. You know, a lot of times the comments that I get around the country is, our groups ought to cooperate more. Well, I can tell you that it is a great piece of advice from our supporters. By working with David Horowitz over the past decade, it has enriched our activities at Young Americas Foundation, and has given us many insights that we would not otherwise have. David is absolutely a brilliant leader; he has insights and ideas in terms of these campaigns that always comes with a freshness, and it's been one of my great pleasures to work with David and to try to follow some of the ideas that he has, and implement them on the campuses and for young people around the country.

The really good news is students are eager to hear our point of view. They are eager to hear from David Horowitz. They are eager to hear from the lecturers that Young Americas Foundation sends out to the country. This is not something theoretical. This is something that we see every single day at Young Americas Foundation. A good example, a university in a state that is totally dominated by the Democrats today – they control both senate seats; they just elected a governor -- is the state of Wisconsin.

On Monday night, Ben Stein spoke for Young Americas Foundation at the University of Wisconsin, not a campus you would think that we would normally be making great gains. But 2,000 students turned out to hear Ben Stein. That is five times the audience that Lonny [Grenier] [phonetic] received, which was the biggest leftist speaker on campus so far this school year.

So students are eager to hear our point of view; what Tammy says in terms of the institutional resistance is absolutely accurate. But we would be remiss if we failed to put out the speakers on the college campuses. John Stossel, for example, spoke to 700 students at Carlton and St. Olaf. Ollie North frequently speaks to large audiences around the country. So this is an opportunity, we think, to reach new audiences.

Let me just conclude by mentioning two other quick programs and then one final note. When David spoke this morning, he said getting together at this conference was really a community of friends. And Young Americas Foundation, a key part of our program, is not to have a self-imposed intellectual ghetto, but to give our high school and college students an opportunity also to meet in a community of friends. And that is part of our conference program, both at the high school and college level. In this booklet, I noticed last night in reading through it, one of the tests of how professors in university and intellectual structure view America was a poll on the Presidents.

And it cited that the faculty almost overwhelmingly thought Bill Clinton was the greatest President, and of course, President Bush was the worst President. Well, it was along those lines, as Lanny said, Young Americas Foundation saved the Reagan Ranch because we think the generation we knew Ronald Reagan has an opportunity to teach future Americans and current Americans how important he was to our life and to the freedoms that we enjoy here and throughout the world. And so we're bringing professors as well as students to the Reagan Ranch to see an additional side of Ronald Reagan as a person.

Let me conclude by actually using the words that Ronald Reagan stated about reaching young people. Reagan, as so often is the case, hits the point I think better than any of us could ourselves. He says, "Freedom isn't secured in any one moment of time. We must struggle to preserve it every day. And freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." If we do our job and you do your job, we will pass on the freedoms we've enjoyed to future generations. Thank you very much.

DR. CANDACE DE RUSSY: I'm not going to dwell, just for one moment, dwell on the fact that campuses are rife with indoctrination. But college graduates, in fact, are less likely to have read one single classical text than to have studied courses with titles such as, and this is at the University of Virginia, "Marxism, What Is To Be Learned From It?" is the title. The description of this course declares that Marx's work is, quote, "The standard against which all subsequent social thought must be judged."

Now, incoming freshmen, in addition to that, on many campuses, are subjected to mandatory sensitivity training on matters of race. At the University of Alabama, the faculty senate promoted a video workshop named "Blue Eyed" by the Diversity Trainer, Jane Elliot. Elliot teaches that all whites are racists and all blacks their helpless victims.

And the latest experiments in speech censorship come not from Baghdad or Havana, but they come from campuses such as the University of Houston. There, there are now so-called "Free Speech Zones." These zones, let us say, in other than the circumscribed spaces or zones, campus thought police are called in when students try to exercise their right of free speech and assembly.

But my charge this morning really is to suggest how to combat indoctrination and I wanted to focus on policy reform, which I think you'll get less of from the other speakers. I suggest first that trustees, and that the governors who appoint public trustees, be held publicly accountable, and I'll use Ron's word – shamed – for allowing campus indoctrination. It is their sworn duty to pass on free and distinguished institutions of higher learning to subsequent generations.

Governors should be confronted publicly with the grave civic consequences -- indeed, the consequences for our national defense -- of appointing trustees who are weak or who are cynical in the face of indoctrination. Or, those who protect their campuses from embarrassment at the expense of the common good.

Now, as for trustees, they should appoint only campus presidents committed to hiring faculty on the basis of scholarly merit, and not according to any ideological litmus test. Trustees should also provide incentives, and I mean financial and other incentives, for the creation of degree programs focused on the foundations of Western civilization and the place of America therein. Such a program, I'm happy to tell you, is now being considered at SUNY Buffalo. It's grounded in – this is quite an innovation – it's grounded in the Western philosophical tradition – and I really do anticipate that many students who are now fed up with post-modern inanity and stupidity -- to them, this will be really a fresh -- Aristotelian realism is going to be really a breath of fresh air.

I also suggest that trustees can honestly divert scarce funds away from the many group identity, and more recently so-called global studies, which are the locus of so much indoctrination. I part company with Tammy on something; I believe that distinguished writers who are gay or black or Hispanic or disadvantaged, etc., that their work should be mainstreamed back into the disciplines at the undergraduate level. Voices heard but within the context of the traditional disciplines, because now the curriculum is in chaos and in a state of tremendous incoherence.

Therefore, my next point is that trustees can redirect funds away from this morass of courses -- which, by the way, take money away from the core programs -- they can redirect these funds back into strong core studies. I was speaking at the undergraduate level. Trustees should also adopt clear and rigorous quality measures. Now, that may sound a little abstract to you, but it's going to be terribly important. It's the cutting edge in emerging reform package, so to speak, in higher education today. Clear and rigorous quality measures. Now, what do I mean?

I mean, above all, sound outcomes, which, by definition, if they're sound, preclude indoctrination. And also, they should adopt rigorous testing, and I mean content and skills testing, by which to measure student learning. It's a little more complicated than that, but by the way, there are such tests and they are emerging, and this is going to happen. These quality measures should pertain to academic majors and core curriculum and the results – this is highly controversial, believe it or not; it's the battle royal that's going on. And the results of testing should be made transparent, is their word, that is, available to the public clearly and annually. I'm fighting the battle of whether information about SUNY should be presented to the public on a campus-by-campus basis. Not on an aggregate basis, which obfuscates the underperformance of campuses year by year by year.

Other data to be made public should include admission scores, campus by campus, results on professional licensure exams, and patterns of employment among graduates when they leave our institutions. Let's also be clear on something else, that governors and trustees may not seek to replace one ideological monopoly for another. That is, they may not institute quotas of any kind, including faculty hiring quotas based on whatever sort of ideology.

Nonetheless, and David raised this point, governors and trustees have an obligation to forthrightly and unambiguously denounce the evidence of indoctrination. This evidence should continue to be provided privately -- pace David -- but privately, not through our institutions but privately by such organizations as this center, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, that is, FIRE, and the National Association of Scholars, that is, the NAS. I'd like you also please to note here, too, that governors and trustees need reminding by you and by our organizations that criticism is neither a violation of the First Amendment nor of academic freedom. In fact, considered criticism is at the heart of academic freedom.

Second point. We can counter indoctrination by amending the Higher Education Act, or HEA, and that is the law that governs the Federal Financial Aid Programs. Federal, like state funds, should only be awarded to high quality college education, and that, I repeat, rules out indoctrination.

Regardless of how wary some of us here may be of government regulations, the HEA will be reauthorized next year and it, too, should include the quality measures that I have described today. Now, auspiciously, Bush appointee William Hanson, the Education Department's Deputy Secretary, acknowledges the government's duty, and I quote him, "To consider issues associated with quality." But imagine the specter of any such accountability is causing true apoplexy among various status quo groups, such as the American Council On Education.

More specifically, back to HEA, everyone -- HEA should also provide incentives for required core courses in American history, to include the documents of the American founding and the intellectual traditions that inform the founding. Some campuses would, no doubt, allow their faculty to pervert these documents. But the nation would be stronger if tens of thousands of graduates once again read the Declaration of Independence, Federalist papers, and other writings relevant to the founding.

In addition, Congress and governing boards must live up to their constitutional duties and I'm going to strengthen, believe it or not, what David said. In addition, Congress and governing boards have to live up to these constitutional responsibilities of theirs; thus, they should withhold funds from campuses that sanction unconstitutional speech codes or allow students to steal and destroy campus newspapers with which they happen to disagree.

In other words, campus presidents should be forced to protect and to enforce First Amendment rights for all of us. Their failure to prosecute infractions as a matter of fact should be presumptive ground for their dismissal.

Third, and related. Let's call upon Congress to sever the connection between accreditation and eligibility for federal student aid funds, as is the case. Due to federal law, accreditation now is essentially mandatory and universal. And a handful of accrediting agencies serve as the gatekeepers to eligibility for federal funds. In recent years, these agencies have not only sanctioned dumb-downed entrance and grading standards, but also indoctrination. As a report on accreditation by the American Council on Trustees and Alumni concludes, and I quote, and I'll try to cut it short, "Accreditors insist that a college's academic goals be subordinated to the accreditors' own social vision."

Fourth, I don't have time to go into it, but donors should withhold their contributions from institutions fostering indoctrination, and they should do so with public fanfare if necessary.

Fifth, and more radical, and then I guess I must sit down in just one moment, but more radical – legislators should change the way funds for higher education are distributed. And I will go into that later. The most radical aspect of that would be channeling more public money through students themselves, and handing less over as direct subsidies to colleges. There's for-profit education, electronic education, and so forth – all of this, this quasi-government monopoly, has immunized colleges and universities from the kinds of pressure businesses face. A "don't rock the boat" bureaucratic campus culture is actually shielding ideologues from scrutiny.

I also, want, by the way, an annual college report card, privately produced, that would go along with this market approach. This would rank institutions, once again, according to academic quality measures.

And finally, and one more moment, most basic of all, we have to find a way to attack the moral root of indoctrination and intolerance on campuses. Quite simply, many higher educators no longer understand that education is ineluctably a moral act. Prior to the 60's, the professorate held that a strong national identity serves the common good. Professors did not think it quaint to teach about this country's unique positive legacy. And they openly taught the need to Americanize or assimilate immigrants to this country. But by the mid 1990's, an influential sociologist at New York University, Richard Sennett, could categorically proclaim, quote, "The evil, the evil, of a shared national identity."

So, as all of you know here, this battle is going to be horribly difficult and hard-won. But we've got to win it; it's not only academic discourse that is at stake, but this democracy. Thank you.