What’s Wrong With America’s ‘Elites’?

Laura Hirschfeld Hollis's career as an attorney has spanned 28 years, the past 23 of which have been in higher education. Ms. Hollis has also been a freelance political writer since 1993 on matters of politics and culture. She is a frequent public speaker and has received numerous awards for her teaching, research, community service, and contributions to entrepreneurship education. She asks: “What’s Wrong With America’s ‘Elites’?

“It is becoming increasingly clear that some of America’s most serious problems can be traced back to

our colleges and universities—or at least the ones educating the country’s most powerful people.

The Vietnam War era aside, it has traditionally been uncommon for events at universities to make national headlines. Absent something extraordinary, such as a president giving a commencement address, a dramatic scientific breakthrough, or the award of a prominent international prize to faculty, headlines with university names in them have tended to relate more to national championships in sports.

Not anymore. Over the past few years, news items about events on college campuses have come to dominate headlines. The subjects are some of the country’s most fabled institutions. And the stories are often negative, if not outright shocking.

In December 2023, the congressional testimony of three university presidents— Claudine Gay of Harvard University, Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, and Sally Kornbluth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—set off a firestorm. Under questioning by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) about [virulent, public] anti-Semitic speech and conduct on their campuses, the three women dodged and deflected, unwilling to state definitively that calls for the genocide of Jews violated university policies and codes of conduct.

The response was swift. Within days, Ms. Magill resigned. Ms. Gay survived the initial maelstrom, but the bad publicity prompted critics to start digging through her professional past, and she resigned less than a month later following accusations of [serial] plagiarism in her research publications. Some of the nation’s largest donors to these universities—many of them Jewish— began announcing that they would cease or pull back donations totaling in the tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars.

The chaos on campuses has only increased since, with pro-Palestine protests and marches at dozens of colleges and universities and horrific rhetoric bumping up against speech codes and demands for free speech. Across the country, Jewish students describe themselves as “living in a climate of hatred and fear” amid dramatic increases in anti-Semitic conduct, threats, slurs, and actual violence.

Recently, Stanford University sophomore Theo Baker published “The War at Stanford” in The Atlantic, in which he describes how the Israel–Hamas war has affected his campus. One Arab American graduate student told Mr. Baker that he thinks President Joe Biden “should be killed” and that Hamas should rule America.

Pro-Palestine protesters set up sit-in “camps” for months and shouted for the destruction of Israel, chanting, “We don’t want no two-state; we want all of ’48!” Guest speakers brought in to facilitate campus discussion of the complex issues have been shouted down. Stanford employees have been threatened (“We know where you live!”), the interim president’s home has been vandalized, and his effigy was carried around campus covered in fake blood. The administration, Baker said, seems paralyzed, indecisive, and defeated.

This isn’t an isolated incident at Stanford, and the Israel–Hamas war hasn’t caused it. In March 2023—months before the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel—Stanford Law School students shut down a talk being given by federal Judge Kyle Duncan, shouting at him every time he attempted to speak or engage the audience, screaming epithets and [like the thugs that they are,] holding up signs with vulgar accusations and calls for violence against Judge Duncan’s daughters.

Tirien Steinbach is Stanford Law School’s associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), who was on stage with Judge Duncan, explains her participation. She writes: “My participation at the event with Judge Duncan has been widely discussed. I was asked to attend the event by the Federalist Society, the organizers of the student protest, and the administration. My role was to observe and, if needed, de-escalate. [So, Stanford was expecting trouble from their student body, thereby admitting that they had failed to educate their students. Rather, their indoctrination of the student body in the art of thuggery was apparently successful—and valued.]

As soon as Judge Duncan entered the room, a verbal sparring match began to take place between the judge and the protesters. By the time Judge Duncan asked for an administrator to intervene, tempers in the room were heated on both sides. [Ms. Steinbach apparently was sitting on her hands while her students lost control of their emotions—and emotions, of course, are the motivating factor among today’s infantile college students.]

I stepped up to the podium to deploy the de-escalation techniques in which I have been trained, which include getting the parties to look past conflict and see each other as people. My intention wasn’t to confront Judge Duncan or the protesters but to give voice to the students so that they could stop shouting and engage in respectful dialogue. I wanted Judge Duncan to understand why some students were protesting his presence on campus and for the students to understand why it was important that the judge be not only allowed but welcomed to speak. [Of course, Judge Duncan already knew what the students wanted, and the students, of course, would not be satiated until, as all infants do, they got their way.]

To defuse the situation I acknowledged the protesters’ concerns; I addressed the Federalist Society’s purpose for inviting Judge Duncan and the law school’s desire to uphold its right to do so; I reminded students that there would a Q&A session at which they could answer Judge Duncan’s speech with their own speech, as long as they were following university rules; and I pointed out that while free speech isn’t easy or comfortable, it’s necessary for democracy, and I was glad it was happening at our law school.

[But, free speech WASN’T happening at her school, mob rule was!]

At one point during the event, I asked Judge Duncan, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” I was referring to the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech: to consider not only the benefit of our words but also the consequences. It isn’t a rhetorical question. I believe that we would be better served by leaders who ask themselves, “Is the juice (what we are doing) worth the squeeze (the intended and unintended consequences and costs)?” 

[The naivete and arrogance of Ms. Steinbach is staggering, and a sad reminder of America’s lost generations of students to the progressive-liberal Democrat cabal intent of destroying America as we know it. Such behavior was unthinkable before disaffected admirers of authoritative governments wormed their way into America’s colleges in the early 1960s.]

Similar behavior has been displayed at other schools, having nothing to do with claims of colonialism in the Middle East. Swimmer and activist Riley Gaines was cornered and forced to hide in a classroom at San Francisco State University, prevented from giving her talk about limiting participation in women’s sports to biological women.

In 2017, author Charles Murray’s scheduled talk at Middlebury College was interrupted by a mob that later physically attacked him and his faculty host, Allison Stanger. Ms. Stanger’s hair was pulled so hard by a protester that she suffered a concussion.

The poisonous rhetoric, intolerance, and violence are just the tip of the iceberg.

In an interview with The Daily Signal podcast host Rob Bluey recently, national pollster Scott Rasmussen described what he called “the most terrifying poll result” he has ever seen. A recent Rasmussen poll put this question to Americans: “Suppose there was an election and it was close but your candidate lost. And if their campaign team knew they could win by cheating and not get caught, would you want them to do so?”

According to Mr. Rasmussen, only 7 percent of American voters overall said they would rather cheat to win. But among the group that he calls “the elite,” that number jumped to 35 percent. Among the “politically obsessed elite” (those who “talk politics daily”), it was a staggering 69 percent!

So who are these “elite”? Mr. Rasmussen said that they are the top 1 percent of the population. They make more than $150,000 per year. They live in densely populated urban areas. They have not only college but also postgraduate degrees. And large numbers of them “went to one of 12 elite schools [the Ivys, the University of Chicago, Stanford, Cal Berkeley, Duke].”

“The reason I bring that up is about half the policy positions in government, half the corporate board positions in America, are held by people who went to one of these dozen schools,” Mr. Rasmussen said, noting that they also shape “the mainstream media narrative.”

Not only does this group think it’s acceptable to cheat to win an election, but 70 percent believe that there is too much individual freedom in the United States, and an equal number trusts the government— which, of course, they control.

“They really believe that if they could just make the decisions and get us out of the way, we would be a lot better off,” Mr. Rasmussen said.

What’s going on at our most prestigious and exclusive universities? How have they produced generations of amoral, condescending authoritarians? And how do we put a stop to it?

Those are questions Americans need answers to.”

Apparently, America’s “elites” don’t have what it takes—beginning with their inferior common sense.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Sciutto is an American news anchor and former government official who covers national security for CNN. He is also an author, a Fulbright Fellow, and a recipient of several journalism awards. He wrote in May 2019:

“In May 2014, a small team at the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California noticed something they had never seen before. A Russian rocket had lofted a communications satellite into space, along with what appeared to be the usual collection of space junk—ranging in size from massive spent rocket stages down to chips of paint. But a few weeks later, one piece of that “junk” came to life.

The team at the space operations center watched for the next few days as that seeming piece of space debris made 11 close approaches to one of the rocket’s discarded stages. Such an elaborate space dance would be possible only if the object had thrusters and enough fuel to maneuver very precisely. These are the basic capabilities necessary for what defense experts call a “kamikaze satellite”—that is, one capable of zeroing in on other satellites to attack them.

Months later, China launched its own new space weapon: a satellite with a grappling arm capable of lifting other satellites out of orbit. China has now conducted multiple successful tests of this “kidnapper satellite,” some of them at geostationary orbit, where America’s most sensitive space assets reside, including satellites for communications, surveillance and early warning of a nuclear launch.

Late-night comedians have had a field day with President Donald Trump’s declaration that the U.S. military needs a separate “Space Force.” “Space, that’s the next step, and we have to be prepared,” Mr. Trump has said, even as he has run into opposition from lawmakers worried about the cost of a sprawling new bureaucracy. On her TBS show “Full Frontal,” Samantha Bee offered a “Space Force Anthem,” featuring a choir in shiny silver suits and futuristic sunglasses making laser noises and singing, “Pew pew pew, we got you!”

-----------------------------------------------------------

We wouldn’t even be having this discussion about the China Conundrum if America were not in mortal danger from the China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, axis—the CRINKs. Add Venezuela, Cuba and South Africa and Western Civilization is facing its worst crisis since the Moors invaded Spain in 711AD and the Muslims began a never ending siege of Constantinople in the late 7^th Century.

It’s said that truth is the antidote to fear because truth sets one free. Screenwriter Abby Mann’s message is that democracies that deny or hide truth nurture fear, and this is the path to fascism. Fascists cultivate “othering” to a point where every “other” automatically becomes the enemy, not because they’ve done anything inimical but because they’re the “other.” That’s when convenience trounces conviction.

We must now turn inward because it is beyond time to evaluate ourselves and our fitness to save Western Civilization.

-----------------------------------------------------------

How to Counter China in America’s Backyard

Republican U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana writes: “Former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is correct that the West needs a plan to compete with the axis of authoritarian states, including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea (“A 21st-Century Democratic Alliance,” WSJ op-ed).

His proposal reflects a clear understanding that economic alliances are necessary if we are to preserve our way of life against ideological adversaries. I’ve proposed two measures that could help achieve the same goal.

Countering Beijing’s growing geopolitical and economic power is the focus of the Americas Act, which I introduced last year to strengthen U.S. leadership in the Western Hemisphere. The bill would establish tax incentives to re-shore and near-shore critical industries out of China and into the U.S. and our allies’

countries.

Congress can couple this effort with my Foreign Pollution Fee Act, which would impose a levy on imports from such countries as China that undercut our industry through lax pollution standards. For too long, U.S. manufacturers have been forced to compete on an uneven playing field, following strict regulations while Chinese firms pollute freely.

The foreign pollution fee would correct this imbalance, removing dirty imports’ competitive advantage and creating an incentive for consumers to buy American. This policy recognizes that the total price of a good isn’t always reflected on its price tag. If China uses its trade surplus to militarize or to pursue an industrial policy that subverts U.S.-based

manufacturing, Americans are paying a far higher indirect cost than otherwise perceived. My proposal isn’t merely about seeing fairness—it’s a strategic move to shift production into reliable hands and reduce the flow of capital that fuels China’s military and surveillance state.

By emphasizing economic security, we align our trade policy with our national interests. We strengthen alliances not through abstraction but through shared infrastructure, investment and market integration. We can ground those partnerships in our own hemisphere, where geography and shared values offer a powerful foundation for long-term cooperation.

Mr. Sunak is correct that nations that uphold freedom must band together with clear priorities and a realistic path. Economic security is how we rebuild strength, regain independence and offer our allies a compelling alternative to authoritarian influence. The future will not be won by the cheapest supplier but by the most trusted partner.”

Next time: Despots Teach Us How to Defeat Them