Temples of Intolerance-How the Smart Got So Stupid

Not Fit for a Republic

America’s oldest university was founded on the principle of suppression of free speech and free thought. Its Puritan founders commanded twice daily Bible readings and correct doctrine under penalty of admonition for more mild offenses to expulsion for more serious matters. During Harvard’s early years, Roger Williams had already been expelled from the Massachusetts colony. Harvard continued in the tradition of intolerance for centuries to come. In the 17^th century, Harvard leaders like Cotton Mather were implicated in promoting the kind of theology that fueled the Salem Witch Trials. In the 1800s, Harvard became a Protestant stronghold, with strongly anti-Catholic sentiment. Under the Presidency of Josiah Quincy III, Harvard was a distinctly Unitarian presence. Andrew Norton, the Professor of Theology at Harvard Divinity School was an especially ferocious critic of Catholicism, labeling it as superstition and a corruption of Christianity. He allegedly was to have said,

“The Roman Catholic Church has been the great corrupter of Christianity; it has done more to obstruct the moral and intellectual improvement of mankind than all other causes combined.”

Harvard Yard, in the estimation of the university’s leaders, was a respite from the encroaching Irish Catholic immigrant community which had descended on Boston. There are few records of Catholics being admitted to the University before 1850, and the few that were admitted toward the latter part of the 19^th century were usually foreign-born aristocrats or wealthy Latin Americans. Harvard was simply no place for Catholics. In fact, nearby Boston College was founded as a place where Catholic youth could actually attend university.

After the Civil War, Harvard’s longest serving President, Charles William Eliot, argued that Catholic schooling was incompatible with free citizenship in a republic. Catholic schools represented, in his view, a grave threat to “democratic enlightenment.”

The 20^th Century saw a trickle of Catholic students gain admission into Harvard, but the prejudice was still deep-seated. And by the 1920’s a new threat, Jewish students began to appear. President Lawrence Lowell set quotas on Jewish students in an effort to keep matters under control. The Brahmin, Protestant aristocracy felt under attack.

In 1936, perhaps Harvard’s most famous Catholic student, John F. Kennedy enrolled in the College. He served as President of the Catholic Club. His admission was more palatable given his family’s powerful business and political connections. Yet, JFK represented more of a slight trickle of Catholic students, rather than a waterfall. For ordinary Catholics in Boston in the 1930’s, Harvard remained effectively out of reach. Most went to Boston College, Holy Cross or other Catholic institutions.

In the 1920’s Harvard held “secret courts” which aimed at removing students suspected of homosexuality. And, as more diverse population groups entered the United States, Harvard saw itself increasingly under threat. Approximately 100 years after the “secret court,” Harvard again demonstrated its lack of progress in an embarrassing Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court overwhelming ruled that Harvard had blatantly discriminated against Asian students in the admissions process.

The university so commonly associated with the founding of the American Republic has practiced superb consistency since its founding. In 2023, Harvard received a score of 0.0, as determined by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (“FIRE”) in its free speech rankings. Their climate for free expression was described as “abysmal.” The ranking criticized Harvard for sanctioning scholars, revoking offers, disinviting speakers and otherwise failing to defend free speech.

In 2019, Harvard introduced new regulations for “controversial speakers.” Organizers were required to notify the university one month before any event that involved a “high-profile, controversial” speaker. A neutral “moderator” would then be appointed, and the university could disinvite speakers who were deemed to be too controversial.

This practice of “disinviting” speakers, predictably, has its supporters on the Harvard faculty. Randall Kennedy, a Harvard Law Professor, actually argued in a public debate that “disinviting” speakers is a form of free expression. Other faculty members argued that free speech is a mask for white men to degrade and insult minority groups. In other words, challenging the views of certain faculty members was deemed to be “harmful” or even “violent” because, after all, some students might be persuaded to take another view from the views espoused by the overwhelming majority of faculty members, which is decidedly leftist.

Harvard’s treatment of Jewish students was especially scandalous during 2023-2024. A century after Jewish admissions “quotas”, Harvard’s own internal task force, described intense campus hostility toward Jewish and Israeli students. Both before and after the October 7^th raid on Israel by Hamas, Jewish students were ostracized, accused of supporting genocide, and abused. Encampments were set up on campus to protest Israel and Jewish students were followed, shouted down, and bullied.

Throughout its long tradition, nothing appears to have changed at Harvard. The ideology has shifted from Puritanical Protestant to fundamentalist post-modern. Harvard’s academic environment has always been the opposite of a probing, inquisitive, and thoughtful search for truth. It has always embodied arrogance, pack mentality, elitism and bullying. So much for America’s first university.

Let’s see how Yale fares in comparison. Yale university was founded as the Collegiate School by Puritan ministers, and in 1718 was formally chartered as “Yale College.” The college was, in fact, named after its benefactor Elihu Yale. Yale was a rich Boston merchant who made his fortune through the East India company. Even by the standards of the day, Yale was considered to be a highly corrupt individual who profited from the slave trade. Ironically, his donations of books and supplies were relatively modest, comprising about 800 British pounds. He never saw the Yale campus. Here he at least showed some sense since there was little reason to go—especially because neither Frank Pepe’s or Sally’s A-Pizza had come into existence.

Yale was as stuck up as Harvard, but with a strictly Congregationalist bent. The views of Quakers, Baptists or especially Catholics were not appreciated. Jews were also viewed with suspicion and virtually no black students were admitted before 1960. Neither Harvard nor Yale had an especially strong record of admitting women until recently.

Yale, like Harvard has continued its tradition of crushing dissent to the present day. One would have expected that this would at least not carry over to the Law School, where open-mindedness is a key consideration in formulating young men and women to be effective advocates. However, no such luck.

On March 22, 2022, Yale Law School hosted what should have been a modest, balanced discussion about free speech. The event was organized by the Federalist Society and featured two speakers: Kristin Waggoner, Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom and Monica Miller of the American Humanist Association. The goal was to reflect and comment on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Uzuegnunam vs. Preczewski, a case involving free speech on public university campuses.

This of course is the kind of discussion that goes to the very core of our Republic. It should be a fascinating discussion for any budding lawyer or Constitutional Scholar. But, the panel discussion never occurred. Around 120 Yale “law students” invaded the proceedings, stood, chanted, and shouted over the panelists. Some pounded on the walls and stomped in the halls outside, creating such noise that the microphones could not even carry the speakers’ words. This was a deliberate attempt on the part of “law students” to disrupt the event and to intimidate the speakers who were invited guests to the University. There were Yale administrators and police present, yet they chose to effectively do nothing. They did not enforce the school’s policy which was to forbid sustained disruptions. Instead, the chaos continued, granting the protesters a “heckler’s veto.” The disruption was so bad it interfered with nearby classes.

The school took no action. There was a tepid statement by Dean Heather Gerken, but no disciplinary action. This only emboldened the protesters who signed a letter protesting the presence of the police at the event. As a result of this chaos, some federal judges vowed never to hire Yale law clerks. The intolerance and stupidity of Yale Law School was on display for the world to see.

It would be wonderful to say that these kind of incidents of late have been limited to just Harvard and Yale. But they are too numerous to mention.

Here are but a few:

• UC Berkeley (Feb 1, 2017) — Milo Yiannopoulos’ talk was canceled after large protests turned violent outside the venue; the university cited security concerns. Berkeley News+1

• Middlebury College (Mar 2, 2017) — Charles Murray was shouted down; the event moved to a private livestream and, afterward, protesters surrounded a car, injuring Prof. Allison Stanger. The college later sanctioned 67 students. Inside Higher Ed+2Middlebury+2

• Evergreen State College (May 2017) — Following the “Day of Absence” controversy, protests escalated; buildings were occupied, classes were disrupted, and Prof. Bret Weinstein later resigned after security concerns. PBS+2campus-speech.law.duke.edu+2

• UC Hastings Law (Mar 2022) — On the same timeline as Yale, students shouted down invited speakers at a Federalist Society event, prompting wider discussion about professional conduct. Inside Higher Ed

• Stanford Law School (Mar 9, 2023) — 5th Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan’s talk was derailed amid intense protest and an administrator’s controversial intervention; Stanford later apologized, and the DEI dean went on leave. The Stanford Daily+1

• Columbia University (Feb 13–14, 2017) — Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon faced repeated disruptions during his lecture; organizers also faced stringent security-related restrictions. The Times of Israel+1

• Princeton University (Apr 4, 2025) — Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett’s lecture was repeatedly interrupted and ultimately halted after a fire alarm was pulled; Princeton soon tightened its enforcement policy for disruptions. paw.princeton.edu+1

• University of Chicago (June 2024) — Commencement saw a brief disruption tied to Gaza-war protests; the university later withheld degrees for students tied to earlier encampment conduct. (Not a speaker shout-down per se, but notable for policy enforcement context.) AP News

  
  

Disruptions abound, but more infamous are “take-overs” of university buildings and corresponding violence. Columbia University, long a nut house, lapsed into complete lunacy in April 2024. As part of a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment”, pro-Palestinian protesters forcibly occupied Hamilton Hall, one of Columbia’s academic/administrative buildings. Protesters broke windows, barricaded entrances and renamed the hall “Hind’s Hall” in memory of a Palestinian child killed in Gaza. More than a year later, in May 2025, protesters occupied the Butler Library Room and blocked security exits. For both of these events, amazingly, little happened to the protestors and the university only garnered criticism from leftist groups for calling police to stop the protests.

For the present, universities in America have now seemingly turned from their original mission, which was to produce doctrinaire, intolerant snobs to producing sophomoric, intolerant fools. I suppose that in one sense this is progress because it has brought a level of even handed incompetence to a broader group of unfortunate souls. But as for the rest of us in the Republic who have to live with these new graduates--they have little ability to function within our Republic. Which leads us to the question of who is equipped to live within a Republic.