Radiofree West Hartford - The Anxiety of Communists by Rudy Takala

The Anxiety of Communists

By Rudy Takala

March 18, 2005

In a recent incident in the most tolerant state of the Union, a controversy arose at the Santa Rosa Junior College (SRJC) of California. It was triggered by an anonymous posting of red stars and a reference to communist indoctrination on ten faculty office doors. The reference to communist indoctrination was a copy of a state Education Code section prohibiting the teaching of communism with the "intent to indoctrinate" students.

Molly McPherson, president of the SRJC Republicans, later admitted to the postings. She said she wanted to incite a discussion about certain instructors' political ideologies. "The opinion of the far left is presented as fact, with no alternative," said McPherson.

Unfortunately, liberals fear debate. It gives them anxiety. "It makes me a little anxious," said philosophy instructor Michael Aparicio.

The SRJC Senate met to discuss the matter on March second. They may start a move to repeal the Education Code section cited by the student Republicans, said George Freund, a philosophy instructor.

As the code goes, "No teacher giving instruction in any school ... shall advocate or teach communism with the intent to indoctrinate or to inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for communism."

Why non-communists feel threatened by a statue expressly prohibiting the indoctrination of communism has yet to be found.

Marco Giordano, an English instructor, called the code section "antithetical to academic freedom."

"The accusation of teaching communism in the classroom is laughable," Giordano said, stating that communism is not illegal and the U.S. Constitution is "indifferent" to both communism and capitalism.

But of course, the Constitution is not indifferent to capitalism and communism, as anyone who's read it knows. Individuals may, as usual, do whatever they please under it, so long as they are violating no one's rights. But communism requires much more than the simplistic life of communal living, as history has shown. It requires the abolition of private property. It requires universal "education," or at least, it requires government to establish facilities in which the inculcation of information into children's minds is possible. And, if communism is truly communism, its inchoate form promises an abolition of government when it has reached its evolutionary apogee.

The Constitution, on the other hand, has listed all of the functions that government may perform. The Constitution doesn't even state that taxation may be progressive, which is another requirement of communism, or that government may expend its funds on anything much more basic than roads; and indeed, that does exclude "education." Just because the government does it doesn't make it Constitutional. Communism, unless you undergo a great number of cosmetic and technical changes, which has already been done and termed "revisionism," is wholly incompatible with the Constitution.

The issue of greatest intrigue that we may derive from Giordano's comments, however, is not the question of what the Constitution actually asserts; it is the question of why an English teacher is concerned with the teaching of Marxist theory, and why he furthermore felt compelled to expound upon an issue of which he knows nothing. It sounds like he didn't really know what was going on, he didn't really know what the controversy was about, and he didn't really know what the Constitution said; he just wanted to put a good word in for Marxism while there were reporters around.

Freund, the philosophy instructor, also said, "You can't teach social theory without teaching Marxism." Of course, the code doesn't prohibit the teaching of Marxism. It prohibits promoting it. Regardless, there are many other things you can't teach social theory without, such as the Bible or Christianity. But while liberals are proud to remind us that the Constitution does not impede anti-Semitism, international revolution, and the abolition of classes, they are quick to assert that it does outlaw such pernicious doctrines as Christianity. After all, as the great Constitutional scholars of SRJC are certain, there's a provision somewhere in the Constitution separating church and state.

And while that clause seems to prohibit teachers from talking of religion, it will not prevent people such as Professor Ward Churchill of Colorado from talking about the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" who killed the "little Eichmanns" in the trade towers. Back when that happened, the spokesman of Churchill's university said, "Debate is a fundamental characteristic of a university."

But that was more than a month ago, and much has changed since then. Now it's the conservatives trying to "debate." But as we all know, when those "little Eichmann" conservatives try to debate, they become McCarthyite Nazis who make professors "anxious."

Liberals are under the mistaken impression that Americans are Constitutionally obligated to shut up and agree with them when they say America deserves to be attacked and destroyed. When anyone criticizes liberals for saying such things, it becomes censorship and a violation of their First Amendment rights. The absurdity of this double standard is vast and apparent.

It is also apparent that crafty liberals and their communist cohorts have found many guises under which to wage their personal war against America. In 1963, a list of forty-five current communist goals was read into the Congressional Record by Representative Herlong of Florida. As the seventeenth goal went, "Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda… Put the party line in textbooks."

Communists did indeed target the American education system, and as it has been unequivocally proven by the anti-American professors who habitually praise terrorism and communism, they succeeded. It's time to smoke the rats out of the system, just as the "other" gallant combat teams will continue to do.