Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ethical dilemmas with liberal bias in academia

Posted on 11/20/2005 2:05:35 PM PST by gradgirl

I am a graduate student at an unnamed public university in the western US. I recently encountered yet another example of how liberals are corrupting the institutional space where we are supposedly producing 'knowledge' by promoting lies disguised as facts. Specifics: We watched a film (produced 2000) called 'Lumumba' about the Congalese Prime Minister who was killed in 1961. Afterwards, a student (and it is worth noting that she is from another French-speaking African nation) gave a presentation about Patrice Lumumba in which she stated that his death had been ordered by President Eisenhower through the CIA. Upon hearing this 'fact', I was immediately doubtful as to its underlying truth. The professor then chimed in that this was not the only case in which the US had ordered leaders of newly emerging democracies to be killed as similar things had occurred in Latin America.

I have a number of problems with what happened the other day. And I would also like to ask the Free Republic members for any information they have about the truth of Lumumba and his death. My first problem: I suspect these are lies. I spoke with someone who informed me that Lumumba was not only communist, but dictator-like and NOT popular at all with his people (as depicted in the film.) Second, if an African nation were on its way to being successful, this is exactly what a US President would WANT. The reason given in the class for the US killing Lumumba was that we were afraid of the threat the Congo would pose to our world dominance!!! Third, I looked around at the class (composed of undergrads as well as grads) and in particular at one young undergrad. She is not particularly academic and I suspect she will just accept what she heard in class without any further investigation. And she probably represents the average student.

On another level, I wanted to raise a topic for discussion: the liberal bias in academia and what to do about it. My first impulse upon leaving class was to drop everything and get as far away as possible from this institutionalized lying. I am fed up with it! But another side of me wants to root out this corruption from academia (if that's even possible) and I feel that the only way one can do this is to stay within the system and work that way. What do people think?

One final note: If I had been armed with facts and challenged what people were saying about Lumumba, I would have been ripped apart not only by the students, but by the professor. Further, I would come off as racist because people would have asked how I could know better than someone FROM a nearby African nation (i.e. the presenter). This is of course another issue -- playing the race card (or something similar) to prevent challenges to the espoused facts and to cast the challenger into a direly negative light.

TOPICS: Education; History; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: assassinations; belgiancongo; belgians; belgium; cia; congo; education; kennedy; liberalism; lumumba; patricelumumba

1 posted on 11/20/2005 2:05:36 PM PST by gradgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gradgirl

My heart goes out to you, gradgirl. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. But you mustn't suffer in vain!

You may want to arm yourself with the following- just some gentle suggestions.

You might go to which is David Horowitz' site, and see his
Academic Bill of Rights and
Students for Academic Freedom (under the left-hand column entitled, "Campus Watch") and
Academic Freedom Abuse Center (where he asks people to help document the abuse).
Also, there is a clear, concise explantion of Leftists taking over American Academe in a terrifc new book by Jack Cashill, "Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture". Another great book is Horowitz', "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left". These two books let us know what we're dealing with on campus and in the Old Media and parts of the Entertainment industry. And Horowitz is getting favorable results for "abused" students like yourself.

2 posted on 11/20/2005 2:47:56 PM PST by Anselma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl
Probably not the CIA but nobody really knows. A couple of years ago the Belgians came across some evidence that their government may have been involved at least in Lumumba's kidnapping if not his murder. HERE's a link to the story.
3 posted on 11/20/2005 2:52:21 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl
It is smart to be prudent about personal efforts to correct propaganda from leftist academics. Their opposition to your progress can really impact your progress to your advanced degree.

This experience should point out to you the extremes of worth and lack of worth to the degree you are working for with honest effort.

First, the degree will get you hired. An working in your chosen field is where you will make a difference, not here.

Secondly, learning the tripe that is part of that degree's pedigree will cause you to properly evaluate the content of that degree education and therefore you will prudently begin to actually educate yourself post-graduation.

4 posted on 11/20/2005 2:53:15 PM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl
The United States Senate investigated the assertion that CIA was involved in Lumumbas death and found no evidence supporting that assertion.

My opinion? The Belgians did it. Why? The almighty buck.

5 posted on 11/20/2005 3:05:43 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl

There's a tiny history of Lamumba at Wikipedia, and the events cited should be easily researched. This article claims that, whoever really shot him, the Belgians and the UN were responsible for guarding him; apparently, after Lamumba escaped from imprisonment, the UN declared they were no longer responsible for his safety. Sounds about right. So, see .

In any event, the late, large, liberal Pres Lyndon Johnson would have
been in office when Lamumba was killed.

6 posted on 11/20/2005 3:25:42 PM PST by Anselma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anselma

Johnson took office in '63, after Kennedy's assassination.

7 posted on 11/20/2005 3:54:17 PM PST by JennysCool (Non-Y2K-Compliant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl
Some background information: The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi were all Belgian colonies. Both "countries" suffered through major genocides in the 1990s. Although the Rwandan genocide received far more press attention, the parties to the genocide helped instigate a genocidal civil war in the Congo that killed far more people (roughly 4 or 5 million according to most credible estimates, or approximately 10% of the Congolese population but mostly concentrated in the eastern third).

The history of the Belgian Congo comprises primarily a series of genocidal-scale Belgian-instigated tragedies. They began with the ruthless and most selfishly greedy King Léopold II of Belgium, who ruled the badly misnamed Congo Free State as his personal estate and exploited slave labor to extract rubber wealth so cruelly that the basin depopulated to half its former labor force. The Belgians intentionally spread cannibalism and the most brutally vile of indigenous African traditions throughout their domain, precipitating a cascading cycle of routine violence that persists today.

In their ruthless exploitation, the Belgians destroyed the power structures of the indigenous Congolese without creating any real replacement hierarchy among the African people. They also built very little national infrastructure to connect their far-flung Congolese domains except to the extent minimally necessary to exploit the agricultural and mineral wealth of the Congolese jungle.

After the Second World War, the Congolese people grew restless and obviously desired anything to save them from continued tyranny under the foot of Belgium. Bereft of education and native leadership to an extent unknown even in the worst of the non-Belgian colonies, the Congolese descended rapidly into an anarchic civil war when the Belgians suddenly departed in 1960. Among the several regional leaders who emerged from this anarchy was Patrice Lumumba, the prime minister in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) at the time of independence.

As I understand, whether Lumumba was indeed a communist or retaliatory Belgians simply leveled that accusation against him remains a matter of considerable debate. Because Patrice Lumumba died before establishing a clear economic policy and long-term alliances, his true sympathies (or possibly utter confusion) are known but to God. Lumumba obviously despised his Belgian slave masters, a nominal American ally in the Cold War against the Soviet bloc, and he did appeal for Soviet aid. The circumstances behind this aid appeal remain shrouded in the complex Belgian complicity, CIA incompetence, and UN intervention. And in any case, accepting Soviet aid at a time of crisis did not transpire necessarily into an endorsement of communistic philosophy.

The Congo ultimately descended into the totalitarian dictatorship of Mobutu Sese-Seko that exemplifies a perfect tyrannical corrupt kleptocracy. A nominal American ally against the Cuban interference in Angola, Mobutu enriched himself excessively at the expense of the Congolese people. Backed by Belgium in his quest for the leadership of the Congo, Mobutu generally emulated odious Belgian-style governance although he brought some level of stability to the country, primarily through general tyranny. Most infrastructure deteriorated from lack of maintenance, and the levels of political and economic freedom under Mobutu resembled those under his contemporary Nikita Kruschev. So we got at best a communist with nominal American sympathies. Might Lumumba have been better? We cannot answer that question definitively, but few dictators have been worse than Mobutu.

There is a *SHRED* of truth to the accusation that the Americans feared losing the Congo. The Katanga region contains a major uranium mine whose ore America used to construct nuclear warheads including those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Americans obviously did not want that mine to fall into the hands of the evil empire (by proxy of course) and generally tried to contain the Soviet bloc.

I don't know if this helps you, but I often find historical context necessary to understand events.
8 posted on 11/20/2005 4:28:28 PM PST by dufekin (US Senate: the only place where the majority [44 D] comprises fewer than the minority [55 R])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl

The US has not opposed democracy in Latin America. The US has, however, opposed control of Latin American countries by dictators supported by the USSR and other anti-democratic nations. Same goes for nations in Africa.

One way the Dhimmicrats and other single party state advocates try to spin things, is to "teach children how to read" by using commie texts for the little tykes. "We were only teaching them how to read for the first time, and the wealthy landowners / imperialists / CIA naturally tried to stop us."

9 posted on 11/20/2005 8:15:53 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated my FR profile on Wednesday, November 2, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

"Johnson took office in '63, after Kennedy's assassination."

Of course, you are right. Sorry. I was thinking Lamumba died in '64, but he was shot in '61, when Kennedy was filled with viggah. I'm not implying, btw, that Kennedy was responsible.

10 posted on 11/21/2005 4:50:55 AM PST by Anselma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gradgirl

Welcome to FR.

I do not know much about Lumumba. I do believe there have been CIA assassinations of inconvenient people in the past. However, that has been illegal for some years (His Slickness's administration dithered about what to do about Bin Laden for precisely this reason) and the professor should have known this.

AFA being called racist, the response to that is they are themselves racist by assuming that only certain people can discuss the issue (e.g. being from a country in Africa). This referencing of ethnicity as a source of authoritative criticism is similar to what people like the left and Jack Murtha do in criticizing the war. "If you haven't served then you have no right to have an opinion about this," which is of course, BS.

11 posted on 11/21/2005 4:59:21 AM PST by sauropod ("The love that dare not speak its' name has now become the love that won't shut the hell up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson