For other posts, visit my Commentary blog.
Harvard University was founded in 1636, with the motto “Christo et Ecclesiae,” which in Latin means, “For Christ and Church.” In 1650, this motto was modified to “In Christi Gloriam”, which translates to “In The Glory of Christ.” It wasn’t until 1880, that Harvard professor and Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, got the motto changed to “Veritas,” which is Latin for “Truth”.
Like most of universities, Harvard’s struggle to maintain academic viability in the modern age has shaken and shifted its foundations away from the idyllic institute Holmes romanticized in his poem, to one more concerned with social conditioning than truth. So poignantly has the decline of academia been on display during this pandemic, it may be time Harvard traded their worn out, cliché motto for something more germane to the students they’re graduating. Like statues falling in the green grass of misguided rioters ignorant of history and reasonable pretext, academia needs to look within to assess not only their culpability in our nation’s social unrest, but their level of satisfaction in seeing the society they spawned and have so heavily influenced come to fruition.
Harvard prides itself in seating alumni on the Supreme Court. In fact, every current justice on the U.S. Supreme Court is Harvard educated. How’s that working out for America? Is that not sufficient evidence of a deep state oligarchy pulling the strings behind the curtain of our alleged democracy? But I digress, what I’m interested in today is less about how Oz is managed and more about the level of intellectual acumen matriculating out of the hallowed halls of Harvard. which I suppose by supposition, could be used to explain the lack of intellectual acumen coming out of the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court.
There is no end to the academically suspect statements Harvard is routinely revered for. Recent examples include a preposterous assertion that the coronavirus was caused by racism, “If you point your fingers at a symptom, which is a protest, you’re missing the root cause, which is systemic racism,” says Abraar Karan, a physician at Harvard Medical School working on the COVID-19 response. I suppose Karan could be right when viewed in a conspiratorial context, after all, it is possible racism caused the Chinese government to engineer a deadly virus killing almost half-a-million people around the world from every social-economic demographic. We know China had no problem killing 50 million people under communism and today have millions of Muslims locked up in re-education camps – something which, coincidentally, Democratic presidential campaigns advocate.
While I struggle to connect Karan’s assertion that racism caused COVID to the burning of Saint John’s Church by rioters, or academia’s support for terrorist organizations such as BLM and Antifa, it’s because of people like Karan that serious intellectuals dismiss Harvard as an academic institution. In order to understand how Karan has a job, you must keep in mind, Harvard is the same institute that so values purity in the quest for truth they hired Elizabeth Warren to mold malleable minds. Harvard is also home to Alan Dershowitz, the constitutional scholar who advocates for the appropriateness of military soldiers holding you down against your will while injecting a needle in your arm once the COVID “vaccine” is released, should you offer any resistance.
But wait, there’s more; Harvard recently asserted that the pandemic will last another year, although they offer no scientific evidence supporting that assertion. According to Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, “the sacrifices and adjustments we are making to abate the spread of COVID-19 will likely need to continue for another year.” I assume that means terrorist organizations like BLM and Antifa will be encouraged to continue their violent riots while peaceful political rallies are denounced as unholy and unsafe.
While there is no evidence social distancing saved lives (remember the goal was to spread the death rate out, not lower it), academic “experts” have increased their social nullification policies by advocating for totalitarian measures, such as, contact tracing and extended lockdowns. Their bravado stems from being completely insulated from any responsibility for being wrong. Look at what happened to the University of Washington when their “experts” incorrectly caused the lockdowns that ruined lives and destroyed our economy? Absolutely nothing. In fact, the media still references them as the national model. If the virus gets worse, these “experts” contend all their preventive measures kept it from being even more cataclysmic. If the virus turns out not to be as deadly as predicted, it’s due to the wisdom of the measures they implemented. Either way, they win.
Once a vaccine is released, Dr. Jha can take solace from the fact that his colleague a few doors down will carry the Harvard torch by advocating for the military to storm your house, hold you down against your will, and inject you with the new miracle cure; one that hopefully won’t have any side effects. But you shouldn’t worry about that, I’m certain once the vaccine is released without serious clinical trial, some “academic expert” will assure you it’s all good; probably while offering no scientific evidence because that’s how modern academia rolls.
Harvard University has also entered the COVID modeling mix, joining their compadres at other scientific powerhouses such as the University of Washington and Pennsylvania University’s Wharton School of Business. The Harvard model is not predictive like the other two, but rather extrapolative. While the UW and Penn models use wonky mathematics to wrongly infer their future states, the Harvard model extrapolates current trends into a linear future. I take solace in the fact that the Harvard extrapolation is relatively close to my projections that have consistently been spot on since the pandemic began. Perhaps in this regard, Harvard can teach the rest of academia that it’s okay, in this one instance, to choose accuracy over sensationalism. We might even go so far as to suggest, at the risk of being persecuted by the political police, that for Christ and Church, it’s okay to tell the truth. Carpe diem.