The Great America Show - HARVARD’S PLAGIARIST PRESIDENT

00:00:00.000 Folks, we're teetering on what could be an economic meltdown, threatening to wash away

00:00:04.800 our savings and retirement. Inflation has surged to levels unseen in 40 years. Gold is the smartest

00:00:11.600 and most responsible investment you can make for you and your family in times like these.

00:00:17.600 A safe haven asset that protects your purchasing power and your wallet from inflation. When it

00:00:23.100 comes to protecting your IRA or 401k, trust only the best. My friends at Allegiance Gold.

00:00:30.300 Allegiance Gold has earned the highest trust ratings in the precious metals industry

00:00:34.400 and builds relationships based on integrity, expertise and impeccable service. Get up to

00:00:40.780 $5,000 in free silver on a qualifying purchase when you visit protectwithlew.com today or give

00:00:48.340 them a call at 844-6484-LOU. Don't wait. Take control of your retirement today. Call 844-6484-LOU

00:01:01.260 and speak with one of their experts. Time is of the essence. Protect your future with Allegiance

00:01:07.480 Gold. Visit protectwithlew.com or call 844-6484-LOU.

00:01:18.340 Hello, everybody. I'm Lou Dobbs. Welcome to The Great America Show. Good to have you with us.

00:01:23.320 Well, folks, the Marxist Dems have thrown President Trump off the primary ballot in Colorado.

00:01:29.240 Wow. A panel of seven Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices, four of them at least,

00:01:36.460 Marxists to the bone, ruling to remove President Trump from the ballot. These four judges are Justice

00:01:43.460 Monica Marquez, Justice Melissa Hart, Justice William Hood, and Justice Richard Gabriel.

00:01:50.100 The three judges who dissented made a very simple argument, reminding the four radicals of the

00:01:56.080 majority in that decision that President Trump was never once found guilty of causing an insurrection,

00:02:03.880 and therefore their argument to remove him for it has no standing. Pretty straightforward, right?

00:02:09.760 But those four judges are of the Jack Smith variety of radical Marxists. The hell with the facts. The

00:02:17.860 hell with the law. Gotta get President Trump any way they can, because Trump will smash Biden at the

00:02:24.100 polls in November. The U.S. Supreme Court will surely take up this crazy ruling in Colorado.

00:02:30.800 It should take them about 15 minutes to dispense with it. President Trump at a rally in Waterloo,

00:02:36.580 Iowa last night said this is all part of the Marxist Dems election interference strategy and that the

00:02:43.320 puppet president is a threat to our democracy. It's no wonder Crooked Joe Biden and the far left

00:02:49.320 lunatics are desperate to stop us by any means necessary. They are willing to violate the U.S.

00:02:55.420 constitutions at levels never seen before in order to win this election. Joe Biden is a threat to

00:03:01.300 democracy. It's a threat. They're weaponizing law enforcement for high-level election interference

00:03:10.380 because we're beating them so badly in the polls. Most of the 2024 primary challenges to President

00:03:16.640 Trump have weighed in. The Trump haters Chris Christie and Nikki Haley sounding suddenly a little

00:03:23.360 more reflective, saying the decision was wrong, the decision should be left to the voters.

00:03:28.260 Perhaps the most surprising comments came from Ron DeSantis, whose campaign is on the off-ramp to

00:03:34.760 hell. The soon-to-be-failed presidential candidate says the reason they threw President Trump off the

00:03:40.520 ballot is to make sure he's the nominee and not DeSantis. Do you get that? I mean, the logic,

00:03:47.140 it's just really very deep. DeSantis is the target of the left, not the man they persecuted for eight

00:03:54.200 years. Right? DeSantis is correct. Here's the larger thing of what the left and the media and

00:04:00.100 the Democrats are doing. They're doing all this stuff to basically solidify support in the primary

00:04:06.860 for him, get him into the general, and the whole general election is going to be all this legal stuff.

00:04:12.700 And look, it's unfair. They're abusing power 100 percent. But the question is, is that going to work?

00:04:19.000 And I think they have a playbook that unfortunately will work, and it'll give Biden or the Democrat or

00:04:25.280 whoever the ability to skate through this thing. That's their plan. That's what they want. What

00:04:30.380 they don't want is to have somebody like me. Not only has DeSantis proven himself to be lower than

00:04:36.940 a snake's belly, but the man is clearly delusional. What was it the Trump campaign said about Ron

00:04:43.040 DeSantis' next job? I think it was something along the lines of Ron has a great future as a pizza

00:04:48.420 delivery driver because he won't work in politics ever again. They may be right. Someone who has

00:04:55.300 been a great cheerleader for the president, despite challenging him on the campaign trail,

00:05:00.160 is Vivek Ramaswamy. He says if Trump isn't on the ballot in Colorado, he wants to be removed as well.

00:05:07.100 And he's calling on all the other candidates to follow.

00:05:09.900 I'm making a pledge today that I will withdraw. I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary

00:05:17.880 ballot unless and until Trump's name is restored. And I demand that Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie

00:05:25.260 and Nikki Haley do the same thing, or else these Republicans are simply complicit in this

00:05:30.780 unconstitutional attack on the way we conduct our constitutional republic.

00:05:35.440 I refuse to be complicit in that. I think what they're doing is wrong. And I think it's up to

00:05:39.980 Republicans to step up and stand up with a spine for our country's future. That's really what's at

00:05:45.780 stake, whether we the people actually have a say in deciding who leads this country.

00:05:50.560 Good for Ramaswamy for being the only one in the race with a conscience, it seems. How nuts are the

00:05:55.800 Colorado Marxists? Well, the state Republican Party has said they will consider changing the primary

00:06:01.540 process to a caucus should the Supreme Court uphold this unconstitutional ban. These people in Colorado

00:06:09.280 are losing it. New York, already set to run a $9.5 billion deficit next year, has just created a

00:06:16.220 committee to consider reparations for the descendants of slavery. Marxist Governor Kathy Hochul signing the

00:06:24.480 legislation to authorize the creation of a community commission that will study the history of slavery in

00:06:30.720 New York State and what reparations could look like. New York is looking to add to the deficit

00:06:36.840 and write more checks to the descendants of slavery. How about reparations instead for the

00:06:42.840 descendants of the soldiers in the Northern Army, the Union Army, the New York people who went to war

00:06:49.380 to free the slaves? Hundreds of thousands were killed to free the slaves. So give me a break, Kathy Hochul.

00:06:56.520 Let's turn now to the culture war on college and university campuses. High school students are

00:07:02.640 rejecting early Harvard acceptance now as anti-Semitism continues to plague the scandal-ridden Ivy League

00:07:10.420 institution. This year, Harvard reported a 17 percent decline in early applications. That represents a

00:07:17.840 four-year low. The acceptance rate rose up to 8.7 percent from 7.6 percent last year. Good on the

00:07:26.280 parents and the children for rejecting the anger and anti-Semitism that is running rampant on

00:07:32.480 university campuses. Our guest today is Dr. Carol Swain. She knows something about all of this. Dr. Swain is an

00:07:39.980 award-winning political science scholar. She's the author of the book The Adversity of Diversity, How the

00:07:46.780 Supreme Court's Decision to Remove Race from College Admission Criteria Will Doom Diversity Programs. Carol, it's great 1.00

00:07:54.380 to have you with us. I have to say I'm sorry for all the controversy that's been visited upon you by a

00:07:59.940 plagiarist of your work and a prominent one at that, Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University.

00:08:06.080 What was your first reaction when you realized she had plagiarized your scholarship?

00:08:11.280 Well, I can tell you that I came home Sunday over a week ago from a Christmas service at my church,

00:08:18.780 college. And the first phone call I got was from Dr. Art Laffer. And Art does not normally call me at

00:08:26.360 home. And so I'm thinking, is something wrong? And then he asked me had I heard about the scandal that

00:08:33.040 the president of Harvard University had plagiarized her work and that I was one of the persons she had

00:08:40.580 plagiarized from. And then I started to get phone calls and texts. One of the calls was from a former

00:08:47.540 student who was in Hong Kong. And news reporters started calling that evening. But I did not know

00:08:54.420 that Chris Ruffo was conducting the research. Well, I want to compliment Christopher Ruffo because he

00:09:01.980 has been extraordinary, diligent, and committed to the truth in bringing this story forward.

00:09:10.120 He is just an outstanding investigator and reporter of what he unearths. This is remarkable. I have to say

00:09:21.680 that if she has built her career, it looks like, at least in part, on your work.

00:09:30.780 Well, I had forgotten the title of my dissertation, but it was the politics of black representation in

00:09:36.940 the U.S. congressional districts. And yeah, her work is derivative of my work. And the book Black

00:09:46.280 Faces, Black Interest, the Representation of African Americans in Congress that was published in 1993,

00:09:52.580 updated in 1995, and republished in 2006. It won immediately three national prizes, including the

00:10:02.680 highest prize a political scientist can win. And it was selected by Library Choice as one of the

00:10:09.780 outstanding books of 1994. And it has been cited by numerous law court decisions, as well as

00:10:16.680 the Supreme Court, three citations. It was considered pathbreaking, the seminal work in the area

00:10:24.300 of minority representation in Congress. And it had implications for districting and the whole debate

00:10:33.380 about whether or not white voters would support black candidates. I was in the forefront of saying

00:10:38.840 that they would, and that when black candidates lost, it wasn't necessarily because of their race,

00:10:45.020 that blacks tend to be more liberal than whites. And so it was pathbreaking. And I was disappointed. 0.97

00:10:52.040 When I first learned that my work was part of the work that she had stolen from, I thought it could

00:11:00.460 have been an accident. I was going to give her the benefit of a doubt. And I even joked that

00:11:05.200 imitation was the highest form of flattery. And that her committee would bear some responsibility.

00:11:11.740 But then the next day, when I started looking at her published articles, I felt that she had not

00:11:17.180 adequately acknowledged my pathbreaking work. She had a citation here or there, but I did not feel that

00:11:23.000 was adequate. So I was very sad because I knew she was going to get fired. There was too much evidence of 0.99

00:11:29.820 plagiarism for her to keep her job. But when Harvard announced that they were going to keep her and that

00:11:36.980 she was going to get to make corrections, I was livid. And it took me days to calm down. And I'm calm now.

00:11:43.480 Well, you're calm now, but you're also very much correct. Harvard University, and as you know, I am an alum.

00:11:53.960 And when I was in that institution just a short while ago, maybe going back a few centuries, but whatever,

00:12:04.100 there was one sin that was committed. And this was during the 60s. That one sin that Harvard didn't forgive was

00:12:12.560 plagiarism. You not only were thrown out of school, but you were expunged, as the word was used.

00:12:20.360 There was not a record of you ever having been there. You didn't even get to Cambridge. You never

00:12:26.540 walked across Harvard Yard. And now we have a situation where it's outright plagiarism.

00:12:32.900 It's obviously intentional plagiarism because she selected more than just a little of your work

00:12:38.120 and followed in your footsteps. I think it's fair to say it's it is quite remarkable what the board,

00:12:48.000 the the Harvard Corporation board did, what the trustees are doing. And and you have styled this

00:12:57.700 as elitism. And I love the expression that you used there, that there is this condescension,

00:13:07.120 my word, of lower expectations for, quote unquote, pedigreed minorities, referring to 0.96

00:13:16.900 Claudine Gay as a pedigreed minority. She is indeed that. But what what is your what is your 1.00

00:13:25.300 thinking about how this is going to resolve?

00:13:28.060 Well, as far as me, my statement about minorities with the right pedigree being treated differently,

00:13:38.120 that is based on observations of my having taught at Princeton, been tenured there and sat on

00:13:44.700 admissions committees and saw situations where higher scoring minorities without the

00:13:51.660 right pedigree. They had higher scores. They were passed over for minority students that

00:13:59.620 that came from more affluent backgrounds. And the reasoning was that the pedigree blacks would fit 0.88

00:14:06.780 in better. And so that was my first glimpse of how affirmative action really works. And I also

00:14:14.480 saw summer programs, minority programs that would have only one or two token disadvantaged minorities.

00:14:22.820 And those programs were supposed to prepare students for college to be able to apply and

00:14:29.200 and and be admitted to institutions like Princeton. So even there in those programs, there was a bias.

00:14:36.640 So that's a little bit of background on that comment. What is to happen?

00:14:42.880 One reason that I'm pursuing this and I'm not walking away is that I believe it has implications for

00:14:48.980 higher education more broadly, but it will also trickle down to K through 12, because if Harvard

00:14:55.840 University decides it can redefine. Pleasure ism and that there are different levels of pleasure ism

00:15:03.920 and that it's acceptable for racial and ethnic minorities to engage in it. We all know that

00:15:09.520 Claudine Gay, if she were a white male or a white female, she would have been fired by now. And there's 0.99

00:15:17.120 a double standard that harms all of us. It doesn't just harm black people who have worked hard to meet

00:15:23.040 the standards and other racial and ethnic minorities, but it harms American education, which is already in

00:15:30.160 decline. And that's the major reason why I can't walk away from this, because I care too much about

00:15:36.720 the educational system in America to allow that to go unchallenged.

00:15:42.000 Well, good for you. And Carol, I think you're doing exactly. I know you do what's right no matter

00:15:47.760 what. But let me tell you, I appreciate what you're doing for it. By the way, Harvard University is a

00:15:53.760 beneficiary of your criticism and your stand. And I think that we're going to see quite a change

00:16:01.760 in that institution. And I hope lots of others, because this is just not going to stand

00:16:08.080 with the alums of Harvard University, no matter what a $50 billion corporation with all of that money

00:16:15.840 says. I mean, this is this could be existential. I truly believe this could be existential for Harvard

00:16:22.880 as a once elite Ivy League institution, if not the preeminent institution in the country.

00:16:31.360 We're talking with Dr. Carol Swain. Please stay with us. We're coming right back.

00:16:35.600 This goes deeper than than race. It goes deeper than simple prejudice. This is something that is

00:16:46.800 percolating, I believe, in our in our society. And we've got to contend with it.

00:16:52.800 In nearly every way imaginable. We'll be back with Dr. Carol Swain. Stay with us.

00:17:03.680 We're back with Dr. Carol Swain. And I want to quote from what Carol has written, saying that

00:17:13.120 that she writes responding to Claudine Gay's disastrous congressional testimony and her

00:17:21.440 plagiarism. I write as one of the scholars whose work Ms. Gay plagiarized. She failed to credit me

00:17:28.000 for sections from my 1993 book, Black Faces, Black Interest, The Representation of African Americans in

00:17:34.240 Congress and an article I published in 97, Women and Blacks in Congress, 1870 to 1996. The damage to me

00:17:42.720 extends beyond the two instances of plagiarism identified by researchers, Christopher Ruffo and

00:17:49.360 Christopher Brunet. I think that's a powerful statement. And you are owed at least an apology

00:17:56.800 directly, personally, in my opinion, Carol, from Gay and from the board. Have you received it from either?

00:18:05.520 I have not heard from anyone from Harvard. And I plan to, starting on the 22nd, take some time off,

00:18:16.400 and at the first of the year, I will look at my options. But I do believe that she harmed me

00:18:22.160 in a way that other people were not harmed. And that has to do with the fact that her work

00:18:28.080 is pretty, is clearly derivative of my work. And I believe that it was a long-term harm because in

00:18:38.720 academia, your statue is determined by how many citations you have. So if someone is borrowing from

00:18:44.880 your work and they're not adequately citing you, and I looked at her published articles,

00:18:50.720 the American Political Science Review article, one that she has to go back and make corrections in,

00:18:56.880 but she has my name in the bibliography, but she doesn't adequately explain why she's asking the

00:19:03.520 question she is and how it ties into my work. And I see the same pattern in her dissertation,

00:19:10.080 which I just started to read. And there's a lot of intellectual dishonesty that's not exactly

00:19:16.480 pleasurism because it's not necessarily sections of my work that's in these publications that I saw.

00:19:25.760 But what I did see was the ideas were ideas that clearly came from my work. But you wouldn't know that

00:19:32.720 if you were reading her work, you would think that she came up with her own questions and

00:19:37.520 you wouldn't know she was building on the work of another scholar. And so I feel, you know,

00:19:43.040 I was cheated out of citations that I would have gotten if she had adequately cited my work.

00:19:50.000 You know, as I understand, it would have been a simple matter for her to have

00:19:54.400 used quotation marks, given attribution to you, cited your work and your books and articles.

00:20:02.240 And it would not have been an issue. It's I don't even understand why the motivation clearly.

00:20:11.760 I understand. I understand all of it, I believe. And part of it, again, the argument that I'm making

00:20:17.920 is that her work is derivative of my work. And even those two places where there's clear

00:20:25.520 plagiarism, one a paragraph, another a few sentences, those could have been addressed by

00:20:32.960 quotation marks and appropriate citations. But my argument is that her whole research agenda

00:20:40.560 borrows from my research. And normally, as a scholar, when you build on the research of another scholar,

00:20:48.080 you make make it clear that you're building on that research, either to challenge it,

00:20:52.400 to affirm it or to expand it. But you don't pretend that it doesn't exist. And in many ways,

00:20:59.280 I would say that what Claudine Gay did was ignore parts of my research that was relevant to her research

00:21:07.840 that she should have been citing. Some of that has to do with the fact that in the mid 1990s,

00:21:14.480 when the affirmative action debate was taking place, I believe that some of this has to do with,

00:21:20.000 I became increasingly more conservative, I started supporting race neutral, means tested, 0.77

00:21:26.720 affirmative action, when all the elites were moving in a different direction. Plus, Black faces,

00:21:32.160 Black interests, argued that political party was more important than the race of the representative,

00:21:38.400 and that white representatives could represent blacks, and blacks can represent whites,

00:21:44.400 and that there was a trade off between descriptive representation, having more black faces in office,

00:21:51.760 and substantive representation, having more people who can support your agenda. My book was considered

00:21:57.680 controversial, and I was threatened by black scholars during the time I was at Princeton. And I was called

00:22:04.160 a conservative for publishing that book. At the time, I was a good Democrat. So, my book itself

00:22:10.000 was not something that the political left wanted to see and hear, and I think that that could have had

00:22:18.160 something to do with the decision that she made to try to pursue work that would counter what I was saying

00:22:24.880 without acknowledging where she was getting her ideas from. There is so much more here than what has been

00:22:33.360 touched upon by the popular press. And amongst the things that are not being considered, at least reported on,

00:22:41.840 to me is a successful black woman, president of Harvard University, copying the work of a successful, 0.63

00:22:50.080 prominent scholar, Dr. Carol Swain, Professor Carol Swain. That in itself is a further betrayal,

00:23:00.000 it would seem to me. Do you feel that way? Well, Lou, I would tell you that I started getting

00:23:08.000 counseled before we actually knew what counsel culture was, because late in the 1990s, I had a

00:23:15.840 Christian conversion experience. I was a Democrat at the time, but I became increasingly more conservative,

00:23:22.640 even by 2009, I was a Republican. And I can tell you that as I became more conservative,

00:23:31.760 I became more marginalized within political science. And you may know the details, but in 2015,

00:23:40.320 I was on the faculty of Vanderbilt. I published an op-ed piece criticizing Islam. It created a firestorm. I was

00:23:48.480 protested on campus, and the university kept sending out press statements about how I didn't represent

00:23:55.680 them. And I decided to take early retirement in 2017. And when I left in 2017, I had been a professor for

00:24:03.760 28 years. I basically walked away from the only thing I knew how to do. And academia has pretty much been

00:24:11.600 close to me. But there's a reason why people like Claudine Gay have been able to get away with the

00:24:19.120 things that they've gotten away with. My research ideas have not, for the most part, been ideas that

00:24:26.000 they wanted to be out there. And that's not everyone. I have supporters in political science. I have

00:24:33.520 supporters in the field of law. And my work, many people see it as prescient. It's always sort of been

00:24:41.600 ahead of its time getting it right. But at the same time, it has been an uphill battle. And when I look

00:24:47.760 at the research of Black scholars, this past summer, in August, I went to the American Political Science

00:24:54.080 Association meetings by invitation to be on a panel for Black conservatives. When I read the work of Black 1.00

00:25:02.560 scholars and some of the white liberals, it hasn't changed in 30 or 40 years. They're saying the same 0.94

00:25:09.760 things. They're making the same arguments. It must be the easiest way to make a living because you don't

00:25:17.360 have to think. You don't have to come up with anything. And in the passages that she stole from

00:25:24.080 other people's work, they're just pure laziness. But there's no creativity in her work. She did not meet

00:25:32.000 the standards that other people have had to meet to be tenured at an Ivy League institution. And so

00:25:39.360 that's how I feel. Well, we appreciate you sharing those feelings. And we share them with you,

00:25:45.920 believe me. We're talking with Dr. Carol Swain. We're coming right back in just a few moments. Please

00:25:52.080 stay with us. We're back with Professor Carol Swain. And I should say, Professor Swain and I have known

00:26:04.560 each other for some time. We're friends. And when she said she was prescient 20 years ago, she is indeed

00:26:11.760 correct in her statement. She was a conservative voice talking about serious issues like affirmative 0.76

00:26:22.960 action, representation, as she says, and the ways in which the country was moving. Highly suspect then,

00:26:32.160 and we have it confirmed now that the largest institutions in the country in higher education

00:26:42.320 took a wrong path and started it a long time ago. I would just like to say, going to this point,

00:26:50.560 you've talked about your injury, the harm that Harvard and President Gay have done to you.

00:26:59.120 I want to say, first of all, after listening to you, looking at the scholarship that she copied,

00:27:07.520 and this quote unquote empire of DEI she created, why didn't Harvard come recruiting you? Because you

00:27:13.920 would have been the better choice. It was your original work. Well, the thing about it is the

00:27:19.840 parts that she borrowed were not the parts that I would have been flattered if she had borrowed the parts

00:27:26.240 that actually made the statements that were important about race relations. It was just,

00:27:31.200 you know, laziness, things that were not the major ideas from the book, as far as I can tell. And I

00:27:40.080 think with other people's work, you know, she borrowed different parts. She didn't borrow the main thesis

00:27:46.080 of the things that were controversial. And when I wrote that book, I was not a,

00:27:51.120 I did not identify as a conservative. I was a Democrat. And I did not see myself as being

00:27:59.440 conservative. I wanted to be the best political scientist I could be. And I would have people

00:28:04.960 come up to me after my book was published and say, oh, that is such a great book. It's so amazing.

00:28:10.400 People can't guess your race by reading your book. And I'm thinking, why should people be able to guess

00:28:17.280 my race by reading my book? And my whole approach, even from the very beginning, when I came out on

00:28:24.720 the job market in 1989, was that I refused to apply to minority positions. And back then they would

00:28:32.080 advertise jobs, three minorities would compete against one another, they would hire the best minority or the 0.89

00:28:37.520 best black. And I wanted to compete against everyone, the whole, for the job, the American politics jobs, 0.55

00:28:46.080 I was applying for as a congressional scholar, I wanted to apply to the jobs everyone else was

00:28:51.840 applying for and compete with the full pool. And that's what I did. And, and so that's something that

00:29:00.240 I've always been different in that. When I was in graduate school, there were blacks, not graduate 1.00

00:29:11.200 school, when I was an undergrad, there were students who told me, it's not just various places, black

00:29:18.240 students told me who all the racist white professors were, so that I could avoid their classes. I immediately

00:29:24.000 signed up for that classes. And I found out that they were not racist, they were just

00:29:28.480 challenging, they held everyone to a high standard. And so, and I also learned that if I impressed those

00:29:37.120 professors, everyone would know my name. And so when I tell my story, like my role models, never looked

00:29:43.920 like me. And, and, and I just did not follow that path. I did not follow the path of going through black 0.99

00:29:52.080 political scientists and doing all the black stuff. So there are reasons why Harvard and 0.95

00:29:58.720 other institutions, they're not necessarily interested in blacks that are not celebrated

00:30:04.080 by other blacks. Right. And so when they hire black people, you got to fit in with the, the other blacks 0.97

00:30:09.520 have to pass on you pretty much for them. I want to, I want to go to your suggestion, because all of this

00:30:16.160 is arising at the same time that President Gay didn't have the courage to say that genocide would

00:30:23.920 be a, an issue at Harvard. It would be harassment at the very least. That seems to me to be a very low

00:30:32.880 bar, but one that she didn't pass, nor did the president of MIT, nor the president of UPenn.

00:30:39.120 You know, it's interesting to me that not a single president has been fired. The president of UPenn

00:30:46.880 is no longer president, but she just simply moved over to a professorship, as I understand it,

00:30:52.000 at the law school. And Claudine Gay is still in the job and is, and the, and the board is proudly

00:31:01.920 supporting her. This is a tacit, is it not, affirmation of violent hate speech on the campus?

00:31:11.520 Well, I can tell you that with Claudine Gay, Harvard is in a conundrum. They don't know how 0.98

00:31:17.760 to depose of their first ever black president. And DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,

00:31:26.400 which is also the subject of my latest book, The Adversity of Diversity. I mean, she could be the 1.00

00:31:33.760 poster child because the progressives who want her, they don't care about standards. They care about 1.00

00:31:41.600 looks. You look at the Biden cabinet and they would tout that they had the most diverse cabinet in

00:31:49.760 American history. We all know it's the most incompetent in American history. They don't care 0.97

00:31:55.520 about qualifications. It's all about identity politics. And one thing, Lou, that I did not pay

00:32:01.680 attention to until it was too late was all the time I was at Princeton and even, you know, during the

00:32:09.760 early years at Vanderbilt, there was all this critical theory and deconstructionism and of course,

00:32:15.200 post-modernism. But I was a congressional scholar and pretty much I was interested in policy and I was

00:32:21.600 not paying enough attention. But once Obama got elected, all of a sudden I saw how these theories

00:32:27.840 were being used by people and they were being implemented as policies. They were guiding policies

00:32:34.080 and the infiltration of critical race theory to K through 12 education that started doing the Obama

00:32:41.920 administration as well as restorative justice. And so all of these elites that were surrounding me

00:32:48.160 and talking about ideas because I heard people openly talk about that it would be better for America

00:32:54.960 if it was not a majority white country. And so there were people that clearly saw immigration as a way

00:33:01.760 to make America better because you could make it non-white. They talked openly about these ideas 1.00

00:33:07.040 and I had not really studied Marxism, never took any courses on Marxism until late in my career. Those

00:33:17.680 last few years before I left Vanderbilt, that's when I started studying Marxism and neo-Marxism and

00:33:24.800 and I started putting it all together what they had done. And so how they were able to put out this vision,

00:33:33.920 they kept talking about reimagining, reimagining, reimagining this. And they have not only reimagined

00:33:40.320 America, I mean, they've actually been able to implement it. And for myself, you know, I wish I

00:33:46.320 had paid more attention when I was at Princeton and paid more attention when I was at Vanderbilt to what

00:33:52.240 was happening around me. Well, we're all paying attention now and we all know that what you're talking

00:33:58.000 about. The Democratic Party is now under the control, the spell of Marxists and they're not

00:34:05.840 neo-Marxists. They're Marxists. They're not somehow a hybrid. They are the real deal because they mean

00:34:13.920 they've taken over education, higher education in this country, a good part of public education.

00:34:19.760 They have they control the Democratic Party, as I said, and they control the entire federal government.

00:34:25.120 There isn't a single agency in the federal government that is not under the control of

00:34:30.240 the Marxist Dems. And people don't want to accept that. They don't want to deal with it. They talk

00:34:35.440 about it as a corrupt institution. But the truth is Marxism is behind all of this. And it is an

00:34:43.040 international movement and one that is being reflected, being reflected in the anti-Semitism,

00:34:50.080 I believe, that's arising on college and university campuses. Your thoughts?

00:34:56.320 I mean, it's absolutely true. And the reason I call it neo-Marxism is I was calling it cultural

00:35:02.400 Marxism. And then about maybe six or seven years ago, Google, if you do a search on cultural Marxism,

00:35:11.200 you will get a bunch of articles that will say, even they've changed some dictionary definitions,

00:35:18.560 that it's a right wing concept and something the right wing came up with. It's anti-Semitic, they say.

00:35:27.040 And so I decided to call it neo-Marxism because, you know, if I'm talking to students, I'm talking to

00:35:33.920 groups and people want to Google what I'm talking about. I think if they Google cultural Marxism,

00:35:39.840 they're going to get a spate of articles that this is just conspiracy theories.

00:35:44.400 Right.

00:35:44.800 But you're right. They are Marxist. It is global. They have infected every institution. They are

00:35:51.360 in medical schools, the medical profession, the military. They have pretty much upended America

00:35:59.600 to the point that I don't recognize this country.

00:36:01.920 You know, I think that's true for most of us, Carol. I truly do. Carol, it's been great talking

00:36:08.240 with you. I hope that you'll come back here in the days and weeks ahead and we'll continue the

00:36:13.360 conversation. I want to ask you one last question. Are you going to Sue Harvard University?

00:36:19.360 You know something? I don't want to say anything. I'm going to wait until the first of the year and

00:36:24.560 make a decision. But I would have thought by now someone from Harvard would have reached out to me

00:36:30.880 because I am the person who has been injured the most. And Lou, your listeners may not know my

00:36:37.360 background, but I was one of 12. I was a high school dropout, started at a community college,

00:36:42.720 got five degrees. You know, I have worked my way from the bottom to attain success. And people like

00:36:50.720 Claudine Gay, they just breeze in. People hand it to them. They don't have to meet the same standards.

00:36:56.560 And so that offends me because I think most Americans believe in the American dream. They

00:37:02.000 want to see people from the bottom be able to make it to the top, not the elites.

00:37:07.760 Yeah. Yeah. You're talking about the American dream for all of us.

00:37:11.840 Yes. And we appreciate you being with us, Dr. Carol Swain. Thanks so much, Carol.

00:37:16.320 And I look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you.

00:37:18.240 All right. Bye.

00:37:19.280 Thanks, everybody, for being here today. Our guest tomorrow on The Great America Show is author,

00:37:24.160 attorney, and radio host, national security and geopolitics analyst Gordon Chang.

00:37:29.360 Join us here tomorrow as we take up the host of foreign threats to the United States. 1.00

00:37:34.160 Follow me on Twitter and Truth Social at Lou Dobbs,

00:37:37.200 and on Facebook and Instagram at Lou Dobbs tonight. Go to loudobbs.com. Thank you,

00:37:42.640 everybody. God bless you. And may God bless America.

The Great America Show - December 21, 2023

HARVARD’S PLAGIARIST PRESIDENT

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript