HARVARD’S PLAGIARIST PRESIDENT
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
148.29521
Summary
The Marxist Dems have thrown President Trump off the primary ballot in Colorado and now they are trying to force him off the ballot in order to get him on the general election ballot in 2020. How will the U.S. Supreme Court handle this situation?
Transcript
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
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.
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
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
00:13:16.900
Claudine Gay as a pedigreed minority. She is indeed that. But what what is your what is your
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
00:28:37.520
best black. And I wanted to compete against everyone, the whole, for the job, the American politics jobs,
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
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
00:29:52.080
political scientists and doing all the black stuff. So there are reasons why Harvard and
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
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
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
00:31:33.760
poster child because the progressives who want her, they don't care about standards. They care about
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
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
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.
00:35:44.800
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.
00:37:19.280
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.
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.