Image 01 Image 03

Harvard = Bud Light

Harvard = Bud Light

My appearance on the Lou Dobbs podcast: “I don’t mean to laugh about it, but this is insane. You have somebody who’s a complete failure, who embarrassed the university, who cost them a billion dollars, who gets caught plagiarizing, and they’re going stand with her…. Maybe they think their brand can’t be permanently tarnished because it’s Harvard. Well, you know what? The people who branded Bud Light thought the same thing, and they found out differently.”

I appeared on the Lou Dobbs podcast The Great America Show to talk about the decline of the most elite academic institutions as displayed in the pathetic testimony before Congress of the presidents of Harvard, U. Penn, and MIT.

This is my second time on Lou’s podcast. Having done hundreds of interviews over the years, I appreciate someone with Lou’s easy-going style of interviewing. Some interviewers make it about them, others give the guest the opportunity to shine. Lou is the latter.

Most of the focus was on Harvard, including president Claudine Gay’s plagiarism scandal. (The discussion starts at 5:45 of the audio.)

(If player does not load, click here)

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT (auto-transcribed, may contain transcription errors)

Dobbs (05:45):

…. Our guest today is Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson. Professor, I want to say welcome to the Great America Show. It’s great to have you with us. I am sorry that it’s under these circumstances, frankly, Harvard, MIT, Penn, Cornell, the Ivy League is under duress. Without any question now about the subjects you’ve and I have been talking about for some time, and that is antisemitism on the campuses, universities and colleges across this country.

I want to start with your thoughts first about the fact that President of Penn resigned her post, the president of Harvard has received the full support of the Harvard Board, despite charges of not only antisemitism and now plagiarism, suppressing free speech and actually playing a role at least in the ousting of a law professor who was defending Weinstein in his sorted sexual harassment cases. Your thoughts about it all?

WAJ (06:12):

It’s really, I think, a reflection of the decline of our elite academic institutions. You see a philosophy, characterized in different ways. You could call it critical race theory. You could call it diversity, equity, and inclusion, you could call it whatever you want, but it is elevating politics over academic substance. It is centering race in the middle of everything, and it has a very fundamentally anti-American flavor to it, anti-capitalist flavor to it.

And unfortunately, in this kind of toxic mix that’s going on in academia, the most radical elements have chosen to single out Jews as the object of their hatred. Something that we know has gone on many times in history. The people who should be the adults in the room, the presidents of universities, have proven that they are not adults when it comes to these matters. And that’s really what we’re seeing. You can’t judge what’s going on now in the narrow scope of the last 30 or 60 days. You really have to view it in the scope of what has happened to academia in the last 20 to 30 years.

Dobbs (07:31):

You know, I’ve often thought, and I know this is gonna be controversial for some people, but to have academic programs on ethnocentric subjects is to me a dilution of academia. Then to take that to another step and have actually political activist education, whether it be the Kennedy School, whatever it may be, Stanford, whatever it may be, the university instead of the fundamental university subjects that one associates with that of producing, graduating, men and women of true education in the classical sense, it is, I frankly think that it is a crime for these universities to be charging 50 to what, 80, $85,000 a year for the education that’s being provided. Your thoughts?

WAJ (08:31):

I think that’s right. I think we are not educating people, at least at these elite institutions. Notice, and other people have commented on this, we don’t see these protest and riots in favor of terrorists at community colleges where students are more likely to actually want to learn something that will help them in their life. We’re seeing them at the most elite institutions, and it’s a complete failure of the system.

We have elevated identity politics over merit. We have elevated equity, meaning equalizing outcomes and manipulating outcomes, over equality where everybody is treated fairly. And so that’s what we’re seeing go on. And it’s really tragic. We’re not graduating the future generations that we need to keep this country strong. We’re graduating people who have been schooled in an ideology of tearing down our society. If you look at all of these ideologies that are creating this toxic mix on campuses, it’s a hatred of our system and a desire to tear us down, because they don’t understand what the consequences of that will be.

But understanding is not really what it’s about. These are essentially what you would see in many cases at a North Korean rally, just people chanting slogans. They don’t even necessarily understand. There’ve been a number of people who’ve interviewed students on campuses chanting from the river to the sea, and they can’t tell you what river and what sea. They’re just mind-numbed chanting of these genocidal doctrines. And so it’s really scary. It’s a time where I hope what has happened the last month and two months on campuses is a massive wake up to our country that what’s happening on campuses is poses a long-term threat to our country.


Dobbs (12:09):

We’re back with Professor William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell. Let’s turn to this to keep it as specific as we can. Your thoughts about a university, any university that had witnessed their president do what Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University,had done before the hearing in the US Congress, who’s accused of plagiarism, who is accused of constricting, constraining free speech, who is accused of  ousting a professor who just happened to defend Harvey Weinstein. What what is your reaction to that and how in the world could any board of trustees, corporate board of any university support that?

WAJ (13:07):

Well, it’s hard to understand in any reasonable corporate fiduciary sense. She was a failure in her relatively short term so far as president. And you need a president precisely to deal with times of crisis, such as has happened the last 60 days, and she’s been unable to deal with it. In fact, the dealing she’s had with it have made the situation worse, not better. They’re an embarrassment to Harvard. I’ve read someplace that they’ve lost over a billion dollars in pledge donations because of it. And then it comes out that she legitimately plagiarized in multiple papers other authors. And the Harvard Board in their announcement that they are sticking with her, acknowledged that their review found four instances of lacking attribution in her papers. There are other people who found more. But they don’t feel it was serious enough, and they’re going allow her to issue corrections to her papers.

I mean, this is insane <laugh>, really, it’s…  I don’t mean to laugh about it, but this is insane. You have somebody who’s a complete failure, who embarrassed the university, who cost them a billion dollars, who gets caught plagiarizing, and they’re going stand with her.

I think the problem is they’re between a rock and a hard place. I mean, she was appointed because she was a strict adherent and promoter of diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology. A paper leaked out recently that she had written that she was going to push that into every aspect of the university. So the university’s in a hard place if they fire a black woman president who was hired because she’s a devotee of diversity, equity, and inclusion. You can imagine the uproar they’re going to face from the student activists and from the faculty activists.

But if they keep her on, it’s immensely damaging long-term to the brand of Harvard. And maybe they think they’re above it. Maybe they think their brand can’t be permanently tarnished because it’s Harvard. Well, you know what? The people who branded Bud Light thought the same thing, and they found out differently. I think that they are in an extremely difficult position, and I think that this will seriously hurt the Harvard brand, the Ivy League brand.

I think that the nation is waking up to the fact that these elite institutions, and I work at one of them, are doing tremendous damage to the country.


While you were talking, I was thinking back, there’s a book, I think it was in the late seventies called Harvard Hates America. It was such a great, it was a bestseller. It was a big hit at the time. People have probably forgotten it, but Harvard Hates America, and it’s absolutely true. They sneer at ordinary citizens. They consider themselves above. And the way they’re acting now, I think is a perfect example as to DEI and ESG and all of those. ESG is more of a corporate thing, and I think from an investment point of view, it’s nonsense.

But DEI is an academic thing. It’s a campus thing. It’s moved beyond campus, but it’s basically a campus thing. And regardless of whether you’re a Democrat or Republican or regardless of who you support in the Republican primary, what they’re doing in Florida, what Ron DeSantis is doing in Florida, is part of the answer. It is defund these bureaucracies, defund these government salaried bureaucracies who are causing such monumental pain.

We’ve been at my website, and I’ve been screaming for years, that DEI is poisonous. It breaks people into identity groups. It forces them to be treated not as fully human individuals, but as humans who are merely part of a greater group, a group identity. It pits people against each other and it pits people against their country. Get rid of it. It has to be gotten rid of. You can’t tweak it around the edges.

Dobbs (18:16):

I couldn’t agree with you more. We’re going to take a quick break. We’re talking with Cornell Professor William Jacobson. Stay with us…. We are back with Professor William Jacobson. And professor, just a, a short what, two months ago, Cornell was in the midst of its own controversy. Has there been an improvement? What is the environment now? Has the campus settled down and are you moving to a better path?

WAJ (18:51):

Well, it’s certainly not as bad as it was six weeks ago when there was a professor who announced he was exhilarated when he heard of the Hamas attack, and there were student groups chanting from the river to the sea, and Intifada, which is the bloody suicide bombing campaign against Israel. There was a student who appears to have become radicalized while at Cornell, who actually posted threats to shoot up the kosher dining hall, was arrested, charged in federal court. It was a bad scene and a completely incompetent response from the administration that really, they just reacted to pressure from alumni and the media, couldn’t figure out the right thing to do the first time. So it’s not a great situation.

I have zero confidence that the administration is going do anything other than try to wait it out and try to avoid having to take any meaningful action on campus.

They just announced a new policy that, because the presidents who testified in Congress couldn’t say that calling for genocide is against campus policy, they announced a policy that, yes, calling for genocide is against Cornell’s policy. But the way they define genocide is not the standard definition of genocide. The UN, the Holocaust Museum, the United States Congress, they all have definitions of genocide, which do not limit it to the complete eradication of a people. Yet Cornell announces that a call to kill all members of a group, all members of a group, is a call for genocide and will not be tolerated on campus. Well, that’s just a dodge. Nobody defines genocide that way. That’s a subset of genocide and nobody’s calling for that. So they create this fictitious, phony definition of genocide, which is not a standard definition, that they know is not what people call for.

And what they’re doing is they’re trying to do it to avoid having to deal with the problem on campus of people calling for violence against Jews. Because if they don’t call to kill all Jews, then it’s not a call for genocide according to the Cornell Administration, which of course is absurd. That whole thing tells me they are not serious about this.

They’re treating this as a public relations exercise, and they think they can wordsmith their way around it. But I can tell you alumni are very upset. I think parents are very upset. I think students are very upset and Cornell’s just going to try to rope-a-dope it and wait it out and hope we go on winter break, and when everybody comes back in six weeks, it’s all forgotten. I don’t know if that will happen, but I think that’s their strategy.

Dobbs (21:44):

Is there enough independent thought within the students of Cornell for those students to come back organized and to meet the threat of D-E-I, C-R-T or critical legal theory, whatever you wanna call it, and to take it head on and the administration?

WAJ (22:06):

I don’t think the current students will be able, will rise up, so to speak. I think that they feel very bullied. I think they feel that to speak out means they will be targeted. Remember, we have mobs of students running through the campus with bullhorns chanting for violence. I think it’s a lot to ask a sophomore in college to stand up to that. What will happen with future applications in future generations? Harvard will always fill its class and there’ll always be more people who want the name and want the diploma, and don’t care about it. But I do believe we are developing in this country something of a red-blue divide at the university level. And people will have choices.

They can go to the University of Florida or many other universities in red states, public universities, and they’re not going find this level of DEI indoctrination. In fact, it’s being defunded. Or they can go to schools in New York, public universities, or California, and they will be inundated with it, or they can go to private elite colleges where they will be inundated with it. They’re going to have to make choices.

I think just like people vote with their feet moving south, if you look at all the demographic maps showing trends of where people move, it’s all north to south. Nobody’s moving north. And I think you’ll see that in academia. It may take  a few years to play itself out. And I don’t dismiss the Ivy League credential being an allure for people, but I think you will see people moving to other locations for academia, for academics, just as you see them moving to other locations for other things in life.

Dobbs (23:53):

Yeah, I think there was a time when every parent would’ve been very proud to have their kids going off to an Ivy League school. I think now those very same parents would be very proud if those students were going to a school, outh or west, wherever it is necessary to go, that provided a great education and no indoctrination. You get the last word here, professor. Thanks for being with us today.

WAJ (24:20):

My last word is this is an opportunity for change. The complete implosion in the public perception of the elite institutions is a chance for change, for the better, to strengthen our country and to strengthen the institutions. Don’t let this moment pass. It’s a moment created by the institutions. They are self-destructing in front of our very eyes. They have enormous hypocrisy. They’re losing credibility, and we shouldn’t let that pass. To use a famous political phrase, don’t let a crisis go to waste. And the crisis on campuses is something we can’t let go to waste. We have to turn it into a better situation, because otherwise it’s just going to get worse….


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


UnCivilServant | December 17, 2023 at 9:09 pm

Years ago, I’d concluded that a Harvard sheepskin was a negative when making hiring decisions. I’m glad the world appears to be catching up.

    PostLiberal in reply to UnCivilServant. | December 17, 2023 at 10:02 pm

    I don’t know what caused you to decide that. I suspect part of it might have to to with the belief of some Harvard people that they are God’s gift to the world. My grandmother’s primary care physician in her small Southwestern town was a Harvard graduate. She told me that he believed that he and Harvard were among the anointed. The best choosing the best, doncha’ know.

    I once took a night train between Boston and New York. A Harvard Law student on the train was gushing about how not only were Harvard Law students were very bright, but they were among the best people- ethics, kindness, what have you. (I wish I had told him that in addition, Harvard Law students were exceedingly modest.)

    On the other hand, a girl who babysat me married a Harvard graduate. He was a double Harvard, as his father taught at Harvard Law. He was down-to-earth, not conceited like the above examples.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to UnCivilServant. | December 18, 2023 at 5:07 am

    If it’s okay to know, what skillsets were you hiring, and what stood out about the Harvard people? And, how about the folks from other Ivies?


    I have had three of my students go to Harvard. I wouldn’t hire any of them for anything. Not because they went to Harvard, but because they lacked character and were subpar students.

    But, their daddies went to Harvard.

I used to hold Harvard in Hight regard, even went to speak to students once and do a Q&A. It is amazing how Harvard is destroying its brand and reputation. It takes a long time to build a reputation, not so long to destroy it.

What we’re witnessing in the U.S., Canada and abroad are simply obnoxious and evil manifestations of Muslim supremacism, totalitarianism and Islamofascism — whether the actors involved are Muslims, or, their useful idiot, dhimmi and Dhimmi-crat allies.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | December 17, 2023 at 11:35 pm

Hah-vahd == Butt Light

Claudine Gay = Harvard Light

I wonder if Kid Rock will make a video for Harvard like he did Bud Light?

caseoftheblues | December 18, 2023 at 6:19 am

If the early admissions applications …. Which comprise the most ardent of those applying are down 17% then it seems logical that the regular percentage of applicants will be down even more. While there are still way too many idiots trying to get in what this will do is increase the percentage of applicants accepted which is the big figure the poison ivies love to tout about how elite and hard to get in they are. They all want to be top of the heap as most selective. They talk less about current SAT scores since many of their diversity students accepted dramatically decrease overall scores. Apparently spending your weekends marching or rioting for “social justice” and marinating in your victimhood does not translate into high test scores or grades

With Bud Light there were alternatives a half a foot away. Those brands didn’t sponsor Dylan Mulvaney. So, a consumer could differentiate between brands. The problem here is that a huge percentage of universities are essentially also Harvards. They have DEI presidents. They have DEI faculty. The medical schools require DEI statements by applicants. Just look ar the entire State of California university system. So, there are few or no obvious alternatives for consumers. Which schools are standing up and saying “come here if you don’t want a full serving of DEI with your degree”?

    CommoChief in reply to Stuytown. | December 18, 2023 at 9:32 am

    Hillsdale. 95% of community colleges at a guess. The there are lots of public Universities in the saner Red States have much less tolerance for the antisemitic BS and woke protests of all kinds. Sure they have woke faculty but they also have an alumni base, Student body and community which is far less receptive to woke BS extremes. Plus the private Colleges in many of those Red States. Plenty of options exist outside the Ivy League and CA system.

      Stuytown in reply to CommoChief. | December 18, 2023 at 1:02 pm

      You prove my point. Miller Lite is almost indistinguishable from Bud Light. So, that’s an easy switch. But the options you provide to Harvard or any Poison Ivy League school are easily distinguished from one another. If you could provide the name of a prestigious university that didn’t go DEI, that would work.

        Stuytown in reply to Stuytown. | December 18, 2023 at 1:03 pm

        And the good schools in the South are actually poisoned. Most of them, anyway.

        CommoChief in reply to Stuytown. | December 18, 2023 at 3:27 pm

        That’s kinda the issue here, the so called ‘Prestigious’ Univ are coasting on the fumes of their bygone reputation and have been for some time. Their admissions standards, inflated grading and woke curricula have been suspect for decades yet some folks are still gullible enough to fall for their ‘we are the elite’ BS. The more thoughtful employers are certainly taking notice.

        There are plenty of Univ where there haven’t been Cray Cray antisemitic demonstrations where faculty isn’t insane and Students are held to traditional academic standards. That’s the real distinction. FWIW Yuengling is a better choice than Miller Lite.

Does Charles Lieber, Ph.D., ring a bell?

Lieber was the Chairman of Harvard’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology and a professor who was convicted by a federal jury on Tuesday of lying to the IRS and Federal Investigators about his involvement with Chinese government.

Lieber’s research group at Harvard had received over $15 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense, which requires disclosing foreign financial conflicts of interests. The jury found that Lieber had lied about his affiliation with the Wuhan University of Technology in China and a contract he had with a Chinese talent recruitment plan to attract high-level scientists to the country.

He was being paid $50,000 per month by the Chinese university and given $1.5 million to establish a nanoscience research lab at WUT, the Justice Department said in a news release. Lieberman was specifically affiliated with China’s Thousand Talents Program, which the department called “one of the most prominent talent recruitment plans designed to attract, recruit and cultivate high-level scientific talent in furtherance of China’s scientific development, economic prosperity and national security.”

Acting US attorney Nathaniel Mendell said in a statement Tuesday that “there is now no question that Charles Lieber lied to federal investigators and to Harvard in an attempt to hide his participation in the Chinese Thousand Talents Program.”

Lieber lied to the IRS about his non-disclosed salary of $50,000 per month, living expenses of up to $150,000, and approximately $1.5 million to conduct joint research at Wuhan Lab that he received from China, and concealed his Chinese bank account from the United States.

You know where there’s no University DEI Gestapo?


When was the last time you heard of a guidance counselor at an American high school encouraging students to explore college outside the U.S. — to save their money, to expand their horizons, etc.

Next harvard president RuPaul.

Harvard knows that retaining Gay long-term is unsustainable. I surmise that the statement of support was a stopgap measure to buy time. A king’s ransom will be paid to filch a mixed blood, but dark, higher IQ scholar from another institution. Gay will be given some incredible package to go away.

What a world we live in!

Harvard will be fine. The countries paying full tuition freight for their students are on the Palestinian side.. Most of their donor base will stay, as it is all about political influence with those people.

harvard = crappy pisswater beer?