Harvard conservative magazine is suspended by its own board after publishing article laced with Nazi rhetoric

[essentialsaltes]

A conservative magazine at Harvard University was suspended by its board of directors Sunday amid scrutiny over an article published in September that closely resembled the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler.

In its September print issue, the Harvard Salient published an article by student David F.X. Army that read “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans,” echoing the words Hitler used in a January 1939 speech to the Reichstag in which he forecasted that another world war would lead to the annihilation of Jews.

The Harvard Salient piece also argued that “Islam et al. has absolutely no place in Western Europe,” and called for a return to values “rooted in blood, soil, language, and love of one’s own.” (The phrase “blood and soil” also echoes a Nazi idea that the inherent features of a people are its land and race.)

The school’s mainstream student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, published three opinionpieces criticizing the rhetoric used in the Salient piece, to which [Salient's editor in chief] Rodgers published his own article last week lamenting that “ordinary conservative thought is one headline away from criminality.”

 

[bèlla]

Harvard conservative student magazine says it will continue publishing despite suspension

The editor of a conservative magazine run by Harvard University students reportedly announced that the outlet would continue publishing despite being suspended by its board of directors for publishing “reprehensible” material.

The Harvard Salient’s Editor-in-Chief Richard Y. Rodgers, in an email to the magazine’s mailing list, said the publication’s suspension was an “unauthorized usurpation of power by a small number of individuals acting outside the bounds of their authority,” The Harvard Crimson reported.

The Salient is independent from Harvard University and is dedicated to publishing conservative thought, according to its website.

The publication’s current board members consist of six Harvard alumni and former Salient presidents and four current professors as ex-officio members.

The publication’s board of directors said in a statement that the magazine published content “wholly inimical to the conservative principles for which the magazine stands,” and said it would suspend the magazine pending an investigation and review.

The board’s statement did not specify the material it deemed “abusive” and “demeaning,” but also said it received complaints about the Salient’s culture.

Naomi Schaefer Riley, director of the Salient’s board, declined to comment Tuesday night, and other members of the board of directors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This action was taken without notice to or consent from the duly appointed leadership of the organization and in direct violation of the bylaws governing The Harvard Salient,” the Crimson reported Rodgers wrote. “The Harvard Salientcontinues to operate under its legitimate editorial leadership until further notice.”

Rodgers told the Crimson Tuesday that the Salient’s board members should “consider resigning their posts in order to allow the organization a chance to rebuild in good faith.”

Rodgers also told the Crimson that the board allegedly did not follow the protocol for holding a meeting, making the suspension illegitimate.

Rodgers did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.

~bella

 

[Chesterton]

A conservative magazine at Harvard University was suspended by its board of directors Sunday amid scrutiny over an article published in September that closely resembled the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler.

In its September print issue, the Harvard Salient published...

Is this a print-only issue? I found one online article by Army written in September and it's not about this topic, and has none of the language you mention.

ETA: Hmm, Chat told me the Salient does not release print-only issues.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The school’s mainstream student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, published three opinionpieces criticizing the rhetoric used in the Salient piece, to which [Salient's editor in chief] Rodgers published his own article last week lamenting that “ordinary conservative thought is one headline away from criminality.”

When you consider the vast library of Hitler quotes from various long & laborious speeches (that were scattershot across a myriad of subjects), is it perhaps too easy of a jab to take to merely find "resemblances"?

Overlap in policy & rhetoric doesn't necessarily mean perfect overlap in terms ideological agreement.

"America for Americans" and "France is for the French" existed before Hitler.

And Hitler made quotes about vegetarianism and animal welfare, and I'm sure we could find some "similar sounding" rhetoric between his statements and that of PETA. That wouldn't mean PETA (or the animal rights movement more broadly) should be linked with a propensity for Nazism.


And one certainly doesn't have to be a Nazi to hold the position that fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with Westernized society.

And that's a bidirectional opinion for that matter... Many in the west feel that way... and many Fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East also feel that their religious ideology and the "excesses of the West" are incompatible.


I'd bet dollars to donuts that at some of those anti-Israel protests that were happening at Harvard, there were probably a lot of things being shouted and written on signs that we could probably track down some overlap with.

 

[rambot]

When you consider the vast library of Hitler quotes from various long & laborious speeches (that were scattershot across a myriad of subjects), is it perhaps too easy of a jab to take to merely find "resemblances"?

Overlap in policy & rhetoric doesn't necessarily mean perfect overlap in terms ideological agreement.

"America for Americans" and "France is for the French" existed before Hitler.

And Hitler made quotes about vegetarianism and animal welfare, and I'm sure we could find some "similar sounding" rhetoric between his statements and that of PETA. That wouldn't mean PETA (or the animal rights movement more broadly) should be linked with a propensity for Nazism.


And one certainly doesn't have to be a Nazi to hold the position that fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with Westernized society.

And that's a bidirectional opinion for that matter... Many in the west feel that way... and many Fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East also feel that their religious ideology and the "excesses of the West" are incompatible.


I'd bet dollars to donuts that at some of those anti-Israel protests that were happening at Harvard, there were probably a lot of things being shouted and written on signs that we could probably track down some overlap with.

I always teach my kids in LA that "when I writer writes, they purposefully choose EVERY SINGLE Word and IDEA that they include in their writing."

Why would you assume that author did NOT choose those phrases EXACTLY for that reason? HE's at Harvard; clearly he's an accomplished writer.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

"America for Americans" and "France is for the French" existed before Hitler.

Notably, the AfD considered "Germany for Germans" as a slogan and discarded it because even they recognized it was a little bit too Nazi to be socially acceptable.

The article also used the phrase "blood and soil," which should be even more recognizable to Americans following the Charlottesville Nazi rally a few years back.

 

[Chesterton]

Is this a print-only issue? I found one online article by Army written in September and it's not about this topic, and has none of the language you mention.

ETA: Hmm, Chat told me the Salient does not release print-only issues.

@essentialsaltes @bèlla @ThatRobGuy @rambot @RocksInMyHead

Since ya'll are discussing the article, I assume you've read it. I can't find it. Could someone please give me a link?

 

[rambot]

@essentialsaltes @bèlla @ThatRobGuy @rambot @RocksInMyHead

Since ya'll are discussing the article, I assume you've read it. I can't find it. Could someone please give me a link?

I was discussing writing choices; not the article's contents.

 

[Chesterton]

You did refer to the author and the article which you haven't read. I don't think it's fair to discuss articles we haven't read. I'm not sure I fully trust the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Sounds kinda racist. I'd probably get thrashed if I started the White European Telegraphic Agency. Plus, why are they still sending telegraphs?

 

[rambot]

You did refer to the author and the article which you haven't read. I don't think it's fair to discuss articles we haven't read. I'm not sure I fully trust the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Sounds kinda racist. I'd probably get thrashed if I started the White European Telegraphic Agency. Plus, why are they still sending telegraphs?

What was my commentary on the contents of the article specifically?

 

[Chesterton]

What was my commentary on the contents of the article specifically?

You commented indirectly.

Why would you assume that author did NOT choose those phrases EXACTLY for that reason? HE's at Harvard; clearly he's an accomplished writer.

 

[rambot]

You commented indirectly.

Do you think I could have made that comment (specifically, with THAT word choice) without having read the article?

 

[Chesterton]

Do you think I could have made that comment (specifically, with THAT word choice) without having read the article?

Obviously you did. Unless you have read the brick-and-mortar version?

 

[iluvatar5150]

When you consider the vast library of Hitler quotes from various long & laborious speeches (that were scattershot across a myriad of subjects), is it perhaps too easy of a jab to take to merely find "resemblances"?

Overlap in policy & rhetoric doesn't necessarily mean perfect overlap in terms ideological agreement.

"America for Americans" and "France is for the French" existed before Hitler.

Maybe as a concept, sure, but :

In its September print issue, the Harvard Salient published an article by student David F.X. Army that read “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans,” echoing the words Hitler used in a January 1939 speech to the Reichstag in which he forecasted that another world war would lead to the annihilation of Jews.

The original German phrase, which translates as “France to the French, England to the English, America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans,” appeared in Hitler’s 1939 speech in the context of a defense of the expulsion of Jews from Germany.

^that^ is a heck of a coincidence.

Source for that second quote.

And he just accidentally slipped in "blood" and "soil", too, eh?

I love how conservatives complain about there not being enough conservatives in ivy league universities and then when they get a few, one slips in some nazi language and the others are too ignorant of history to catch it.

 

[Chesterton]

Regarding the blood and soil line, and the Someplace for Someplacers, I wonder how many here think India should be for Indians? Or Arabia for Arabs?

I'm reminded of a verse from the Clash song Washington Bullets:

An' if you can find an Afghan rebel that the Moscow bullets missed​

Ask him what he thinks of voting communist​

Ask the Dalai Lama in the hills of Tibet​

How many monks did the Chinese get?​

 

[iluvatar5150]

Regarding the blood and soil line, and the Someplace for Someplacers, I wonder how many here think India should be for Indians? Or Arabia for Arabs?

I don't have any problem with folks celebrating their culture and the things about it that are notable or hard-fought or just good - in fact, I think it's great when people do. But "someplace for the someplacers" is, by definition, insular and exclusionary in a way that I think is gross regardless of the source.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't have any problem with folks celebrating their culture and the things about it that are notable or hard-fought or just good - in fact, I think it's great when people do. But "someplace for the someplacers" is, by definition, insular and exclusionary in a way that I think is gross regardless of the source.

Would you say that to the Cherokee and Comanches, etc.?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But "someplace for the someplacers" is, by definition, insular and exclusionary in a way that I think is gross regardless of the source.

In the original Nazi context, this hearkened back to the 'good old days' when Jews were not considered (full) citizens of the European countries in which they were born and lived. They had received full citizenship rights in Germany in 1870.

Even today, many people have a perplexing difficulty distinguishing Jews from Israel.

 

[durangodawood]

America is a cultural mish mosh, and thats the way its supposed to be.

Otoh if France and Britain wanted to stay "pure" they could have refrained from functionally annexing all sorts of places around the globe.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Would you say that to the Cherokee and Comanches, etc.?

Yes.