Yesterday, the Harvard School of Government announced that Chelsea Manning was being named a "fellow" of the school and would be speaking there soon. The response was predictable, although it seems to have come a shock to Harvard. Manning, of course, spent seven years in prison for stealing national security secrets and making them available on line to the public and to America's enemies. Then, at the end of his term, president Obama commuted the rest of Manning's sentence. During that seven years, Bradley Manning, the male soldier who was convicted of this crime, transitioned to Chelsea Manning, the female felon who Obama freed. And, of course, the huge cost for the sex reassignment surgery was paid for by the American taxpayer.
When the naming of Manning as a fellow was announced, a former head of the CIA who was also a fellow at Harvard resigned that position. He said he could not continue in his position at a school that would honor a person who so severely and intentionally endangered this country. Then the current head of the CIA withdrew from an upcoming appearance at Harvard. No doubt, many others also contacted the school to express outrage and, perhaps, threaten to stop contributions to the school.
This morning Harvard relented, but in a way only Harvard could. The dean of the school of government announced that Chelsea Manning would no longer be a named a fellow of the school. She would still appear to speak to the students, however. In other words, Harvard and Manning will still proceed as planned, but Manning would no longer be called a fellow.
I'm a graduate of Harvard Law School. I well know the Harvard ethos and the superiority complex that so permeates the campus. No doubt, the dean of the school of government did not even consider that Manning's appointment as a fellow and the invitation for Manning to speak might be controversial. Who could object? After all, in normal liberal parlance, Manning is a victim. She is a transgender individual. She has to be considered a victim, right? And if she's a victim, anything that gets done to "help" her has to be a good thing, right? At least, in the normal leftwing view that so courses through the veins of most people at Harvard, no other conclusion is even conceivable.
Indeed, it is the normal leftwing view that we see at work with Harvard's "correction" of its mistake in naming Manning a fellow. The dean throws a bone to those upset about his action which he still sees as clearly correct. He doesn't change what is happening, just how it will be described. It's a classic leftwing action, a belief that words matter more than actions. A terror attack in Benghazi is somehow not so bad because the administration says it was just a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. A terror attack at a nightclub in Florida kills 50, but it's not so bad because it was carried out by a lone wolf rather than a terrorist. The Syrian government launches 17 chemical weapons attacks on its own people, but we need not respond because the president says we don't have sufficient proof that there really was such an attack. Fortunately, the "words are enough" crowd is not in the White House anymore, but the legacy lives on at Harvard.
Manning ought not be speaking at Harvard. Would they bring in Charles Manson to speak on population control through murder? Will they bring in O.J. Simpson to speak on ways to have better marital relations? Maybe they can bring in Nidal Hassan to speak on the psychological benefits of reducing the size of the military.
The pressure on Harvard ought not end.
