VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
Part 6 of a 10-part series, Vietnam and the Media, from the archives of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform - Leonard Magruder, President
Part 6 - Subject: Only liberals could play in the 60’s
The following is from material handed out by Mr. Magruder in a one-man protest in the late 60’s at the University of Colorado the day after a massive and violent anti-war protest. During the 60’s he did this at a number of universities.
Covered by all Denver and Boulder newspapers and television stations, the national media refused to report the protest, refusing to let Mr. Magruder join the debate on the issues of the hour. Only liberals could play. At the time Mr. Magruder, a psychologist, was Special Consultant to the State of Colorado in the field of mental retardation. But the material that he handed out that day to the students was incompatible with the media’s “advocacy journalism,” at a time when the most inane statements on Vietnam of obscure liberals were being given national attention.
It was this suppression of opinion contrary to views on the war by left/liberals in the university and the media, and the use of these institutions as instruments of indoctrination and propaganda, that created the polarization and breakdown in national debate in the 60’s, leading to the tragedies in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The campus “peace” movement ended up on the side of tyranny and genocide. He wrote:
“Nothing more enrages the academic proponents of a naturalistic, and therefore “value-free,” worldview than the incurable moralism of the American people. To combat the fact that the average citizen sees the present conflict in terms of morality, tyranny versus freedom, the university has conceived the ultimate hypocrisy; it has projected an absolute moral judgment, “the Vietnam War is immoral,” from nihilistic philosophical foundations. The vehemence of both faculty and students, and their need to avoid dialogue at all costs, flow from the need to mask that hypocrisy, hoping the public will confuse the vehemence for certainty and go along
But adult America, all of whom are for genuine peace in the world, has not fallen for it. It has conspicuously not joined the marches because it correctly senses the true underlying message, which is, we do not believe in truth or morals, we will not sacrifice for democracy, we do not care if millions are slaughtered or enslaved, we want only to be left in peace, to pursue our sloth, our sex games, and our drugs. Certainly if South Vietnam, and with it all of Southeast Asia, falls to Communist aggression and slavery, the guilt will lie forever with the cowardly conspiracy between faculty and student hypocrisy that blunted U.S. efforts to stop that aggression.”
The main issues, he said, were “The failure of the social sciences with regard to contemporary social ills, the ignorance of students on Communism and basic philosophical and theological alternatives, the indoctrination of students and their manipulation by left/liberal faculty to influence national policy, the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the student anti-war movement, and the regressive movement on campus back to witchcraft, astrology, and drugs as sources of truth and self-fulfillment.” –The Boulder Daily Camera
Two months later, Mr. Magruder led a protest at the American Psychological Association Convention in Washington, D.C. A major issue had to do with the misuse of psychology in the service of the anti-war movement:
“With regard to the role of psychologists in relation to the Vietnam War, the lies about the war spread by the campus ‘peace’ movement and the media have had a devastating impact on the returned veteran, leaving many shocked and creating unnecessary feelings of guilt. For many, the resulting suffering was worse than the war, and was borne in silence for years. What little help was available was found in the “rap group,” where again the veteran was betrayed. Anti-war oriented psychologists encouraged veterans into becoming active in the anti-war movement and encouraged them to convert their acts of killing in the line of duty into atrocities, so as to resonate better with the lies that by now permeated American society.
Other psychologists charged the war with having created a “killer instinct,” for which there was not the slightest shred of evidence. Said the noted sociologist Charles Moskos, “Psychologists tried to portray the soldiers as variously, wanton perpetrators of atrocities, or proto-fascist automatons.” There was nothing in contemporary psychological or psychiatric theory, with its moral relativism, that could come to grips with the code of the soldier, “Honor, Duty,Country”. The mental health community prostituted itself to forward its politics, using the suffering of the veterans to do so. The social scientists, who through their naïve secular and humanistic theories of man, had played a major role on campus in betraying the war effort, now had to lie about the veterans of the war. The lying was compounding itself.”
The protest, which created considerable stir at the Convention, was totally ignored by the Washington media.
UPDATE
From the recent history, A Better War, by Lewis Sorley:
“Dr. Ernest Lefever, longtime senior fellow on foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and founder of Ethic and Public Policy Center in Washington, determined—based on content analysis—that during 1972 and 1973, CBS-TV News presented an ‘overwhelmingly unfavorable portrayal of the U.S.Armed Forces, the Defense Department, and their activities.’ This ‘striking effect was achieved by omitting many readily available stories on positive military accomplishments.’ In addition, ‘CBS Evening News was far more critical of America’s ally, South Vietnam, than America’s enemy, North Vietnam.’ In the course of this coverage, CBS gave 48 times more coverage to critics who wanted the U.S. to end military support to South Vietnam than to critics who wanted the U.S. to step up military action against the North.”
Whose side was CBS on?
This article may be reproduced in any form.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Part 10, Vietnam and The Media
Part 10a, Vietnam and The Media
RETURN TO MAGRUDER ARTICLE INDEX
Website Design Courtesy of Annette R. Hall, http://www.i-served.com.