The Boston Globe reported a startling story. Michael Velchik, the lawyer leading the charge against Harvard University for alleged “anti-semitism,” wrote a paper from Hitler’s perspective when he was an undergraduate at Harvard.
Hilary Burns and Tal Koran wrote:
The cornerstone of the Trump administration’s justification for cracking down on Harvard University is that the Ivy League school has allegedly allowed antisemitism to fester on campus.
“The choice was made, let’s not give federal taxpayer dollars to institutions that exhibit a wanton indifference to antisemitism,” the lawyer defending the government’s case said in federal court in July.
Yet that lawyer, Michael Velchik, when he was a senior at Harvard 14 years ago, submitted a paper for a Latin class written from the perspective of Adolf Hitler, according to three people studying in the department with knowledge of the incident. The assignment was to write from the perspective of a controversial figure, but Velchik’s choice of Hitler so unnerved the instructor that he was asked to redo the assignment.
And in an email to a peer about 18 months later, as he was preparing to enter law school, Velchik wrote that he‘d enjoyed Hitler’s autobiography and political manifesto, “Mein Kampf,” more than any other book he’d read recently during a year of travels, according to a copy of the correspondence obtained by The Boston Globe. He did not mention Hitler’s perpetration of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were murdered.
Velchik — who holds two degrees from Harvard, one from the college and one from the law school — was the sole lawyer arguing the case for the White House in July. The portrait that emerges from interviews with students who knew him at Harvard, colleagues, and friends, as well as from emails he sent to a peer in his early 20s, is of a young man who is extremely intelligent, at times provocative, and unapologetically confident in his intellectual prowess.
To finish the story, open the link.

Well, isn’t this poetic?
LikeLike
Hitler lost both wars. He lost the literal war to give Germany lebenstraum. In the process, he lost the war for the hearts and minds of the people he sought to dominate for the good of the few. Now is philosophical progeny is returning. We either defeat this perverse idea, or we have to fight a real war again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
COURT RULES THAT CRITICIZING ISRAEL IS NOT “ANTI-SEMITISM”
In a landmark ruling, the Federal Court of Australia has affirmed that opposing Zionism and criticising the actions of the Israeli state is not the same as antisemitism.
This ruling is a win for Australians who have been silenced or smeared as “antisemitic” for simply calling out Israel’s human rights abuses. The court’s clarification means that Australians can continue to speak up against apartheid, occupation, and genocide without being wrongly branded as racist.
Court Justice Stewart explained: “Political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity.”
One must also remember that the people of many Mideast nations, including Palestinians, are semitic people. Disparaging the Palestinians is antisemitic.
LikeLiked by 1 person