It should come as no shock the dishonesty that perpetrates the media, especially old media.  Jeet Heer wrote a rotund article that misspelled a person’s name who is a part of the Scholars and Writers for Trump, and then misrepresented–that is fabricated–a conclusion to a past event regarding said scholar. As noted in at least two places–PJ Media and the Daily Caller–the “article” can only be concluded as a smear at best, and libel at worst.

Heer wrote (for it could hardly be considered an “argument”) that Christiana Jeffreys (sic) [note he got her first and last name wrong!] was a part of something sinister:

The website American Greatness has compiled a list of “Scholars and Writers for Trump” and there are some very odd names on it, including the historian Christiana Jeffreys. In 1986, Jeffrey had been hired by Ronald Reagan’s Department of Education to review proposed federal funding for a course on the Holocaust. Jeffreys was hostile to the course, arguing in her evaluation that “the program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan.”

This prompted the record to be set straight by David Goldman:

Filling out an evaluation form of a Holocaust studies program, Prof. Jeffreys responded to an inquiry about the “objectivity and balance” of the program ironically. More pointedly, Jeffreys attacked the program in question for not properly explaining the development of Nazism, as the program linked the attempt to exterminate all the world’s Jews with the lynching of blacks in the American South. It’s just a poor representation of history, Prof. Jeffrey argued. For this, she drew ire — and slander — from some liberals.

 And then from NR in 1995 on the alleged “incident”:

Tracy Lee Simmons wrote in 1995 in National Review:

[Prof. Jeffrey] was asked for an “overall assessment” of the grant application. In the last of four paragraphs, she wrote, “The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view, and it is not presented; nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan. The selection of only two problem areas, Germany and Armenia, leaves out many others, many of which are more recent. I am thinking of the USSR, Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Ethiopia among others. No explanation of this selectivity is given.”The program as written, she thought, had failed to account for the origins of the Holocaust, origins that would only be obscured furtherby the imputed linkage between the lynching of blacks in the American South and the government-sanctioned murder of Jews in Nazi Germany. In short, this effort to “clarify values” made for bad history.

Mrs. Jeffrey wasn’t alone in her criticism of “Facing History and Ourselves.”

Writing in 1990 for Commentary, Holocaust scholar Lucy Dawidowicz agreed:  “Putatively a curriculum to teach the Holocaust, Facing History was also a vehicle for instructing 13-year-olds in civil disobedience and indoctrinating them with propaganda for nuclear disarmament.”

Mrs. Dawidowicz also said the last chapter of the proposed text supplied “exercises in outright political indoctrination in currently fashionable causes.”

If Jeet were to do, I dunno, maybe a little investigating he might have found this:


Jeet is not a careful thinker. It’s almost–how to say–comical.  After now two full days, he still has not corrected Jeffrey’s name. He has a history of recklessness, however.  As noted in First Things, Jeet maligned another scholar:

In the most reflective of these polemics, Canadian writer Jeet Heer concedes that “None of the Straussians so eloquently described the nature of this philosophic friendship as Jaffa.” (Heer claims some familiarity with Straussian scholarship, having studied at the University of Toronto.) But he goes on to make fantastic claims, such as “The famous Straussian division between esoteric and exoteric writing can itself be seen as a metaphor for the closet.”

But Jeet is not the only irresponsible “journalist.”  Another, at The Week, decided that the Scholars for Trump were so wrong headed, he posted (before it was deleted) a sinister response that it was “nice to have all their names listed in one place.”


His response?  “I don’t want anyone to think that was implied.”  What was implied?  Something “menacing.” Menacing of course means “threatening.”  To that comment he writes that he did not want “anyone to think” that’s what he meant.  He did NOT write, that is not what he meant, only that he did not want others to think so.

How quaint.

But what would one think about someone who has a history of this sort of thing?  Peas in a pod?  Pot meet kettle?  Birds of a feather?

Either way, a person was unjustly maligned.  One did the maligning; another did the cheering.  Shame on them.

This is, as Chris Plante says, “fake journalism.”

We could also call it propoganda.


Addendum:  Here is the author at The Week stating that Trump voters are a problem, a problem that should be “solved.”