Showing posts with label John Drew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Drew. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Obama’s Goldyn Glow-Up: The Truth Behind the Spin

Like television serial killer Dexter Morgan in yet another improbable reboot, Barack Obama keeps
getting resurrected by the legacy media—not as he was, but as the character they need him to be.

With their full cooperation, he has carefully crafted a public image tailored to middle-of-the-road sensibilities—one that conceals the more radical and uncomfortable truths about his early life. His latest reflections on his relationship with Lawrence Goldyn, his gay college professor at Occidental, are no exception.

According to Obama, Goldyn was a kind-hearted intellectual who helped broaden his perspective on gay people. But I knew both men during that era, and I can say with confidence: this is not the full story—not even close.

When I met Barack Obama during his sophomore year at Occidental College in December 1980, he struck me as a quiet, intensely self-conscious young man. Unlike most of the male students I encountered, he showed no apparent interest in women. In fact, my immediate impression was that he was gay.

It’s no surprise to me that Obama chose Lawrence Goldyn as his academic advisor. Goldyn, openly gay and politically active, was known on campus as a trusted figure among gay and lesbian students. He wasn’t just a professor—he was part of a broader network of support for students wrestling with their sexual identity.

Unlike the other professors in young Obama’s orbit, Goldyn was not a Marxist. Although Occidental employed him as an assistant professor of political science, his most memorable role was that of an in-your-face sexual revolutionary. For that very reason, I remember thinking Occidental made the right call when it denied him tenure in 1981.

Obama’s recent comments suggest that Goldyn enlightened him on gay identity. But this spin is merely a gentle pirouette designed to distract us from a more substantial pattern.

Obama didn’t need anyone to explain gay culture to him—he was already immersed in it. According to Mia Marie Pope, who claims she knew Obama while he was a student at the exclusive Punahou School in Hawaii, he was frequently in the company of older white gay men and seemed completely at ease in that world.

Obama’s mentor back then, Frank Marshall Davis—a known Communist Party member—authored a book under a pseudonym that included graphic bisexual scenes. These were the kinds of influences Obama had before he ever stepped foot on Occidental’s rose-covered quad.

We also have Obama’s bizarre poem “Pop,” published in 1981, full of unsettling references to “amber stains” and “smell his smell” connectivity—an earthy piece some have interpreted as a veiled account of sexual intimacy with an older man.

Thanks to presidential historian David Garrow, we’ve learned that Obama wrote letters to his then-girlfriend Alex McNear in which he openly discussed his same-sex desires. Former classmates also recall his metrosexual style, soft-spoken voice, and emotional distance from women. This wasn’t a guy discovering gay identity through a class—it was someone already deep in the experience, possibly trying to make sense of it all.

The Goldyn story is just one more example of Obama rewriting his past to fit a more electable narrative. Just as he has airbrushed his Marxist sympathies, blurred his religious convictions, and replaced real individuals with fictional “composites” in Dreams from My Father, here he repackages an advisor-student relationship to appear as a moment of enlightened tolerance—when in fact it may have been something far more personal.

Let me be clear: I’m not interested in shaming Obama for his sexuality, whatever it may be. I am simply done with the absurd, unrepentant, self-curated mythmaking.

If a conservative candidate had maintained this level of personal obfuscation—on issues of sexuality, ideology, or even basic biography—the press would have diced them up into nine pieces as quickly as Dexter Morgan logs a souvenir blood sample. Meanwhile, the legacy media lets Obama escape the truth of his past the same way the law enforcement officers do in Dexter: Resurrection—by misreading every clue that points to guilt, simply because the show must go on and the franchise must be protected.

The real Obama chose Lawrence Goldyn for the same reason other gay and questioning students did—because he felt a personal connection, not because he needed an education in tolerance. That’s not a crime. But pretending otherwise is part of a larger deception—the effort to protect Obama’s personal credibility and to prevent any alteration in how he is portrayed in U.S. history—as America’s first post-racial technocrat, rather than someone who intentionally rebranded to achieve power.

This article originally appeared in American Thinker on July 23, 2025.


Monday, December 30, 2019

Lass Your Aff Off: Dr. Drew Performs Stand Up Comedy in Laguna Niguel, CA

As you may know, I have always been able to make people laugh. I remember that one of the nicest things I heard about my tenure at Williams College was that my sense of humor was a welcome addition to the political science department. In a demanding teaching environment, like the Williams College of 30 years ago, being able to make the students laugh out loud was a valuable skill. I'm refining that skill today. In particular, I'm focused on increasing the number of laughs per minute I can generate in front of a paying crowd. If you would like to catch my act, I will be performing on at 8:00 p.m. on Friday January 10, 2020 at Signature Sports Bar in Laguna Niguel. Give me a call if you would like to order your tickets on-line and receive a substantial discount.


Thursday, September 19, 2019

No Win for You: Student Member Asserts Sawicki Committee Report Was Not a Victory for Free Speech Watchdogs


WILLIAMSTOWN, MA - In a recent Press Record podcast, one of the student members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Inquiry and Inclusion, Eli Miller '21, pushed back on campus watchdogs who believe the Sawicki report supports free speech to the extent that it would allow controversial speakers like John Derbyshire to appear on campus. Miller, a math and statistic major, was interviewed by a fellow student, Rebecca Tower '21.
Rebecca Tauber 
Do you have any last thoughts on the committee, their report, going forward? 
Eli Miller

I think my one concern is that this committee -- which I don’t think I’ve seen very much here, but I’ve seen sort of from like campus watch dogs -- is that this is seen as a victory for people who believe that free speech is like an absolute right and that people on college campuses who try to dis-invite people are like liberal snowflakes.  
That whole narrative is very popular, and my concern that this report gives those people a win.

I don’t think those people are correct in assuming this report supports them. But I think that definitely people have read it that way. And I guess I wish we had done more to resist that reading because I think it is a lot more nuanced and complicated than that. But I think at end of the day people are going to want to read what they want to read. 
As was reported in the Williams Record, the committee recommended the adaptation of both the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and PEN America frameworks for free speech, both of which give student groups the right to invite any speaker of their choosing without prior approval and allow the administration to disinvite speakers only in the “rarest of circumstances.”

Critics of the report including John Drew a former Williams College political scientist and Jerry Coyne a biologist with the University of Chicago, have decried the weakness of the report by pointing out that its recommendations allow for the censorship of campus speakers if those speakers should be a threat to "dignitary safety" or, more specifically, “the sense of being an equal member of the community.” As Coyne has pointed out, it is physically impossible to support both inclusion and freedom of speech. Eli Miller's comments verify the critics' views.

In a Williams Record article, Miller reports he was unhappy with the process because the group never attempted to reach a consensus on whether or not the administration should have had the authority to disinvite John Derbyshire, a political commentator for VDARE, who had been dropped by the National Review for a satirical piece he wrote for Taki's Magazine.

“It became clear that the goal of the committee was less to reconcile the differences that people have — on the most basic level — about whether John Derbyshire should’ve been allowed to speak on campus, and it was a lot more focused on taking the temperature of the campus and doing outreach to as many groups as possible,” Miller said. “It felt like the primary objective was just to calm people down.”

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a former Williams College professor. He is an occasional contributor at American Thinker, Breitbart, Front Page, PJMedia and WND.