Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian…

I have defended, when few others did, the right-wing British historina, David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria, to publish his works on World War II without censorship. No area of inquiry should be off limits for analysis and discussion: that includes critiquing university policy, writing revisionist and quite provocative works on the holocaust and Nazi Germany, and even opposing Mr Bush and the Democratic party sponsored war crimes in the Middle East.

I have learned that if the right censors the left or vice versa, the foundations of a democratic society and the entire edifice of higher education will be sullied and stained by the demand for conformity.

Here are some links related to the items in my post.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5129.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/6212.html
http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/7259.html

With regard to McCarthyism. Yes maybe we can all tighten our use of that term. Yet in a classic sense it does refer to the right attempting to discredit the left by conflating dissent with disloyalty. I do not believe such egregious violations are as common with the left since they tend to be more critical of the existing order. That does not deny the left may also engage in inappropriate treatment of other ideologies.

When California State University refuses to charter a Christian organization because its a Christian organization, that is McCarthyism.

When students are told to “agree or take a hike“, that is McCarthyism:

“Social work is a value-based profession that clearly articulates a sociopolitical ideology about how the world works,” Mr. Ryczek, who is director of field education for the social-work program, wrote in an e-mail message to the student…

Added: Who decides which values are “right” and “wrong”?

When students are threatened for passing out politically themed fliers that University administrators do not agree with, that is McCarythism.

When Universities punish students for hosting voluntary Christian or political events in their dorms, that is McCarythism.

When Universities pass broad speech codes that can be used to squash ideas Administrators do not agree with, that is a thinly veiled attempt at McCarthyism.

When a University demotes a tenured professor for publishing an editorial in a newspaper, that is McCarthyism.

When a student is punished for posting a point of view on a blog outside of university activities, that is McCarthyism.

There are tons of examples of students and professors being punished for expressing unpopular points of view. Students notice it. Persecuted professors notice it. Interesting that the professors who are in the best position to persecute say its not an issue, ya? Will freedom really ring if we ignore these nation-wide problems? Why not adopt a legal framework to protect both?

Critical thinking does have, if not definitionally, at least practically a progressive hue. After all the canon was developed by European-centric, male-centric elites that controlled history, and wished to control the future by defining the parameters of appropriate exploration of knowledge.

I think the right has adopted a new scare tactic. Accuse progressive faculty of abusing students and legislating remedies to prevent the victimisation. These anecdotal instances in which professorial misconduct may have occurred, require investigation through grade-grievance procedures, peer review of assignments and evaluation, with all due process guaranteeing the academic freedom of an instructor which includes the presumed authority in evaluating students in a course of her responsibility. AAUP guidelines are explicity in the evaluation of students based upon merit, performance and not political affiliation or extraneous factors.

When professors are targeted, due to ideological predilections, as biased toward students without any proof, it is McCarthyism. When professors are suspended, indicted, fired, threatened due to unpopular antiwar speech, that is McCarthyism. When there are well-funded efforts to purge the left from academia, that is McCarthyism. When legislatures begin to examine the “ideological neutrality” of higher education, which could lead to auto da fes and presumably sanctions based upon personal belief, that is McCarthyism.

When the right attempts to take extramural utterances, that are issued OUTSIDE the classroom, and draw baseless inferences about the conduct of the academician INSIDE the classroom, it is nothing more than an effort to destroy and eliminate members of the professorate who dare challenge and articulate views that the purgers don’t embrace.

I received a “B” in a graduate seminar, perhaps the only one among a sea of “A” in the course, which I have always felt was the result of my political activism. It has rankled me for years. I would not have sought legislative relief but had I attempted to pursue a remedy, I would have gone through the university channels of grade grievance. I felt persecuted but it is possible I was not. I may have simply performed at a level below an “A.”

I don’t think that Eric here was focusing on the supposed pain of the students “exposed to ideas and sentiments that may cause wrenching exploration of their ideas and standards.” It seems you like to equate the advancing of a leftist point of view as the manifestation of critical thinking, which of course we know is not true.

It is certainly a leftist pathology to state that there is no fixed truth, when in fact the principle of absolute uncertainty is the very canon that so-called “critical thinkers” like to advance. I’m glad to at least have had the great fortune of having a philosophy professor who described critical thinking as the search for truth, whether it reinforces or breaks down established canon.

As for your mentions of McCarthyism, I don’t know how you would define the phenomenon, but Joe McCarthy targetted people whose points of views he disliked and declared them agents of the enemies of the state. When we have Iraqi bloggers being accused as clandestine CIA agents, this is McCarthyism. When we have American newsmen accused of being peons to the administration, this is McCarthyism. And ultimately accusations of McCarthyism are almost parallel to Godwin’s law; it shuts the debate by levelling unimpeachable charges.

Earlier, you say that you defend Mr DeGenova’s right—no, license—to speak such things, and yet in this last comment you defend his actions by presenting a hollow argument of equivalence, making assumptions of Eric that are both baseless and unfair. It is certainly clear that your definition of Freedom is far from what I have grown to understand it to be. Your freedom rings without responsibility, it is license for the sake of license, devoid of accountability towards the consequences of one’s words and actions.

Extramural utterances are protected by AAUP guidelines and what a professor says outside the classroom can in no way be linked to what she does inside the classroom. Such efforts were done in my case and I can assure you they were of little merit. It was part of the national right-wing campaign to silence left-wing professors who dare defy the neoconservative agenda of robust militarism and unilateralism. I am not concerned about the “PAIN” of students who may be exposed to ideas and sentiments that may cause wrenching exploration of their ideas and standards. Absent any evidence of academic evaluation based upon factors other than merit, I encourage professors to stand up for their beliefs, to resist the armies of the night and to teach with conviction, fortitude and with a sense that teaching is a moral act.

With regard to Ward Churchill, I am unaware of ANY investigation past or present that is based upon inappropriate evaluation of students. In fact his teaching has not been an area of investigatory activity. You neglected to mention that gratuitous charges of ethnic-identity fraud have been dropped. You neglected to mention that charges of copyright infringement have been dropped. The other areas that you cite are still under review. You are accurate there.

Again I appreciate your interest in such matters. We need more students who are active intellectually who probe the dimensions of teaching and academic life. I am sure you are a stellar student and if you were in my classes, you would be assessed on merit even if you were in ROTC or an active member of the military. Yet I would reserve and indeed insist upon my rights to advocate a position without fear of sanctions or persecution. Click the Link to my name and you will see the latest in my case.

Let Freedom Ring!!

Now when we look at Mr. de Genova, we must again look at this concept of “hostile environment“. If I was a student who had family in the military, how do you suppose I would react when my professor called for them to be tortured, hacked to death and dragged through the streets of Baghdad? In the context of the events in Mogadishu, I don’t think its really possible to take that remark any other way. How can such language have anything but a chilling effect on students with military ties? There is a great disparity in power between students and professors. Such comments can easily press students who disagree to water down their opinions or thoughts when involved in class discussions to try to get better grades.

Now as far as Mr. Churchill is concerned, the University of Colorado “Report on Conclusions of Preliminary Review” references students who filed complaints that their grades were adjusted based on views they expressed in class. Mr. Churchill is also under investigation for a number of professional ethical violations, including instances of plagiarism, misuse of others’ work, falsification and fabrication of authority [Source: University of Colorado].

While I have never sat in Mr. Churchill’s class or reviewed his research personally, his peers believe he is an abhorrent academic and scholar while a number of his students have found him to be an equally abhorrent teacher. If you would actually take the time to review the conclusions of the comittee investingating him, you would have standing to say otherwise. Anyone who would think the remarks made by Mr. de Genova are anything but poisionous to academic debate is living in a fantasy. His calls for death for the men and women of the military can do nothing but cause pain for the students who sit in his class every day.

My only comment on the above case you cited, since I have not explored it, is that a professor’s comments needs to be taken in context in terms of place, circumstances and consequences. I oppose the presence of military recruiters on campus–due to their discriminatory policies toward persons of homosexual orientation– but would not directly attempt to prevent military personnel from expressing views on issues of war and external affairs.