A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
January 31, 2005Academic ParasitesI'm ashamed at having ever considered entering academia after this story in the NY Times about the University of Colorado professor that compared the 9/11 victims to Eichmann. Hamilton College, where he is a sophomore, is embroiled in a controversy. An invited speaker - Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder - has compared American policy in Iraq to that of Nazi Germany. He also referred to Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Nazis' plan to exterminate the Jews, when he called the trade center victims "little Eichmanns." Of course, that wasn't enough for this genius. Later, Professor Rabinowitz began receiving e-mail messages from colleagues who had learned that Professor Churchill had written in a published essay that those killed in the trade center had ignored their role in American foreign policy. "They were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cellphones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants," he wrote. The idiocy of this really boggles my mind; apparently, everyone that worked in the Twin Towers was some apostle of American imperialism, including, presumably, the janitors and secretaries. How else can you justify something this stupid? "They were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cellphones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants," he wrote. And, then, not even having the balls (pardon my language) to stand up for what he said, this For his part, Professor Churchill said in an interview, "My reaction is astonishment. This is a three-year-old piece that has been spun mercilessly and distorted. The comparison was of technocrats. Eichmann is someone who, after all, killed no one. He made the trains run on time." I have several reactions to this. First, while I'm sure he believes this, I suspect that this also reflects how academia works, especially in the social sciences. A little controversy and you go from being some obscure professor to a renowned speaker famed for defending the First Amendment. (And, oh yeah, more money.) Second, the utter lack of concern or compassion for people affected by 9/11. Later in the article, he says he does have sympathy for the victims of 9/11 as well as victims in Iraq and Palestine. But I suspect that people are just an abstraction to him. He doesn't give a damn about the 9/11 victims or the Iraqis or Palestineans either. They are simply symbols. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he sort of liked seeing civilians killed to prove his point. Like many academics, he is so divorced and alienated from the real world that mere human sentiments and concerns from low-life ordinary Americans mean nothing to him. Third, as I noted above, his disingenuousness and unwillingness to face up to the consequences of what he said. Right after he compared the victims to Eichman and talked about their "braying" he justified their murder as the only effective means of retribution; later, of course, he said he had sympathy for them. Finally, what bothers me the most is the absolute hypocrisy of the academic Left. Having him speak and having academics defend him wouldn't bother me nearly as much if they were equally willing to defend people whose views they don't like. For example, what if someone like Daniel Pipes, or Charles Murray or Ward Connerly were to speak? Do you think the academics would be rushing to defend their right to speak? And then, of course, they blame the "political climate" for all sorts of ills. What would the "political climate" be if someone invited an opponent of affirmative action to speak on campus? It is simply disingenuous and exhibits an utterly bizaare self-absorption when these people constantly make inflammatory statements that they know are offensive and hurtful and then express shock and dismay at any criticism. As if the First Amendment gives them the absolute right to offend anyone they want without any consequences whatsoever. Yet, when someone like Larry Summers makes, IMO, a much less inflammatory statement, that is considered beyond the pale. Of course, when you are an academic you become used to having people hand on your every word and express admiration for your brilliance. Ass kissing is the preferred method of advancement in academia. In the real world, if you made statements like this, you would get a punch in the mouth. And what is even worse is that, for the most part, these statements aren't even designed to start a so-called "dialogue." They are intended simply to shock and appall. They have no interest in actually discussing ideas; it is simply agitprop. Apparently, the college will have a forum with this guy where people will supposedly be able to engage. Does anyone really think that this guy will do anything but sling mud at anyone who dares challenge him? I apologize for my anger, but things like this sicken me. I used to hold the academy in such high regard; I thought there would be nothing better than to teach and discuss ideas. It is simply appalling what has happened on campus. I think tenure has outlived its usefulness; let these people get a taste of real life instead of having a sinecure for life. (My sister-in-law won't approve of these statements since her husband just got tenure at Penn.) Let Ward Churchill address the families of the 9/11 victims and tell them how their loved ones were braying little Eichmans. Of course, he wouldn't have the courage to look them in the face; he has to retreat back to his rock at the University of Colorado. Fortunately, he has at least resigned the chairmanship of his department although he remains on the faculty. (The fact that he was chairman of the department says something about what the social sciences have come to.)epartment is it that would have someone like this Posted by Marc W. Schneider at January 31, 2005 11:44 PMComments
IIRC, this guy said that the WTC victims weren't really victims because they facilitated US imperialism by making profits. He also said that anyone like that should not be surprised to be held culpable. When I read that, I wondered if he paid Federal taxes on his income, a portion of which, of course, facilitated that same US "imperialism." It turns out, now, that he has resigned the department chair (but not his tenured professorship) due to, among other things, "death threats." As a facilitator of US imperialistic adventures in the Middle East, did he expect treatment different than the WTC workers? Irony abounds. Posted by: Literally Retarded at February 1, 2005 06:59 AMYou're ashamed? I assume at least you don't have a degree from CU... Posted by: David Fleck at February 1, 2005 07:51 AMFunny, I had a more mundane concern. Maybe because I have two kids in college I keep thinking about the parents of the Hamilton College students. Hamilton is a small liberal arts college in upstate NY. I'd call it an Ivy league wannabe (much like Colgate, Bennington, etc.) It has one of the highest tuitions of all colleges. If I were a parent I'd be asking myself "What am I paying all this money for?". I wonder if any of the Hamilton administrators are concerned about that too? Posted by: Chris at February 1, 2005 08:43 AMChris, Apparently, they are worried because there is something in the article about how the administrators were worried about how this would effect fund raising. Posted by: MWS at February 1, 2005 09:18 AMI'm ashamed at having ever considered entering academia... So, one asshole means the entire institution of academia is corrupt? I see. Like your drama over the top it would seem. We live in a nation where people are free to make an ass of themselves, and that includes in the exercise of free speech. And, you are free to disagree. But, the idea that statements such as Churchill's are indicative of the entire of adademia is simply ignorant horseshit regurgitated from the right-wing media in an effort to control and intimidate academia to convey only ideas sanctioned by the right. It is spoken over there, and comes out here. Good show! Take a bow. Posted by: SNAFU Principle at February 1, 2005 10:36 AM"But, the idea that statements such as Churchill's are indicative of the entire of adademia is simply ignorant horseshit regurgitated from the right-wing media in an effort to control and intimidate academia to convey only ideas sanctioned by the right." That's nonsense. I never said that his particular statements are indicative of all of academia. But his attitude represents something that seems to be quite common, ie, (to quote Nat Hentoff), "freedom of speech for me and not for thee." When do liberal academics EVER come to the defense of conservative speakers on campus. All I ever see are statements that such and and such is an effort to oppress women or minorities or something. It's this kind of hypocrisy that bothers me. Is that true of every single academic? Of course not, these things are frequent enough to mean something IMO. As for free speech, I am all for it, but the fact is having the right to free speech doesn't mean you have no responsibility for the consequences. I NEVER said he shouldn't be able to say it and I never even said he shouldn't be allowed to speak at the school. But I am appalled at his and others' disingenousness and professed shock that people would be offended by comparing the 9/11 victims to Eichman. If he was in ANY other field, he would be fired immediately. Most ADULTS recognize that speech has consequences and liberal academics are in the forefront of attacking those who voice even the most minor message that might be offensive to some minority or another. This stuff about the right-wing media. OH, PLEASE. You mean like the New York Times. I grant that a lot of conservatives have exploited these incidents. But they are able to exploit them because they happen. And, how are they being intimidated? Academics can't be fired and, don't tell me that they take these so-called death threats seriously. Moreover, what do they expect when they make outrageous comments. Am I making overly broad statements about academia. Perhaps. But I have read enough left-wing literature and seen enough about how the left has perverted history and scholarship and turned the world of ideas into a travesty where professors publish for each other and dismiss anything that disagrees with them. This isn't some conservative boogeyman. Even Philip Roth has written about the crazy political correctness on campuses. If you think that being upset about statements comparing murder victims to Nazis is simply an effort to cower and intimidate academia, then you must be an academic. If this was an isolated incident that would be one thing. But it's not. But, the idea that statements such as Churchill's are indicative of the entire of adademia is simply ignorant horseshit regurgitated from the right-wing media in an effort to control and intimidate academia to convey only ideas sanctioned by the right. Having actually worked in "adademia" I can with total honesty say that's one of the finest textbook examples of regurgitated reactionary Marxist agitprop I've ever seen. But it's incomplete. Nothing about the noble class struggle of the oppressed against cultural imperialism. "Come and see the violence inherent in the system!" --Dennis Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2005 11:05 AMThis case is useful in its comparison to the Larry Summers. Differences: Invited speaker vs. same campus faculty (actually Dean), guaranteed imflammatory comparison (comparing to a Nazi), Dean (higher position of power and therefore a need to choose words carefully) vs. faculty (?more freedom). I'm sure there are other comparisons. To me there are two keys lessons: 1) free speech will offend and we have to accept that 2) Speech that is "guaranteed to inflame" is open for public ridicule and ?maybe suppression, but a what point and who judges? ("How hateful does it have to be before we stop it?") Posted by: Chris at February 1, 2005 03:19 PMI don't think this speech should be suppressed. And given that they occurred several years ago, I think Churchill has every right to speak at the college, especially since the topic has nothing to do with 9/11. But I think people have every right to be offended by this guy and I tire of the hypocrisy and the pieties in people hiding behind academic freedom and free speech to make comments that would be denounced in any other forum. To me, the overreaction to Summer's statements is mind boggling compared to this, especially in light of the disingenuousness in being surprised people were offended. Just because I have free speech doesn't mean there aren't consequences if I insult or offend people. I mean, these comments were really mean-spirited. The mere fact that a "scholar" says something doesn't make it valuable or worthy of protection. A lot of these academics seem to think that ANYTHING they say amounts to an exchange of ideas worthy of Plato. I'm not about to say we should suppress free speech and I do accept that it will often offend. But offense for the sake of offense is no great triumph. People who are smart enough to be academics and who are entrusted with a forum to say basically anything the want I think have a responsibility to use their position with some care, not like some drunken teenager. That's what I'm railing about--the fact that these people are self-proclaimed guardians of intellectual virtue and think that the normal morality of pitiful mortals (and, I include being a decent, considerate human being and not purposely trying to hurt people as being a moral issue) don't apply to them. Posted by: MWS at February 1, 2005 05:18 PMWell, I don't know. It seems like we are trying to bend over backwards in pursuit of "free speech." But Ward Churchill is famous for claiming that the 9/11 victims were silent facilitators in American imperialism. That is intellectually bankrupt. Do we extend the same courtesies to the Flat Earth Society, or the Pre-Copernican Geocentrists? Not every opinion is the moral equivalent of every other opinion. Churchill's body of work is the torure of historical data (much like an Oliver Stone movie). Would anyone have a problem with Churchill sharing a dais with a Holocaust-denier, and a White Separatist? Hamilton College lends the speaker its own gravitas by the invitation. BTW, Hamilton has rescinded the invitation on the grounds that there are credible threats of violence as a result of Churchill's presence. Posted by: Literally Retarded at February 1, 2005 05:42 PMIf the Hamilton dean had a backbone and a sense of humor it'd be phrased as "credible threats of verbose cretinism...." Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2005 06:00 PMI wouldn't convict the whole of academia on this one guy's opinion, but it disturbs me that he is teaching kids about the world. I don't know what his classes are like, but I'd say with extreme views like his, how much bias creeps into his curriculum? His right to say whatever he wants should always be protected, but he still sounds like a prick. Posted by: scott at February 1, 2005 06:16 PMHe has the right to be stupid, even assinine and obnoxious. And we have the right to ridicule him for it. And will! Posted by: Tully at February 1, 2005 11:15 PMA friend of mine attended Boston University, home of that famous radical Howard Zinn. He tells me that Zinn was notorious for being intolerant of any students expressing opinions contra (ie, more conservative) than his own. So much for academic freedom. LR's point is exactly what I was trying to make--just because someone says something doesn't mean it's entitled to respect or even deserves a hearing. Posted by: MWS at February 2, 2005 09:25 AMThat's common, Marc. The more radical the instructor, the less tolerance they usually have for dissent from their own particular brand of "conventional" wisdom. Posted by: Tully at February 2, 2005 09:16 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
