Where to start?? I have long abandoned the illusion that academic admirers of the likes of Marx, Castro or Che Guevara are capable of engaging in an intellectually honest discourse regarding the true evils of Communism. And why should they bother?

Securely entrenched in tenured positions, and protected by their Constitutionally guaranteed right to Free Speech, they can safely espouse from behind their lacterns their sanitized version of Marxist/communist ideology — conveniently ignoring the horrors of its historical praxis. These horrors — may they be in the form of Castro’s “rat holes”, the Soviet Gulag, or any of the other murderous methods practiced by Communist regimes — are no less real than those of the Holocaust. And you would not deny the Holocaust, Domza, would you?

When I think of the face of Communism, I think of the face of Peter Fechter. He was the 18-year old who was shot to death by East German Guards in 1962 for attempting to jump across the Berlin Wall into the free West. He was the first victim of the repressive East German regime after the erection of the Wall a year earlier. I was thirteen at the time, a mere five years younger than Peter Fechter. I will always remember my father, pointing at our TV screen where this horrific scene played out live only a hundred miles from where Peter Fechter was actually dying an agonizing death. My father screamed: “Murderers, murderers!” Then he pulled me close, pointing his finger at our TV screen, and said, his voice trembling: “Look at this! Don’t you ever forget this! This is Communisim! This is the face of evil!”

So much for Frantz Fanon’s “there are no innocents.” Peter Fechter was one of the millions of innocents who perished under Communist regimes. And I never forgot. I never will!

And, lest you think that I am unfamiliar with “Critical Pedagogy”, I am not. The framework of my doctoral dissertation was “Critical Theory” (the Frankfurt School) and “Hermeneutics.” The only difference between you and me — a major difference, one might say — is that the more I read the works by Paolo Freire, Frantz Fanon, and yes, your “prophet” Peter McLaren, the more I came to value the American Constitution and the unique values and liberties it enshrines.

There is simply no excuse for the grand scale of the Communist tragedy.

In Freire’s “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, the “banking theory of education” (a.k.a. “bucket-and-tap”) is strenuously opposed. Also opposed is the cocooning of the classroom away from the oppression evident in the world. Withal, Freire presents a morality aimed towards the restoration of the historical human subject, as an individual and as a socially-co-operating individual.

We all arrive with our preconceptions, but for all Peter McLaren’s personal devotion to Che Guevara, as it may be, it is he, and not you, that has a credible worked-out theory of how not to impose his ideas, and exactly why it is hopeless and counter-productive to impose such preconceived ideas.

It is Freire who has actually charted the “major difference” that you identify between “teaching about” and “advocating for”. It is Freire who describes the traps and pitfalls that await the well-intentioned. It is Freire who has designed a pedagogical practice with proven capability of cultivating freedom. Peter McLaren is above all Freire’s prophet, which is to say a prophet of honesty and morality in teaching and learning.

Peter can answer for himself, but I would expect him to confirm the principle that you, as a student or as a teacher can take or leave his feelings about Che Guevara, Marx and Lenin, but you can’t do without critical pedagogy if you want to be dealing with the oppressed (which is to say, with the greater part of humanity).

The fact that Peter McLaren wears his preferences on his sleeve is part of the method. Likewise, in my Freirean practice, I come to it as myself, with all of my pre-existing judgments, which I do not impose, and in that way I licence you and all others involved to do the same – to be yourselves.

Critical pedagogy is a dialogic form of pedagogy. There is no prescription, and there is no closure.

If I may quote a similar sentiment of Frantz Fanon’s: “There are no innocents, and there are no onlookers”.

I agree with “Domza” that competing ideas on ALL schools of thought — both past and present — ought to be legitimate topics of discussion in America’s classrooms. The National Association of Scholars has a solid record of supporting the free exchange of ideas. However, it also has a solid record of opposing “indoctrination.” It does so by exposing the many manifestations of the inculcation of “one-sided ideas” and “trends” (e.g. diversity, sustainability, etc.)in today’s academy.

The NAS is not “afraid” of ideas being taught, let alone being discussed. It does, however, insist that such discussion — in the tradition of American liberty and
Freedom of Speech — be unfettered, open, and free of bias.

The NAS is a beacon of hope in dark times in higher education. I am immensely proud to be one of its members.

Of course you must teach this.

Upon the publication of “The Black Book of Communism” in 1997, journalist Daniel Singer had this to say:

“If you look at Communism as merely the story of crimes, terror and
repression, to borrow the subtitle of the Black Book, you are missing
the point”…..”The Soviet Union did not rest on the gulag alone.
There was also enthusiasm, construction, the spread of education and
social advancement for millions.”

The spread of what KIND of education? What, exactly, is Singer’s definition of “social advancement” under a Communist regime? And at “what cost” did this advancement take place?

Daniel Singer’s logic is that of someone saying that the Green River Killer should not be remembered as a serial killer alone, but also as a man who used to distribute cookies to his neighbors during Christmas time.