Today, The Jewish Daily Forward published Kenneth L. Marcus’s op-ed about a joint statement, which was written by Kenneth Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s president, and Cary Nelson, the American Association of University Professors’ president. As I describe on my blog, Marcus congratulates the AJC for retracting the statement. But the AAUP has not retracted it. The AAUP-AJC statement concerns three law suits alleging antisemitic and violent harassment at Berkeley, Rutgers and UC Santa Cruz. In it, Stern and Nelson claim that the suits are an attempt to silence criticism of Israel. But the suits allege physical violence against Jews in contexts that do not involve any sort of academic or public debate. For instance, Berkeley’s Jessica Felber alleges that she was rammed by a shopping cart; Professor Mel Gordon alleges that he was beaten. In his op-ed Marcus writes approvingly of the AJC’s apparent retraction of the joint statement. But the AAUP has not retracted it. Might I detect a whiff of antisemitism at the AAUP?
I sent this letter to the editor of the faculty newspaper of the City University of New York, The Clarion:
The Clarion cites Ed Koch, The New York Times and the PSC’s leadership in calling for the resignation of Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld. All three are Democrats. In the pages of The Wall Street Journal, the nation’s leading Middle East expert, Bernard Lewis, has exposed The New York Times’s reporting on the Arab Spring and Iran. The Times has mistranslated speakers and overtly lied in its coverage. Its editorial page is as important as Stormfront’s.
The call for Trustee Wiesenfeld’s resignation is consistent with a totalitarian interpretation of “academic freedom” whose origin is in the 19th Century German Idealists’ Lehrerfreiheit. Today, Lehrerfreiheit, which differs from most Americans’ interpretation of the word “freedom,” is seen in Democrats’ one-sided claim that it applies to them but not to those who disagree with them, like Trustee Wiesenfeld. “Suppression for thee, free speech for me,” is the Democrats’ totalitarian Clarion-call.
The City of University of New York is conducting a survey concerning discrimination with respect to protected classes under the Civil Rights Act and sexual orientation. I sent an e-mail to the individual in charge of the survey. The e-mail says in part:
In my opinion you omitted a greater source of unfair discrimination than any that you covered, albeit one that is not covered under the Civil Rights Act: discrimination on the basis of ideology. Ideological discrimination has effects that are similar to the discrimination that you cover. Better candidates are excluded. Students receive only one point of view, attenuating their education. Promotion decisions are made on the basis of ideology rather than ability. By discriminating against a large segment of New York’s population CUNY puts itself at odds with that segment.
I urge CUNY to investigate the extent and scope of ideological discrimination in faculty personnel decision making.
A controversy is raging concerning CUNY Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld’s objections to John Jay College’s proposal to grant an honorary degree to playwright Tony Kushner. CUNY’s board of trustees rejected Kushner after Wiesenfeld posed objections because of Kushner’s outspoken anti-Israel views. Now, Chairman Benno C. Schmidt is rumored to favor rescinding the rescission and awarding the degree to Kushner after all.
I do not see the issue as one of free speech. In the first place, speech is not free in universities. Second, there is no right to an honorary degree.
On my blog I argue that universities are too ideologically biased to grant honorary degrees fairly. On cue, rumors are circulating that CUNY’s far left faculty union is discussing an attempt to remove Wiesenfeld from the board. The reason: the union’s insistence that Kushner’s free speech rights were violated, and in doing so Wiesenfeld’s speech was grounds for his firing.
The University of Wisconsin’s Professor William Cronon has involved himself in a partisan Wisconsin battle concerning public employees’ bargaining. In his blog he bloviates against the Republican Party’s open records law request for e-mails he may have sent from his university e-mail account relating to partisan advocacy. I argue that a distinction needs to be made between the GOP’s political response to Cronon’s political advocacy and academic freedom:
Cronon has chosen to involve himself in the political process . He states that he has been careful to separate his personal e-mails from his university computer, and makes the spurious argument that communications with students constitute records under the Buckley Law….as a public official with a partisan affiliation Cronon has entered the political fray. He ought to expect that he be treated as a political player subject to the same tactics to which Cronon and his allies would subject GOP-affiliated officials. Even in his self-serving bloviation about the GOP’s request Cronon cannot refrain from partisan rhetoric.
Dr. Ken Marcus of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research sent me this link to a Scribd file copy of Tammi Rossman-Benjamin’s 29 page letter of complaint date to the San Francisco Office of Civil Rights concerning systemic anti-Semitism at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The atmosphere at UCSC sounds terrifying and disturbing, but the facts are not surprising given the reception that I witnessed David Horowitz receive at Brooklyn College. Given the left-liberal orienation at most universities, anti-Semitism increasingly characterizes them. What is puzzling is that the majority of Jews continue to identify themselves as left liberals.
Video of David Horowitz’s presentation at Brooklyn College is here. Horowitz writes an extensive article about his talk at Brooklyn College on Frontpagemag, which appeared Friday. I attempted to serve as a moderator but was only moderately successful. The Brooklyn College Palestinian club’s protests were aggressive.
A student, Yosef Sobel, decided to invite David Horowitz to Brooklyn College in response to campus protests. The campus protesters pretended to be Israeli military officers stopping students at checkpoints. I was impressed that Yosef, an undergraduate, found a way to arrange Horowitz’s visit in response. Nevertheless, two different professors normally involved with Middle Eastern and Judaic studies refused to sponsor the event. (The College would not permit an event that at least one faculty member would not sponsor.) I offered to do so.
Horowitz is a dramatic speaker. I hadn’t attended a campus event of this kind before and was disturbed at the overt anger, thinly distinguishable from violence, on the part of the anti-Horowitz protesters in the room. Their intent was to stifle Mr. Horowitz and those who agree with him. At the conclusion of the talk I asked the chief protester to give a response to Mr. Horowitz. Failing to address any of Horowitz’s points, he responded with an inarticulate series of insults. His confederate on the other side of the room screamed at the room filled with yarmulke-clad Jews, “This is a bunch of Nazis.”
The event was a success largely because one of CUNY’s trustees lent his support. He insisted that the university’s chief security officer oversee a concerted security effort that involved a metal detector search of each attendee. Speech on campus is not free, unless one expresses a left wing viewpoint. Without the trustee’s influence, campus security would have failed to provide security, and the protests may have become violent. As faculty sponsor I was able to control the audience to some degree only because of the security, which, in the end, suggests why check points are necessary in Israel.
The Labor and Employment Relations Association, previously called the Industrial Relations Research Association, is a learned society devoted to industrial and labor relations. Traditionally, LERA has supported the National Labor Relations Act but it had not been overtly partisan. In fact, its most prominent member, John T. Dunlop, had served as Secretary of Labor under President Gerald Ford. When I finished my doctoral studies in 1991 I found the organization to be pro labor rather than neutral in orientation, and I had not participated in it since the January 2000 meeting. Since it is one of the only games in town, I decided to give it another chance in 2011.
What I found is shocking. LERA is not merely ideologically biased, but overtly partisan and Democratic. Virtually every session I attended included an attack on the GOP. I submitted a blog to LERA’s new website, called the Employment Policy Research Network (EPRN), questioning the group’s partisan atmosphere. The LERA leadership, which oversees the website, not only refused to publish it but refused to respond to me in writing. I had to call the LERA office to obtain a verbal response.
I posted the blog on my Website.
Sharad Karkhanis’s Patriot Returns newsletter, which goes to 13,000 CUNY faculty and employees, emailed my responses to a number of letters to the editor concerning my article “Freedom and Standards at CUNY: The Case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton,” which had been distributed earlier in February.
The University of Wisconsin’s Professor William Cronon has involved himself in a partisan Wisconsin battle concerning public employees’ bargaining. 
Dr. Ken Marcus of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research sent me 
A student, Yosef Sobel, decided to invite David Horowitz to Brooklyn College in response to campus protests. The campus protesters pretended to be Israeli military officers stopping students at checkpoints. I was impressed that Yosef, an undergraduate, found a way to arrange Horowitz’s visit in response. Nevertheless, two different professors normally involved with Middle Eastern and Judaic studies refused to sponsor the event. (The College would not permit an event that at least one faculty member would not sponsor.) I offered to do so.
Recent Comments