One more professor bullied off of campus and denied tenure after being lauded by his colleagues

[shance]

Finkelstein resigns and college lauds his teaching—terminating their showdown
By Ron Grossman | Tribune staff reporter



The long-running battle between outspoken professor Norman Finkelstein and DePaul University administrators ended Wednesday as the two sides agreed on a private settlement, cutting short a planned day of protests.

But the underlying struggle between supporters of Israel and the Palestinians continues, not just at the North Side campus but across the academic world.

Finkelstein's case attracted far greater public attention than tenure struggles usually do, with supporters across the nation demanding the Catholic university grant him tenure and detractors just as vehemently insisting he be fired.
Wednesday's settlement did little to calm those waters.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a strong supporter of Israel, has been engaged in a long and bitter public debate with Finkelstein. Dershowitz expressed outrage at the apparent compromise Wednesday, especially a written statement from the university that declared, "Professor Finkelstein is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."

"The university has traded truth for peace," said Dershowitz. "The statement that is a scholar is simply false. He's a propagandist."

Finkelstein's cause, meanwhile, has found support among academic powerhouses such as the late Raul Hilberg, the dean of Holocaust historians, and Noam Chomsky, linguist and social critic. Finkelstein is something of a protégé of Chomsky, with whom he shares a critical stance toward Israel and American foreign policy.

Chomsky said he had not seen the terms of the settlement, but added in an e-mail: "Of course, the whole affair was an utter outrage, a cowardly attack on academic freedom."

Earlier this year, DePaul Dean Chuck Suchar had rejected tenure for Finkelstein, saying the political scientist, known for his red-hot rhetoric, hadn't been true to the school's "Vincentian values," including respect for the views of others.

But supporters felt Finkelstein was being intellectually martyred for his strong criticisms of Israel.

Opponents, meanwhile, saw Finkelstein, himself Jewish, as peddling a brand of anti-Semitism for which there should be no place on campus.

Finkelstein has rejected charges of anti-Jewish bias in his books, telling an Israeli newspaper: "I am just the messenger who reports on the actions of the Jewish establishment, actions that are encouraging anti-Semitism," he said.

After losing his tenure battle in June, Finkelstein was unexpectedly put on administrative leave shortly before classes started at DePaul on Wednesday.

He vowed in return to commit an act of civil disobedience and stage a hunger strike, which guaranteed a parade of protesters and television trucks on the first day of the new quarter.

Wednesday's demonstration witnessed the way in which the professor's personal and academic struggle has been subsumed into a constellation of larger issues. Though the majority in the pro-Finkelstein ranks were college age, some in the crowd of 120 looked like veterans of many an earlier protest. One carried a placard and a portable oxygen supply.

But instead of a dramatic standoff, Finkelstein stood beside a statue of St. Vincent DePaul, for whom the university is named, and announced that he and the school had come to an amicable agreement: He resigned, and the university acknowledged his scholarship and teaching.

Recently, both supporters of the Palestinians and those of the Israelis have exchanged cries of "foul" during bitter campus debates. Jewish college students have complained of being harassed, in and out of the classroom. After an incident at the University of Chicago, that school brought in counselors, hoping to restore civility to the dorms.

Scholars of Middle Eastern studies have complained that Jewish organizations were out to censor them.

But Finkelstein himself was soft-spoken in what had been billed as his final class session.

His voice cracked with emotion when he thanked his students for their support through some dark periods.

"My spirits have been lifted when I walked into a classroom," he said. "You have put a high burden on my shoulders."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-finkelstein-websep06,0,1122451.story?coll=chi-news-nav

[bluestateguy]

1. I hope he catches on somewhere else

I can't say that I often agreed with him, but I'm uncomfortable when professors are fired because of their views.

[rodeodance]

10. seems they would fire Jimmy Cartar (recall his last book) also.

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Yes, they would. There is a snitch site for Profs Here--->

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/listComplaint.asp?alphabet=U

[shance]

15. Yes, David Horowitz is the founder of this organization - an article I found on

Horiwitz. Seems he has quite a racist agenda, disguising it as "freedom".

Same song, hundreth verse.

Freedom for who?

Making Nice With Racists: David Horowitz and The Soft Pedaling Of White Supremacy

By Tim Wise

I’m not sure who said it first, but whatever the case, it bears repeating: there are plenty of assholes on both the right and left of the political spectrum, and David Horowitz has the distinction of having been both in the course of one lifetime. Pretty good work if you can get it.


Since his conversion, Horowitz--the Marxist-turned-right-wing culture critic--has demonstrated a special hostility towards civil rights activists and liberal/left commentators on issues of race, calling us racists for supporting things like affirmative action.

According to Horowitz, such policies are racist because they presume that blacks are incapable of succeeding in America on their own, and need what he views as paternalistic government assistance to get ahead. By "lowering" standards for African Americans, such efforts patronize blacks as inferiors, according to Horowitz.


In truth, affirmative action was never predicated on the notion of black inferiority, and to the extent the concept has long enjoyed black support, to suggest otherwise is especially putrid: as if blacks think themselves inferior; as if blacks are masochists, incapable of intuiting their interests, or so gullible as to be led down the primrose path by scheming white leftists seeking to use them for political gain.


Fact is, no one on the left suggests that blacks can’t "make it" without such initiatives. We insist only that racism really has skewed the distribution of resources, opportunity and accumulated "credentials." As such, people of color are likely to be overlooked for job and contract opportunities even when fully qualified, in the absence of deliberate efforts at inclusion. Common sense dictates that when a society has oppressed a group of people, that group will find itself in an inferior social position relative to those in favored groups.


Indeed, to expect subordinated groups not to lag behind the dominant one in terms of income, wealth, and occupational status would require holding blacks to a higher standard than others, since it would mean expecting those who started out five laps behind in an eight leg race to not only run as fast as everyone else (a reasonable expectation that would still leave them behind), but much faster than others so as to catch up. That such a burden is the height of injustice--what with the five-lap deficit not a function of black shortcomings but rather white racism--should be obvious.


Ironically, what is most telling about Horowitz’s charge of racism against the left is that while he ridicules us for supposedly implying that blacks are inferior, he remains silent about those in his own camp who do far more than imply black inferiority, but indeed scream it from the rooftops.


After all, I don’t recall any indignant criticisms by Horowitz in response to Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s book, The Bell Curve--a collection of sociobiological nonsense, whose authors say blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, and who praise and include the research of Richard Lynn: a racist scholar who has called for the "phasing out" of "inferior" peoples. Among other things, Murray and Herrnstein conclude that for most blacks there is little benefit that can be gained from education since the cost of educational enrichment will not likely be "repaid" by greater black cognitive development.


Yet far from condemning The Bell Curve or the conservative movement that greeted the volume in the mid-1990’s, Horowitz’s group--the Center for the Study of Popular Culture--has received roughly $4 million from the same Bradley Foundation that subsidized Murray’s research for the book and continued to support him after its publication. At no point has David apparently lost sleep over taking money from an outfit that proudly supported and financed the publication of this blatantly racist scholarship. In fact, when pressed about racial linkages to IQ, Horowitz is willing to go no further than to say he is "not convinced." How ecumenical.


That the GOP delegation invited Murray to speak to them after taking control of Congress in 1994 (just months after the release of The Bell Curve) apparently caused David no concern. To Horowitz, people who claim that blacks are genetically predisposed to crime, out-of-wedlock childbirth and poverty apparently aren’t racists, but people who support programs to ensure racial equity are: by which logic, Klansmen would be less racist than Martin Luther King Jr., who did in fact support affirmative action and even reparations programs, as I have pointed out in a previous column (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12396).


Furthermore, the website for Horowitz’s organization (FrontpageMag.com) includes a number of articles that flirt dangerously with racism or even praise it outright. One piece by John J. Ray includes praise for the "very scholarly" book on IQ by Christopher Brand, an admirer of eugenics (policies to promote selective breeding of "superior people"), and an adherent to the belief that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites. In a more recent essay by Ray, on the opening page of David’s site for October 8th, the author concludes that racism is not always bad, and is a rather natural human instinct, suggesting, "Feelings of racial, national or group superiority are natural, normal and healthy and can as easily lead to benevolent outcomes as evil ones."


But for the best evidence that Horowitz is a rank hypocrite when it comes to criticizing supposed leftist racism, consider his recent comments about Jared Taylor: a self-proclaimed white nationalist who advocates an all-white U.S.


Recently, Horowitz reproduced an article from Taylor’s American Renaissance website concerning the brutal murders of four white youth by a pair of black assailants. While the murders of the four, and attempted murder of another who survived did not appear to have been racially-motivated (one of the killers was dating a white woman and the survivor has not mentioned any comments made by the assailants that might indicate hateful motivation), Taylor’s group pounced on the incidents as proof of how dangerous blacks are to whites--a consistent theme on the AR website.


In fairness, it should be said that Horowitz’s motivation for running the piece was apparently different from Taylor’s. First, he excised some of the more overtly racist aspects of the original article, and secondly, his own comments suggest that his primary interest was pointing out how little media attention was given to the crimes, as opposed to what he assumes would have been the deluge of coverage had the racial roles been reversed. That most crimes--including most white-on-black crimes--are never discussed in the news fails to register with Horowitz; so too studies suggesting that crimes with black perps and white victims are actually more likely to garner media attention than other combinations.


But that said, it was David’s side comments about Taylor that indicate how comfortable Horowitz has become with the racist right, even as he blisters the left for supposedly condescending to people of color in a racist fashion. For example, about Taylor, Horowitz says that he is "author of a pioneer book of political incorrectness on race...a very smart and gutsy individualist...a very intelligent and principled man."


Although Horowitz criticizes Taylor’s white nationalism as a capitulation to destructive "identity politics," he cannot bring himself to call Taylor a racist. Indeed he defends him against the charge, saying it is more accurate to call him a "racialist." That this is a distinction without a difference, and the same term David Duke uses to describe himself--all the while adhering to the beliefs in white superiority shared by Taylor--apparently matters not to Horowitz, who goes on to say that Taylor and AR are no more racist than Jesse Jackson or the NAACP.


Yet when has Jackson or any representative of the NAACP said anything resembling the following from Taylor:


"...in some important traits--intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease--whites can be considered 'superior' to blacks."


"Without constant urging from liberal whites, virtually all Africans would be content to put their fate in the hands of a (white) race that they recognize as smarter and more fair-minded than their own."


"Whites and north Asians build successful societies that other races cannot build. At some point, nature will reassert itself and whites will decide not to commit racial and cultural suicide."


"The possibility of black inferiority is the goblin that lurks in the background of every attempt to explain Black failure."


Furthermore, since 1994, Taylor has hosted an annual conference attended by lifelong neo-Nazis like David Duke and Don Black, and featuring speeches by "scholars" like Philippe Rushton, who says blacks have smaller brains because they have larger penises and "you can’t have everything." Other speakers invited by Taylor have included:


--Recently-deceased professor Glade Whitney, whose comments to the conference in 1998 included referring to black marathon runners as "biologically adapted cattle thieves," and American blacks as "primitives." Whitney wrote the fawning introduction to David Duke’s 1998 racial manifesto, in which Duke called for whites to become "Aryan warriors."


--Philosophy professor Michael Levin, who proclaims that blacks are biologically less intelligent than whites and says "some forms of racism are justified." Levin has also claimed that "there is nothing wrong with eugenics. It’s a perfectly respectable idea."


--Steven Barry, a retired military officer who promotes white nationalism to soldiers and is a member of the openly neo-Nazi National Alliance.


--Samuel Francis, a close friend of Taylor’s and a former columnist for the Washington Times, who has said, "The civilization we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people."


--Gordon Baum, of the Council of Conservative Citizens, who in 1995 attempted to recruit the chief of security for the Aryan Nations to the CCC’s national board of directors. Among the things published in the CCC’s newsletter, have been columns calling for the repeal of all existing civil rights laws, and articles claiming that immigration will cause America to become "just a slimy brown mass of glop." The CCC has also published columns proclaiming, "Any effort to destroy the (white) race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself," and arguing that the only good idea Abraham Lincoln ever had was to deport blacks to Africa. It should be noted that Taylor has spoken at CCC events and written papers for the group to distribute.


In the end, it is inconceivable that Horowitz does not know of Taylor’s true views or affiliations. He knew enough, after all, to issue a disclaimer when deciding to reprint an article from Taylor’s website, knowing that some might find the decision troubling. Perhaps he thought no one would check to see if his assurances that Taylor was not a racist could hold up.

Or perhaps he doesn’t care, having spent the better part of his life willing to cozy up to dubious characters and ideologies, making excuses along the way. At long last, however, Horowitz has played himself out: a Jew who makes nice with Nazis. Imagine that, all from a guy who accuses other Jews (like me) who merely support Palestinian statehood of being self-hating.


As the saying goes, "when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas"--an apt metaphor for Horowitz, whose willingness to traffic in racially-inflammatory rhetoric as well as to write articles justifying racial profiling have made it difficult for him to now draw the line between respectable commentary and that which is more fascistic: this is, after all, where right-wing race thinking leads.

To the extent Horowitz lends even the faintest credibility to a character like Jared Taylor, he should be viewed as ultimately no better than the latter, and afforded just as much legitimacy, which is to say none whatsoever.

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2002-12/16wise.cfm

[Nikki Stone1]

46. That's a damning article

Thanks for posting it.

[LeftishBrit]

184. One or two points...

University teachers who espouse racist views, or views that could be easily co-opted by racists, frequently *do* become controversial (and rightly so). Not with Horowitz perhaps, but with lots of other people.

Chris Brand, a psychology lecturer who espoused theories of genetic intellectual inferiority of non-whites, was eventually sacked from his job in Edinburgh.

A current professor of demography in Oxford came under considerable criticism and pressures from some groups to resign, because of doing research for an anti-immigration organization. He has kept his job, but has certainly been treated as controversial.

Re the authors of 'The Bell Curve' not suffering major career consequences: Richard Herrnstein died of cancer before the book was published, and Charles Murray has spent his entire career at conservative research units and think tanks: currently the American Enterprise Institute. He would very likely have had difficulty in securing an appointment at a mainstream university.

[Hissyspit]

186. Oh, no! Required readings! Oh, no! Professors who profess!

The solution? Have students tell the teachers that they know what they are supposed to know already!

Idiots.

What they do to good professors is not a joke though.

[Balbus]

2. Forgot what 4 looks like?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. He should sue whoever was behind his ouster on the basis of

tortious interference with a contract.

This is just wrong and sets a very bad precedent.

[shance]

6. Yes it does set a bad precedent. When one is attacked unfairly everyone is vulnerable to

the same treatment no matter how much one may think they are immune today.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. This is a nationwide effort, and a well funded one.

Please look at frontpagemag.com and http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/ to get an idea of how closely profs are being monitored by right wing zealots.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. If David Horowitz had his way, this would be happening everywhere

And it seems like it will.

http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2513&Itemid=54

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Horowitz's student goons write about Finklestein--and their next target at De Paul:

http://cms.studentsforacademicfreedom.org//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2513&Itemid=54



The Next Piece of Housekeeping for DePaul
By Steven Plaut
09/06/07
FrontPageMagazine.com


Well, DePaul fired Norman Finkelstein for pseudo-scholarship and bigotry and also canned Finkelstein's ally Mehrene Larudee, who failed to get tenure as an economist, having tried to get it mainly on the basis of her Marxist screeds. But if anyone thinks that DePaul is out of the woods and has put a stop to radical faculty misrepresenting their ideological propagandizing as research and trying to get tenure for political propagandizing and indoctrination, think again.

A case in hand is Matthew Abraham, who teaches English at DePaul and is a very active apologist on behalf of Norman Finkelstein. Abraham has a long article in the pro-jihadist website Counterpunch this week repeating all the myths the left has concocted about the (third or is it fourth?) university firing of Professor Finkelstein. Abraham describes Finkelstein as "the most heroic critic of U.S. and Israeli policy in Palestine ever to set foot in the U.S. academy." DePaul's having finally stood up for real standards of scholarship is described by Abraham thus: "By capitulating to the threats, antics, and pressures of Alan Dershowitz, the Israel Lobby, and its numerous affiliates, DePaul has compromised something so integral to an educational institution's mission, that once so compromised, it is impossible to regain."

He then makes baseless charges against his own school: "DePaul University is more vulnerable than ever to the next assault upon its integrity and autonomy-no matter how many millions of dollars have poured into its coffers because of the Finkelstein tenure denial, we are vulnerable." He adds: "Will those faculty associated with, and standing in support of Finkelstein, be the next targets of DePaul's administration? If so, I would certainly be a likely target."

Well, we would like to take Abraham up on the challenge and urge DePaul to take a close look at this fella's academic record, which can be seen here. Abraham holds a PhD in English from Purdue, where he wrote a dissertation about "The Rhetoric of Resistance," in other words a propaganda tract for the "revolutionary" left. Before that he completed an MA thesis in Arkansas that was a sycophantic celebration of the Maoist "philosopher" Michel Foucault. Three of the five journal articles he has published are similar paeans to the Israel-hating Edward Said. At least one of them promotes Palestinian terrorism (which he calls "resistance"). Lest there be confusion, it is Said's politics that attracts him to Abraham not his literary criticism (which is also heavy on the dogma side). In other words, his entire corpus of "scholarly" work consists of exercises in "revolutionary" politics....

[tigereye]

143. where have these folks(critics) been hiding?

many academic departments have a leftist/deconstructionist bent to their scholarship, which doesn't make their work suspect as scholarship...and I'm not sure calling Foucault a Maoist makes sense...


To question Foucault as a philosopher seems patently absurd.... :eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

I don't have a lot of time (coffee break) but...

This has been going on for a long time. The website you are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. There are several statehouses that have passed a bill called The Academic Bill of Rights". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Bill_of_Rights It's really worth the read.

[tigereye]

179. yeah I have a copy of the attack on Academic Freedom (or something similar)

somewhere. Haven't had time to read it....

It is not a good thing.

[Nikki Stone1]

182. It's hideous. And it's really important.

I'm glad you're interested. We need all the help we can get.

[ThomCat]

5. Dershowitz is in no position to be calling anyone a progagandist.

I hope another univerisity snaps up Finkelstein.

[Nikki Stone1]

8. Other universities will be scared to take on Finklestein. This is a nationwide attack on

academic freedom. I have been keeping track of this for a number of years and it's getting worse.

David Horowitz is the front man and the force behind "Students for Academic Freedom", whose main goal seems to be to crush dissent against Israel and US hegemonic/imperial policies.

If you've never glanced at frontpagemag.com or looked at Horowitz's diatribes, you need to. This will affect all of academics, not just DePaul.

[Elspeth]

12. Why should the average person care about this?

The rest of us don't have job security for life.

[Malikshah]

13. Because Tenure is tied to Academic Freedom and the Freedom of Information

But hey...don't care.

Then one can try and keep one's job or even get a frikkin job in a society where ideas and knowledge is controlled by the few.

It is called a principle...and I don't mean Victoria.

Try and think outside of the box and one's own life.

[Elspeth]

14. So a few privileged people with cushy jobs are sooo crucial to "Freedom of Information"?

Please. They are all taking grant money from the Military Industrial Complex or Big Corporations anyway. Universities are big R & D departments for Big Corporate and the MIC. Why should I care whether their researchers are secure in their jobs or not?

[The Stranger]

17. You seem to have missed the point in a rather extraordinary way.

This isn't about research grants -- it is about academic freedom.

[Elspeth]

19. Research grants guide research--the allowable ideas.

Remember, you have to apply for grant money. And grant money is doled out by the government (especially the military), corporations (like big pharma), and NGOs, like the Ford Foundation, which is notorious for its intelligence connections, especially during the Cold War.

So, no, if you need money, you're not necessarily free to have any ideas you want to. Your application for grant money has to be approved--it's a gate keeping mechanism.

To talk about "free speech" when professors are compromised from the get-go by the grant application process is just naive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Just how many NIH grants do political scientists write?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrunkenMaster]

24. it is intentional ignorance on her part

all those "academic elitists" out there have offended her...

[Elspeth]

31. No. If you read my post, you'll see I'm more informed on academic funding than you are.

Follow the money.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. I read your post.

Some sort of conspiracy theory about how the Military Industrial Complex was using Harvard's Poli Sci department for industrial R&D.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

160. Then start a thread on academic funding.

It is not the issue in this thread.

[Elspeth]

170. Boy, THAT would sink like a stone!

And don't say it wouldn't. :)

[truedelphi]

62. Well some of us resent the situation with Universities

Congress was initially charged (Circa 1783) with absolutely allowing no protected class of nobility.

Yet the fact is that the average American has to put him or herself behind a desk for a large portion of their life in order to become a member of nobility. After all, without a Master's degree or PhD you probably won't go too far.

And to add insult to injury, the Universities have sold out. Life in America is no longer about knowledge or experience - it's about mastering "instructions." Gone are the days when people who were University trained spent significant study on poetry, rhetoric, dialectics and logic.

Nope. Meanwhile, Major Universities are selling out their laboratories to Corporate America. Novartis gave 50 Million to the University of California at Berkeley for research. Certainly won't be much of a surprise if now the UC Berkeley researchers somehow never get around to considering the impact of pesticides or GMO's on cancer. And that is just one example.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. ROFLMAO.

"Yet the fact is that the average American has to put him or herself behind a desk for a large portion of their life in order to become a member of nobility."

Why oh why can't we just go back to the old system of being born into it.

"Life in America is no longer about knowledge or experience - it's about mastering "instructions." Gone are the days when people who were University trained spent significant study on poetry, rhetoric, dialectics and logic."

Haven't been to a university lately, have you?

[Elspeth]

71. Why are laughing at a post that gives solid information about academic funding?

Oh, I forgot. You already know all about it.

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. It's not solid information.

It's hopelessly naive.

[Elspeth]

77. No, it's very accurate. And it's happening all over the place.

But then you give no indication of knowing anything, so I'm not surprised.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. It's demonstrably false.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Go ahead and look at all the work people from Berkeley do on pesticides and GMOs.

[Elspeth]

84. I just looked up "University of California, Berkeley" on this electronic journal link and nada

Quoted phrase not found.
See Details. No items found.

So, tell me, how did you use this electronic journal, or did you just slap down the link to look like you knew something?

We all have google.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. I looked up "berkeley pesticides"

Lots of recent publications from Berkeley scientists on the subject.

You're unfamiliar with Pubmed? Gee, I'd think somebody concerned with academia, pharma, and molecular biology would be at least familiar with it.

Btw, you still never answered about your education.

[Elspeth]

98. Did you look up the funders of that research?

That would be far more relevant to this debate.

In order to do that task on the search engine you posted, you would need to go through article by article and compile statistics, a do it properly, not just a casual count. That would be an academic study in itself. It might be easier to see if someone has compiled those statistics already.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. Did you?

The first hit was funded by the NIH and the EPA.

What's your point?

[Elspeth]

105. The point is in the rest of the post.

Read the post. Then get back to me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. I read the whole post.

But you forgot to include a point.

[WildEyedLiberal]

112. Probably because this person dropped out of college

And is still clearly bitter about it...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. Sounds logical.

Or maybe didn't get in.

[Elspeth]

120. Based on what logic?

How did you EVER do a science degree?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. I didn't "do" a science degree.

I "did" education degrees. Try to keep up.

I'm using the logic of Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation for your nonsense is that you're bitter and haven't "did" a proper education.

[Elspeth]

124. Ah, ok.

Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

127. Hits the nail on the head.

Doesn't it?

[Elspeth]

129. It really does.

I should have known. There are certain things that are quite understandable now.

[Elspeth]

119. Or the person is a college professor who is tired of the corruption in the system.

Not that that is true, mind you, it's just another possibility.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. College professors aren't against the tenure system.

They recognize that the corruption is coming from those who are against it.

[Elspeth]

123. You could have the odd one who is.

It's very possible.

But, on the whole, I agree with you. Most college professors are like the rest of us: they want to pay their mortgages.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. Sure. There are morons everywhere. Obviously.

"Most college professors are like the rest of us: they want to pay their mortgages."

You misunderstand. Professors are in favor of the tenure system because it's essential for academic freedom, not for personal gain. That's why non-tenure track professors, visiting professors, professors emeritus, etc. are in favor of the tenure system.

[Elspeth]

132. Or maybe they are just more ethical than most, and not really morons.

In regards as to why certain professors support tenure, I'll grant that some of them are idealists. But most need to pay their mortgages.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. Nope, they'd be morons.

There's nothing ethical about being against the tenure system.

"But most need to pay their mortgages."

Being in favor of the tenure system doesn't help on non-tenure professor pay the mortgage. Please try to keep up.

[Elspeth]

144. Are you sure all non-tenured professors support tenure?

There are some professors who never get beyond "adjunct (part-time)" or "lecturer" (not tenure track). They get paid much less per credit hour than their FT counterparts and often have to piece together classes from different universities just to pay rent. (Forget about a mortgage.) They usually have no health insurance or other benefits, and the union support is often iffy. There is no academic freedom for these folks. They say something the department chair doesn't like and they are out on their asses. Yes, they can pull in the union, if there is one, but it rarely works.

And yet, in order to keep up with their fields, these folks have to do some kind of research (usually without a lot of funding) and have to attend conferences (usually without funding, unless the institution is really nice about it.)

Part-timers can also be ABD--that is, "all but dissertation", people who have gotten through their qualifying exams but are still writing their dissertations. If they are teaching at a number of schools to pay rent, groceries, etc., that dissertation could take a good long time to get finished. In fact, I've seen some very bright people take whole decades to finish a disseration because their teaching load was so high.

There was actually an article in the NYTimes about ABDs becoming the new low-paid labor of academia. Tenure is becoming harder and harder to get, and harder and harder to justify.

But then, I was a "college drop-out" right? :)

[rateyes]

139. Academic freedom...

just doesn't ring a bell for you, does it? Good grief. Excellent teachers will always be employed, tenured or not. However, without tenure, academic freedom is in jeopardy.

You really must have had some shitty professors, if you ever went to school. Tenure weeds out those shitty professors. It's a good thing.

[Elspeth]

149. "Tenure weeds out those shitty professors." (Actually it doesn't)

I've watched some tenure battles where the shitty professor stayed and the decent one didn't get tenure. Happens all the time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

151. Sure it does.

Not in this case, but the whole purpose of review is to weed out the shitty ones.

"'ve watched some tenure battles where the shitty professor stayed and the decent one didn't get tenure."

Where was this?

[Elspeth]

156. That is naive. Please tell your daughter to be careful.

Tenure battles are like the final stage of joining a country club. She needs to keep her head low and not rock the boat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

158. Oh, I'm sure she won't have a problem.

A university's not going to put somebody through a five year tenure track position and then not give them tenure for no good reason.

That's just stupid.

[Elspeth]

162. Not true. But I won't push this one.

I hope your daughter is successful.

[Elspeth]

72. "Novartis gave 50 Million to the University of California at Berkeley for research."

"Certainly won't be much of a surprise if now the UC Berkeley researchers somehow never get around to considering the impact of pesticides or GMO's on cancer."

Bingo.

And thank you.

Down here, our UC is in bed with big Pharma.

[Igel]

115. Maybe yours.

In the '90s I knew researchers from various depts. at UCLA.

Didn't find that they were as corruptible as everybody makes them out to be. Sometimes they sought money for what they already believed; if that's corruption, the dictionaries need to revise their definitions.

Sometimes they took money for research and reported back negative results. Funders weren't happy, you'd think. But often the funders didn't care, they asked a question and getting 'no' as the answer was taken as 'this is a dead end, look elsewhere, just be glad you didn't waste money'. But one thing I never really saw was the grants office responding with a "we're not going to help you with this because over here in a different school some funder might object."

I don't see any reason to slander them.

Come to think of it--while I can't vouch for the current crop of administrators--the folk running the university were fairly ethical and got a pretty bad rap in the halls of student government and the Bruin. Whenever a large donation was proposed in '94-97 (the only years I can speak for) the administrators usually asked the question, "Is it ethical and moral to accept this money?" Only if they said yes, did students like me got to ask the question and examine the answer.

[truedelphi]

188. I have noticed that UCLA has more researchers that I have talked to

Without feeling that maybe their research had been tainted. Whereas I can't say taht about SRI (Stanford Reesearch Institute)

I imagine that mindsets are specific to certain funders and certain institutions, and of course certain individuals.

For instance, some of the oil companies really have alternate energy divisions that are going more or less all out to solve the problems related to energy -whereas others are simply interested in replacing one non-renewable (oil) with another (hydrogen fuel cell)

[DrunkenMaster]

23. Cushy jobs?

Do you even know who Finkelstein is? Have you been inside a University classroom in the last five years? ten?

My god, your post is ignorant.

[Elspeth]

38. Actually, I have been in a university classroom in the past 5 years. Have you?

And what do you know about Finklestein?

[shance]

92. Could you prove it Elspeth?

If you can't, then for all we know, you're simply making it up.

<sigh>

one of the actual problems of the computer world

[Elspeth]

99. What would serve as proof?

Seriously.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. An intelligent post?

Something college level, perhaps?

[Elspeth]

113. And what might that be? (Or was that not a real question?)

You're a slippery one, hooligan. I'll grant you that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. We'll know it when we see it.

Something that's not disingenuous. Something that doesn't involve dodging questions, straw men, red herrings, false accusations, correcting typos in place of an argument, loony conspiracy theories, failing to back up statements, that sort of thing.

[Elspeth]

128. Then you don't many academics

It's interesting to watch them at conferences. The better ones know their limitations and the limitations of their theories/studies. Others, however, are no better than snake oil salesmen. You need to really be able to take apart their logic, especially in the humanities. And if you call them on something they've gotten wrong, they do what DUers do: cast aspersions, accuse, get their friends to gang up on you.

Academics are just people. Some are really great humans. Others, well...let's just say that society would be better off if they worked at Wal-Mart.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. Wrong again.

My daughter's coming up for tenure this fall.

"It's interesting to watch them at conferences."

How so?

"The better ones know their limitations and the limitations of their theories/studies."

What conferences do you attend, and which academics don't know the limitations of their studies? How about a specific example?

"And if you call them on something they've gotten wrong, they do what DUers do: cast aspersions, accuse, get their friends to gang up on you."

In all the seminars I've ever attended, I've never known this to be the case. If you ask a valid question, you'll get a valid answer. I suppose if you presented some sort of loony conspiracy theory you'd get laughed at, but then again you'd have it coming.

[Elspeth]

148. What's your daughter's field?

Education?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

150. Nope.

I suspect she could be the only person up for tenure this fall in her particular field, so in the interests of confidentiality I'll decline to answer that.

Why are you interested?

[DrunkenMaster]

165. Society WOuld Be Better Off

if they worked at Wal-Mart? Interesting...that says bunches about you.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Elspeth]

45. What would you call it? The average high school teachers teaches more hours and has more stress.

Professors have very little personal responsibility towards students (other than being somewhat basically ethical) and a great many privileges.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. As a retired high school teacher I disagree.

I didn't need to go through the hell of grad school, for example, to get my job. Nor was I expected to publish.

By the way, how would you know if you've never been either?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Malikshah]

50. That is a load of hogwash. A great steaming bucket of it.

Willful ignorance is not an excuse.

[Wilber_Stool]

137. God I love this ignore button.....n/t

[The Stranger]

16. Holy fuck.

Did I read that post correctly? Why shouldn't the average person care about free speech, the free exchange of ideas, an open society, open education, enlightenment, true freedom?

Holy fuck. Did I read that correctly?

[Elspeth]

18. The average person doesn't care about coddled, tenured elitists

The Circuit City thread is more about an open society than the university is.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Elspeth]

28. What exactly don't I know about?

Spell it out.

[DrunkenMaster]

26. you sure have a firm grasp on the importance

of academic freedom.

Ask yourself a question -- why do you think college professor in Iraq have such a high chance of being murdered? Why does Iran lock up their professors and intellectuals? Why does David Horowitz and Lynn Cheney attack American academics?

Yeah, it must be because they are all "coddled".

[Elspeth]

29. No one's being killed here.

And they probably won't be. So much of academics is co-opted already, mostly due to how they are funded.

[DrunkenMaster]

32. you have no clue what you are talking about

Who "funded" Finkelstein? Got facts? Didn't think so.

[Elspeth]

35. Actually, poly sci grants come from a lot of places

It would be interesting to see who funded him.

[DrunkenMaster]

39. go look it up

and tell us what you find.

This is a new low for DU, by the way. Congratulations.

[Elspeth]

42. Oh come on. A new low? We haven't even hit breastfeeding or gay sex in restrooms.

At least not yet.

[Selatius]

91. Man, you've been missing out on those two issues.

As far as academic freedom goes, you or many ordinary folks out on the street may not care about academic freedom, but if you're not going to fight for freedom there, where do you draw the line? If Finkelstein is so compromised and the education system is so compromised, why not give up? Is that what you're saying?

[Elspeth]

101. Not give up, but work for constructive change, and not leave it to the Horowitz types

They will just destroy pieces of it and put their own regime in place.

[Selatius]

104. They've pretty much destroyed most of what I cherished anyway, but at this point...

if what I believe in is going down in flames, I just want to pick a fight, just draw a line somewhere and fight it out to the end. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't think we should simply do nothing as far as what is happening inside academia. It may be corrupted, but at one time it was a hotbed of progressivism, and it still is in many places. They've turned college life into little more than glorified job training to mass produce passive workers and consumers instead of active citizens.

[Elspeth]

108. I know, and I'm with you on lamenting its demise.

I wonder sometimes if Horowitz and his ilk are not just there to be the wrecking crew, sort of like Bolton is to the UN.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. That contradicts your original reply to this thread.

[Elspeth]

175. Not necessarily.

But I think you've taken off by now.

[Igel]

126. It would be.

I looked at his CV from last winter. A lot of faculty I know includes grants on their CVs. Either he doesn't, or he hasn't had any.

Then again, a fair number of universities give annual grants to non-tenured faculty, in addition to start-up and travel funds, so he may not have needed any.

[shance]

75. You mean Dershowitz?

n/t

[rateyes]

83. You really need to go back to school and get

an education. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Now, how about answering my question with a declarative, rather than an interrogative.

[Elspeth]

116. And what kind of school would you recommend to change my opinion on tenure and funding?

And to invalidate the asking of my initial question which was, "Why should the average person care about the firing of a tenured professor?"

People get fired everyday. Most Americans aren't in unions, aren't tenured, have no job protection. Why should they feel sorry for the occasional prof that gets fired, when most of the tenured ones are clearly employed, and at salaries high enough to live in nicer areas than the average American?

[rateyes]

130. How about DePaul....

if you could get in? Here's why you should care about this. Without academic freedom, we might as well not have universities. This issue is not so much aboutj "one professor." It's about maintaining academic freedom.

Now, as far as funding---why don't you enlighten us on your "views" of funding schools like DePaul. Here's a hint for you: It's a Catholic University. (Private) It's a university run by a BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

Research grants are used to fund RESEARCH. They are not used to pay the light bill, or to pay the salaries of professors in the CLA's of universities, etc.

Tenured professors at colleges and universities spend YEARS (and a helluva lot of money, blood, sweat and tears) getting the required education. This includes Masters and PhD programs, writing disserations, etc. After that, IF they are good enough and fortunate enough to be hired at an institution of higher learning, they spend several more YEARS, working very hard, teaching, publishing, serving in other capacities, etc....and, at LOWER SALARIES than a lot of tenured high school teachers make. Once they are tenured, then salaries tend to go up...the reward for jobs well done.

It's earned.

Now, again, as far as this specific case is concerned, the story is about academic freedom, which, if you ever go to college or have children who go to college, you want to make damned sure their professors have. Otherwise, the "education" they receive will be diluted, and the degree they earn won't be worth the paper on which it is printed.

Now, tell us, Elspeth---what are YOUR educational credentials that give you such great insight into how the academy functions?

[Elspeth]

157. Why De Paul?

Just curious at your choice.

[rateyes]

177. You asked "what kind" of university...

I said DePaul because it's the school in the story.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrunkenMaster]

20. you are 100% correct!

You shouldn't be concerned about it at all -- just go about your life and pretend nothing is happening....

[Elspeth]

27. Tell why I should care. Did Finklestein and his ilk stop any innocent deaths ?

Or are they just posturing and pontificating, concerned only about their own research money and publications?

Give me Rachel Corrie any day over these bloated professors.

[DrunkenMaster]

30. Rachel Corrie would not have existed

without her teachers.

What a waste.

[Elspeth]

33. She had parents and other influences. But you didn't answer my question.

Go to it. I'm waiting.

[shance]

81. We all see your agenda in trying to shut down the thread Elspeth. Please stop.

If you have a problem with the thread then please go start your own.

Thanks.

[Elspeth]

90. Actually, unless there have been alerts, which I doubt, my comments have bumped this thread

And furthered the cause of Dr. Finklestein and, perhaps, academic freedom.

But I digress....

You were saying?

[rateyes]

146. How about you answer our questions, for once?

Didn't think you would.

[Elspeth]

171. What question do you want answered?

Whose answer could actually be verified.

[rateyes]

178. So, what number is that tactic...

in your list?

You've been asked several times about your educational experience. Guess what? You haven't answered. You keep asking for answers, but you don't want to provide any.

And, why would I need to "verify" your answers? Are you planning on lying to me? Are you a liar, elspeth?

[shance]

55. Beautifully put DM*** So true.

Thank you.

[DrunkenMaster]

37. you don't even understand

how ignorant, dangerous and pathetic your position is. My god.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Well with an attitude like that...

it's probably a good thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. That's not what tenure is

It is a guarantee that political influences do not dicatate to teachers and tell them what to teach or force their employers to fire them.

Tenure means that if you get mad at your child's teacher, you can't then run for school board and get that teacher fired.

Tenured teachers can be fired for incompetence or immoral / criminal acts. Tenure is not job security for life.

Many teachers (including me) would not teach in a system that did NOT award tenure.

[Elspeth]

43. FInally a response that makes sense.

Thank you.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

49. Maybe the average person might like themselves or their children to get a quality education

Or maybe not. Maybe the average person is a pig-ignorant cretin who is jealous of anybody who manages to eek out a living by thinking. Thinking, by the way, is a pursuit the average person might want to consider taking up.

[Elspeth]

54. What is not deep about questioning a well-funded institution that does not seem to serve the public

it claims to serve?

Taxpayer dollars go in, but taxpayers are rarely served.

Corporate dollars go in and corporations are served. If a $7/hr grad student works in a lab (for university credit and requirements), and that lab is funded by a private corporation, the grad student is muzzled by agreements the university makes with corporation. Where is your freedom of speech?

[LeftyMom]

82. Than criticize those sort of arrangements.

You didn't do that, you attacked tenure, which is generally a right-wing tactic.

[Elspeth]

167. Of course I attacked tenure. Once the public trust is gone, the protection should be gone.

It becomes a business like anything else.

And if it is a right wing tactic to attack tenure, it is only about attacking tenure for left wingers. In the end what Horowitz wants is a TENURED right wing. And wouldn't that be a joy to have. Think about it.

[LeftyMom]

176. What makes you think the public trust is gone?

I'm a student. I don't see it.

There are a few fields where the commercialization of research is an issue and those need to be addressed, but for the most part it's still a solid system.

[moc]

131. "grad student is muzzled by agreements the university makes with corporation"

WTF? What kind of conspiracy land do you live in?

(As for my creds, I'm a tenured professor at a major university from a family of academics with a long history of both private and federal funding of my research. So, I've been around this stuff a long long time.)

Sorry, but your comment is just looney. I've never known a single grad student "muzzled".

[Sequoia]

61. Because......

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Tesha]

187. You know, your reply just pushed me over the edge.

I've decided that it's certain: most DUers don't know
shit from Shinola when it comes to civil liberties and
civil rights and what really matters.

Tesha

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. So if Finkelstein decided that Dershowitz was a propagandist,

it would be okay for Finkelstein to demand that Dershowitz's law firm fire him. Right?

Cause that's what this is about. One citizen attacking another and causing him to lose his job. Over a difference of opinion.

This just makes me ill.

[shance]

66. Not a difference of opinion PTB, its about slander and lies on the part of a well funded campaign

by Dershowitz and his wealthy friends.

Its essentially a Davy and Goliath situation, where power is being used and abused because quite simply, it can be by individuals like Dershowitz and Horowitz.

That is unless others like you and me say no.

I saw your thread about Circuit City.

I wonder. Are you saying it's only okay to defend your rights if you are abused in some manner, and yet you say essentially screw you to Finklestein and those like him to teach what they have thoroughly researched, not to mention personally and painfully experienced themselves, not to mention the fact he is actually making a tremendously important and positive difference?

Mind you having someone look at a receipt in your bag is not nearly as traumatic as losing your job, having your financial security and your career jeopardized and perhaps ruined by dishonest, immoral factions?

The bully/coward Dershowitz has exploited his unearned prestige and morally challenged legal "expertise" for years, from Claus Von Bulow to OJ Simpson to today.

He is one of those who uses powerful positions granted to him for less than positive or redeeming reasons shall we say. That is of course why he finds Finklestein such a problem.

In addition the access, desire and ability is there for individuals like Dershowitz's who have been beating up researchers like Finklestein (a parent of Dr. Finklesteins was killed in the Holocaust and Dershowitz has the audacity to say Finklestein is making up his researched information) the fact finders and those decent members of society who have a different opinion than his for years.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. You must have misunderstood what I said about Finkelstein

I am a teacher. This repulses me to the core. I have a HUGE problem with the fact that an attorney can waltz in and cause a college professor to lose his job. So no, I am definitely NOT siding with Dershowitz on this one. No way.

[shance]

89. I don't think I did. I think your comparisons are far too simplistic PTB.

Not to mention incorrect - you fail to consider the monetary corrupt influences that are creating this campaign against Finklestein.

If you truly are a teacher, I would think you would understand this monetary indifference and leverage abuse better PTB.

[qdemn7]

48. Tough shit.....

A guarantee of a lifetime job for ANYONE is a bad idea. Professors, Judges, Supreme Court Justices. You can pratt all you want about academic freedom, but I bet your ass if a Constitutional Amendment was proposed that limited Federal Justices (Thomas, Scalia) to a term of 25 years, people here would be in favor of that 10-1.

[The Stranger]

57. I can't believe my fucking eyes.

The posts here -- they boggle the mind -- unless there really are David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz sympathizers here on these boards. And pitting it as a faux-common person response, "No one has life tenure on the assembly line" is just a ruse.

[Elspeth]

59. Actually, I think qdemn is right on target

In an age when few people will work for a single employer until 65, it's understandable that tenured jobs look more and more elitist and indulgent, even when and if they are appropriate.

[The Stranger]

60. Right, now this is all about class and elites -- give me a fucking break.

If you support David Horowitz and Dershowitz, just say so.

[Elspeth]

63. Tactic #4: Accuse poster of being right wing zealot

Isn't it all about the class war?

Isn't that what we fight here at DU?

Aren't we concerned that the rich are getting obscenely rich and that the middle class is becoming the working poor?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. It certainly sounds like David Horowitz's rhetoric.

Are you a fan?

[Elspeth]

68. Tactic #4: Accuse poster of being right wing zealot

Without any evidence.

Horowitz is like every other person or organization that wants to dictate academic thought.

I personally think that every bit of corporate, private and compromised money needs to be out of the system. Funding should be guaranteed only by the state with a strict hands off policy in terms of guiding research philosophy. All viewpoints should be entertained.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. What do you mean without any evidence?

You share the same rhetoric.

You're dodging the question again, btw.

[Elspeth]

87. "Share the same rhetoric"? Really? Which rhetoric is that?

(Though I have to admit that I don't think you'd recognize rhetorical similitude if it bit you in the ass.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. anti-tenure rhetoric.

:shrug:

[Elspeth]

94. You mean I share an opinion. That's interesting.

So, if I am a Democrat who say, owns a gun and believes in gun rights, am I not a good Democrat because I share this one opinion with a Republican? Must I be in complete lockstep or be accused of being a right wing traitor?

That does not bode well for our party. Some dissent is a healthy thing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Yeah.

But it's a particularly ill-thought out, silly opinion. So that's why we're curious if you're a fan of his work.

"So, if I am a Democrat who say, owns a gun and believes in gun rights, am I not a good Democrat because I share this one opinion with a Republican? Must I be in complete lockstep or be accused of being a right wing traitor?

That does not bode well for our party. Some dissent is a healthy thing."

Reductio ad absurdum.

Nobody's saying you're not a good democrat. We're just wondering if you're a fan of Horowitz.

Why not just answer the question? Or any of the questions you've been asked? Chicken?

[Elspeth]

133. What opinion in particular is silly and not thought out, in your humble (well thought out) opinion?

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

135. Yes.

And, again, it's the consensus opinion of damn near everybody.

:D

[The Stranger]

95. The "tactic" if there is one, is suddenly to claim to have been accused of being "right wing zealot"

But Dershowitz is not anywhere near "right wing," and if you agree with his position here just be honest about it.

[Elspeth]

106. The tactic is to accuse while pretending not to accuse, then to accuse the accused of

inventing an accusation as a way to accuse the accuser unfairly.

Yeah, read it a few times. It makes sense.

[Igel]

138. A lot of faculty--even tenured--wind up moving around a bit.

My wife's department should be fairly representative. Most of the people are either trying to find a different job or came here from a long-term job. Some worked in industry. Some in academia, and hated their departments (or wanted to be medium-sized fish in a very small pond).

I've known very few professors to retire without having worked at half a dozen institutions, without having had to do some serious retooling for their careers, and without spending a lot of time sweating, putting in 60+ hour weeks.

In fact, my wife has this problem that she's only just faced. She's expected to work full time, year-round. But her salary is officially only for 9 months. If she gets her summer 9ths paid, great ... more money. But if she doesn't, she's still expected to put in the time in research and course development. It's not stated, but when you look at the amount of teaching, administrative stuff, and research that can be done working 40 hours/week for 9 months (with spring break, winter break, etc., taken off) ... there's no way that comes up to the level needed for tenure.

Tenure's appropriate if the function of a university is to train researchers and produce knowledge. It's not appropriate, IMO, if the purpose of the university is to train workers.

[Elspeth]

147. Sadly, your wife's situation is all too common.

Universities are becoming training "factories". Sometimes, I think community college teaching is going to be the desired academic position of the future. The pressure to publish is minimal (if at all), you are paid by contract, and if you teach in the summer, they have to pay you for the summer, and the departmental politics are not as horrific.

[alarimer]

181. You totally do not get it

It IS all about academic freedom. What kind of educational system would we have if professors were not free (as in the tenure system) to speak and write and do research as they see fit? Anyone could make up anything and get them fired for no reason. Obviously it does happen some anyway as in this case.

It is NOT a guaranteed lifetime job in any case. There are many infractions that can get professors fired. Sexual harassment, the commission of crimes, etc. It is not a get out of jail free card.

[ananda]

58. How did they get him to go amicably?

Why didn't he fight back?

I don't get it.

[bemildred]

64. A good question.

I don't expect we will find out for some time yet.

[shance]

69. He's been fighting for the truth for years. Like so many others.

If you are new to this, do yourself a favor and google, research and learn more.

Then you will better understand.

[cali]

78. Well, I'm not new to it

and I think he's as much of a huckster as the people he's calling hucksters. Is there a Holocaust industry? I wouldn't put it that way, but sure, in the same sense that there's a tabacco suit industry. Doesn't mean that the fight for justice isn't part of the mix.

Finklestein uses some of the most incendiary language you can imagine, and has the charming tendency of calling his opponents Nazis or Shylocks or whatever. For those reasons, he's much lauded by hate groups. He could make the same points without the constant ad hominems and personal attacks. Unfortunately, it obscures whatever scholarship is there. And oh, he waves Raul Hilberg around like a flag.

Having said that, I find Finklestein's treatment at DePaul disgusting, and as for Dershowitz, well, the less said the better.

[shance]

85. Why cali - what an unexpected surprise.........

ohh not really.

Always such a joy to see you here at DU.

I always love your positive, uplifting and incredibly accurate posts.

Like the one you just posted!

Oh by the way, before you contribute more accusations, this time about Finklestein, why dont you humor us and try backing up your attacks with a little referencing?

We would so appreciate it.

[cali]

97. yeah, I bet you would.

How to Convince Germans that Every Jew is a Shylock

Night of the Long Knives

Jews mourn Hitler's death

Forsooth! Shylock,/Is it thine name I hear/ringing/in my ear?

Those are the names of articles on his Website. Don't get me wrong, I think Finklestein does have valuble things to say, but he couches it in over the top rhetoric that persuades few.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=205

[BeHereNow]

102. ROTFLMAO...

Hey Shance...:thumbsup: :hi: :hug: :yourock: :yourock:

[shance]

168. Always a pleasure to see BHN****

Backatcha darlin!!

:toast:

[LeftishBrit]

185. Try Finkelstein's own website for starters!

I agree with Cali, both about the dodgy nature of many of Finkelstein's writings, especially about the 'Holocaust industry', and about the seemingly dodgy way in which things were conducted at DePaul.

Of course, you don't need to be at DePaul or have controversial views on some big national or international political issue to risk getting a hard time. All you have to do is tread on the toes of a senior professor with vindictive tendencies. Senior professors with vindictive tendencies are not routine in academia, but they exist, and over the years I have come across a few choice cases (e.g. the external examiner who attempted to fail a student's doctoral thesis simply because the student's supervisor had once failed one of his students).

[leftchick]

74. he fought back hard

as hard as one man against a whole smear team can.

[me b zola]

79. Damn. I was afraid that this was about Finkelstein

I knew that Finkelstein was being hounded and harassed and I was hoping that there would be a different outcome.

I first became aware of Finkelstein's work from Democracy Now!(which I became aware of from DU). Finkelstein opened my eyes to many of the issues re I/P and we need more scholars like him, not less.

This is horrible news for academia in the US.

[BeHereNow]

103. Yep, Yep and Yep. Fish rotting from the head and all.

It's times like these that make one seriously
consider moving to an educated country.

The similarities between this country and the early
days of Hitler's Germany are extremely disturbing.

BHN

[pnorman]

93. I had earmarked this debate for later reading:

Norman Finkelstein & Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami Debate: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

I'll get to it later today. I'm particularly sensitive to, and thereby well aware of, the ant-Semitism that's found in some of these Israel-Palestine discussions. But I'm also well aware of the several decades of VISCERAL and MURDEROUS anti-Semitism, that was an integral part of the history of today's far-right. A few still claim to be "leftist" --- ie: from the old Social Democratic Federation tradition. But those like David Horowitz ("Leninists with reversed polarity") are unabashedly far right.

pnorman

[cali]

111. How about naming all the other Professors

who have been run off campuses? After all, your title is "Another Professor bullied off campus...."

Of course, you'd never use hyperbole. Not you.

[truebrit71]

140. Dershowitz is a fucking scumbag douchebag and needs to STFU...

...and go back to defending fucking scumbag douchebag clients... :grr:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. He Defended Bill Clinton

When he wrote his tome, "Sexual McCarthyism"....

[truebrit71]

145. He also defended O.J. Simpson....I fail to see your point...

...Alan Douche-a-witz has made a hard right turn recently...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

152. No Point-Just Context

He wrote a book in defense of Clinton and against the Republicans using accusations of illict sex to silence their opponents...

It's a rather good read... I got it for Christmas eight or nine years ago...

[truebrit71]

161. I read it too....a shame to see how much of a whore he has become..

...

[EFerrari]

142. Is it facism yet? k&r

[DrunkenMaster]

153. Without a Doubt

This has to be one of the most disturbing threads I have ever read at DU. When posters at "Democratic" Underground come out against academic freedom, we're f**ked.

On Edit: If "Elspeth" has any proof of "shady funding" of Finkelstein, I'll eat my f**king hat.

[Elspeth]

154. Who came out against academic freedom?

Really. Who did?

I came out against tenure because I don't see academics as being free anymore. It's co-opted by corporate, private and MIC funding streams.

I'd love to see real academic freedom. I don't think I'll see it again in my lifetime.

[The Stranger]

159. Then it would follow that you would support academics to be more free than less.

And tenure was ignored here in the face of attacks by corporate and privately funded attacks.

Academic freedom lost.

Yet, still, somehow you attack the person your purported beliefs would be required adamantly to defend -- the professor fired because of his views and in the face of attacks by "corporate, private and MIC funding streams."

Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that something else is at work here and there is another, unstated reason why you are attacking the professor.

[Elspeth]

164. Tinfoil hat?

Remember, I'm the one who couldn't get into college or dropped out of college, or something.

:evilgrin:

[DrunkenMaster]

163. I Challenge You

You made the claim that Finkelstein's academic freedom doesn't deserve concern "like Rachel Corrie" (which is just crap on the face of it -- are you even aware the two are dedicated to the same f**king cause?!)due to the "fact" that he is financed by grants from organizations you deem unworthy and because of this he is an academic "elite" who should be ignored. All of this has remained unproven.

You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that Finkestein or his academic post were finianced by anything other than the University. In fact, you've worked hard to avoid proving that statement, I suspect because you can't.

Prove it. If Norm Finkelstein is working at the behest of some shady government, corporation, cabal or conspiracy it should be fairly easy for you to prove it.

Please, produce something like a primary source or admit you can't. I know where I'll place my bet. Otherwise, all your yammering about the "academic elite" is nothing better than David Horowitz's mindless drooling.

[Elspeth]

166. I think the world of Rachel Corrie. She put herself in harm's way and died for her beliefs.

In comparison, Finklestein threw verbal grenades from a protected position. And he did it in such a way that alienated many from the cause. Look at some of cali's links for starters.

Someone who lives and dies on the front lines trumps someone running his mouth, protected by an academic freedom that he isn't serving particularly well.

[The Stranger]

155. Well, that settles it at least.

We're fucked.

[shance]

169. Isn't that the truth!!

n/t

[ZombieNixon]

172. The Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences at DePaul is

supposedly a good friend of Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein was voted up for tenure by both committees, 9-3 by one (I believe) and unanimously by the other. The decision was subsequently overturned by the LA&S Dean.

As a student worker/staff member at DePaul, I received a copy of the release documenting the statements made by Finkelstein and DePaul. Though they both praise and thank each other, the underlying issues of the dispute do not seem to have been resolved. The "agreement" seems like so much bullshit to me, but I and the rest of the student body do not know what concessions and deals were made in order to reach it. Personally, I think Finkelstein was just tired at that point; he's (and his student supporters) have been fighting this for six months, and, honestly, I can't blame him for being exhausted.

[Elspeth]

173. Could you post some links?

Thanks.

[ZombieNixon]

174. Later. I have to run.

[entanglement]

180. I wish Prof. Finkelstein good luck - it's a sad day for academic freedom

Shame on DePaul for giving in to scum like Horowitz.

[Nikki Stone1]

183. Yes, it is a sad day.

I wish there were more attention paid to this in the mainstream.