« Palling around with terrorists in S.C. | Main | Isn't worship of the private sector growing untenable? »
Thursday, 09 October 2008
Why Ayers should be persona non grata
Phillip, whom I respect as a constructive and thoughtful contributor to this blog, raises the issue of academic freedom in connection with Bill Ayers and USC:
Like it or not, for many years now Ayers has been recognized as an authority in the field of public education, and his academic standing as professor at the University of Chicago attests to that. That's the reality as it exists today. If USC is to be a place where academic freedom exists, where students are able to be exposed to a wide variety of competing ideas, the School of Education would be remiss in not at least including Ayers' writings as part of their curriculum. You can see from the website I cited that the conflicting issues raised by Ayers' presence or the study of his work were indeed freely "ayred." (sorry, couldn't resist that one.)
Anyway, as someone who has a strong record of supporting public education in this state, it would seem that you would want our USC students to have the widest knowledge possible in that field, as they grapple with the challenges they will face in that terrain.
It's not up to USC to make political/law enforcement judgments above and beyond what our courts and domestic institutions have arrived at. The University's only role is to judge the academic worth of what a scholar has to offer. There are no outstanding criminal charges against Ayers; beyond that, if he is good enough to be a tenured professor at U of C, you can (to borrow another 60's phrase) bet your sweet bippy that he's good enough to give a visiting lecture or two at USC. In those situations, if a student wants to walk out, or picket, that is also absolutely appropriate and their right to do so.
Here's the thing about that: William Ayers has placed himself beyond such bourgeois considerations. Academic piety is insufficient to excuse the man who, in an interview published in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 (yes, that date is correct), said "'I don't regret setting bombs. 'I feel we didn't do enough.'' In the same interview, he said he did not recall having said in 1970, explaining the Weatherman philosophy, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at." But he acknowledged, "it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did.'' He further explained that ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''
In my book, that makes him persona non grata. The private sector can do what it will, but NO taxpayer-supported institution should employ him for any reason, even temporarily, even in an arms-length relationship. It should be the duty of a public institution to divest itself of any such involvement, however tenuous.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 11:49 AM in Character, Feedback, History, Marketplace of ideas, South Carolina
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef0105357697c4970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Ayers should be persona non grata:
» Tramadol. from Tramadol tablets.
Tramadol with saturday delivery. Buy tramadol. Tramadol. What is tramadol. Cheapest tramadol available online. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 18, 2009 10:15:36 AM
» Soma addiction and lying. from Drug soma cause any sexual side effects.
Soma. [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 22, 2009 2:08:39 PM
Comments
Sorry Brad, I disagree. His past, though regretable, should not prevent him from participating in the ongoing activities of this country. The Vietnam war was so reprehensible I'm willing to cut people some slack if their activities were focused on helping to end that atrocity. Folks that went to Canada should be regarded as heros. Although I don't regard Ayers as a hero his actions are understandable. Since he is a free man and not currently under investigation for any reason his standing in the community is valid for the stated purpose USC employed him.
Posted by: bud | Oct 9, 2008 12:12:39 PM
I absolutely agree.
There are a bunch more just like Ayers, sharing the same sick communist philosophy, who just never planned or committed any bombings, working on campuses and in foundations and programs funded with tax money. They need to be cut off, too.
Bill Ayers is not the only communist working in Barack Obama's campaign. Barack's entire set of friends and associates are just like Bill Ayers.
Barack Obama is not the first hard-core socialist to run for President, either.
Ralph Nader ran his 2004 campaign out the office of the Communist Party USA in New York.
Lyndon LaRouche, the national socialist, ran in 1984 and spoke at the Democratic National Convention.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 9, 2008 12:19:58 PM
Brad, it appears I had Ayers' school wrong, it it actually University of Illinois at Chicago, not sure if he also teaches at U of Chicago or not. But Illinois at Chicago most certainly is a public, taxpayer-funded institution.
Your argument is based mostly, it seems, on what Ayers has SAID. If I understand correctly, he was never convicted, and there are not any outstanding criminal charges against him. Ayers has said that that "no regrets" comment has been taken out of context, but let's assume he meant it as you take it.
Those are still just words, no matter how outrageous. As far as I know freedom of speech still exists in this country. (Cheney's still working on that one, he has a few months left.) Ayers has not shown any indication of criminal conduct for many many years now. How far would you be willing to go to say that a taxpayer-supported university should hire or not hire someone on the basis of controversial or outrageous statements they have made? Where do you draw the line?
For example, USC is chock-full of professors whose political views would be absolutely abhorrent to many of your readers, maybe to you, too. Should they be fired from the university because of the things they might have said at one point or another?
If you follow your line of thinking all the way to its conclusion, academic freedom at any public university would be severely compromised. Why should students who may, for example, not be able to afford private university tuition be penalized in the variety of ideas and thinking to which they are exposed?
This is a very slippery slope you are on, in terms of very fundamental American ideas about freedom of words, and academic freedom. These are the very things that make America unique in the world, some of the facets of our society that are the most admired worldwide.
Remember, too, Brad...university students are adults. They are old enough to fight in wars, old enough to drink, old enough to vote. They are old enough to be exposed to all ideas, no matter how noxious you and I may find them, and to form their own opinions.
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 9, 2008 12:26:11 PM
bud, when you say, "his past, thought regrettable," you are ignoring the one most salient, unavoidable fact that is staring you in the face: Bill Ayers DOES NOT REGRET IT.
And I just don't know what to say to anyone who believes that "the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972" are "understandable." It's just beyond me.
Oh, and by the way: Ayers doesn't actually claim to have been personally involved in all three of those incidents. He just WANTS to be associated with them.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Oct 9, 2008 12:28:10 PM
oops, college students under 21, forget that last little bit about "old enough to drink."
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 9, 2008 12:32:28 PM
And Phillip (our comments crossed paths), we're not talking about objectionable opinions here. We're talking about his proud association with acts of terrorism. Do you not see the difference? It's the difference between SDS and Weatherman, between sentiment and action.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Oct 9, 2008 12:34:40 PM
Look, some folks would say that the terrorist activities of Menachem Begin and Irgun were "understandable," I don't know if I could agree with that but saying so alone cannot disqualify someone from being engaged by a public academic institution if their academic credentials are judged impeccable or compelling.
And hey, I'm sure a number of faculty members at South Carolina public institutions of higher learning would say our involvement in the Vietnam War itself was "understandable." That is just as "beyond me" as you and I both find Ayers' comments to be. But again, it would be wrong of me to expect USC or Clemson to fire or not hire that person on the basis of their (to me) incomprehensible view of the Vietnam War if their academic credentials meet the standards of the university.
I really don't get your view of academic freedom being a "bourgeois consideration."
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 9, 2008 12:43:58 PM
Hey Brad, who's watching ACORN in SC?
Posted by: David | Oct 9, 2008 12:49:26 PM
I used "bourgeois" for ironic effect, but also to dismiss a sentiment that sounds fine in the drawing room amid the teacups and the doilies, but is pretty empty at the site of a bombing.
And again, we're touching on that great divide in our political culture -- the one that, postpartisan as both may be, obviously divides many supporters of McCain and Obama -- you just can't legitimately equate support for the war that McCain suffered five years of torture in the service of with a violent generalized hatred of America and its institutions. The two things are as different as night and day, and are simply not moral equivalents. To say that "academic freedom" should allow for both without distinguishing between them is to render the concept illegitimate, and subject it to my ironic dismissal of it, under such circumstances, as a "bougeois" nicety.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Oct 9, 2008 1:00:05 PM
Brad, you have enthusiastically support our military opertions in Iraq. You saw it as an important act to rid the world of the tyrrant Sadam Hussein who slaughtered his own people. Well that slaughter was supported by the actions of Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld. Would you deny Rumsfeld the opportunity to lecture at USC?
Posted by: bud | Oct 9, 2008 1:05:02 PM
Do you actually, truly, all kidding aside, consider that to be a valid comparison?
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Oct 9, 2008 1:11:00 PM
The slaughter of innocent people is the slaughter of innocent people. Rumseld knowingly met with Saddam Hussein in order to sell him weapons to fight the Iranians. Those weapons were used against his own people. Rumsfeld has not indicated any remorse for the sale of those weapons. Both Rumsfeld and Ayers are free citizens and neither is currently under investigation for any crime. Seems like a lot of similarities to me.
Posted by: bud | Oct 9, 2008 1:43:17 PM
"but is pretty empty at the site of a bombing."
Only bombings in the US or bombing of Americans, apparently.
---
Lest that be taken as endorsing Ayers though, I agree that until he sincerely renounces his past endorsement of terrorist activities that he should be persona non grata.
Posted by: just.saying | Oct 9, 2008 2:03:26 PM
What Bill Ayers SAID was that, yes, he was guilty of helping his co-conspirators build bombs and plan attacks which killed innocent people, that he had no remorse, makes no apologies, and "should have bombed more".
He admits his GUILT to being an accessory to murder.
As I said in my first post, there are, unfortunately for America, a lot of people who share Ayers' demented socialist views, including envy and hatred of those who succeed under free market capitalism or any other meritocracy. Some of them post in this blog. Some work at USC and other colleges.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 9, 2008 2:18:30 PM
Brad, Ayers made the comments BEFORE the the jets were flown into the towers. (The quote was reported in the newspaper on 911.) His activities were atrocious, reckless and dangerous. I am not disputing that. My point is that you are distorting and as a result inflaming the situation.
I continue to be amazed at your complete unwillingness to address the problems associated with McCain yet you engage in the Ayers and Wright hysteria ad nauseam.
McCain's campaign posse confesses their strategy of turning the page on the economy in the midst of our economic 911 in favor of partisan gutter tactics.
McCain actively seeks the endorsement of a pastor who considers me, my wife and children to be members of a cult. He's going to be MY president?
McCain repeatedly claims Obama "wants to lose a war to win an election." Such rhetorical thuggery is the antithesis of the ideals of your UnParty to stand against such petulance.
You talk about taking a stand against partisanship but then turn a blind eye to McCain. I find this to be bias and at one time was surprised by this.
Posted by: Randy E | Oct 9, 2008 2:25:11 PM
"He admits his GUILT to being an accessory to murder"
So why haven't charges been filed and why aren't McCain and Palin threatening to lock him up in Gitmo?
I mean, seriously. Why aren't the same people who are for re-investigating lynching cases from decades ago (which I think we should if there is a new access to evidence) also for re-investigating home grown terrorism from decades past (which I think we should if we have evidence he is really guilty)?
Posted by: just saying | Oct 9, 2008 2:25:49 PM
Randy, I think we're beating our heads against a brick wall trying to figure out what makes Brad tick. On the one hand he claims to deplore partisanship. In that he is very strident. Yet, stangely he is silent on the McCain campaign's EXTREME partisanship during his campaign. As Mr. Spock would say, "illogical".
Posted by: bud | Oct 9, 2008 2:40:07 PM
I see several comments asking why Ayers hasn't had charges filed against him, but nothing acknowledging the fact that he DID have federal charges filed against him but they were dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct.
But if his comments on 9/11/01 weren't enough, he was interviewed in 2004 and asked, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" Ayers responded, ""I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."
Posted by: Tim | Oct 9, 2008 2:52:38 PM
'just saying', you really are showing your ignorance of Bill Ayers and the other terrorists involved in the Obama campaign. I detect someone to young to remember their crimes, and whose government education failed to educate them enough to make informed voting decisions.
Bill Ayers WAS INDICTED, along with his now wife, Bernadine Dorn, and a few others who survived being killed while planting their bombs.
These people had been on the fugitives list for a decade, aided by sympathizers.
A liberal judge dropped the charges because of some illegal wiretaps years before and some procedural issues. They probably could have been convicted on the other loads of admissible evidence, but socialist Democrats in Washington were opposed. President Clinton was pardoning other terrorists, friends of Hillary and Leon Panetta. So the prosecutors felt they should drop it.
PS: Another Weatherman, Michael Klonsky, left Chicago when he learned that Ayers was involved in planning murders. He wentn to Florida and hid out under an assumed name until things cooled off. Then he came back to Chicago, out of the closet during the Clinton years.
He is still a member of the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. He set up the Obama 2008 campaign web site and ran the official Obama blog site until found out in May.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 9, 2008 2:53:40 PM
Uh, YEAH he made those comments before the planes hit the buildings. If I'd said Sept. 12 or 13th, that would indicate it was after. But Sept. 11 just means that it was titanically ironic. One imagines that even he would have felt a little constrained making those comments AFTER 9/11. Maybe not, but let's give him credit for a LITTLE common sense. Since he didn't have that constraint, what we got was what he really thinks.
And no, I'm not seeing extreme partisanship on the part of either Obama or McCain. Palin, now that's another story. She's out there catering to the base that despises McCain. And I said what I thought about McCain's choosing her in my Sunday column.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Oct 9, 2008 3:00:03 PM
Lee, Thanks for the background. We can't all be older than dirt and remember it first hand :-) Do you have a good link that I could go look up the indictment at? (Google is globbed up with all kinds of crap on the campaign.)
If they were never found not-guilgy, why can't Palin/McCain say they promise to reopen the cases?
On to another question: What's your view on changing the law so that verified but illegal/misprocedural evidence can still be used in trials, but those obtaining it illegally/misprocedurally should be charged or fined themselves for the obtainment?
Posted by: just saying | Oct 9, 2008 3:07:28 PM
Phillip, it disappoints me you would think academic freedom carried any weight whatsoever in comparison to admitted treason.
And, Brad, persona non grata is not justice for Ayers. Exile would be the least severe treatment appropriate for him.
Posted by: p.m. | Oct 9, 2008 3:16:14 PM
"I'm not seeing extreme partisanship on the part of either Obama or McCain. Palin, now that's another story."
The candidate for the top spot doesn't carry responsibility for the attacks made by the chosen 2nd on the ticket?
Posted by: just saying | Oct 9, 2008 3:17:59 PM
Brad, you're just digging a deeper hole. Palin is McCain's hand-picked running mate. He chose her, no one else. If Palin is making partisan comments, that, by definition, falls on McCain. I haven't heard McCain condemn any of these partisan comments.
Posted by: bud | Oct 9, 2008 3:33:41 PM
just saying, Sorry I can't find the indictment with the limited time I have right now, but even the New York Times acknowledges "Federal riot and bombing conspiracy against him were dropped in 1974 due to illegal wiretaps and other prosecutorial misconduct..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html
Posted by: Tim | Oct 9, 2008 3:45:22 PM
