There is an N-word that ordinary, decent people understand is not to be used—and if they do, there will be incendiary consequences. I believe that Nazi is another N-word that should not be used for name calling, particularly as regards holocaust/Israel issues. It is viciously insulting. This intelligent biology professor should know that, and thus he chose that insult instead of some angry expression. He is certainly at the top of his field in science, but that does not give him entitlement to use insulting N-words toward Mr. Dershowitz, or anyone else whose political, social, ethnic, or other non-science perspectives he finds not to his liking. Behaviors have consequences. Yours too, professor. Would that others learn as well.

another observer, at 6:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

our times

The fact that the word “confront” is automatically treated as a threat speaks to the success of the fear-mongers of our times. At the educational level of these gentlemen, the verbal, intellectual nature of the word should have been the first and only implication. At it’s worst, “confront” means to challenge, which does not imply threat.

Patti Calandra, at 8:40 am EDT on May 29, 2007

how tiresome

Must opponents of anti-semitism and anti-arab prejudice slot every dispute into their worldview, however awkward the fit may be?

Dr. Trivers, according to the story, was not traveling to Harvard to confront Alan Dershowitz. It wasn’t even his idea. He was invited to deliver a speech at a department — a department far afield from Dershowitz’s law school.

I too am repelled by Trivers’ earlier smearing of Dershowitz as a “nazi-like apologist". But it’s not clear what the relevance is to Trivers’ invited speech. It should be noted that neither Harvard nor the Department of Evolutionary Biology has had the courage to defend the cancellation.

Dershowitz himself appears to be playing a rather disingenuous game here, implying (rather dubiously) that the letter threatens violence, but disclaiming any responsibility for the favorable outcome. If Dershowitz really opposes the cancellation of Dr. Trivers’ speech, perhaps he should be leafleting the department that canceled it.

TomH, at 9:30 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Just weird

Jon Stewart of “Comedy Central” recently did a routine about only Hitler having ever been Hitler.

Not GWB. Not Tony Blair. Not Hugo Chavez. Only Hitler had been Hitler.

So, who’s a Nazi? Well —

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

No one involved with this were Nazis. Pompous, over-the-top, prickly, eternally the victim, peevish, hair-trigger — but not Nazis.

L.L., at 10:00 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Bring it on

While I do tend to try and keep my “over the top” opines to myself, I do from time to time step over the line and “encourage” others to comment on my statements. In addition to being an educator, I have been a columnist for a local newspaper for two decades. I am never without an opinion on subjects for which I have passion and I believe that these two men have passion, albeit somewhat displaced at times, that they should meet and discuss these differences. Perhaps Alan is a bit of a baby about the whole thing, taking a threat seriously from a biologist is kind of like take a threat from a computer nerd seriously, it just isn’t going to happen. Settle down folks, we are too jittery, stop drinking so much coffee, cut back on the sweets, take your meds, and chill. Or, you could just bring it on for an old fashioned “smack down” at Harvard. Don’t you guys have more important things to do?

Martin, at 11:20 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Actions have consequences

Trivers could not give his talk at Harvard because he had mailed a threat to a Harvard professor. In his letter, Trivers was not clear about what kind of threatening action he would take. Actions have consequences. The fact that Dershowitz routinely forwards all threats to the Harvard police shouldn’t have surprised him.

kh, at 12:10 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

the N word (s)

It used to be that grown men of color were called boy. And worse. Finally everybody except rappers realize the N word should not be used AT ALL. No one dares to do the tiniest slur on The Prophet because His followers respond with vigorous retaliation. Yet thoughtless individuals feel free to insult a Jewish culture as “Nazi” which cannot be less revolting or insulting. These people are free with insults because the Jewish folks do not respond by beheading them,as the Islamists respond to slurs on their culture. As an outsider, I wonder at all of this. Mr. Dershowitz is now, on this site, name-called a baby and blamed for a conflict which he did not initiate. I know, he can well handle himself. But still! Did not Mr. Truman say it so well: If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

MQS, at 2:15 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

L.L. ... You’re As Ignorant As George W. Bush!!!

I’m afraid I’m a bona fide outsider to this discussion, having never either been called “Hitler” nor, to the best of my Justice Department-type recollection, ever remember calling someone else “Hitler.”

Anyway, L.L. I don’t really think you’re ignorant at all. I was just trying “George W. Bush” on for size, wondering if calling someone a “Bushie” will ever be so notorious that Jon Stewart will have a segment called “Only Bush Is Bush.” I put the probability at 0.85.

Oh, by the way, I think Martin has captured the significance of this academic over-reaction almost perfectly.

[Disclaimer: The author of this post may have accessed Wikipedia within the past 24 hours]

Frizbane Manley, at 2:30 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Larry, if you think there is no such thing as an implicit threat, then you must believe that when a thug wants a shopkeeper to pay him “protection” money he is offering to protect him. A guy like you would suppose that when some thugs told a judge who had ruled against them, “We know where you live!", they weren’t implying any threat. They were just letting him know that he was in their address book.

Remember that the next time some strangers on the street tells you, “Give my friend a quarter.” They’re only asking twenty five cents and it’s entirely voluntary on your part. No threat implied. The four men who surrounded Bernard Goetz on the New York subway in 1984 weren’t trying to rob him, you know. The fact that they surrounded him while carrying sharpened screwdrivers didn’t imply any threat because there is no such thing as an implicit threat.

Nice, obtuse little dream world you’ve got there, Larry. It’d be a shame if anything happened to it, so for a nominal fee I can protect you from intrusions from reality.

Jack Olson, at 4:35 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Just Putting Two And Two Together

Jack Olson ...

A close friend of mine — and a fellow mathematician – keeps reminding me of that wonderful Charles Marriott quotation, “The only way to protect yourself from the pain of lost illusion is to have none.” I’m hopeless, however, and keep hoping against hope that there is something about the academy – forget the dream of a community of scholars – and academics that is both (1) consistent with reality and (2) hopeful.

Now, you have come along and promised that “for a nominal fee you can protect me from intrusions [of] reality.”

How much?

[Disclaimer: The author of this post may have accessed Wikipedia within the past 24 hours]

Frizbane Manley, at 5:05 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

No heros here

This is one of those stories that discredits everyone involved, Dershowitz, Trivers, and Harvard. It is sad to see such frailty among the “elite.”

observer, at 10:20 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

response to STM on “confronting”

STM, Well, you came close, and I give you credit for that. However, US v. Day, deals with where on the pre-Booker Federal Sentencing Guidelines the defendant’s conduct (in this case, bank robbery), falls. While the current status of the guidelines has changed, even under 2001 law, the “enhancements” under the guidelines were different than elements of the crime. Indeed, these enhancements might not be due to conduct that is evil in itself (such as using computers to commit the underlying crime).

Now, if the lecturer were at Harvard and robbing banks, and said “I have a gun” (as the case you cite provides) we would have an argument why his sentence for bank robbery should be longer. But in no way does the case you cite provide support for the notion that someone can be convicted for making an implied threat.

Now, taking a step back, this guy said he wanted to “confront” someone. I was wondering where I heard that word before. Then it dawned on me. I noticed that it said “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to... be confronted with the witnesses against him” Anyway, that gave me some food for thought, as people actually have a right to “be confronted” and “confront” right back.

LArry, at 1:10 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Thanks Larry, a fine answer as always.

However, you need to re read your original challenge. Your statement was, as I recall “there is no such thing as an “implicit threat.”” And asked if there were any cases that recognized these. The question you asked was not if someone has been convicted of an implicit threat. It appears to me that in Day the CC recognized that there is such a thing as an implicit threat.

Whether or not someone has been convicted of making an implicit threat, or that it is a convictable offense is another question. Sorry to be picky but I tend to answer questions very tightly.

Implicit threats have to be connected to some other event to be taken as a threat. “I have a gun” when stated by a bankrobber to the teller is different from “I have a gun” stated by a gun store salesman.

I’m not sure if “I’m going to confront you” is a promise, a suggestion or a threat when taken in this situation so I agree 100% with you that in this case there is no legal action for the statement by itself.

stm60, at 4:30 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

I have met Alan Dershowitz twice in person, once at a talk of mine on self-deception and once at a small dinner party. Both times we interacted cordially. He now claims that a letter I wrote to him on April 16, 2007, amounted to a physical threat, requiring police attention.

Here is the letter I wrote:

“Dear Alan,

You have long been known as a rancid defender of Israeli fascism toward its Arab neighbors but this summer you wrote an article rationalizing Israeli attacks on civilians while Israel was visiting a mini-holocaust on Lebanon. When Human Rights Watch published evidence of war crimes, you stitched together a set of lies suggesting otherwise, which lies you did not retract (of course) when they were shown to be falsehoods.

Now you try to block from tenure someone who has the courage and integrity to expose your history of lies and your resemblance this summer to classic nazi-apologists. This after earlier attempting to block publication of his work and even sliming the memory of his mother. Norman Finkelstein has integrity and intellectual quality you will never experience first-hand.

Regarding your rationalization of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians, let me just say that if there is a repeat of Israeli butchery toward Lebanon and if you decide once again to rationalize it publicly, look forward to a visit from me. Nazis—and nazi-like apologists such as yourself—need to be confronted directly.

Robert Trivers”

In no way, shape or form was this meant as a physical threat—neither intended, implied nor suggested. I am completely against such acts (while Dershowitz, incidentally, favors them under a wide range of conditions). I leave it to the reader to judge whether I intended to give him anything more than piece of my mind.

Robert Trivers, Professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University, at 4:05 pm EDT on May 31, 2007

the law of “threats”

Matt, Everyone else here provided citations, rather than saying that things were accepted legal “fact.” I expect you to, as well. The law on “conditional threats” is somewhat in flux, and there are a couple pending decisions, but even when they are issued there still will be gray areas. Words “alone” can constitute a crime. Connecticut’s Office of Legal Research has provided a nice report on this issue to their general assembly. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0138.htm#topofpage. Going to a more familiar area, (for me, at least) 18 USC 875 � , the federal “interstate threats” reads “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” This looks pretty much like “words alone.” The First Circuit (where Harvard is located), the court held that “ [T]o establish a violation of section 875©, the government must establish that the defendant intended to transmit the interstate communication and that the communication contained a true threat. Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication. The government does not have to prove that the defendant subjectively intended for this recipient to understand the communication as a threat. “U.S. v. Whiffen 121 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1997)

Larry, at 11:25 am EDT on June 1, 2007

subject

It seems the comments water down the issues.

Dershowitz DID try to stop the lecture just like he tried to have a book not published in California. Dershowitz IS trying to stop Finkelstein’s teunure...whoever doesn’t agree with Israel gets silenced.....

observation, at 9:35 am EDT on June 5, 2007

I find a lot of this thread truly bizarre. First, he didn’t say D was a nazi, but that he engaged in Nazi-like behavior. (And he certainly didn’t say all jews or jewish culture is nazi.) Was that hyperbole? Perhaps. But how in the world can people be all worked up about a bit of hyperbole or the scary threat of an academic who says he will confront someone, when Dershowitz is defending the slaughter of civilians in Lebanon. Leave it to academics to miss the enormous, huge, overwhelming moral issue — the one that actually costs real lives of innocent people — to focus on the delicate sensibilities of one of their own. Dershowitz is an apologist for war crimes and an arrogant bully. If more academics confronted him, he would be less effective at either.

mark lance, professor at Georgetown University, at 7:05 pm EDT on June 5, 2007

Name-Calling and a Canceled Lecture

It seems to me that the the only inaccuracy Robert Trivers implied was that Alan Dershowtz’s attitude towards the ongoing criminality, atrocities and barbarity of Israel resembled that of a Nazi. What would probably be significantly less deniable and more to the point, if not precisely accurate (I am trusting indirect information on A.D. and his apparent ilk), was to refer to him as an (albeit subconscious) Born Again Bolshevik. Let’s face it, the Nazis were cool dudes compared ( if this is possible) to the latter.

Marijonas Vilkelis, at 11:45 am EDT on June 7, 2007

Name-calling and a canceled lecture

A few instances when name-calling hasn’t led to any outcry — backlash — or anything else.

“Last week, Chief Rabbi Eliahu Bakshi-Doron recklessly accused the Reform movement of responsibility for Jewish assimilation that is “worse than the Holocaust.” The Reform movement’s Rabbi David Forman, justifiably angry, retorted hyperbolically that Bakshi-Doron “has made Nazi and Jew interchangeable.” And nobody bats an eyelash….. The far right put prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in an SS uniform. Intellectuals and politicians on the extreme left freely applied the Nazi label to settlers and settlements. Israelis remember Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s infamous “Judeo-Nazi” wisecrack and Moshe Zimmerman’s “Hitler Youth” characterization of children growing up in Judea and Samaria. During the Rabin years, right-wing zealots, miffed at the strong-arm tactics used by the Israeli police in controlling their demonstrations, said the police “acted like Nazis.” Liberal Jews shoved out of the Western Wall plaza said the police, acting under orders and under pressure, behaved “like Nazis,” too. Police keeping the fervently religious from blocking roads on Shabbat know well that somebody is going to throw the word “Nazi” in their face.”http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2...id/201/format/html/displaystory.html

“Death to Rabin!” chant the demonstrating crowd in a Likkud rally carrying a montage poster of Rabin in a Nazi uniform only weeks before the assassination.” http://www.sfjff.org/public_html/sfjff16/d0723c3.htm

“Mr Bassi, who lives in a kibbutz inside Israel, has become a hate figure for settlers and the right, who have equated his job with that of a Nazi bureaucrat planning the deportation of Jews.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1353062,00.html

beej, at 6:15 pm EDT on June 11, 2007