Thursday
August 28, 2008
Advertisement
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Feb. 14
Hate in Their Midst
Scholars, documentary producers, and genocide survivors have gathered at California State University at Long Beach this week for the President’s Forum on International Human Rights, which is focused on modern genocides and society’s responsibility to prevent them. Participants report that the sessions have been engaging and intense, and the gathering is being praised for focusing attention on the most vile forms of hate. Some of those who have been participating, however, wonder if the university needs to look a little closer to home.
Related stories
- Torture and the Research Star, July 22
- When a University Kills Suicide Research, July 7
- Middle East Wars on U.S. Campuses, May 15, 2006
- Faith on the Quad, Jan. 27, 2006
- War and Peace at Columbia, April 1, 2005
Also this week, a white supremacist Web site called Vanguard News Network (its motto is “No Jews. Just Right.") drew attention to an article in the Long Beach student paper about how some professors there want more distance between the institution and a psychology professor, Kevin MacDonald, who has applied evolutionary psychology to studying Jews in ways that scholars find offensive and inaccurate.
MacDonald argues — with backing from Vanguard News Network — that Jewish people band together, in part to undercut white society in the United States. He says that they do this in part by supporting immigrants, with the idea that letting more Latinos into the United States would advance Jewish interests by weakening the country.
Not surprisingly, Vanguard News Network views with alarm the idea that professors at Long Beach are talking about taking a stand against MacDonald. One commenter wrote (warning: offensive language ahead): “So the Goddam Kikes are getting their way yet again, putting the thumbscrews to a White scholar whose ass they are not worthy to lick…. At least this oppression proves that Prof. MacDonald’s great work is hitting the scum hard. How much more of this humiliation is our race going to take? How long before this motherfucking plague of repulsive, hook-snouted ticks is given a real Zyklon fumigation, as opposed to the fairy tale one?” Other commenters link to the Web sites of some of MacDonald’s critics on the Long Beach faculty and/or those with Jewish-sounding names, plus a list of phone numbers of the psychology department.
MacDonald has taught at Long Beach since 1985, and periodically attracts attention (and while he has fans on sites like Vanguard News Network says that he does not back what is said there about him and that those comments don’t help his cause). He testified on behalf of David Irving, a Holocaust denier who unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an Emory University historian, over her comments that he distorted history in his Holocaust denial. (MacDonald’s testimony and his explanation of why he backed Irving are available on the Web site of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denying group. MacDonald says he is not a denier, but was helping Irving defend unpopular views.)
For the past 10 days, with Long Beach preparing for a scholarly discussion of genocide and human rights, and with more information circulating about MacDonald’s views on Jews, immigrants and others, professors have been engaged in a debate about what — if anything — should be said about him.
None of the critics are suggesting that MacDonald’s tenure should be revoked, or that he be barred from expressing his views. But many wonder why the university has never publicly as an institution stated that it finds MacDonald’s views offensive or at the very least that his views don’t represent the university. Further, some wonder why the psychology department’s public statement issued the last time the controversy over MacDonald broke makes no mention of him. While the department is considering changing that, there are as of yet no signs that the university will issue a statement. Still others wonder why faculty members granted tenure to MacDonald in the first place.
Professors who are raising the issue now say that they are trying to promote debate about how to combat hate without limiting free speech. “I want to be very clear. I fully embrace Dr. MacDonald’s right to free speech and academic freedom. I’m not talking in any way about interfering with his ability to write or speak or teach,” said Jeffrey Blutinger, a historian who is co-director of Jewish studies at Long Beach. “But just as he has the right to free speech, we have the right as a faculty and an institution to have our free speech. We have the right to say that it’s important that the wider community be aware that MacDonald’s work does not enjoy the respect of many of his colleagues.”
F. King Alexander, president at Long Beach, said in an interview that he does not personally agree with MacDonald’s views, but that he believes the psychology department or other faculty bodies are best positioned to evaluate the situation — and that presidents and institutions should not speak out about faculty members.
“I do not reprimand people for their beliefs,” he said. “We do address behavioral issues, but as a university, we have to respect the vast spectrum of beliefs that exist on our campus, no matter how much I might disagree with them.” He added: “The day that we reprimand people, especially in universities, for expressing their beliefs, no matter how abhorrent or distasteful those beliefs may be, is the day that we begin returning back to tyranny itself.”
Blutinger noted that while departments and universities don’t normally issue statements offering an institutional critique of a professor, there are cases where they do so — and doing so can represent an important stand. He noted, for example, that Lehigh University’s biology department has on its Web site a statement that distances its members from the views of one colleague, Michael Behe, who is a strong supporter of intelligent design. The Lehigh statement is explicit and names Behe.
“The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of ‘intelligent design,’ ” says the statement. “While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”
In contrast, the statement on Long Beach’s psychology department Web site is more opaque — and someone unaware of the controversy over MacDonald might be confused about why it is there. In between statements of support for diversity and academic freedom, the department offers its views on the “misuse of psychologists’ work.” The statement says: “The Department of Psychology regards it as deeply unethical that any faculty member knowingly allow his/her work to be used to support groups that disseminate views of racial/ethnic superiority and/or racial/ethnic hatred. Moreover, in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, we expect faculty to take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse or misrepresentation of their work. We are concerned that psychological research has been used in the past in intellectually unjustifiable and socially harmful ways, such as limiting immigration of certain groups or justifying unequal opportunities in education and employment. We wish to make it clear that these uses are distortions of scholarship in the field.”
The statement went up in December 2006, as reports were circulating about an in-depth study of MacDonald by the Southern Poverty Law Center — subsequently released under the title “Promoting Hate.” It is widely known at the university that the statement was prompted by MacDonald’s views and writing, but his name isn’t in the statement at all.
“I think the statement is a little bit too much in code,” said Charles Noble, chair of political science and director of international studies at Long Beach. He is among those who have been involved in the e-mail discussions at the university about how to take a stronger stance.
In an e-mail message to his faculty colleagues, Noble questioned the lack of a more explicit, formal response from both the psychology department and the university. “This controversy has been going on for years; surely the time is ripe,” Noble wrote.
“No one that I know is asking that MacDonald be denied the opportunity to teach. He is a tenured professor and as such has certain rights that we all benefit from. In a free society, even ideas as noxious as these should be aired. But that doesn’t mean that the department cannot officially distance itself from these ideas. Where is the statement that the department rejects any effort to use evolutionary psychology to justify racism in scientific terms? I believe that there is a consensus among evolutionary psychologists that these sorts of accounts do not meet minimal standards of scientific discourse. Does the psychology department agree with that? If so, why not say it prominently on the home page of its Web site.”
As to the university’s response, Noble wrote that “there doesn’t seem to be one.” He added: “When I inquire about that, I hear things about legal liability, academic freedom, lawsuits, etc. But no one is asking that MacDonald be silenced. Can the mere threat of a lawsuit paralyze the university into inaction? CSU is a billion-dollar enterprise. Does it not have enough lawyers to defend itself and the faculty from any effort to harass us into silence? I would love to know the reasoning involved here,
but no one has been willing to share it with us, at least publicly.”
Blutinger said that the university’s silence has an impact. Whenever he speaks to local groups, he said, he is asked about MacDonald, and would love to be able to point to some official statement that makes clear that he “represents only himself.” The lack of a clear public statement “damages the reputation of the university,” he said.
The psychology department chair, Kenneth Green, did not respond to calls.
MacDonald, who maintains a Web site with detailed explanations of his theories about Jews, said in an interview that he was a victim of “faculty e-mail wars.” He said that he has repeatedly “tried to defend myself showing that what I was doing was scientific and rational and reasonable — and people have not responded.”
Any university or department statement against him would violate his academic freedom, MacDonald said, adding that he has not seen any draft of what the department might issue. MacDonald said he was consulting a lawyer about “what to do about this.”
Alexander, the president, said that fear of lawsuits was not a factor here. “What we stand for is much broader.”
But in terms of the university’s role, Alexander said that the conference on genocide represented the appropriate, scholarly role, as would a statement by MacDonald’s department. “Our responsibility and part of my responsibility is to educate more people — so that ideas like this and many others do not take root in a population that might be susceptible to it,” he said.
Alexander said that in his remarks at the conference, he encouraged faculty members to “make sure that we are aspiring to promote true scientific progress and to aggressively challenge all individuals inside and outside of the academy that advance agendas that are premised on inequality, separation, human rights denial and abuses.” Further, Alexander said that he believed that “we as academics throughout this nation should work to weed out of governmental and educational institutions I would say individuals that advance these types of inequalities and atrocities.”
But as to who does such weeding out, Alexander said that was a faculty duty."The psychology department is the best place to determine the validity” of MacDonald’s views,” Alexander said. “I’m not an evolutionary psychologist and I don’t think we have any in the university administration.” Alexander said that MacDonald’s views didn’t represent the university “in any way, shape or form,” and that “he has the academic freedom to advance his own beliefs, as any individual does.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Hate Welcome Here
Thanks to Relativism and its fellow traveler, Post Modernism, institutes of higher education have gone weak on how to deal with hate.
The N-word? No problem The C-word? Not spoken here. The F-word? We don’t say any of them.
Stinking kikes control the financial system to their benefit and caused 9/11? Oh, absolutely we will allow this model form of free speech. Who are we to deny and possibly oppress someone whose views are divergent from the mainstream or at least the oppressive majority?
The entire faculty of Long Beach State must be ashamed of their inability to summon the courage to stand up for decency and morality.
Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Foucault surely look upon the Long Beach State faculty’s behavior with justified pride. With their philosophies of science, LBSU faculty can avert their gaze to this hate. Without their philosophies of science, the LBSU faculty will have the moral fortitude to stand up to this hate.
michael, at 8:45 am EST on February 14, 2008
Exactly how does one do research on evolutionary psychology in a scientific manner? What are the criteria this psychology dept is supposed to apply when evaluating this man’s work?
Perry, at 9:00 am EST on February 14, 2008
Hate-ism from Carter, Walt, Mersheimer & MacDonald
Hate-ism, hate-ists, and haters do not fall under the protection of free speech, in my reasoned and educated opinion. (By the way, I know Latin, just to verify my credentials.)
We need to root out all hate-ism from academia and replace it with love-ism, or at the very least, good-ism. Isn’t that what Gandhi and Mr. Rogers would want us all to do?
I heard that on Darth Vader’s web site he sided with hater Pres. Carter and his hate-ist book Peace Not Apartheid, where Carter promoted hate-ism against Israel.
How can we give any credence to Carter when he is being supported by someone who wants to take over the universe?
On the website of the Wicked Witch of the West, called Guilt By Association, she writes, “Stephen Walt and John Mersheimer would be welcome anytime training my army of monkeys and my castle guards. I agree totally with Walt and Mersheimer on Israeli dominance of American foreign policy.”
There you have it, right from the hate-ist web site called Guilt By Association, kept by the Wicked Witch of the West, herself!
JoeMorgan, at 9:25 am EST on February 14, 2008
Comment on: ‘Hate in Their Midst’
This goes way beyond academic freedom and reminds my about the things that were taught in schools of Nazi Germany. It is a real shame that the teaching of anti Semitism is tolerated in any school in America, let alone a public University with the support of tax payers and student’s tuition funding. What will we tolerate next in the name of academic freedom?
Siegried Herrmann, Ph.D.
Dr. Siegfried Herrmann, at 9:30 am EST on February 14, 2008
Foucault would be ashamed...
To claim that Foucault would be pleased by this oppression is an outrage. Obviously you are selectively reading his work to support your view (much like many fundamentalists I know). Even a cursory reading of his works on governmentality, pastoral power, geneology, and resistance alongside his personal involvement in the rights of the oppressed would show the previous comments uninformed.
What Long Beach professors are suffering from is the myopic view of the world and the University that many of us on the publication rat wheel called publish or perish embrace in a self centered attempt at preservation. Fearing retribution, the spotlight, or the hard questions many prefer to whisper in the hushed tones at the faculty dining room rather than on the op-eds, street corners, etc. As one of my peers said recently, “I am not here to change the world, I just want to research” sort of sums up the state of academia. Sadly we forget that when the come to shut down freedoms, they will inevitably come for the scholar—ask Bonhoffer.
Foucault’s Friend, Asst. Prof, at 9:50 am EST on February 14, 2008
This seems like a case where tenure and academic freedom are almost trumping sound scholarship and arguments in a scholarly forum. we are so offended about telling people that their beliefs are unfounded and stupid anymore that beliefs seem to be this hyper-sacred ground immune from rational discourse. If you have a faculty member who has such un-founded and conspiracy ridden beliefs such as these they are more than “unpopular” as he is quoted as saying.
Tenure cannot be equated with immunity from such issues. The purpose of tenure is to allow for freedom of research in order to protect scholars from political hegemony. But when oppressive and discriminatory views are promoted by tenured faculty, the spirit of the principle should be honored and not simply the letter of the law.
Drwe, Tenure Gone Mad, at 10:20 am EST on February 14, 2008
I ended up reading some of MacDonald’s writings. My impression is that Jews have written so much about aspects of Judaism that it would be enough for millenia of analysis. Psychology, evolution, ethnic studies, all the demagogic sciences are hungry for “discoveries” in their respective fields. Add here the studies of “hatred". Consider the potentially new models, new paradigms and the occasional shifting of paradigms. With his relatively short description of social “evolution” of a Jew in Mein Kampf, Hitler appears the most modest of all authors; one starts appreciating modesty and brevity only now. Whatever are the conclusions, give me them in two pages, don’t try to say they are based on sciences.
Michael Pyshnov, at 11:50 am EST on February 14, 2008
MacDonald can’t be a professor, because as a core part of his professorial duties he has to teach students who include Jews, and there is no reasonable chance that he would deal with them fairly as students. Unpopular views are fine, but at some point we have to honor what people have written, and if someone says that they consider members of a given group to be part of a cabal that’s dedicated to undermining the group that the professor is part of, you can’t let them teach unless you believe they’re don’t believe what they’re saying.
People who aren’t Baptists can’t go to the Baptist Theological Seminary, people who are pacifists can’t go to the U.S. Military Academy, and people who belief that members of a given racial or religious or ethnic group work together to harm the country can’t work with students, especially (but not exclusively) at a public institution.
Rich, at 12:40 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Criteria of Evaluation
Perry asks exactly the right question: “Exactly how does one do research on evolutionary psychology in a scientific manner? What are the criteria this psychology dept is supposed to apply when evaluating this man’s work?”
MacDonald’s Judaism scholarship is founded entirely on reference to the work of other researchers. He has done no original research involving Jews or Judaism. He makes many very broad claims about the attitudes and behavior of Jews as a group, then asserts, suggests or supposes that these attitudes and behaviors result from Jews’ distinctive genetic makeup. So one would begin by evaluating the merits of his claims concerning Jewish behavior. Having spent a great amount of time checking MacDonald against his citations, I can attest that his claims on this score consistently falsify the data to be found in his sources. His Judaism scholarship, in short, is an extended exercise in academic fraud.
Much of the debate reported on in the article, and reproduced in this comments forum, seems to me to miss the critical issue. MacDonald’s detractors argue that his writings are hate-filled and repugnant — this is true but irrelevant; offensiveness in itself is not and should not be a scholarly sin. His supporters insist that he has a right to his beliefs — also true, and also irrelevant. Others of his supporters claim that his scholarship is sound, but I see no evidence that they have subjected his scholarship to any test more substantive than the observation that it includes a large number of references, which they do not take the trouble to check.
In comments on an earlier Inside Higher Ed article on MacDonald, one poster offered this excerpt from Columbia University’s policy on academic freedom.
“At its simplest, academic freedom may be defined as the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish, subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry, without interference or penalty, wherever the search for truth and understanding may lead.”
I think the operative phrase here is “subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry.” MacDonald violates these standards repeatedly and extensively. That is the issue that ought to be before anyone assessing the value of his work.
David Lieberman, at 2:20 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Well-this isn’t my field-so, pardon my ignorance—
I first became aware of MacDonald through a hate-filled screed on Davey H’s Frontpagemag.com
So, I goes to check it out. Again, not my field and while it seemed to be an overly broad painting of an ethnic group-I couldn’t find much anti-semitism lurking in it.
Is it necessarily McDonald’s fault that Vanguard News Network pounced on it and made it their’s.
Are we necessarily responsible for every tom-fool application of our ideas?
Could MacDonald have been more vigorous in saying that these people are a bunch of yahoos who are misapplying his ideas? Probably.
utahprof, at 2:50 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Foolishly Tolerating Intolerance
MacDonald’s enraged and absurd rantings would never be tolerated if, instead of Jews, he substituted blacks, women, or gays.
Because many faculty at places like Long Beach State have grown so timid and frightened of buffoons in their midst while savaging people far away from them, they avert their glance and turn silent in the face of such a grotesque distortion of the academics’ quest for the truth.
Chuck, at 2:55 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Crackademic Freedom
CSULB administrators fail to differentiate between the academic freedom that guarantees the unfettered pursuit of legitimate and ethical scholarship, and the other academic freedom, behind which intellectual frauds like Kevin MacDonald, Michael Behe, and Stanton Jones hide in order to advance the racist, unscientific, and homophobic opinions they pull directly out of their asses. It’s past time for the academic community to clearly delineate the difference.
Charles Bittner, at 3:05 pm EST on February 14, 2008
scholarship and community
I’m not sure what statements like Lehigh’s or Long Beach’s are meant to accomplish. They seem like the scare quotes that have proliferated in so much academic writing — we can’t say traditional but “traditional", not modern but “modern". They aren’t denotationally meaningful, but just connote “I am aware of criticisms of this"; ie, their meaning is not about the message but about the speaker.
If you believe in the scholarly enterprise at all, you believe that ultimately ID will stand or fall on its merits, as will MacDonald’s scholarship. The fact that morally objectionable slack-jawed idiots may be fans of either or both is certainly interesting and perhaps indicative of their ultimate fates, but the point of tenure is to let a thousand strange flowers bloom and to trust in time and peer review to select for the keepers. I’d take a tenured colleague advocating something weird or objectionable over a tenured colleague doing *nothing* any day. Only if a pattern of consistent bias in MacDonald’s teaching or grading could be robustly demonstrated should he be at any professional risk.
Kathleen Lowrey, at 3:25 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely hate will go away any time soon, nor does it seem likely that ethical teaching will be a universal concept in the foreseeable future. It really doesn’t matter if MacDonald were to claim that he doesn’t teach this claptrap in his classroom; the attitude will come through. Aren’t we obligated to teach truth where it is known and ideas, hypotheses, theories, and opinions clearly represented as ideas, hypotheses, theories, and opinions? Aren’t we supposed to keep our own agendas OUT of the classroom??? When someone has a strong aversion to a person or thing, it will eventually come out.
As one who lost family in the Holocaust in both Germany and Denmark, I am DEEPLY offended by bigoted, half-baked ideas disguised as scientifically based “theories"; MacDonald, Irving, and those who write for and/or read and/or believe filth (verbal as well as literal filth) like Vanguard are bigots, pure and simple. They are the ones who spread the hate...and the university is lax in not taking a stand that they do not support the opinions MacDonald espouses.
Judy, Professor, at 3:50 pm EST on February 14, 2008
“To claim that Foucault would be pleased by this oppression is an outrage. Obviously you are selectively reading his work to support your view (much like many fundamentalists I know).”
Given Foucault’s support for the Ayatollah, you’re probably right — though maybe for other reasons than you think.
AD, at 5:05 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Opions, Professionalism, Common Sense, and Voice
My opinion: MacDonald’s work, in my opinion, seems dishonest and irresponsible. Furthermore, I don’t buy MacDonald’s seemingly naive posture about why colleagues are emailing one another and brainstorming about how best to manage the spew from MacDonald’s “research,” as if his research is so innocent, transparent, and rational that he fails to understand the big fuss. Oh PPPlllease!! McDonald himself admits to participating in a court case that many would consider outlandish — for the primary purpose of aligning himself with the “unpopular.” I think he understands and embraces the unpopular stance.
Parameters of Academic Freedom: Academic freedom is a professional right... for professionals who demonstrate professionalism — this tends to encompass notions of honesty, integrity, and responsibility. The Dept. of psychology and the university will ultimately deal with the aftermath of their assessment and management of MacDonald’s professionalism.
MacDonald’s ambitions: MacDonald is quoted as saying that the racist groups that often cite MacDonald’s research “do not advance his cause.” I don’t claim to know MacDonald’s cause but I sure hope he has some idea and honest reflections about his own research agenda.... I’ve read articles in which authors reflect upon and acknowledge their own biases/key experiences relating esp. to controversial or provocative research topics (diversity or academic freedom for example)- and then the authors actually incorporate those personal biases and experiences into the research report itself(either by adding small sections of text throughout the paper or perhaps as a 1 page summary near the conclusion of the report). I have found such research, written by qualitative researchers, refreshingly rich. While such reflections have the standard weaknesses/strengths of “self-reported” data, such reflections highlight the important and inherent influence of personal and professional honesty, integrity, and accountability in scholarship. With such a controversial (to put it mildly) research topic such as MacDonald’s — I wonder about his own reflections and sense of personal and professional responsibility. Should academic research “evolve” to an era where such personal reflections in research is more prevalent (and less marginalized), then perhaps more scholars can gain the consciousness and reflective thinking practice needed to do a better job of monitoring how their/our personal views and expectations can influence the research process. This won’t help researchers who choose to blindly grind axes (researchers like MacDonald whose work, in my biased opinion, seems overwhelmingly not genuine), but perhaps it can raise awareness among learners that knowledge tends to be filtered through particular psychological frames of reference. While I agree that people will always have the option to choose, use, and inflame hatred, I also believe that as faculty we should not feel silenced when we see hatred in our midst — professors (esp. psychology and social science profs) can also take oppty to teach students about the psychology and nature of racism as an ideology so that students understand it and can critically evaluate charges of racism for themselves (handouts and basic info. about psychology of racism was recently available on APA website). Understanding racism as an ideological concept has helped me (I am an African American woman) and my students of various backgrounds (I currently teach in China — was prof in US for 10 years)better understand and deal with racism and even counter and prevent it. Students and faculty should have the mindset and vocabulary to reflect on their own works as well as that of others.
Cross Cultural Comm Prof, at 7:40 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Hate
First UCI, now LB State. It seems government supportment institutions of higher education tolerate intolerence disguised as freedom of speech.
Allan Koven, at 7:40 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Try reading a academic review of MacDonald’s work first. The comments around hereseem ill-informed about the actual work...
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/JC&S48-2006.pdf
JH, Read a little before comdemning..., at 7:55 pm EST on February 14, 2008
counter-punch
If McDonald’s work is so fallacious then put out a work of scholarship to refute it! I hear alot of moralising and self-righteous chest beating, but where are the facts to counter him? That is the point of scholarly review isn’t it? To nullify falsehoods with facts and not simply running some work through a filter of political correctness. This group of commenters are no better than a medievel mob screaming “witch,witch, burn him!” Show some academic balls and pony up with your counter-facts. That will solve the Kevin McDonald issue."If you want to know who is in charge, ask yourself- Who is it you are not allowed to criticise” George Lincoln Rockwell.
Patrick, at 9:30 pm EST on February 14, 2008
You think if they read an academic review it would make any difference?
You might as well go back in a time machine to Galileo’s era and help him explain to people that the earth is not flat and not the center of the Solar System. You would get the same myopic dogmatism that you see in these comments.
Connosseur d’Irony, at 10:30 pm EST on February 14, 2008
“That will solve the Kevin McDonald issue."If you want to know who is in charge, ask yourself- Who is it you are not allowed to criticise” George Lincoln Rockwell.”
Oh come on, you toss out stuff like that and then you act indignant when you’re called anti-Semites.
For all the times I’ve criticized affirmative action, I’d think the same way of MacDonald if he had written this stuff about other minorities and I’d put just as much credence into arguments that him getting flack over similar statements = those minorities being in charge.
Exactly what proof do you want? You want us to prove negatives like Jews don’t secretly band together to weaken the country by increasing Hispanic immigration — would you like us to prove the Bilderbergers don’t exist while we’re at it? Would you like us to prove the Illuminati don’t engage in covert plots with Opus Dei to enslave the United States? How about we prove “the Man” doesn’t control the country and isn’t secretly keeping all minorities down?
It would be more productive and more worthwhile to try to convince alien aficionados that “Men in Black” was just fiction than to try to convince you that all these conspiracy theories about Jews aren’t true.
(For those who don’t know, George Lincoln Rockwell was a founder of the American Nazi Party—but, no, these guys aren’t anti-Semites at all.)
AD, at 10:30 pm EST on February 14, 2008
Hate in Their Midst
Charles Bittner dicet: “intellectual frauds like Kevin MacDonald, Michael Behe, and Stanton Jones hide in order to advance the racist, unscientific, and homophobic opinions they pull directly out of their asses. It’s past time for the academic community to clearly delineate the difference.”
Very nice sleight of hand, mister. So which Behe is, a racist or a homophobe? Oh, I see, he eats darwinism for a snack by pointing out that it looks like a ementhal cheese! So evil of him!
You, sir, did blow whatever legitimate criticism you had to offer out of the water, because of your attempt to tar Behe by guilt of unethical spurious association. I may disagree with Behe, but he has nothing in common with either of the two “gentlemen".
Lumir G Janku, Hidden agendas, at 7:50 am EST on February 15, 2008
In support of Prof. McDonald
I am proud to offer full support to Prof. McDonald right to express his professional opinion within the subject he is more than qualified to speak on. Prof. McDonald’s work has been regularly peer-reviewed and is up to the highest standards that exist in the field of evolutionary psychology. He is researching a sensitive topic, yet that cannot and should not in any way be used in order to directly or indirectly intimidate him into discontinuing his research or to foster a chilling climate of self-censorship in the academia that hinders so much the progress of modern social science.
George Lenz, DSc., at 7:50 am EST on February 15, 2008
To: David Lieberman
Sir,
In your earlier post, you wrote of Dr. MacDonald’s work that “His Judaism scholarship, in short, is an extended exercise in academic fraud.”
Why do you consider it an academic fraud? He provides many cites to his research sources, and from those sources he draws conclusions. The validity of those conclusions is open for debate, as with any scientific or academic conclusions. You attest that he consistently falsifies the data in the cited material. Can you elaborate, or provide a link to papers you have written on the subject?
You also comment that he has done “no original research involving Jews or Judaism". Dr. MacDonald’s works are focused on Jewish group survival strategies, not Judaica. Why would you expect him to do “original research on Jews” when it is actually their political / social survival techniques he is addressing?
Clearly the Jewish people have developed tremendously effective survival strategies over thousands of years of struggle. They have survived and kept their people and religion intact in hundreds of different societies following the Diaspora. The Jewish religion is doubtless a significant (perhaps primary) factor in their survival success story. From earliest childhood, the Jewish people are taught that they exist within, but simultaneously apart from, the world at large due to their unique self-declared status as God’s “chosen people". This worldview has provided significant motivation for the Jewish people to preserve their culture and ethnicity via strong advocation of the “marry only other Jews” philosophy.
Given the obvious success of the group in surviving persecution for so many thousands of years, why do you oppose Dr. MacDonald’s research into the strategies that made it possible?
Do you deny that the Jewish people have developed successful group survival strategies? If not, do you believe it is “hate” to study these strategies? If their strategies have benefited the Jewish people, would it not be beneficial for other peoples (e.g., blacks, Hispanics) to avail themselves of the same strategies?
Do you deny that the Jewish people in America have strong and effective political lobbying resources? AIPAC for instance is one of the most powerful organizations in the country for influencing Congress. If the techniques used to create and sustain this Jewish group lobbying capability have been effective and beneficial for the Jewish people, is it “hate” to study their tactics? If these tactics are beneficial for the Jewish people, would they not be beneficial for other groups to use as well?
I find the reaction to Dr. MacDonald’s research quite interesting. It is almost as if ANY assessment of Jewish culture / politics by non-Jews is automatically considered to be hate. ANY questioning or criticism is labeled hate, no matter how innocuous. We are told for example (quite vehemently) that questioning the status of the Jews as God’s “chosen people” is hate. We are also told, upon asking why Jewish groups continue to push “Jews only” marriage policy while strongly advocating intermarriage among the rest of society, is also hate. Trying to stifle inquiry and free debate by subjectively labeling every sensitive topic “hate” does nothing to advance academic or scientific freedom, and in fact ends up polarizing the audience even further.
Suppression of speech and inquiry is a two-edged sword. It cuts your enemy today, but can be used to cut YOU tomorrow. Attacks like these against Dr. MacDonald are just the leading edge of the suffocating clampdown on free speech that is coming our way. Every academic who participates in this medieval suppression of unpopular research should hang their head in shame and sorrow, because they are unwittingly sowing the seeds of their own oppression.
Mike, at 8:50 am EST on February 15, 2008
reply to Rich
Replacing Rich’s above quote with a different name — because on his criteria, we could fire thousands of professors!
Noel Ignatiev can’t be a professor, because as a core part of his professorial duties he has to teach students who include Whites, and there is no reasonable chance that he would deal with them fairly as students. Unpopular views are fine, but at some point we have to honor what people have written, and if someone says that they consider members of a given group to be part of a cabal that’s dedicated to undermining the group that the professor is part of, you can’t let them teach unless you believe they’re don’t believe what they’re saying.
Shakhti-Butler can’t be a professor, because as a core part of her professorial duties he has to teach students who include Whites, and there is no reasonable chance that he would deal with them fairly as students. Unpopular views are fine, but at some point we have to honor what people have written, and if someone says that they consider members of a given group to be part of a cabal that’s dedicated to undermining the group that the professor is part of, you can’t let them teach unless you believe they’re don’t believe what they’re saying.
Joe Feagin can’t be a professor, because as a core part of his professorial duties he has to teach students who include Whites, and there is no reasonable chance that he would deal with them fairly as students. Unpopular views are fine, but at some point we have to honor what people have written, and if someone says that they consider members of a given group to be part of a cabal that’s dedicated to undermining the group that the professor is part of, you can’t let them teach unless you believe they’re don’t believe what they’re saying.
Rob, at 9:00 am EST on February 15, 2008
Dr. Siegfried Herrmann wrote:
Dr. Siegfried Herrmann wrote:"It is a real shame that the teaching of anti Semitism is tolerated in any school in America...”
“Anti-Semtism” simply means criticizing Jews.
Do Jews ever criticize Palestinians? Do we call that anti-Palestinianism? Should we allow anti-Palestinianites to teach at schools that enroll people of Palestinian descent?
Do Jews criticize Christians? Do we call that anti-Christianism? Should we allow anti-Christianites to teach at schools that enroll Christians?
Do Jews criticize Europeans? Do we call that anti-Europeanism? Should we allow anti-Europeanites to teach at schools that enroll people of European descent? (A good way to purge most Professors in the social science departments.)
Our species is a predatory species. When we engage in group competition or conflict we, by instinct, create propaganda that depicts the other side as “bad” and our own side as “good.”
Propagandists then need a noun in order to characterize. Anti-Jewite sounds funny. Anti-Jewish is not a noun.
Then the propagandist markets the noun. An anti-Semite is someone who throws Jews into gas chambers — an anti-Semite is someone who criticizes Jews — someone who criticizes Jews are like people who throw Jews into gas chambers.
JoeMorgan, at 10:50 am EST on February 15, 2008
Response to questions
Mike asks a few fair questions:
Mike: Why do you consider it an academic fraud? He provides many cites to his research sources, and from those sources he draws conclusions. The validity of those conclusions is open for debate, as with any scientific or academic conclusions. You attest that he consistently falsifies the data in the cited material. Can you elaborate, or provide a link to papers you have written on the subject? :Mike
Your observation that “he provides many cites” rather clearly illustrates my earlier point about MacDonald’s supporters. A large number of citations proves precisely nothing about the quality of one’s research; the citations must be to relevant information, fairly adduced. I delivered a paper on MacDonald’s research practices in 2005 at the University of Southampton’s Parkes Institute, for the Institute’s event “Jews, Race and Empire,” in which I explore this issue in detail.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf
Mike: You also comment that he has done “no original research involving Jews or Judaism". Dr. MacDonald’s works are focused on Jewish group survival strategies, not Judaica. Why would you expect him to do ‘original research on Jews’ when it is actually their political / social survival techniques he is addressing?” :Mike
MacDonald in fact relies quite heavily on psychological research which does involve Jews to ground the theoretical basis of his argument for distinctive Jewish difference. I demonstrate in my paper that he consistently misrepresents what this research shows. I do not “expect” MacDonald to do original research on Jews; a thoughtful synthesis of research done by others can be a perfectly valid scholarly project. I do expect MacDonald to report fairly and honestly on the research he cites, and this he fails to do.
Mike: Given the obvious success of the group in surviving persecution for so many thousands of years, why do you oppose Dr. MacDonald’s research into the strategies that made it possible?
Do you deny that the Jewish people have developed successful group survival strategies? If not, do you believe it is “hate” to study these strategies? If their strategies have benefited the Jewish people, would it not be beneficial for other peoples (e.g., blacks, Hispanics) to avail themselves of the same strategies? :Mike
You begin by begging the question: you assume as given that Jewish survival in the face of historical persecution has required “strategies.” I do not think this is a given; demonstrating that such strategies existed and continue to exist is in fact one of MacDonald’s key goals. The question is certainly open for investigation, but one cannot provide a reliable answer to it by making unreliable use of empirical data. I do not believe it is “hate” to study such questions; I also do not believe that what MacDonald has done constitutes “study.”
I’m afraid the rest of your post devolves away from the posing of useful questions into a clear demonstration of a) why you find MacDonald’s writings so appealing, and b) why it is important to pay attention to the arguments he makes and the means by which he makes them.
David Lieberman, at 10:55 am EST on February 15, 2008
Mike, you get an A for effort but I really think you’re just spinning your wheels trying to discuss this issue with Mr. Leiberman. He’s obviously Jewish so either through deliberate deception or non-deliberate self-deception there’s no way he can take an impartial view of the facts. As a Jew he will always begin from the stand-point that MacDonald’s work is bunk. He has to. There are only a few Jews I know of who don’t. Among them, Israel Shahak.
Connosseur D’Irony, at 1:45 pm EST on February 15, 2008
In “Separation and its Discontents: Toward and Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism", MacDonald predicts the reaction we see from Mr. Lieberman and most Jews:
From the preface:
“Parts of the book are an extended discourse on the role of Jewish self-interest, deception, and self-deception in the areas of Jewish historiography, Jewish personal identity, and Jewish conceptualizations of their ingroup and its relations with outgroups. This is therefore first and foremost a book that confidently predicts its own irrelevance to those about whom it is written.”
Connosseur D’Irony, at 3:40 pm EST on February 15, 2008
I have read The Culture of Critique and Seperation and it’s Discontents. They were some of the most dazzling books I have ever read, especially The Culture of Critique. They are scholarly and well referenced. The tiny, tiny, tiny minority of politically motivated protestors are proving Kevin McDonalds point, that’s all.
Jim, at 5:30 pm EST on February 15, 2008
Sheesh Mr. or Mrs. Editor what was wrong with this comment that you refused to post it? Hmm, maybe if I remove the last sentence? Was that the one which got it censored? Can we try that again?
Jews have a vested interest in not facing the facts and truth which MacDonald’s research demonstrates. For if the facts and truth are faced up to and accepted, then the only logical conclusion is that it is not in the best interest of the majority people of a host-nation to maintain a population of Jews.
Now of course, this conclusion is not in the best interest of Jews because history has proven that they require a host nation in which to thrive as they do. This is the Jewish modus vivendi and modus operandi. It is true of Israel today. It would not be able to exist without all of the Jews in Western host-nations with loyalty to Jews and Israel over loyalty to their host-nations and the majority host-populations which make it possible for Jews to thrive as they do. But that’s where the Jews either deceive themselves into believing that their behavior is not detrimental to majority host populations, or they deliberately try to deceive others into believing that their behavior is not detrimental to majority host populations. There are Jews fitting both of those 2 descriptions. Either way, they want to dismiss the impact their behavior has on majority host-populations and spin it such that they are considered the victims.
Connosseur D’Irony, at 7:40 pm EST on February 15, 2008
“Parts of the book are an extended discourse on the role of Jewish self-interest, deception, and self-deception in the areas of Jewish historiography, Jewish personal identity, and Jewish conceptualizations of their ingroup and its relations with outgroups. This is therefore first and foremost a book that confidently predicts its own irrelevance to those about whom it is written.”
Amazing. If any of the words “Jewish” were replaced instead with OUR OWN names, would we not be justifiably offended, angered, outraged? Furthermore, would we not have the right to interpret these statements as personal attacks, especially in a classroom?
Even if MacDonald CAN indeed treat a Jewish student with respect, do his teachings and writings not create a hostile classroom environment when he clearly expresses dislike and contempt for a specific population?
This is NOT about academic freedom. This is about everyone’s right to live and learn in a productive, safe, fair environment.
Shame on CSU. Shame on those who stand/cower and do nothing about this. YOU and MacDonald are disgraces to the educational community.
kgotthardt, at 8:15 am EST on February 16, 2008
Jews and 9/11
To the person who used suspicion of Jews doing 911 to diminish Prof McDonald, you should watch this Fox News report on 100s of Israelis arrested by FBI in connection with 911. They were later released by the pseudo-American Israeli Chertoff.
Perhaps the poster should examine other areas where they have been led astray, presumably by Zionist media who have a stake in the truth not getting out.
Here’s the link on my blog:http://zionofascism.wordpress.com...evidence-of-israels-911-involvement/
Anarchore, at 3:15 pm EST on February 16, 2008
Against anti-Americanism in the academia
Frankly speaking, I am surprised by a number of comments to this article, calling for censure of , withholding of tenure from or even removal from a teaching position of Professor McDonald solely because of professional opinion he holds. Personally, I regard such comments as abhorrent, obscene and not worthy of publication: they are an affront to the American vision of individual liberty, academic freedom, constitutional and civil rights, that are the basis upon which this nation was founded. Regretfully, it shows the extent to which the corrupting virus of anti-Americanism has penetrated the academia as well as arrogance and outright hostility of some of its members toward the values that has made this country great and has hold it together.
George Lenz, DSc., at 10:00 am EST on February 17, 2008
Um, George? Hello??
“I am surprised by a number of comments to this article, calling for censure of , withholding of tenure from or even removal from a teaching position of Professor McDonald solely because of professional opinion he holds. Personally, I regard such comments as abhorrent, obscene and not worthy of publication: they are an affront...”
So IHE shouldn’t publish them because they don’t suit your fancy? Are you suggesting we CENSOR these opinions?
The question here isn’t whether or not this guy has a right to his opinion. He does. But does he have the right to spout it off in a public, academic setting with a diverse community that deserves respect? Does he have the right to stir up tensions within the classroom? Does he have the right to use demeaning language and questionable research in the name of academia? Is he capable of treating people equally in spite of his opinions and obvious bias? I think not.
There is a vast difference between communicating “professional opinion” and the attempt to justify discriminatory behavior.
“Regretfully, it shows the extent to which the corrupting virus of anti-Americanism has penetrated the academia as well as arrogance and outright hostility of some of its members toward the values that has made this country great and has hold it together.”
Anti-Americanism? Last I checked, there was nothing more American than the multicultural society we have developed over the centuries.
Last I checked, bigotry, hatred, and hostility towards select groups have never been what keeps this country together—they are what tears it apart.
kgotthardt, at 8:15 pm EST on February 17, 2008
“So IHE shouldn’t publish them because they don’t suit your fancy? Are you suggesting we CENSOR these opinions?”
Yes, I believe that such obscene anti-American opinions calling for denial of employment to an individual because of an opinion he holds shall not be published. It is simply a matter of a good editorial judgment.
“The question here isn’t whether or not this guy has a right to his opinion. He does. But does he have the right to spout it off in a public, academic setting with a diverse community that deserves respect? Does he have the right to stir up tensions within the classroom? Does he have the right to use demeaning language and questionable research in the name of academia? Is he capable of treating people equally in spite of his opinions and obvious bias? I think not".
It seems I have to remind that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech…” No law means no law and state university is a public forum that cannot in any way censor opinions or make an appearance of censoring opinions unless those opinions are 1)lewd or lascivious 2) expressed concerning a particular individual in order to libel, slander or intimidate him 3) disruptive to an academic process. Professor McDonald’s speech does not satisfy any of the above criteria and hence cannot be in any way singled out for censure by the university, for that would constitute illegal infringement on Professor McDonald’s 1st amendment rights. Now specifically addressing the above points:
“But does he have the right to spout it off in a public, academic setting with a diverse community that deserves respect?”
Yes, the Supreme Court specifically addressed this question, finding that the 1st amendment protects such expression in relation to a fascist group, invited to speak at a university campus so far as it is not disruptive to an academic process. Prof. McDonald professional opinion satisfies all of the criteria established as relevant by the Supreme Court.
“Does he have the right to stir up tensions within the classroom?”
Yes, Supreme Court judgment prohibited the use of the so-called “heckler’s veto” or targeting an unpopular individual because of his views at a public forum to prevent the expression of his views. In fact the above article that has clear libelous overtones can be construed as such targeting of Professor McDonald’s because of his professional opinion and in my opinion constitutes the misuse of the freedom of the press in order to silence an unpopular scholar.
“Does he have the right to use demeaning language and questionable research in the name of academia?”
Yes, his right to do so as it pleases him is protected by the 1st amendment
“Is he capable of treating people equally in spite of his opinions and obvious bias?”
This issue can be raised only in case of complaints concerning such behavior that have extensive factual basis. Professor McDonald is not required under the existing laws to prove his capability to do so.
“I think not".
Such opinions in addition to being obscene and anti-American are not relevant to the issues raised in the article. What is relevant is the law of the land as related to the facts of the matter.
“There is a vast difference between communicating “professional opinion” and the attempt to justify discriminatory behavior".
There is no such difference under 1st amendment: the fact has been confirmed multiple times by various courts. Both enjoy full 1st ammanedment protection.
“Anti-Americanism? Last I checked, there was nothing more American than the multicultural society we have developed over the centuries".
This nation has been formed on the basis of individual liberty, which is indeed a feature of an American character. Calls for denial of individual liberty, especially such obscene and abhorrent calls as to deny employment to an individual solely because of his opinion are inherently anti-American, and their perpetrators are well-advised to leave the country if they are so unhappy with American liberties and to seek domicile elsewhere.
George Lenz, DSc., at 8:20 am EST on February 18, 2008
MacDonald and First Amendment freedoms
I’m afraid George Lenz is in a bit of a bind if he hopes to silence MacDonald’s critics on the basis of their purported attack on his First Amendment freedoms. If Lenz has read MacDonald’s books, he knows that MacDonald himself attacks precisely those freedoms quite explicitly:
“As discussed at several points in this volume [Culture of Critique], the radical individualism embodied in the Enlightenment ideal of individual rights is especially problematic as a source of long-term stability in a Western society because of the danger of invasion and domination by group strategies such as Judaism and the possibility of the defection of gentile elites ... ” MacDonald, Culture of Critique (1998), 324.
“Traditional American freedoms such as the First Amendment freedom of speech (deriving from the Enlightenment liberal strand of American identity) have clearly facilitated Jewish interests in the construction of culture, interests that conflict with the possibility of constructing a cohesive society ...” MacDonald, Culture of Critique (1998), 325-26.
If it is truly Mr. Lenz’s position that “calls for denial of individual liberty ... are inherently anti-American,” and that individuals who “are so unhappy with American liberties [ought to] seek domicile elsewhere,” then I suggest he ought to be first in line to volunteer to help MacDonald pack his bags.
For the record, I am not in favor of subjecting MacDonald to censorship, although I also believe that the principles of free speech entitle proprietors of speech venues (publishers, listservs, etc.) to judge for themselves whether they will provide MacDonald a platform. I further believe that MacDonald’s peers at CSULB are entirely within their rights to evaluate his scholarhip on its merits, and, given its overt hostility to those American liberties George Lenz rightly prizes, to declare their opposition to it on firmly stated grounds and in no uncertain terms.
David Lieberman, at 9:15 am EST on February 18, 2008
In reply to Professor McDonald’s critics
It seems Professor McDonald’s critics misunderstood the venue for expressing their discontent. The proper venue to address the issues they raise and, in particular, the issue of quality of Professor McDonald’s scholarship, was the time when the university department where Professor McDonald is employed reviewed his scholarship for the purposes of awarding him academic tenure. The act of awarding tenure to a scholar constitutes formal approval and endorsement of his scholarship by the university that grants him tenure. Hence, given that the use of heckler’s veto is illegal under existing law, Professor McDonald cannot be in any way censured by the state university he is employed at, and Professor MacDonald’s peers at CSULB cannot in their formal capacity in any way criticize or censure his scholarship they have previously endorsed without infringing on his 1st amendment rights. Thus Professor McDonald’s critics if they are so unhappy with the kind of people that are promoted to tenure in state universities can and should attack the academic tenure that is specifically intended to shield the particular scholars from censure and retribution on behalf of the society at large arising from the professional viewpoints and opinions they hold and express, but cannot and should not target individual scholars whose scholarship they do not like by instigating hostile articles targeting them as the one above in order to silence them. Such actions are not only improper, indecent and anti-American but run counter to established norms of behavior in the academic community and to the existing law.
George Lenz, DSc., at 10:50 am EST on February 18, 2008
Silliness
I did not initially realize that George Lenz is an active contributor to the Vanguard News Network (motto: “No Jews, Just Right"), which of course places his enthusiasm for MacDonald’s work in an altogether different light. It certainly explains his readiness to tolerate (state employee) Kevin MacDonald’s published attacks on the first amendment freedoms of tenured members of the CSULB faculty who happen to be Jewish even as he attacks the idea that tenured CSULB faculty might criticize MacDonald. Lenz’s claim that academic tenure somehow gives MacDonald license to practice academic fraud free from all standards of accountability is, on its face, abysmally silly, as numerous cases of universities taking action in the face of academic fraud in recent years would attest. It is, moreover, disingenuous to contend that criticism of MacDonald is being driven by his “opinions.” As a criterion of merit in scientific research such as MacDonald purports to be performing, “opinion” is valueless. The question of whether MacDonald has committed fraud is an empirical one that admits of straightforward investigation, and at no point in his career is an academic professional ever exempt from criticism or censure when he has been found to have committed fraudulent research. Critique, moreover, is not censorship, even if George Lenz has difficulty telling the difference.
(If I am incorrect and George Lenz, DSc, is not the same George Lenz who contributes a column on Aryan Economics to the Vanguard News Network, I of course apologize for any confusion on that score. His arguments concerning tenure, fraud and criticism are still, however, quite silly.)
David Lieberman, at 12:00 pm EST on February 18, 2008
On the standards of academic discourse
It seems worth mentioning that the appropriate venue for the charge of academic fraud against the scholar is the department where such a scholar is employed and where his accusers are free to complain. It is worth remembering, nevertheless, that unsubstantiated and unfounded charges of academic fraud constitute libel for which both the perpetrator of libel and the owner of the medium through which libel is disseminated are responsible.
As for personal attacks and expletives the critics of Professor McDonald’s employ against my humble person because they do not like what I have to say, they only demonstrate the baseness of their intentions, character and behavior. Regretfully, that is the usual ways of conducting discourse with the dissenters the so-called “politically correct” crowd in the academia employ. Shame on the editor of this newsletter for allowing such things to continue.
George Lenz, DSc., at 12:40 pm EST on February 18, 2008
Agreement at last
George Lenz: “It seems worth mentioning that the appropriate venue for the charge of academic fraud against the scholar is the department where such a scholar is employed and where his accusers are free to complain.”
Then we agree, since this is exactly the venue in which complaints against MacDonald’s scholarship have been taken up and are being assessed, as the IHE article above clearly states. And, really, if Mr. Lenz is so deeply wounded by my description of his claims (as distinct from hs person) as “silly", he really is rather too sensitive by half — especially given the language one sees banded about quite freely on the website he more usually inhabits (see above for a sample).
David Lieberman, at 1:10 pm EST on February 18, 2008
Hate in the Midst
Mr. Scott: Have you read Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s books and articles?
Besides others hatefully calling him names can you present evidence that any of his writings are untrue? Thank you.
Louis Calabro, at 10:25 am EDT on April 17, 2008
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Hate in Their Midst
or search for jobs directly.
Instructor, Speech-Language Path/Audiology
Loyola College in Maryland
Essential Duties of the Position Teach 4 courses (or clinical supervision equivalent) each semester. Participate in ... see job
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Programs
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Adjunct Faculty, General Student Development: Career & Lifestyle Planning
Joliet Junior College
Joliet Junior College is located in the Chicagoland area. JJC offers over 100 degree and certificate programs in the arts and ... see job
Physical Education Instructor (FY09-Pool)
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Lecturer
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Government: Middle East
Wesleyan University, CT
The Department of Government at Wesleyan University seeks applicants for a tenure track appointment as an Assistant Professor ... see job
Assistant Professor in Global Policy
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Mentor — Job ID 892
SUNY — Empire State College
Empire State College’s Northeast Center/Queensbury-Glens Falls Unit seeks applications for a half-time faculty position ... see job
Assistant/Associate/Full Professor in Health Psychology/Program Evaluation
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
English and American Studies: Transnational Asian American Studies
Wesleyan University, CT
The American Studies Program and the Department of English at Wesleyan University invite applications for a joint, ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
Coast to coast hatred
Interesting that there are no comments yet on this hateful behavior on our west coast. On the east coast, yesterday, there were many supporting Gene Nichol’s forced resignation for defending free speech. Freedom of speech is often ugly, but it must be supported. In its absence, the worst ideas go unchallenged.
Brian Bates, at 8:40 am EST on February 14, 2008