History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
One clearly positive development from the ward Churchill controversy: Nancy Rabinowitz, director of Hamilton's Kirkland Project, has resigned, under pressure. Rabinowitz compiled quite a record in the last six months--first inviting former Weather Underground terrorist Susan Rosenberg to a visiting position in writing, then inviting Churchill. Hamilton president Joan Stewart deserves praise for encouraging Rabinowitz to move on.
Stewart also deserves praise for announcing a top-to-bottom review of the Kirkland Project. In a perceptive op-ed last week in the Utica Observer-Dispatch, Hamilton art history professor Stepnen Goldberg observed that the college was"maneuvered, once again, by the Kirkland Project and its director into the position of defending the indefensible," with the resulting harm to Hamilton's fundraising ability and scholarly reputation.
The Kirkland Project, on the surface, has a quite neutral set of goals:
--Prepare our students to live and work in an increasingly complex multicultural and multiracial world;
--foster student and faculty scholarship related to our mission;
--develop and support curricula and pedagogies that challenge students to think critically and to make connections between classroom learning and the society in which we live.
It promises to"provide the integrated, complex, rigorous intellectual analysis and engagement with ideas that is characteristic of a liberal arts education and necessary for social justice movements."
As can be seen by the invitations to Rosenberg and Churchill, as director Rabinowitz seemed to use rather unusual criteria in determining which outside speakers would fulfill these goals.
Even more alarming, the Project has its own curriculum--whose development seems to have attracted as little oversight from the administration as did Rabinowitz's criteria for inviting outside speakers. Hopefully Stewart's review will also inquire into the criteria that Rabinowitz used for selecting courses that fit the Kirkland Project's interesting criteria.
Update, 12.36pm: By the way, to tie in to an earlier posting from this week, the Kirkland Project is a favorite model of the AAC&U. The AAC&U's 2002 conference cited Kirkland as an example of"transforming the campus environment to prepare students for an increasingly diverse society," while its 2005 conference devoted a session exploring whether the"New Academy" (a favorite AAC&U term) is a"Feminist Academy." The “new academy," the AAC&U explains, is"situated within a social order where gender equity is increasingly under siege." Kirkland, the session notes, offers an example of"the place of 'centers' in interdisciplinary and social justice work in liberal education for the 21st century" while also looking at how"we best institutionalize intellectual and pedagogical work for gender equity in the 21st century that is equally responsive to globalization, transnationalism, diversity and multiculturalism."
Not really. I'm researching the histories of private black militias in the North, particularly in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, and a group named Deacons for Justice. There's an interesting website which contains over 1500 FOIA pages on the Deacons. In most of the survey African-American history texts, they are pretty much ignored, as though the concept of armed self-defense were something of an embarrassment to the authors.
Anthony Paul Smith -
2/14/2005
Another case of "State violence good; fighting back bad." How boring you are.
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/14/2005
a. It seems to me that 'Stalinist' is even narrower than 'fascist'. I offered 'fascist' precisely because I thought it a broader category (broader my membership) than 'terrorist', and easier to find an example from.
b. It strikes me as conquest by definition to say that to be a terrorist one must kill someone. I'm not familiar with that view. In fact, nearly every definition of 'terrorism' includes the mere threat of force -- witness political kidnappings accompanied with threats to kill.
Take the FALN "terrorists" that Clinton granted clemency (without their requesting it). They were caught with weapons on their way to kidnap a Chicago millionaire to raise more bomb money -- seems the 130 bombs they had set off had drawn down their inventory. Alberto "One Finger" Morales, the FALN bombmaker, now sits in Havana, scratching his ass with his one finger left after he very considerately blew himself up (maybe he took instruction from Churchill?). I don't have any problems assigning the term 'terrorist' to any of those FALN guys.
Certainly, the WU did kill some people -- they managed to kill some of their own, though not as an act of terrorism, but through the incompetence that comes from being the spoiled, bored, vicious little punks they were.
I don't understand the baroque morality that has Ayers, the Pentagon bomber, holding down an endowed professorship in a university's school of education, when he couldn't hold a public school teaching certificate (you know, what many of his students will accomplish) given his criminal record. Nor do I understand how having been convicted of conspiracy, and illegal possession of automatic weapons, high explosives, and false identity documents, leaps one to the pinnacle of one's moral concern and, more bizarrely, the head of the employment line (particularly given the thousand of MFA holders from respected programs, and with creditable porfolios, who were leapt over).
Robert KC Johnson -
2/13/2005
Again, I haven't seen anything published on this matter. I quite forcefully--and regularly--defended SUU professor Stephen Roberds, who appears to have been dismissed by SUU in part because of his liberal political beliefs.
I don't know what the religious mission of Olivet Nazarene is. But I don't really see how it's a violation of academic freedom for a religious school to bring speakers into chapel that conform with its religious mission. That is, after all, one of the purposes of religious colleges, and it's protected by the First Amendment.
I prefer teaching at a public school, and rather doubt I would teach at a religious school, partly for this reason. But they clearly have a right to do so.
Robert KC Johnson -
2/13/2005
Yes, from what I have read, I believe Ralph is correct. It's essentially an "interdisciplinary" department, with considerable curricular autonomy, and, apparently, lots of money. But it's not independent from Hamilton, either in curricular terms or administratively.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/13/2005
Sherman, As I understand it, Kirkland College was a coordinate college for women that existed from 1968 to 1978 -- briefly Hamilton and Kirkland tried to follow the model of Hobart and William Smith. Kirkland never became a fully developed institution and was merged into Hamilton in 1978. Memory of it continued and in the mid-1990s the Kirkland Project was launched, with a substantial budget. As I understand it, Rabinowitz was the founding director of the Project. She was to have stepped down from that position at the end of this academic year, in any case, to go on a sabbatical leave.
Sherman Jay Dorn -
2/13/2005
Maybe this is opening up another can of worms, but I'm curious what the origins of the Kirkland Project were--something that faculty created or an administration creature?
Anthony Paul Smith -
2/13/2005
It seems to be a misnomer to call the Weather Underground terrorists, you know, since they actually didn't kill anyone.
The Chicago Police who murdered Fred Hampton may also not be terrorists, but I think their actions were closer to that definition than property damage.
Anthony Paul Smith -
2/13/2005
You really think you'll read something about a Right-wing college in our current state?!
Here, you're reading something now.
Olivet Nazarene University has a history of forcing profs out who do not agree with their conservative views. They never bring liberal's into chapel to talk about, I don't know, the evils of coporate America. Yet they regularly bring in people who decry the welfare system, explain the "scientific" reasons why homosexuals can be discriminated against, etc.
There are scores of universities like this! If you are going to step the pulpit everytime with this "forced balance makes right" preaching, then you are going to need to deal with this or you will be a hypocrite.
Adam Kotsko -
2/13/2005
I'll name you a fascist if you can name me an outright Stalinist who has been "embraced" by the academy. I'm not exactly sure how we measure how extreme someone is to the right or to the left, but you seem to be setting the burden of proof mighty high here.
Plus, in the intellectual circles in which I run, there is a lot of work still being done on Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, both of whom were unapologetic members of the Nazi party and never renounced it.
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/13/2005
correction:
the assertion that Rosenberg had been incarcerated for her "political activities" was included on flyers circulated at Hamilton, though it's not clear from the sources available that those flyers either did or did not originate with the Kirkland Project.
Robert KC Johnson -
2/12/2005
As soon as I read anything about Olivet Nazarene University, I'm sure I'll write something about it.
With regard to the R'berg appointment to the Kirkland Center, her previous academic experience consisted of a couple of terms as an adjunct at CUNY's John Jay College. I can't think of too many other instances of an adjunct who had taught for only a couple of semesters getting a visiting appointment at another college--and a more prestigious one, on top of that.
According to published reports, former director Rabinowitz didn't even inform the Hamilton dean about the appointment before making it--perhaps because she recognized that an academic case couldn't be made for it, and lots of hard questions would be asked about whether Rosenberg was being named simply because of her political beliefs.
I agree with Ralph--however she got out of prison, she paid her debt to society. But simply because she paid her debt to society doesn't mean that a college loses its right to consider whether someone with an extensive criminal background should be appointed to its faculty, especially in a case like this, where the academic rationale for the appointment seemed so meager.
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/12/2005
You should widen your circle of reading. Check out the words I used to describe Bush's avoidance of combat service on this very site (as the most salient example). Or Vandy. Moreover, I'm stunned -- are you trying to tell me you can't dredge up one example of a right-wing ex-terrorist embraced by academia? From the left there's Rosenberg, Dohrn, and Ayers (at least).
Hell, I'd settle for just a fascist embraced by academia -- you know, one certainly wouldn't want to blacklist, would one? They used to be out there: Ezra Pound, Celine, etc.. Come on, suprise me. Give me just one good example of even a qualified fascist embraced by academia recently (if only for his literary qualities, don't you know, since academia doesn't make employment decisions on the basis of politics).
Ralph E. Luker -
2/12/2005
Am I to understand that this comment is the best you can dredge up in the way of criticism of _any_ Right Wing target? You do manage to excuse the powerful and the Conservative with considerable aplomb. I'm looking for a little evidence of some evenhanded judgment on your part. I've _never_ seen you aim at a Right Wing target. All demons and offenders are on the Left, right judge?
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/12/2005
Your capacity for obfuscation remains unparalleled. I recognize the pardoning authority of the President. I had rather thought that Ford's pardon of Nixon spared him his deserved punishment, but I stand corrected -- apparently a pardon or a commutation is all the evidence one needs that the debt has been paid, or never should have been exacted at all.
I'm heartened by the fact you feel no need whatsoever to justify her hiring on a quality basis. I shed tears for Rosenberg's employment prospects, but not quite the tears reserved for the victims of her cohorts. I'd be happy to condemn the employment by academia of an underqualified right-wing ex-terrorist -- if you can just point to me an example of such.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/12/2005
I thought that your hatred of Clinton would not overcome your acknowledgment of the pardoning authority of the office he held, but of course I was wrong about that. I have not read Rosenberg's work nor do I feel any overwhelming urge to do so. If only you occasionally took aim at a Right Wing target, I'd have more confidence in the balance of your judgment. Meanwhile, I trust that you will be helping Ms. Rosenberg to find some productive employment. Wouldn't want to be a party to blacklisting, now would you, Richard?
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/12/2005
Actually, she didn't pay her penalty -- Clinton saw to that. She got her job armed with a correspondence degree, and a light porfolio. I'd be happy to show you some examples of her writing, if you want to crawl out on that limb and testify to their startling quality. So I ask again, what qualifies her? Is a referendum on the correct politics of Victor Rabinowitz vis-a-vis the civil rights era enough to immunize the decisions of his daughter-in-law from scrutiny? Would you call it a case of honesty to say she was incarcerated for her "political activities"? If that's the standard of honesty one gets from Rabinowitz, I'd say her judgment of literary quality when it comes to appointments is similarly suspect.
Ralph E. Luker -
2/12/2005
It may come as no surprise that your line of reasoning here is beginning to irritate me, Richard. Since we're doing history, with the WU, I want to say that there are worse things than being related to Victor Rabinowitz. One of them is having unauthorized possession of a large cache of destructive material, for which Ms. Rosenberg has paid her penalty. Another thing that is worse would be having living through the civil rights era and either opposed it, as most conservatives did, or done nothing in its behalf, as most people did. That cannot be said of Victor Rabinowitz and his family. They were my allies then; I see no reason why Ms. Rosenberg's lengthy incarceration should disqualify her from productive employment for the rest of her life.
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/12/2005
I would add that Churchill, in a 1987 interview, said he had shown the Weather Underground how to make bombs. Given his fabulist tnedencies, one may wish to take his claim with a truckload of salt. Yet, perhaps even the mere assertion of a Weather Underground connection was enough to get him an invitation to Hamilton.
Richard Henry Morgan -
2/12/2005
A few points. I think the police officers were Nyack police officers. She wasn't prosecuted for that. She was given 58 years, for "weapons possession", which should have been enough. She was not paroled. Her sentence was commuted by Clinton, probably in an attempt to draw attention away from his servicing of Marc Rich. That is to say, even had she been convicted of murder, Clinton could still have commuted her sentence. It's not as though she made a compelling case for commutation on even the lesser charges.
The Kirkland Project announced her appointment, stating that she had been incarcerated for her political activities with the Black Revolutionary Army. A nice euphemism. She was found in possession of automatic weapons and over 700 pounds of high explosives.
As to the question of qualifications, she had a brief stint in the CUNY system as an adjunct. I'd turn the question around -- what makes you think she got the job based on her meager qualifications?
Fact is, Rabinowitz is the daughter-in-law of Victor Rabinowitz, law partner to Leonard Boudin, and counsel for Weather Underground member Kathy Boudin. I certainly appreciate the fact that Rabinowitz feels that Weather Underground membership and service to family connections trump qualifications. I just don't think she should be encouraged in that belief.
Adam Kotsko -
2/12/2005
I meant "the state" as in the entire governmental apparatus of the United States. If New York state wanted her to suffer more, then they should have prosecuted her for killing police officers. If you want her to be denied jobs for which she is otherwise qualified, based on non-compelling evidence that state prosecutors say that they had for a crime they chose not to prosecute -- then that's really just too far in my opinion. Do you want to simply exclude radical voices in the name of balance?
Anthony Paul Smith -
2/12/2005
She should have been studying history instead of making it.
Kill Lefty!
I'm still waiting for you to denounce the lack of freedom at Olivet Nazarene University.
Robert KC Johnson -
2/12/2005
Rosenberg's sentence was commuted by President Clinton just before he left office. So, yes, he was satisfied she had paid her debt to society; NY state, though, wasn't.
As to the killing issue, prosecutors at the time had strong although not compelling evidence that Rosenberg was involved in a heist that left two NYC police officers dead. They didn't prosecute in part because they had her dead to rights on the weapons charges. In appointing someone to a visiting faculty position, however, certainly a college has a right (I would say an obligation) to look into such background matters. It's hard for me to imagine that there wasn't one person around more qualified than Susan Rosenberg for this visiting appointent, or that, if she had been convicted of a crime that didn't have a radical tinge, the Kirkland Project would have sought to have hired her.
Adam Kotsko -
2/12/2005
They never actually killed anyone, you know -- and the fact that the woman is out walking around means that the state is apparently satisfied that she has paid all requisite penalties.
Many seem like legitimate scholars; all seem to tilt in one ideological direction.
As I've noted before, I'm less concerned with speakers' lists than with curricular and personnel matters, although it does seem to me that extreme bias in speakers' lists can symbolize broader problems.
Robert KC Johnson -
2/12/2005
I've searched for it, and have been unable to thus far find it. I've been unable to access the Hamilton student newspaper, though (their site seems to be down), and am hoping they'll have it.
