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.
History Carnival: History Carnival #5 is up at ClioWeb. While you are enjoying its feast, tell Jeremy what a great host he is. As he points out, History Carnival #6 will be hosted by Jonathan Dresner here at Cliopatria on or about 15 April.
Sparta: Mr. Sun! needs our professional advice. How does history foreshadow the Spartans' impending doom? I am officially copping out on this one and Jonathan is otherwise indisposed. There are too many military historians lurking around Cliopatria's skirts for her to speak ex cathedra on this issue. Chris, Mark, Tom, Victor: Mr. Sun! needs an advisory opinion.
Organization of American Historians: If, like me, you are missing the fact that you are not in San Francisco, but not missing the fact that you are not in San Jose, HNN's Rick Shenkman is on the case for you with his Reporter's Notebook: Highlights from the 2005 OAH Convention over on HNN's mainpage.
The Selig Solution: My colleague, KC Johnson, has a thoughtful piece at Inside Higher Ed,"Transparency or a Selig Strategy," that calls academic departments to academic responsibility.
Somewhere, I recall seeing something to the effect he became a Nazi within the last year. Maybe that is why his students haven't noticed much of anything. Everything being equal and the hiring committee was faced with a communist and a nazi, I would reopen the search. I have trouble believing either would keep it straight in the classroom. Of course, this may be that I am old enough that when I was a history major most of the professors in the department were conservatives.
Ralph E. Luker -
4/4/2005
I don't think the distinction between what one does in the public sphere and what one does in the classroom quite works here. This is a man who was publicly scornful of the institution in which he taught as "judaized" and who publicly referred to his students as "niggers." I'd call that a case of the faculty member's dysfunctionality.
Hugo Schwyzer -
4/4/2005
Coming to this late. I'll amen Sherman and Oscar on this one, provided Mr. Pluss really did keep his views out of the classroom. It's hard to imagine it happening, but not impossible. Now, had he been tenured, things would have gotten much more interesting.
chris l pettit -
4/3/2005
"natural law" is a dangerous term and I actually try to avoid using it due to its confusing connotations. Even Lon Fuller (whom I admire) found his authority in a deity...as do misinterpreters of natural law such as Scalia and Thomas (who actually come out on the side of deism and/or positivism...more ideology and intolerance). If one wants to connect natural law to a deity, many of the criticisms made by Bentham of rights law become very valid. I call this "deism" and do not consider it to be true natural law, but many others think that it is the essence of natural law. I would term my philosophy to be "universal humanism" or something of the like. As I noted above, I understand that individual rights need to be placed in a utilitarian context, but not utilitarianism based on the pleasures of individuals, but rather the interconnectedness of the community when mixed with individual rights. As I said, i plan to articulate this theory further soon. If you wish to term me a natural lawyer, I am not opposed to the classification, although I think it misinterprets my position, and oftentimes gets me labeled as an opposition of utilitarianism (which I am in its act and rule formulations...as well as anti-positivist...however, I have admired some of the more sophisticated utilitarian theories that are quite compatible with rights theory and am a fan of those mistaken labeled utilitarian, such as JS Mill).
At any rate, call it what you wish...I just think we need to be careful to define our terms when it has so many different conceptions depending on ones interpretation.
CP
John H. Lederer -
4/3/2005
"Law does not exist because of the ability to enforce (thereby eliminating any semblence of law and also returning us to Hobbes)...law exists on its own authority, and it is assumed that somewhere one can find those wise and educated enough to be able to determine how a rule is supposed to be applied and enforced when considering the interests of all of humankind"
=====
I believe you just took a good shot at defining "natural law".
chris l pettit -
4/3/2005
I am afraid I have confused you with my "realism." The questions you raise go to the heart of my legal and political philosophy, and I will be articulating them further on my blog in the coming weeks, so i will let you know. but for now...
In terms of law existing on its own authority, the way it is supposed to...even in international law, I understand and will fully admit that law as such does not exist, and there is no such things as law...domestically or internationally...there is only power relationships...labelling theory in criminology is exactly right in this regard. Is this the way law was intended..or rights? No...but everyone insists on living according to their own ideology and system of ethics...and have no right to claim any sort of backing from law, universal morality, or ethics in making their arguments. There only seem to be a few individuals in the world who are capable (or willing to) of overcoming our own biases and prejudices in favor of a universal standard. I often joke that it is ironic...I am a human rights lawyer and scholar who basically considers humanity to be the lowest form of evolution...but can't change and be self interested and greedy like most of humanity because then I would become a complete hypocrite like most everyone else.
What does this have to do with our current discussion? Well...the rule that we suggest...that hate speech only be illegal if a connection can be proven to a hate crime (with a standard of proof higher for those in power)...is an ideal rule...but is an antithesis to those in power and would apply to "crusades" against Arabs among other examples (Rick Santorum's comments, were they to lead to actions against homosexuals, for example). In "reality," those in power would not allow this to happen...and law is applied selectively by ideologues and their lackeys, thus ensuring the destruction of law and descent into power politics. THis is the essence of legal positivism. So I have to talk about the law as it exists on its own authority...and then the law (actually the lack thereof) that is "applied" by those capable of so called "enforcement." What is misunderstood is that law (especially human rights) exists on its own authority...it is only because individuals violate the law that a group of what are supposed to be wise and impartial individuals are supposed to have the permission of humanity to enforce the law for humanity's own good (otherwise people would break the law with impunity and we would once again descend into Hobbes' all against all world). Law does not exist because of the ability to enforce (thereby eliminating any semblence of law and also returning us to Hobbes)...law exists on its own authority, and it is assumed that somewhere one can find those wise and educated enough to be able to determine how a rule is supposed to be applied and enforced when considering the interests of all of humankind (yes...i am very much a Millian or Rawlsian scholar..a nice blend of tolerant utilitarian and rights theory). Positivism and the nation-state philosphy turn this on its head (as does the misapplication of democracy at times) and oftentimes results in the elimination of law altogether. In the case of hate speech...there is an ideal way that the law should be applied...which we can pretty much agree upon. unfortunately, it is necessary to realise that hate speech law, when applied by worthless political hacks (like the US government and its politically appointed judiciary) eliminates law from the equation and dredges back up power politics...hence the reason we have to look at the application. SO if we want to talk about the law...hate speech is illegal in that it is outlawed to incite others to hateful acts through speech (ironically this is a basic rule of international customary law...which i continue to submit is much purer than any state law or treaty law based on selfish nation-state negotiations). But in "reality" the law ceases to exist and is replaced by positivism and power based interactions. I think this is where our paths are passing one another and the misunderstanding is apparant. I wwill be careful in the future to differentiate between the law as it exists, the law as it is applied, and when law ceases to exist and we descend into the nasty ideological world of power based relationships.
i will also keep you appraised of when the full articulation of the theory is up on my other site...
CP
Ralph E. Luker -
4/3/2005
Anne, You're taking Pluss's word on it that his firing had _anything_ to do with a sports team. Fairleigh Dickinson's basketball team _probably_ had some African American players on it. Pluss doesn't think much of African Americans -- so he attributes his firing to wanting to placate the Afro-s. Nonsense.
Sherman Jay Dorn -
4/3/2005
There was a tenured psychologist at Florida State a number of years ago who had written some incredibly racist stuff, and if I recall correctly had a preface for a book by David Duke or someone similar. FSU did not fire him, and the provost said something to the effect of, "FSU is bigger than him. We'd be harmed more by firing him than by making clear that we cannot be budged from our principles for what he says."
Sherman Jay Dorn -
4/3/2005
Wait a minute. When did college students acquire the right to be comfortable? They have the right to learn from professionally competent faculty and the right to be evaluated fairly. But comfort's not in there.
Jason Nelson -
4/2/2005
Im assuming that you went to www.know.com and listened to all the excerpts of Churchill's speech's on the site. I have serious doubts that you have. For those looking for the truth, go and listen for yourself.
It's good to know that you had no problem wasting your time at the beggining of this Churchill matter defending Churchill, but now, your time being more valuable now, you have thrown the Nazi under the bus.(Im pointing out the inconsitancy, the Nazi deserved what has happened).
Ralph E. Luker -
4/2/2005
This is my last reply to you. Read your own citation. It does not say what you claim it says. I'm not "defending" Churchill. I'm defending due process. You can't tell the difference. No mud here. No need to change the subject. I just don't need to spend time trying to correct your nonsense.
Jason Nelson -
4/2/2005
Mr. Luker,
Your attack was expected, thank you for not disapointing me. It's not hard to predict that when you feel the argument is turning against you, you spray mud and hope to change the subject.
Churchill advocates violence against most if not all Americans. He is the one with "blood lust", and his is the side that you are defending. What does that tell us about you, Mr. Luker?
Ralph E. Luker -
4/2/2005
You wouldn't want to document your claim that "Churchill has advocated the killing of most if not all Americans as a form of justice" would you? Like the Horowitzes and Limbaughs you just assert these things, believing that, if you repeat them often enough, they must be true. In fact, they are justifications for your own blood lust. You're merely a vehicle for rightwing propaganda. Find something more worthwhile to do with your life.
Oscar Chamberlain -
4/2/2005
As is often the case, Chris, you get me to thinking. With rare exception--e.g. very clear proof that hate speech is part of conspiracy to provoke action even though it has not yet been provoked--I do believe that hate speech not connected to a crime should be legal.
Having said that, there are times you seem really inconsistent to me in how you define "law."
Sometimes you are quoting chapter and verse of treaties, as if those things should be considered law whether or not there is any means of enforcement. Here I note the simple legal truth that hate speech is not illegal and you disagree, pointing out how selective enforcement and interpretation of law makes all the difference.
I don't think you can have it both ways, particularly if consistency is important to you. If you judge what is legal within the United States by the standard that actions are more important than the letter of the law, then perhaps you should do the same in the international spheres, where you often cite "laws" that have no mechanisms for effective enforcement at all.
Jason Nelson -
4/2/2005
Mr. Luker,
Please do not misread my analogy. Churchill has advocated the killing of most if not all Americans as a form of justice. The Nazi, I assume, would like to see some sort of resumption of the "ethnic cleansing" carried out by Hitler. Both of these comments were made OUTSIDE the classroom. What is the difference?
Student evaluations are meaningless. Parent evaluations, or reactions to these comments put the institutions that these men are employed by at risk. Further, they put at risk the security of the jobs of every other professor working in their respective schools.
Again, student evaluations were not mentioned in my post, and I don't care about them. This is a nice attempt to rewrite my argument for me, but I certain many will see through it.
Further, I made no mention of how fast either should be fired. I also am a believer in due process rights. I do not believe the action should be taken lightly or done as a "lynch mob". Time should be taken and the issues should be carefully considers. After that, it is my belief it is in the best interests of both institutions and the communities that are served to terminate the employment of these men.
Mr. Pettit: You are correct that there is a basis in law concerning "hate speech". I respectfully suggest that if Pat Robertson is guilty of hate speech then there is no doubt that Churchill is. I have heard him answer a question from a student member of an audience of one of his speeches. The question was in effect, what could I do to help oppose America. His answer, "Well you got a trigger finger, that seems like a good place to start." If this isn't hate speech or advocating violence than I would love for anyone reading this to let me know what would have to be said to advocate violence.
There is no difference between Churchill and the Nazi and after due process any university has an obligation, to its other faculty and community, to remove these professors. The Supreme Court decision Waters V. Churchill certainly gives any university the right to do just that.
chris l pettit -
4/2/2005
One cannot shout FIRE in a crowded people...one cannot make speeches that result in bigoted attacks...these things are illegal in terms of US law. Now...if you want to make the statement that the words have to be at least loosely connected to an act of some kind, that I can see as a cohesive position, but tell that to those who are arrested for saying that they would like to assassinate the President (my parents have a friend in prison in Tampa on that very charge) or those accused of fomenting rebellion. As in many things, I am aware that the power relationships and those in charge are the ones who apply these standards in a biased manner...and that hate speech, like pornography, is often times subject to an "I know it when I see it" standard...but your generalisation that hate speech is not illegal is not in line with the legal and political realities. Whether this is good or bad is something for debate. I myself would agree with the position (if that is what you are advocating) that hate speech has to be able to be connected to an action of hate (although my standard of proof would be pretty loose, so that politicians and others couldn't get away with using hate speech to incite...like Pat Robertson and others do...and then hiding behind the standard of proof as if they had no responsibility for the resulting actions...in other words, those with more visibility and power would be subject to a higher standard than your average guy on the street saying he wants to shoot the President).
CP
Anne Zook -
4/2/2005
I don't think you can know if this affected his work in the classroom until someone interviews minority students about their opinion of him. The quote Atrios offered didn't identify any ethnic information about the one student asked to comment and I have to assume that, in a case like this, had the student been other than white, the article would have mentioned it.
Still. It's possible he kept his beliefs out of the classroom. If he did, I reluctantly admit he probably should not have been fired for them. (Also? Firing him because his attitudes and activities were incompatible with his job would have been one thing, but firing him because a sports team was doing well and they were afraid a revelation of his activities would detract from the sports team? I hate how all-important sports are to universities.)
Oscar Chamberlain -
4/2/2005
Chris, first of all, hate speech is not illegal in the United States, though it may be used as evidence for a charge of a hate crime.
Second, like you I do see a difference between Churchill's attacks and Pluss's comments. Pluss assumes that whole groups of people are inevitably and forever lesser beings. Churchill's charges, whether true or false, are based on the actions of people. However, the line between these can get awfully fuzzy, particularly when the latter charges are made in the sweeping and hateful style that Churchill sometimes uses.
This is why, in the end, I do not want to ban hate speech.
chris l pettit -
4/2/2005
Jefferson, if you will remember, advocated a complete social revolution every 35 years, give or take, in order to cleanse the system of government of its failings and take steps to attempt to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights what they should be viewed as...liquid documents. If this would have happened, the 2nd and 3rd Amendments would not exist anymore (since we don't have to worry about the quartering of troops or the keeping of militias...the 2nd Amendment is not about the right to keep guns or other weapons, someday gun supporters will learn that), the 18th and 21st Amendments wouldnt exist, and things would run a heck of a lot smoother.
Instead of "Bill of Rights" stuff, or "academic freedom," I see the difference between the two examples as turning on one thing...the LEGAL definition of hate speech. The Nazi comments are clearly delineated hate speech, similar to holding a KKK meeting, or making degrading comments about Matthew Shepard at his funeral for example. Churchill's comments, while offensive, do not constitute hate speech according to the accepted legal definition. As such, Churchill is subject to review of his plagiarism and other transgressions, but his statements are not enough to fire him...enough to censure or punish him, but not fire.
You want a defense? Being a Blackist, I do find a problem with the fact that the university is firing him for comments made outside of the academic sphere. Granted, this is all going to turn into a silly procedural rigamarole, since we will have inane discussions about whether it matters that he was an adjunct or not (it should not make a difference). That being said, what he said clearly constitutes hate speech, and because of that, there is an assumption of a chilling effect that carries into the classroom. The fact that there is no evidence (thus far) of classroom intimidation or bigotry is intriguing and actually provides him with a solid basis for complaint. i am sure some will surface, but we need to question the actions of the media and bloggers on this one, since now that it is being spread that he made these comments, it matters not what he teaches in his classroom, he will be subject to overanalysation...the kind that many of us would not face in the duration of our teaching careers. THis, in my opinion is unfair, as we should all be subject to the same standards unless a transgression occurred WITHIN the classroom.
I think that is as close to a defense as you will get. Being hate speech, he certainly deserves sanction of some kind. Chruchill, while offensive and tasteless, did not qualify except in the eyes of certain ideological zealots, who, thankfully, have nothing to do with legal standards (although they try awfully hard to pack the courts with their ideological ilk).
CP
Ralph E. Luker -
4/2/2005
Jason, You're responding as if you hadn't even bothered to read what I actually said in the last two posts at Cliopatria and in comments here. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the fact remains that both Churchill and Pluss apparently have had generally positive student evaluations of their teaching. So much for your analogy suggesting that any self-respecting American is surely offended by Churchill in the classroom.
Even so, positive student evaluations of teaching may not be the only reason for a faculty member to retain or lose her or his position. In Pluss's case, the administration at Fairleigh Dickinson apparently believes that it has found them. In Churchill's case, the _legitimate_ reasons he might lose his position are still under investigation by appropriate authorities at UC. They have already made clear that your demands that he be fired for what he _said_ is not acceptable. Whatever you claim, it is protected speech.
And I know that you don't like the distinction between tenured and untenured or adjunct faculty, but it gives the two different groups of faculty members different standing in the law. Churchill benefits from some due process rights that Pluss as adjunct faculty isn't guaranteed. Period.
All I'm urging you is that when decisions about these issues are in process that decent Americans will have sufficient respect for due process rights such that they will shun being a part of howling lynch mobs. If you allow yourself to get caught up in that peek of frenzy, you'll wake up on some future day -- if you're lucky -- and be very ashamed of yourself.
Jason Nelson -
4/2/2005
Mr. Luker, Im patiently waiting for your defense of the Nazi. Im sure it is forthcoming.
Again, the Supreme Courts decision, Waters V. Churchill provides public institutions with the right to protect themselves by limiting their employees speech. This is not a first amendment issue. The first amendment only says that the government "shall make no law..".
Here is another hypothetical. Let us suppose that there is a state in the US that was 70% Jewish. Let us further suppose that a situation completely analogous with this one, except that the professor was tenured, occurred in the states biggest university.
What would the effects be if that university failed to dispose itself of a Nazi professor? Would the Jewish-American community continue to support such a school? What of the livelihoods of all of the other professors at the school? Their jobs would be at risk if the employment guarantees of this Nazi were absolute. Certainly you would concede that none of the parents of 70% of the state would send their children to this university. If the university was prohibited from acting, from protecting itself, the entire community would be harmed, professors and students, by the certain withdrawal of support to the university from the community
I know this is a hypothetical, but those who seek to find the true meaning of this discussion will consider it. I am not advocating strict monitoring of what professors say. I am simply saying that academic freedom is not absolute, there are limits. I know this view is very unpopular with many who read this.
It is my hope that the readers will not take your slap at me seriously. Again, for all the lawyers out there, there is a good case to be made that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. If I were advocating the arrest of the Nazi that would be different. No one, tenured or not, has a right to a job. With a job come responsibility, and with responsibility comes some form of accountability. That is all I am suggesting.
Ralph E. Luker -
4/2/2005
Jason, It's always good to see your defenses of the Bill of Rights.
Jason Nelson -
4/2/2005
This is sweet to watch. I put out the hypothetical many times when discussing Churchill; what if a professor was an admitted Nazi? I know he does not have tenure, but so what if he did? Should Jewish students be forced to take his classes if they are a requirement, or should they even be subjected to unknowingly walking into the classroom of a man who believes that Hitler is a good man to follow? Im assuming he thinks the slaughter of 6 million Jews and many more millions of other people such as homosexuals, gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses was a good idea.
Apparently there ARE limits to what a professor can say. In this case, since Pro Nazi comments are "truly offensive", some are inclined to step back and let him be fired, or at least not cry out in defense of his academic freedom. As Mr. Luker said, what if you were a Jewish student...
What is the difference between Churchill and this Nazi? One is on the far lunatic left and one is one the far crazy right. Since all academic speech should be equally protected, left and right, I will be waiting to hear similar defenses of the Nazi that were issued in support of Churchill's academic freedom. Im preparing myself for disappointment.
What about being an American in Churchill’s class? What about being the son of a banker or stockbroker? What is the difference between that and being a Jew in a Nazi's class? Churchill has advocated the killing of all involved in the running of the American system, including bankers and stockbrokers? Churchill has preached violence as a means to overthrow the American government, despite a Colorado law requiring all professors to sign and abide by an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States. The only real restriction here is that a professor may not advocate the overthrow of the US government, and the courts have upheld the constitutionality of the oath.
I am satisfied that this situation has followed on the heels of the Churchill matter. As I suspected academic freedom is for everyone...everyone the majority of professors agree with, or at least sympathize with.
There is no place for either Churchill or any Nazis in America’s fraternity of professors. There are limits to what a professor may say. Granted, professors should be given great latitude, exceptions to unbridled academic freedom are few. However, such limits do and must exist.
Oscar Chamberlain -
4/2/2005
You're right,Tim. This one's tough. Ralph, you may be right about it influencing his work in subtle ways. But apparently it was sufficiently subtle not to attract complaint.
Of course, now that his views are known, his actions in the classroom will be examined more closely. Any sign of unfairness will be interpreted in this light. And Jewish or Black students would rightly be concerned about taking his class, whether or not he was "honest" in the class room.
Oh yes, this also suggests that what we say here on Cliopatria is our administrations' business. So let's make sure we don't admit anything that might make any groups of students uncomfortable. Cheers.
Of course, that's flip. Our nation's history makes the combination of Pluss's statements and the groups he denegrates a terribly potent one. Still . . . .
Ralph E. Luker -
4/2/2005
Yep. His public remarks are so clearly racist and anti-semitic, that it's hard to imagine those attitudes _not_ influencing his work. Were I one of his African American students or one of his Jewish students ...
Timothy James Burke -
4/2/2005
Well.
Here's a test case for academic freedom. Sure makes Ward Churchill look like nothing by comparison.
This one I have to step back and think about a bit. Jesus.
Oscar Chamberlain -
4/1/2005
One thing that happened (apparently) is that he was fired for activities outside of class. Pretty disgusting statements, to be sure, but apparently he was teaching well. he was doing his job.
Now adjuncts, as we know, are academic pond scum and have no right to renewal of contracts. As long as the university does't cut off his salary for the remainder of the semester, it is well within its rights to send him on his way.
And the right to dismiss him for activities outside of class is the right to dismiss any instructor not tenured for his or her views, whatever they are. Something to remember.
Jim Williams -
4/1/2005
What a shock! Jacques and I attended an NEH seminar with Sarah Pomeroy in 1987, and there was no hint of any such activity. Jacques' work was good enough that I asked him to present his seminar paper on a panel I organized, and Jacques was always polite and engaging throughout the seminar's duration. I wonder what happened?
Thanks, Ralph. Your work is really valuable.
