IP: Re: CUNY condemns professors

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Editor comment:  I don't want to prolong this round. Let me stick my 2 
cents in. I lived during the Joe McCarthy era and have read a lot about it. 
The real damage was done by not the HUAC but the corporations, Universities 
etc. ( read the history). One young faculty at Princeton who was on a black 
list and , if my memory served right took his constitutional right against 
self incrimination was told to get off the campus and NEVER step foot on it 
again. Tenured faculty at other places were fired. People had their lives 
ruined etc.  Many, who were not at all associated with the Communist party, 
were asked to and refused to incriminate their friends. It was not a proud 
era and only ended when Joe started accusing the Army of harboring 
"unamerican" people.

Witch hunts are exactly what terrorists want. It disrupts a society and 
sets citizen against citizen. Law , the constitution, and the spirit of our 
citizens are what makes this nation great. Lets not damage it by refusing 
to allow open debate.

Dave

> From: Kobrin <KobrinS@wharton.upenn.edu>
> To: "'farber@cis.upenn.edu'" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
> Subject: RE: Re: CUNY condemns professors
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:17:12 -0400
>
>
> With all due respect to my esteemed colleague Gerry Faulhaber, it stretches
> (at least my) credence a bit to believe that the Chancellor and Trustees of
> CUNY were speaking as private citizens exercising their constitutional
> rights when they publicly condemned faculty for their opinions. They were
> speaking as officials of CUNY.  While I have no doubt they expressed what
> they themselves felt, I also have no doubt that they were just as interested
> in disassociating CUNY from these statements.
>
> Furthermore, I am sure that we both recall that it was not HUAC who fired
> faculty during the early years of the Cold War but chancellors, trustees and
> administrators of universities acting for a variety of reasons, including
> both their own politics and a desire to show that their universities were on
> the "right side."
>
> I find myself angry at attempts to blame the victim, to argue that it was
> U.S. policy and arrogance that motivated the attacks.  I do not think that
> Bin Laden much cares about cross-national income distribution or the Kyoto
> Treaty.  What makes me angry, however, is not that important;  we need the
> freedom to reexamine a lot of aspects of American foreign policy ranging
> from unilateralism to efforts to deal with poverty and inequality in the
> light of the September attacks.  While the constitution never allowed one to
> scream fire in a crowded theater, it is important to maintain a climate
> where a range of opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged.  Publicly
> condeming faculty for their opinions or labeling any divergence from the
> mainstream -- anti-globalization protesters or human rights activists, for
> example -- as supporting terrorism is not going to accomplish that end.
>
> Stephen Kobrin



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/