From The Archives But It Reads Like Today-Targeting Professor Terri Ginsberg's Academic and Speech Freedoms - by Stephen Lendman-Reinstate Professor Ginsberg!

Saturday, July 02, 2011

Targeting Professor Terri Ginsberg's Academic and Speech Freedoms

Targeting Professor Terri Ginsberg's Academic and Speech Freedoms - by Stephen Lendman

Post-9/11, anyone challenging America's war on terrorism faces possible recrimination, especially vulnerable Muslims, targeted for political advantage to incite fear to justify war.

Moreover, anyone critical of Israel leaves them vulnerable to vilification, intimidation and persecution. Even university professors are targeted, including distinguished tenured ones - censured, suspended and/or fired unjustly.

Yet America's First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Of all Bill of Rights freedoms, this one's most important because without it all others are at risk.

Some would also argue that academic freedom derives from First Amendment rights, including US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (1939 - 1975). In 1952, he cited it in an Adler v. Board of Education opinion, calling its denial a violation of speech freedom.

He also believed that doing so is "the most dangerous of all subversions....There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."

In Wieman v. Updegraff (1952), Justice Felix Frankfurter (1939 - 1962) concurred, saying:

"To regard teachers - in our educational system, from the primary grades to the university - as the priests of our democracy is therefore not to indulge in hyperbole. It is the special task of teachers to foster those habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry which alone make for responsible citizens, who, in turn, make possible an enlightened and effective public opinion."

"They cannot carry out their noble task if the conditions for the practice of a responsible and critical mind are denied to them. They must have the freedom of responsible inquiry, by thought and action...."

In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, Justice Earl Warren (1953 - 1969) concurred with a High Court majority, saying:

"We believe that there unquestionably was an invasion of petitioner's liberties in the areas of academic freedom and political expression - areas in which government should be extremely reticent to tread. The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident....To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation....Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die."

In Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967), Justice William Brennan (1956 - 1990) notably said:

"Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom."

American jurisprudence today is much more hardline than earlier because two-thirds or more of all federal judges are from, affiliated with, or sympathetic to the extremist Federalist Society. It advocates rolling back civil liberties; ending New Deal social policies; opposing reproductive choice, government regulations, labor rights and environmental protections; as well as subverting justice (including speech and academic freedom) in defense of privilege.

As a result, academia is easily threatened, especially when challenging mainstream dogma, notably through honest discourse about Israeli/Palestinians relations.

North Carolina State University (NCSU) Professor Terri Ginsberg is one of many victims. She was denied tenure-track positioning, then fired as a visiting professor, "pertaining to (her) scholarship and teaching on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

Ginsberg's Distinguished Credentials

After receiving her doctorate in Cinema Studies at New York University (NYU), she taught film, media, and literary studies at Rutgers University, NYU, Dartmouth, Ithaca College, SUNY-Purchase College, and Brooklyn College-CUNY.

Her expertise includes:

-- Palestinian/Israeli cinema;

-- German cinema;

-- Holocaust films;

-- Critical theory; and

-- Gender and sexuality studies.

Her authored, co-authored, and edited books include:

-- "Historical Dictionary of Middle Eastern Cinema;"

-- "Holocaust Film: The Political Aesthetics of Ideology;" and

-- "Perspectives on German Cinema."

She's also written articles for the Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, Spectator, Situations, Arab Studies Quarterly, and other publications, including on Palestinian/Israeli conflict issues.

From 2006 - 2008, she co-chaired the Society for Cinema and Media Studies Middle Eastern Caucus. In New York, as part of Jews against Israel's Occupation and International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, she's also been a community organizer. In addition, she's an International Council for Middle East Studies (ICMES) Programming Committee member.

Ginsburg's Case

In December 2009, she sued NCSU. At an October 25, 2010 Summary Judgment hearing, Judge Shannon Joseph summarily dismissed it without reason. At issue was either not understanding or being dismissive of First Amendment rights. "(S)he was apparently only looking for direct evidence of discrimination and speech suppression," or bent the law to support power and privilege over justice.

Despite "mountain(s) of circumstantial evidence," she dismissed it out of hand. In April 2011, Ginsberg's Record of Appeal was filed, then "an Appellate Brief with the North Carolina Court of Appeals" on June 24. A late summer or early fall hearing should follow.

Litigation Background

Ginsberg sued in December 2009. A State of North Carolina mandated mediation hearing followed in May 2010. No settlement was reached. During a week of subsequent depositions, NCSU "admitted that it suppressed (her) speech critical of Zionism and supportive of the Palestine liberation struggle" while employed as a visiting professor.

As a result, "it chose not to interview or hire (her) for a tenure-track position because" her scholarship focused honestly on Israel/Palestine, the Middle East, "Jewish" and related issues. "Amazingly, (NCSU) claims that it has the right to suppress, refuse and reject on the basis of these considerations." As a result, Ginsberg filed a Record of Appeal and Appellate Brief for redress.

In September 2010, when discovery ended, "NCSU filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, held on October 25 as explained above. "By dismissing the case, Judge Joseph essentially decided that" the North Carolina Constitution's Article I, section 14 free speech provision excludes anti-Zionist criticism and views supporting Palestinian, Arab and Muslim rights.

As a non-tenure-track faculty member at the time, Ginsberg was fired as a visiting professor and denied a campus grievance hearing - one a tenure-track/tenured faculty member likely would have gotten. "(T)he judge's decision also impacts the labor rights of contingent academic workers" nationally because they comprise 70% of faculty members today.

Ginsberg strongly believes her Summary Judgment dismissal was improper. As a result, she was denied a jury trial on grounds that no speech violations occurred. In fact, Judge Joseph's ruling ignored evidence that "NCSU faculty exhibited symptoms of discomfort with (her) political views and public statements."

For example, NCSU witnesses, including its Film Studies Program director, admitted they reacted negatively to views she expressed at a Palestinian film screening, during which she thanked audience members "for supporting the expression of a Palestinian liberation perspective in an alternative film screening."

As a result, NCSU witnesses said they believed they would thus "perceive the Film Studies and Middle East Studies programs as biased. Shortly thereafter, (she) went from being the favored candidate for a tenure-track position to be denied an interview."

Later, NCSU claimed she was denied for being "overqualified," and because her scholarship "shift(ed) to Middle Eastern interests," making her inappropriate for a European film position despite her "voluminous publication record" and European film work, "far exceed(ing) the prevailing candidate."

Based on bogus reasoning, however, she was also denied a jury trial, a decision Ginsberg hopes will be reversed on appeal.

Terri Ginsberg v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina

Its Statement on the Grounds for Appellate Review says:

"Judge Joseph's order, which entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant on all of the plaintiff's claims, is a final judgment and appeal is therefore proper pursuant to NC Gen. Stat. 7A-27(b)."

In October 2007, Ginsberg applied for a Film Studies tenure-track position. It requires candidates with "a primary concentration in at least one area of European Cinema, although additional areas of expertise are welcome (other national cinemas, digital media, theory, etc.)," as well as "an excellent research and teaching record in the area advertised."

The search committee initially listed her most qualified among "First Tier Candidates" until "suddenly" she "fell out of favor (and) was not listed in either the first or the second tier, but moved to the bottom of the 'reject' tier, and was not even granted an interview for the position."

The reason given was that she was "now working with Palestinian/Israeli, rank issue(s)...." Moreover, it called her "experience and the quantity of her publications exceed(ing) that which normally would be expected of a beginning assistant professor in our department."

"Included in the tier above her were candidates who did not even appear to be in the field of Film Studies, including (one) about whom the notes said, 'is he really film studies?' "

Despite being the most qualified candidate, another one was chosen "whose publication and teaching records were not nearly as strong as Ginsberg's...."

Moreover, although the applicant wrote about Holocaust film, she didn't challenge Zionism, include alternative Jewish perspectives, or publish books. In addition, Ginsberg's contract wasn't renewed despite her cinema expertise and distinguished scholarship.

Clearly, her activist views about Israel/Palestine, Zionism, and America's one-sided Middle East policy got her punished. As a result, her academic and speech rights were violated, subjecting her to Inquisition justice.

A Final Comment

University of Chicago Professor Peter N. Kirstein, a noted academic freedom supporter, said Ginsberg was fired:

"for daring to cross the ideological line into artistic and pedagogical assessment of the Palestine Question. (She's) just one of many academics who support human rights and the decolonization of Palestine whose academic freedom has been denied. Many have either been silenced, fired, denied tenure, or non-renewed throughout academia" for daring to defend right over wrong - especially when challenging Israel, Zionism, or America's one-sided support for both.

As a result, each censor victory "is a defeat of free speech and the right to conscience that this nation and the academy cynically trumpet," while waring lawlessly against democratic values, including truth, justice, rule of law standards, human rights, civil liberties, and courageous activists who champion them.

Among others well known to this writer, Ginsberg notably qualifies honorably.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

posted by Steve Lendman @ 7:51 AM

The Anti-Intellectual Forebears Of The Tea Party Movement- “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life”- From The Pen Of Professor Richard Hofstadter- A Book Review

Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for Professor Richard Hofstadter.

Book Review

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Richard Hofstadter, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1969

As Professor Hofstadter’s book most dramatically points out plebeian, and patrician, anti-intellectualism has a long pedigree in the United States. This trend goes back to the foundation colonies and their Puritan theocratic social organization premised as they were more on religious obedience than critical thinking. Thus, this latest wave of anti-intellectualism, at least the publicly visible and in your face 24/7/365 anti-intellectualism, highlighted by Tea Party ideology, climate change anti-scientism, exotic “medical” remedies, and a turning away from defense of the public square and scholarly research has many forebears. And, oh yes, add in the rising belief in angels, witches, goblins, gremlins and other dark night phenomena more reminiscent of the 15th century than the 21st. This latest wave of hard-bitten anti-intellectualism, as it has taken form over the past several years, drew me into a re-reading of the good professor’s work published almost half a century ago to see what his take was on those roots. And to see if there was anything new under the sun since that time.

Of course 1964, the time of this book, was a watershed period, just that period when public optimism has not soured as a result of the John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson/Richard Nixon Vietnam nightmare and the remnant reaction (read countercultural reaction by those who sought a “newer world”) that set off the current long wave of anti-intellectualism. Although the United States had just prior to this time gone, in the McCarthy, Nixon, and know-nothing friends red scare nightmare, through a short wave anti-intellectual period, this Hofstadter moment was one still driven by belief in the possibilities that science was our friend and that intellectuals could be trusted to not sell us out, whatever there was to sell out, and to whom.

Professor Hofstadter spends plenty of time on this period reflecting on the Adlai Stevenson campaign as the epitome of the rejection of “egghead” leadership and of the the “victory” of plebeian virtues of one Dwight David Eisenhower. Also reflected during this period are the various plebeian and patrician moves to isolate intellectuals after their heyday in the early years of the Franklin Roosevelt administration. So this part of his analysis has some common features with today’s anti-intellectualist movements. Also the various anti-intellectualist segments of society that were predominant during most of the 20th century: businessmen more interested in profits than arcadia (except to pick brains to increase profits); farmers more interested in harvests than non-farm public policy; those reformers (of a sort now familiar) who wanted to limit public education, low and high, to essentially vocational pursuits; and, of course, politicians, low and high, who rode the various waves of these movements.

Although many of the social groups that the professor highlighted still retain their anti-intellectual bent today I believe that the dramatic rise of the expert since the 1960s, and the media’s dependence on this element is something that might have surprised the professor. It is the one area that seems to me runs counter to the know-nothingness pull of American society in general. That said, the strength of this work, an academic work after all, and an intellectual historian’s academic work, are the parts dealing with the early roots the Puritan, and later, the post-American revolutionary plebeian democratic roots of the United States. He draws his line of continuity straight though that very clear trend to his time.

And one half century later, I believe, the professor would be able to continue to draw that line. That said, on this re-reading of the book, frankly, the professor's writing style, and some of the datedness of the material referenced, made this a less exciting read than when I stayed up quite a few nights until late to read every page it is the best source to start from when tracing the anti-intellectual current in American life. A current that appears is to be with us for a while. Again.

The Intellectuals Or The Jocks?-For Fredda Cohen, North Adamsville High, Class Of 1964-Phil Larkin’s View

Click on the headline to link to a letter written by the late American writer, Norman Mailer, and printed in The New York Review Of Books, detailing his choices for "must reads" in the American literary canon. What would your ten choices be? See below.

Phil Larkin guest comment:

I did not then, nor do I now, know Fredda Cohen, a fellow classmate at North Adamsville High, Class of 1964. I don’t remember if old track buddy Markin, Peter Paul Markin, who prompted me to write some teary-eyed thing for him knew her or not, but it was with her in mind that I wrote the following. I, today, strongly believe that I could have learned a lot from her and maybe Markin does too but you will have to ask him that yourself. No way, no way on god’s good green earth in the year 2011 and while I am still breathing, old time “jock” buddies or not, am I going to vouch for that maniac. Here goes:

Every September, like clockwork, I am transported to a place called the beginning of the year. No, not New Year’s Day like any real person would expect, but the school year for most students, younger or older. That is a frame of reference that I have not changed in all these years. And every year, or many years anyway, my thoughts come back to the road not taken, or really not taken then, when I ask myself the following question that I am posing in such a way here so that you can ask it to yourself as well: What group(s) did you hang around with in high school?

This question is meant to be generic and more expansive that the two categories listed in the headline. These were hardly the only social groupings that existed at our high school (or any public high school, then or now, for that matter) but the ones that I am interested in personally for the purpose of this thing. Corner boy devotees and hoods, social butterflies, teases (actually that is covered that under social butterflies, girl social butterflies), school administration “brown noses,” science nuts, auto mechanics grease monkeys, bolsheviks, hippies, beats, hip-hop nation devotees, could-care-if-school-kept-or-not-ers, school skippers, drop-outs, and religious nuts can speak your own piece for your “community.”

You, fellow alumni from Anyway U.S.A. High, can also feel free to present your own extra categories in case I missed anything above like S&M or B&D devotees or stamp club members or both intertwined, if your you were aware of such types. However, for this writer, and perhaps some of you, here were my choices. The intellectuals, formerly known as the "smart kids.” You know, the ones that your mother was always, usually unfavorably, comparing you to come report card time in order to embarrass you or get you to buckle down in the great getting out from under the graying nowhere working class night and make something of yourself that she (and dad) could be proud of. Yes, those kids at the library after school, and even on Saturday, Saturdays if you can believe that, and endlessly trudging, trudging like some Promethean wanderers about forty six pounds of books, books large and small, books in all colors, mainly, and here is the kicker, well-thumbed, very well-thumbed. Or, on the other hand the jocks, the guys and in those days it was almost exclusively guys (girls came in as cheer-leaders or, well, girlfriends-sometimes the same thing). You know, mainly, the Goliaths of the gridiron, their hangers-on, wannabes and "slaves." The guys who were not carrying any forty-six pounds of books, although maybe were wearing that much poundage in gear. And any books that needed carrying was done by either girlfriends or the previously mentioned slaves. Other sports may have had some shine but the “big men” on campus were the fall classic guys. Some sports such as the old buddies, Markin and Larkin, track and field events didn’t usually rate even honorable mention compared to say a senior bake sale or high school confidential school dance.

Frankly, although I was drawn to both groupings in high school I was mainly a "loner" for reasons that are beyond what I want to discuss here except it very definitely had to do with confusion about the way to get out from under that graying working class nowhere night. And about “fitting” in somewhere in the school social order that had little room for guys (or girls for that matter) who didn’t fit into some classifiable niche. And for guys, 1960s shorts-wearing track guys, running the streets of old North Adamsville to the honks of automobiles trying to scare us off the road (no share the road with a runner then) and jeers, the awful jeers of girls, that space was very small. The most one could hope for was a “nod” from the football guys (or basketball in winter) in recognition that you were a fellow athlete, of sorts. Ya, times were tough but we survived.

But now I can come out of the closet, at last. I read books. Yes, I read them, no devoured them endlessly (and still do), and as frequently as I could. Did you see me carrying tons of books over my shoulder in public. Be serious, please. Here is the long held secret (even from Markin). I used to go over to the library on the other side of town, the Adamsville side where no one, no one who counted anyway (meaning no jock, of course), would know me. One summer I did that almost every day. So there you have it. Well, not quite.

In recent perusals of my class yearbook I have been drawn continually to the page where the description of the Great Books Club is presented. I believe that I was hardly aware of this club at the time but, apparently, it met after school and discussed Plato, John Stuart Mill, Max Weber, Karl Marx and others. Fredda Cohen ran that operation. Hell, that sounded like great fun. One of the defining characteristics of my life has been, not always to my benefit, an overweening attachment to books and ideas. So what was the problem? What didn't I hang with that group?

Well, uh..., you know, they were, uh, nerds, dweebs, squares, not cool (although we did not use those exact terms in those days). That, at least, was the public reason, but here are some other more valid possibilities. Coming from my 'shanty' background, where the corner boys had a certain cachet, I was somewhat afraid of mixing with the "smart kids." The corner boys counted, after school anyway, and if they didn’t count then it was better to keep a wide, down low berth from anything that looked like a book reader in their eyes. I, moreover, feared that I wouldn't measure up, that the intellectuals seemed more virtuous somehow. I might also add that a little religiously-driven plebeian Irish Catholic anti-intellectualism (you know, be 'street' smart but not too 'book' smart in order to get ahead in one version of that graying working class nowhere night) might have entered into the mix as well.

But, damn, I sure could have used the discussions and fighting for ideas that such groups would have provided. I had to do it the hard way later. As for the jocks one should notice, by the way, that in the last few paragraphs that I have not mentioned a thing about their virtues. And, in the scheme of things, that is about right. So now you know my choice, except to steal a phrase from something that madman Markin wrote honoring his senior English teacher, Ms. Lenora Sonos- "Literature matters. Words matter." (I wish now that I had had her as well). I would only add here that ideas matter, as well. Hats Off to the North Adamsville Class of 1964 intellectuals!
*****

Norman Mailer

Ten Favorite American Novels

U.S.A. John Dos Passos
Huckleberry Finn Mark Twain
Studs Lonigan James T. Farrell
Look Homeward, Angel Thomas Wolfe
The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck
The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald-1st A.J.
The Sun Also Rises Ernest Hemingway
Appointment in Samarra John O'Hara
The Postman Always Rings Twice James M. Cain
Moby-Dick Herman Melville

This would be my list, as well, except instead of Moby Dick I would put Jack Kerouac's On The Road