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

Obama, FBI- Hands Off The "Anonymous" Group

Click on the headline to link to an NPR online report, dated February 10, 2011, on the "Anonymous" Group (Hey that is what they are  called and if you listen to the story you will know why.) that has been acting as a cyberspace thorn in the side of the American government and assorted businesses

Markin comment:

I have run into some supporters of this group and they are interesting, kind of soft anarchist techie-types. Not Bolsheviks by any means but, seemingly, their hearts are in the right place. Hands Off "Anonymous" Group. And while we are at- Hands Off Wikileaks!- Hands Off The Chicago and Minneapolis Anti-war and Anti-Imperialist activists!- Free Private Bradley Manning! See, they all goes together, right?

* On Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project- A Guest Commentary

Click on the headline to link to a commentary by Professor David Cole (who worked on the case) on the recent ugly free speech (or rather anti-free speech) decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project by the U.S. Supreme Court. Watch your back, fellow leftists.

*From "The Rag Blog"- Professor Bill Ayers On His Right To Free Expression- Let Him Speak Wherever He Wants To- A Guest Commentary

Click on the headline to link to a "The Rag Blog" entry by guest blogger, Professor Bill Ayers (yes, that Bill Ayers), on his trials and tribulations trying to exercise his basic right to free expression (and of those who want to hear him). Let him speak wherever he want to and wherever people want to listen to him. This is a no-brainer.

Markin comment:

I have already written about Professor Ayers problems when he came to, or tried to come to, Boston College in the Spring of 2009. I have reposted that entry below.


Tuesday, April 07, 2009

*Hands Off Professor Bill Ayers- Let Him Speak

Click on title to link to "Boston Globe", April 2, 2009, article on Professor Bill Ayers discussed below.

Commentary

Okay, Okay I know that I have invoked the word professor ironically and in a somewhat tongue in cheek manner in discussing controversial Professor Bill Ayers in this space as an object lesson about the career paths of 1960’s ex-radicals once they have reconciled themselves to bourgeois society. Naturally when his name came up prominently in relation to the emergence of then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama I could not resist sticking a few well-deserved barbs Ayers’ way. But they were rather politically pointed barbs from the left about why an ex-Weatherman would be hanging around with a bourgeois candidate on the make like Obama.

But now news (somewhat dated news as I have been out of town and did not pick up the controversy until after it was over) about Boston College’s thinly- veiled slap at academic freedom by refusing to let the good professor speak in person or via satellite has crossed the line, even for the very arbitrary and capricious of so-called “academic freedom”. This is, moreover, is not solely a case of right wing commentators having a field day with the issue, although a local “Rush Limbaugh” wannabe helped fan the flames. I am sure that the right-wingers were more than happy when the Boston College administration decided to keep the academy and the minds of their young charges there “pure” from the taint of any old time radical. However, this is just one more in an ever- growing line of cases (think of Ward Churchill and the Finklestein case) where a college administration was more than capable, as in the past, of putting the clamps on by itself.

Here are the facts. Apparently, Professor Ayers was scheduled to deliver some kind of lecture on urban education (his specialty) at Boston College during the week of March 29, 2009 at the invitation of some student groups, including the College Democrats of Boston College. Such lectures by newsworthy figures are not unknown events on college campuses and moreover are a rather lucrative proposition for professors on the academic lecture circuit. The Boston College administration balked at that invitation citing a groundswell of opposition from local neighbors. Why? It seems that there is some lingering animosity concerning the shooting of a Boston Police officer by people allegedly connected with Professor Ayers’ old organization, the Weathermen. Professor Ayers, however, has never been charged, much less convicted, with any connection to that crime.

Why the furor then? Well, the Boston College administration, bowing to those inevitable amorphous unknown forces (although we can guess what those forces are now, can’t we), expressed its profound concern for the safety of the student community and “respect” for the local community (where it has been busily buying up real estate in order to expand its campus). Well, ho hum we have heard that ‘justification’ before. The kicker here on this bogus ‘safety’ issue is that when a televised Ayers lecture by satellite was proposed that too was deemed too “hot” to handle.

What really gives here though? One of the students in the article I am using for information (“BC won’t air Ayers lecture by satellite”, Boston Globe, Peter Schworm, April 2, 2009) let the cat out of the bag. This Ayers controversy, while an easy one for the administration to raise holy hell over, is not the first time that the BC administration has vetoed speaking engagements for controversial figures on campus. That interviewed student did not state who else had been banned but we can figure that one out also.

Needless to say birthday boy Charles Darwin might find it hard to get invited to this august university what with his oddball quirky theory of evolution (BC is an old-time Jesuit school). Much less the heroic Kansas Doctor George Tiller, one of the few abortion providers in that state (they would probably have a lynch mob out for him). So much for that vaunted “academic freedom”. Fortunately we never took that profession of freedom as anything but a very vulnerable “right”, although we gladly use it to get our socialist message out when we can. We remember the “red scare” of the 1950’s here in America when the academy knuckled under without a whimper. And, left to its own devises, most of the academy would have loved to have clapped down during the anti-Vietnam war movement; it was just too big and got way beyond the ability of campus administrations to effectively curtail it. Let us not kid ourselves on that score.

But what about Professor Bill Ayers? Apparently this Boston College incident is not the first college where some furor that has dogged him. I do not, at this time, have the details of Ayers’ other problems at other campuses. However, I heard him last November, just after the 2008 elections when he was touting his revised memoir, on the “Terry Gross Show” on NPR (as any Boston College student could have done, as well). He seemed none too radical in his presentation of his current politics which were tired garden variety left-Democratic Party ones that we have become all too familiar with from repentant radicals, although to his credit he did not abase himself in denial of his revolutionary past. Nor should he have. We were dealing with serious war criminals then in the Johnson/Nixon wielding the most powerful military machine/police apparatus the world has ever known in case one has forgotten or wasn’t around then. For now though. Hands Off Professor Ayers! - Let him speak on politics, education or whatever the hell he wants to talk about. Anywhere.

*From The "Bob Feldman 68" Blog- The Youth Revolt Of 1964- Mario Savio and The Free Speech Movement At Berkeley

Click on the headline to link to, via the "Bob Feldman 68" blog, a "YouTube" film clip of 1964 Free Speech Movement and Berkeley student leader, Mario Savio.

Markin comment:

In many ways, for white leftists at least, this was their first major confrontation with the imperial state and its agents, and it was not pretty. Unfortunately, many of those who became radicalized back in the day have long ago giving up that ghost. Well, the next political generation that is now coming of age should view this clip to get a better idea of what they will confront in coming to terms with today's issues like education and social welfare budget cuts, war, and more war of all kinds.

***Those Who Fought For Our Commuist Future Are Kindred Spirits - On Eugene Debs- For Free Speech-He Should Have Never Spent A Minute In Jail.

Click Below To Link To An Article By Anthony Lewis On American Socialist Party Leader Eugene V. Debs' Free Speech Fight Against The Wilson Administration During World War I And The Role Of United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes "Justice Holmes And The Splendid Prisoner" From The July 2, 2009 Issue Of "The New York Review Of Books".
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=22800

******

In the month of January as we honor the key revolutionary leaders of the early 20th century international labor movement Lenin, Liebknecht and Luxemburg let's not forget the struggle of the American Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs. We, in the end had a lot of political disagreements with Brother Debs, especially on the need to break with the reformists and form a revolutionary vanguard party, but we have learned from his mistakes. Needless to say we respect his courage and fortitude for standing up against the American war machine when others, including so-called socialists took at dive on the question.

The well-known perspective, at least in legal circles, of Mr. Lewis is that of a liberal advocate in defense of free speech (except, of course, when it is inconvenient to the interests of the "democratic" state) and one with a general admiration for Justice Holmes' turn on the question. Our point is simpler- Brother Debs should never have spent a minute in jail for his speech against American entry into World War I and the draft. Nor should have the many IWW, socialist and other labor militants rounded up in the governments dragnet of war oppositionists. Old Justice Holmes was a little behind the curve on this one, even on the constitutional question.

Two points always come to mind around Debs' struggle during World War I. One is, although we are now older and wiser about running for executive office in the bourgeois state, that I still always love that picture of him campaigning for President Of The United States from his cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. That may be the only honorable, if politically incorrect, way to campaign for such an office. Second, the Debs fight, as this Lewis article vividly points out, also brings home the point about the labor movement relying on the good offices of the courts. We use them, and rightly so, but we depend on our own organizations and mobilizations to win our battles.

*Never Forget Greensboro 1979- The Struggle Continues

Click on title to link to a YouTube film clip about the events of that day in 1979 when right wing thugs in Greensboro, North Carolina murdered five communist workers.

COMMENTARY

This is a repost of last year's commemorative commentary. The struggle remains the same.

REMEMBER SLAIN LABOR MILITANTS-CESAR CAUCE, MICHAEL NATHAN, BILL SAMPSON, SANDI SMITH AND JIM WALLER

For those too young to remember or who unfortunately have forgotten the incident commenmorated here this is a capsule summary of what occurred on that bloody day:

On November 3, 1979 in Greensboro, North Carolina, five anti-racist activists and union organizers, supporters of the Communist Workers Party (CWP), were fatally gunned down by Ku Klux Klan and Nazi fascists. Nine carloads of Klansmen and Nazis drove up to a black housing project-the gathering place for an anti-Klan march organized by the CWP. In broad daylight, the fascists pulled out their weapons and unleashed an 88-second fusillade that was captured on television cameras. They then drove off, leaving the dead and dying in pools of blood. From the outset, the Klan/Nazi killers were aided and abetted by the government, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent who helped train the killers and plot the assassination to the "former" FBI informer who rode shotgun in the motorcade of death and the Greensboro cop who brought up the rear. The five militants listed above died as a result. The Greensboro Klan/Nazis literally got away with murder, acquitted twice by all-white juries.

This writer has recently been raked over the coals by some leftists who were appalled that he called for a no free speech platform for Nazis and fascists (see below) and argued that labor should mobilize its forces and run these vermin off the streets whenever they raise their heads. Despite recent efforts to blur the lines of the heinous nature of and political motivation for these murders in Greensboro by some kind of truth and reconciliation process militant leftists should etch in their brains the reality of the Klan/Nazis. There is nothing to debate with this kind. The niceties of parliamentary democracy have no place in a strategy to defeat these bastards. The Greensboro massacre is prime evidence that any other way is suicidal for militants. No more Germany, 1933's. No more Greensboro, 1979's. Never Forget Greensboro.

REPOST FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

In a recent blog (dated, September 4, 2006) this writer mentioned that one of the Klan groups in this country held a demonstration at the Gettysburg National Cemetery over the Labor Day 2006 weekend around a list of demands that included bringing the troops home from Iraq in order to patrol the borders. Symbols mean a lot in politics and the notion that Klansmen were permitted to demonstrate at a key symbol in the fight to end slavery and preserve the union raised my temperature more than a little. As I said then Gettysburg is hallowed ground fought and paid for in great struggle and much blood. At that time the writer posed the question of what, if any, opposition to the demonstration leftists had put together to run these hooded fools out of town. In response, this writer was raked over the coals for calling for an organized fight by labor to nip these elements in the bud. Why? Apparently some people believe that running the fools out of town would have violated the Klan's free speech rights. Something is desperately wrong here about both the nature of free speech and the nature of the Klan/fascist menace.

First, let us be clear, militant leftists defend every democratic right as best we can. I have often argued in this space that to a great extend militant leftists are the only active defenders of such rights- on the streets where it counts. That said, the parameters of such rights, as all democratic rights, cannot trump the needs of the class struggle. In short, militant leftist have no interest in defending or extending the rights of fascists to fill the air with gibberish. Now that may offend some American Civil Liberties Union-types but any self-respecting militant knows that such a position is right is his or her 'gut'.

In the final analysis we will be fighting the Klan-types on the streets and the issue will no be rights of free expression (except maybe in defense of ours) but the survival of our organizations. A short glance at history is to the point.
One of the great tragedies of the Western labor movement was the defeat and destruction of the German labor movement in the wake of the fascist Hitler's rise to power in 1933. In the final analysis that destruction was brought on by the fatally erroneous policies of both the German Social Democratic and Communists parties. Neither party, willfully, saw the danger in time and compounded that error when refused to call for or establish a united front of all labor organizations to confront and destroy Hitler and his storm troopers. We know the result. And it was not necessary. Moreover, Hitler's organization at one time (in the mid-1920's) was small and unimportant like today's Klan/Nazi threat. But that does not mean that under certain circumstances that could not change. And that, my friends, is exactly the point.

REINSTATE PROFESSOR NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

COMMENTARY

CONTROVERSIAL PROFESSOR FIRED BY DEPAUL UNIVERSITY

Hey, the situation in the so-called hallowed groves of academia is getting a little tense this summer, to say the least. First, they finally got controversial University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill. In July the Colorado Board of Regents acting on a recommendation by the school voted 8-1 to fire him. Ostensibly, as always, it was for some academic infractions but we know the real reason.

Now Professor Norman Finkelstein has had his contract with DePaul University canceled. Ostensibly for being ‘too controversial’. Where have we heard that before? The professor, son of Holocaust survivors, is known for his forthright views, as stated in his book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, that the State of Israel and others have used the Holocaust as a bloody flag to justify any and all repressive policies, including denial of the rights of Palestinians in Israel, the West Back and Gaza.

What is important here is that speech, academic speech in this case, is really what drove the DePaul Administration’s decision, as it did in the Churchill case. Aided here, no doubt, by the smear campaign of one Zionist zealot Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz. Free speech is the real issue and the one that all militants, leftists, and just plain old ordinary garden variety democrats should be howling to the rooftops over. One does not have to be in political agreement with the good professor to know that the whole point of the vaunted freedom of expression that we are desperately trying to defend against the yahoos only works when controversial expression is safeguarded. Otherwise it is just something nice for the bourgeois democrats to point to in their constitution. Thus, the spearhead of the free speech fight right now is to defend Professor Finkelstein. Reinstate Professor Finkelstein! Send messages of solidarity and support to Professor Finkelstein and to the DePaul University Administration now.