Davidson says a lot without saying a thing

“this article gives a badly slanted version of less than half of the story. I find it disturbing that many comments are being made here based on a poor secondary source -including some from professional historians who should know better. I would love to be able to add some substantive detail, but legal restrictions prevent me.

The impulse here is to sound off, but given the poor state of public knowledge on this matter, it is ill-advised.

Dr. Michael R. DavidsonLecturer in HistorySIU Carbondale”

For someone who does not want to “sound off,” Davidson has done an extraordinary amount of it—without saying anything but “you don’t have all the facts.” The facts which I can state here would include the clear grievance procedures which the TA (who was the unknown accuser at the beginning), the chair, the dean, and the letter signers ALL violated. The dean drew up bogus “hostile environment” charges in dismissing my TAs — a legal term of art that means nothing outside of civil rights law and there are procedures to follow there, too.

Curious that Davidson has invested so much on the blogosphere concerning my case. We share the same corridor, he and I, along with a number of the letter signers. Since he has never contacted me, I must ask whether his considerable web activity is an expression of his support of the other side’s version of events? Why has he not contacted me?

Elsewhere, he has corrected Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young: My Lord, he is a Republican (or was in Maine), although only a non-tenure track lecturer. So, in a half century there has been one “conservative” Republican or Libertarian in a rather large department! Whoa. Be still, my evenhanded heart. Conservatism run amuck at SIU! A true Millian “marketplace of ideas.”

Jonathan Bean

Jonathan Bean, SIU, at 5:21 am EDT on May 14, 2005

Freedom of speech?

I found this story fascinating and chilling at the same time. I know none of the people, nor any more than is discussed here—but the dean’s actions concerning the TA’s seems totally out of line. If we can’t deal with such controversies in a university setting, then where CAN they be discussed? If, for example, I deal with the old (yet hugely popular at the time—-the late 1920s and early 1930s) “Amos ‘n’ Andy” radio show in one of my courses, I am careful to set the context of the (now clearly racist) content—-and I have never had a student complaint about it. But as Dr. Bean suggests, you can not simply ignore things that might not be done today, or you simply add to the historical ignorance that so infests society.

Chris Sterling, professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, at 7:56 am EDT on April 29, 2005

Jonathan Bean in context

Bean is not simply a “libertarian". He is primarily involved with undermining affirmative action, particularly on campus. He is the author of a book “exposing” affirmative action through the SBA and numerous articles attacking diversity in the academy for the Heartland Institute. One of the things that must be understood is that old-fashioned racism no longer exists in the USA. Instead, you have attacks on affirmative action, street crime, illegitimate children, etc. If one cannot grasp this dimension, then one will not understand the nature of racism in this country today.

Louis Proyect, at 10:59 am EDT on April 29, 2005

Jumping on one side or the other here would be ill advised in the absence of all of the facts. Much has been said, but little has been clarified.

(1)To begin with, the repeated statement that the handout was optional is a later addition to earlier descriptions of the events, where the *impression* was given (at least) that the handout was mandatory.

(2) If Prof. Bean is so interested in “balance,” why is his handout from a known white supremicist? If he wanted the book discussed, why not hand out the freely available review in Time magazine that is contemporary with the publication of the book, for example?

(3) The article from Frontpage is massively inaccurate. It is supposed to be based upon this book about the killings, which the article describes as “definitive", but then promptly exaggerates the dates by a year, and more than triples the number of people killed and injured, all within the first two paragraphs.

(4) If “balance” was an issue, why were such things as the East St. Louis race riots, where mobs of white people invaded black neighborhoods and slaughterd dozens of black people, or the Tulsa race riots of 1921, never mentioned in any of the materials in either the text books or the handouts? How is distributing white supremicist propaganda providing a “balanced” review of racial issues in America when the extent and savagery of violence against black people is itself scarcely even mentioned? Despite the fact that this is a 100 level course, it is still the case that Bean is supposed to be engaged in academically sound scholarship.

It is also worth noting that the options for TA’s to no longer work for Bean was given because it was the TA’s themselves who originally made an issue about the handout, with many of them (possibly all) refusing to use it.

Gary L. Herstein, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, at 11:00 am EDT on April 29, 2005

Handout Hysteria’ or Insensitivity

Why are we surprised? This is standard PC running amok, as it does every day. I hate to say this but the anti-dean comments have a definite hysterical and demonizing tone, while the pro-Dean comments seem (to me) fairly reasonable in tone, although I don’t agree with all of the points made. Ah well. Business in the tower as usual.

Howard Whitlock, Professor at University of Wisconsin Madison, at 12:14 pm EDT on April 29, 2005

Re: John Martin and Louis Proyect

“Go ahead and read about black violence towards whites in the 1960s...then weigh that against the long history of oppression, abuse, and discrimination that this country has committed against racial and ethnic minorities of every kind. That’s critical thinking...”

I’m appalled at the suggestion that violence acts committed by persons should be “weighed” against the general history of a racial group. As if revenge is a justifiable motive for senseless violence.

****

“One of the things that must be understood is that old-fashioned racism no longer exists in the USA. Instead, you have attacks on affirmative action, street crime, illegitimate children, etc.”

Heh. Being against discrimination, street crime, and illegitimacy is the new racism, eh? Count me in!

Samwise, at 2:51 pm EDT on April 29, 2005

Dear Sam and Mike...

I haven’t “forgotten” anything—it’s right-wing revisionists who have conveniently forgotten this country’s history of slavery, genocide, discrimination, sexual oppression, xenophobia, and censorship. And I haven’t suggested that “revenge” or racial violence is justified. Nor does any other “liberal intellectual” for that matter. What I do suggest is that attempts to introduce white supremacist or other reactionary ideologies into the academy on the grounds of “academic freedom” is a perversion of that term, and of the role of higher education. No one is fooled by this nonsense about conservatism being banned from the universities.

Conservative voices have more than their share of outlets in this country (on campuses, in the churches, in the political arena, on public school boards, and despite the persistent whining, all over the media). The reason that there is, and will continue to be, a preponderance of liberal voices in academia is because there should be and must be—it’s the purpose of a “liberal education” to challenge the assumptions, beliefs, and institutions that conservatives cling to so desperately. When those ideas and assumptions can’t stand up to the scrutiny, it’s inevitable that their proponents react with claims of injustice and bias—they have no other way to maintain control than to suddenly claim the status of the victims that they’ve traditionally made of all other minority populations.

John Martin, at 5:00 pm EDT on April 29, 2005

Paranoia Versus Rational Criticism?

Revealingly, Louis Proyect comments on Bean thusly:"One of the things that must be understood is that old-fashioned racism no longer exists in the USA. Instead, you have attacks on affirmative action, street crime, illegitimate children, etc. If one cannot grasp this dimension, then one will not understand the nature of racism in this country today.”

What are you saying, man? We must root out and try everyone’s character before annointing them “racist free?” Is THIS the purpose of higher ed — no, make that “Higher Re-Education” today?

Is our purpose the pursuit of rational criticism and the weighing of the relevent evidence? Or is it the purity of our Aryan faculties’ blood for the building of our collective destiny?

On the one hand, I have this pin before me and angels on it that need counting! — on the other, I give you Louis Proyect’s head and the paranoid ghosts inside it that pre-occupy him.

Pick your “poison” carefully.

T J Olson, Mr at University of London, at 5:58 am EDT on April 30, 2005

Question for Professor Herstein

Professor Herstein, could you please answer the following question? Do you support the right of Professor Bean, as a matter of academic freedom, to assign the article in question?

David T. Beito, Question for Professor Herstein, at 5:05 pm EDT on April 30, 2005

History

I don’t have “all the facts” either, only those I’ve read on this site, but it seems I’ve got a right to post a comment. As a history professor, I see a real opportunity here. I don’t know much about the Zebra killings and I think they’re interesting. They are a part, if relatively small, of the picture of race relations in the civil rights era, a measure of black rage among other things. I don’t see a problem with teaching about them, per se.

The problem here appears twofold: an apparent suspicion (maybe knowledge) that Bean may not have framed them or thoughtfully relative to the larger history of racial violence, and quality concerns with the article assigned. Perhaps many of us have grabbed an article on an interesting topic only to realize later it was not the best source; I’d want to know whether Bean’s choice of this article was of that nature. If I found myself in Bean’s unhappy position, I’d allow students, as an option, to bypass whatever else I’d assigned for a couple of weeks and instead to read the offending article, the Time and other reviews, and news accounts of the killings from a variety of sources (black and white), and I’d give them a chance to reflect on the material. (Then I’d read their papers myself, whether the TAs also read it or not.) I’d also make sure I’d expressed accurately the extent of white-on-black violence in the course’s whole time period. A body count is not necessary, but a sense of proportion is.

I can imagine being a TA and being uncomfortable with this article—something similar happened to me in graduate school—but studying history teaches us that nothing happens in a vacuum. I think the dean has a responsibility to get to the bottom of the TAs’ discomfort, and I hope she has pursued that angle while also giving Bean due process. Is it Bean’s politics? Previous omissions in the course? Or indeed a habitual discomfort with turning the racial tables that, upon reflection, is actually academically worthwhile to do? Outraged TAs, like charmed students who give high evaluations, can be wrong, right, or some of each.

My heart goes out to both Bean and his colleagues. I think all sides deserve a fair hearing on campus before mud is slung locally or elsewhere. I also hope this campus, and others, comes up with more deliberative processes for handling complaints. The best of intentions, even the genuine moral high ground, can accompany a denial of due process; I’ve seen that happen too. Again I don’t know if that’s what has happened here, but something, probably several things, have gone quite wrong.

Rebecca R. Noel

Rebecca R. Noel, Assistant Professor at Plymouth State University, at 6:29 am EDT on May 1, 2005

Professor Bean and the Zebra Killings

Sometimes when we are hundreds and often thousands of miles from someone it becomes easy to pin a lable on them. You have a right to know who I am and what I stand for.

I am now 72, born in Brooklyn, NY, joined the Navy in 1951 during the Korean Conflict, served as Lieutenant of Police for 30 years in the San Francisco Police Department, raised three daughters and now have four grandchildren, am a property owner, own no one, attend Church Services, do not use drugs, alcohol or cigarettes.I respect my Country and am proud to be an American—always trying to address all political issues in fairness and openness.

As a rookie cop (1961) I was one of the first to be a member of the NAACP, at a time when it was not fashionable and I did pay a price for my stand. I never disparaged my fellow officers, white or black—and I always demanded fair and equal treatment for all of us.

In 1997, while retired I co-founded the European/American issues Forum—with one primary purposes being to work to eradicate discrimination against and defamation of European Americans.

It is unfortunate, but some organizations seem to work hard to denigrate European Americans, in our schools and the news media. We work to expose their efforts.

In 1997 we filed a formal complaint with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (SFHRC)against the Director of the Pacific Coast Anti-Defamation League, Barbara Bergen for racist and insensitive public statements against European Americans. TheSFHRC was reluctant to take action, but the Director was replaced. We do not view that kind of action as anti-Semitic.

I was working the streets when the Zebra Killings occurred. Twenty three whites were attacked and fifteen died, all because they where white. Some of the killers remain in the CA. Prison system—and some remain free on the streets of America.

Each year for the past eight years we have held Zebra Victims Memorial Services on the steps of San Francisc, and invite the Mayor, and all other dignataries to come and honor the names of the innocent victims. They refuse to attend.

I respectfully ask anyone who has read any of our material to present evidence that we engage in anti-any person, and/or orginization with just cause. Below is one example of our exposing an organization that is obviously denigrating, we believe intentionally, European Americans. Thank you for reading this explanation. Lou Calabro

Source: European/American Issues Forum, CW Kuhn, Secretary—CW Johns, Treasurer—FP Williams, Sgt. at ArmsLouis Calabro, President —David Winzer, Vice President

‘Hate Hurts- How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice- A Guide for Adults and Children’

Written By The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith,September 2000-Publisher-Scholastic Inc. New York.

Book Review, by Louis CalabroSeptember 27, 2000

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently joined forces with Barnes and Noble to launch a campaign called ‘Close the Book on Hate’. Their recently published book ‘Hate Hurts...’ being reviewed herein, is considered a first step in that direction.

Unfortunately the book is a continuation of what appears to be their policy of stigmatizing and stereotyping European Americans as the primary purveyors of racial animus and the primary perpetrators of hate crimes. In fact, the ADL and Barnes and Noble, acting as the teachers of minimizing bigotry, racism and stereotyping are eagerly practicing and promoting those exact undesirable traits. For example, the first page of the book starts out:

“Dear Readers, Mention Laramie, Wyoming, Jasper, Texas, or Littleton, Colorado, and our collective conscience is assaulted by the brutal hate crimes committed in those places. We store in our mind’s eye the image of five year old children clutching one another’s hands as they run from a Jewish Community day care center under attack by an anti-semite.”

What that opening paragraph tells the readers of this book is that all of the perpetrators of bigotry, racism and stereotyping are European Americans and our collective conscience is assaulted by the brutal hate crimes committed [by European Americans]....

Yes, the book begins by teaching that all of the “bad” people in those three cases are European Americans and follows that pattern throughout the book. That isn’t reality.

That pattern is consistent throughout the book. A review of Chapter 13, titled “Crimes of Hate: Physical and Emotional Violence", solidifies by using concrete examples the notion of emphasizing European American involvement in racial animus cases and as the perpetrators of hate crimes. All other racial/ethnic groups are their victims. The Chapter has victims like “spic", black, Jewish, Asian and gay victims, but no European American victims. The Chapter also mentions Nazi Germany and KKK members burning black churches, but no other racial/ethnic groups or members are cited as concrete examples of being the purveyors of racial animus or the perpetrators of hate crimes.

The ADL and Barnes and Noble could easily have included the Racine, Wisconsin and Jacksonville, FL. cases as concrete examples of hate crime cases where European Americans were victims of significant and brutal racially motivated hate crimes.

The significance of the Racine, Wisconsin case is that it was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell, (1993) to confirm the constitutionality of hate crime penalty enhancement statutes.

In Wisconsin vs. Mitchell a group of non-European American men and boys discussed the picture Mississippi Burning which had a scene where a white man beat a young black boy who was praying. They wanted to move on some white people and while they were out walking after viewing the movie they passed a white boy and Mitchell yelled, “You all want to fuck somebody up” There goes a white boy, go get him.” They did get him and they beat the white boy so severely he remained in a coma for four days.

Similarly, and in an almost exact mirrored case, in August 1999, and after seeing a picture called A Time to Kill, 5-6 non-European American young men decided to beat up the first white man that came along. The picture was about two white men who raped a young African American girl and her father sought revenge by shooting both of them. Unfortunately, European American mentally retarded 50 year old Gregory Griffith was the first “white” man to come along and they proceeded to brutally beat and stomp him to death. Two have been convicted. Others await trial.

The ADL knows, and Barnes and Noble should know that the 1998 FBI Hate Crime Statistical report reflects that there were nine (9) racially motivated murders in 1998 and five (5) of the nine victims were European Americans. But, it appears these facts are of no importance to the ADL and Barnes and Noble.

The ADL knows that the San Francisco Police Department Hate Crime Statistical reports 1995-1999, document that European Americans were victims of racially motivated multiple assailant street attacks more often than any other racial/ethnic group.

Knowing that they are cognizant of the above censored facts that are not presented in their book is deeply troubling and frightening to European Americans. It is incomprehensible that the ADL would write a book that will be read by parents, teachers, administrators, students and some citizens that fails to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is an unacceptable form of bigotry.

This book ‘Hate-Hurts-How Children Learn and Unlearn Prejudice’ debases, denigrates, dehumanizes and discriminates against European American students and the at-large European American community and is not appropriate as material that can be used for instructional material in San Mateo county. We respectfully request that the San Mateo County Board of Education declare this book as inappropriate for use in our county and remove it from the county Resource Center.

Sincerely,

Louis Calabro, President.European/American Issues Forum

Louis Calabro, President at European/American Issues Forum, at 4:37 am EDT on May 2, 2005

Responses

Prof Beito:"Would you, as a matter of academic freedom, support the right of a professor in your department to assign the article in question?”

As I have already noted elsewhere in the blogosphere, the answer is “Of course.”

Prof. Campbell"If this is in fact the case, you should be able to tell us what the “legal restrictions” are.”

I have already stated that I am not in a position to add anything further. Kindly respect my situation.

“What you want us to accept as your total contribution to this discussion is being said every day, pretty much word for word, by some university administrator who acted improperly toward some faculty member and wants the issue to go away as soon as possible.”

This version of events assumes facts not in evidence, and a result of your substantial ignorance of the details of this case, grossly mischaracterizes what happened.

Michael R. Davidson

Michael R. Davidson, Lecturer in History at SIU Carbondale, at 12:41 pm EDT on May 2, 2005

Civil Discourse

Are those of you posting comments here “listening” to yourselves? I am appalled by the anger and polarization. Several of you mention civil discourse, but I don’t see any. Even those who speak of open-mindedness or diversity or critical thinking, show very little of those traits in their comments, most of which are diatribes against the other side. I couldn’t even read one of the comments because of all the labels and buzzwords — very shallow.

Where is the understanding, the compassion, the basic humanity in any of this? It’s mostly posturing and swinging swords at your adversaries with no intent to come to some consensus or understanding or even an agreement to disagree. I sincerely hope most of the country is not as close-minded as all of you.

Marty, at 5:36 pm EDT on May 2, 2005

There is some bizarre inversion going on in the “John Martin” comments. It is “liberals” (loosely speaking) who “react with claims of injustice and bias” when their “ideas and assumptions can’t stand up to. . . scrutiny.” It is “liberals” who use claims ofvictim status in order to “maintain control.”

Martin’s remarks also ignore the fact that the campaign against Jonathan Bean went way beyond simply holding his “ideas and assumptions. . . up to. . . scrutiny.” I agree that the James Lubinskas article was an “inappropriate source.” Bean admitted that. So why was there an uproar?Because the leftist history profs wanted one.

Martin’s grotesque claim that “it’s the purpose of a ‘liberal education’ to challenge the assumptions, beliefs, and institutions that conservatives cling to so desperately,” is itself an idea desperately clung to by leftists. Who gave them the job of twisting everyone’s heads around? It is theleftists who need to be challenged!

Now, here is the real problem. Martin’s ideas are easily challenged and easily dismissed. But they can be neither challenged in nor dismissedfrom the mind of John Martin. There is nothing you could tell him that would cause him to change his mind. His ideas are reasonably self-consistent, but they include the notion that any disagreement or contrary evidence are simply manifestations of the “racism” he opposes. He is like a postmodern exorcist. Any protestation that one is not possessed istaken as a sure sign of possession!

The cabal of professors who signed the disingenuous letter complaining about Jonathan Bean’s handout ended it with the statement, “We call on the University community to open a dialogue about the issues raised by thisincident.” Their call has been answered! LOL!

larry, right-wing blogger, at 12:44 pm EDT on May 3, 2005