Search News


Browse Archives

News

'Little Red Book,' Big Fat Lie

December 28, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth has admitted that he fabricated his claims of being interrogated by Department of Homeland Security officials for checking out Mao’s Little Red Book from the university’s interlibrary loan system.

The 22-year-old student’s lies were uncovered by The Standard-Times of New Bedford, Mass., which first broke details of his story on December 17.

Before recanting his tale, the student told the local newspaper that he had been visited a second time by officials from the Department of Homeland Security, “where two agents waited in his living room for two hours with his parents and brother while he drove back from a retreat in western Massachusetts. He said [that] he, the agents, his parents and his uncle all signed confidentiality agreements that the story would never be told.”

None of his new allegations were able to be confirmed, and he eventually told both his parents and at least one professor at the university that he had lied about the whole situation. The incident had prompted significant discussion among faculty members around the country, coming as it did amid revelations about domestic spying by the Bush administration. (It also prompted an article in Inside Higher Ed, which the editors have pulled from the site’s archives in the wake of the student’s recantation to avoid the further spreading of inaccurate information. A PDF version of the original article and the comments responding to it is available here.)

Even before the new fabrications surfaced, the student’s claims had raised suspicions among administrators at UMass-Dartmouth. A spokesman, John Hoey, told Inside Higher Ed in an interview last week that officials had grown increasingly skeptical of the student’s original story, which involved federal agents visiting his parents’ home to discuss a book “watch list.” Hoey and others at the institution said that due to privacy issues, they would not release the student’s name.

Last week, too, the Department of Homeland Security adamantly denied that any of its officials had interrogated the senior.

“We investigate violations of the law, not individuals’ reading habits,” Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for the department, said in an interview. She indicated that department officials had “serious questions about the veracity of the claims” made by the student and that the department “has no such thing as a book watch list.”

Still, faculty members at the university, including Brian Glyn Williams, a professor of history who was the most vocal supporter of the student, continued to believe the allegations, saying that the senior had provided credible evidence to back up his claims. Williams could not be reached for comment this weekend to discuss the student’s recantation.

Williams told Inside Higher Ed last week that he had “absolutely no reason” to disbelieve the student but that, due to the strong denials by the Department of Homeland Security, he was determined to clarify the allegations. Ultimately, it was Williams’s persistent investigation of the matter — which included going to the student’s home and speaking to his parents — that led to the truth.

“My investigation eventually took me to his house, where I began to investigate family matters,” Williams told The Standard-Times. “I eventually found out the whole thing had been invented, and I’m happy to report that it’s safe to borrow books.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'Little Red Book,' Big Fat Lie

  • Posted by Another Skeptic on December 28, 2005 at 5:32am EST
  • What’s astonishing is how many people were prepared to accept this story as true (indeed, wanted it to be true, needed it to be true), even though the story was obviously absurd on its own terms. A book watch list? Please.

    Why were academics so credulous? It won’t do to claim that the PATRIOT Act or the NSA makes the story plausible, because the story was never plausible. The claims were no more credible than if the student had said he had been abducted by aliens who wanted to know who this Mao person was.

  • Posted by Joe on December 28, 2005 at 5:32am EST
  • What can be believed about this story? Some serious commentators ahave noted that even the existence of the student is in question.

  • Tired of Endless Hand-wringing
  • Posted by A.D. on December 28, 2005 at 5:35am EST
  • To “Anon,” as well as Andrew Purvis, Arthur Ide, Woodie Thomas, Rebecca Goetz, Mary, Mark Allan, John Anderies, and Margaret Katranides —

    Now that this has 100% proven to be just another ridiculously absurd lie, spun into a would-be constitutional crisis by the “Teddy Kennedy for President” and “Free Ward Churchill” crowds — it would be very easy to gloat and say “told you so.” Or — “better luck, next time, trying to fool everyone.”

    A better idea: try focusing on students, on teaching, rather than your obvious, one-sided political interests.

  • Thanks for Setting the Record Straight
  • Posted by Professor Jane Nelson on December 28, 2005 at 5:35am EST
  • Thanks for setting the record straight, and for removing the original mistaken story from the web.

    Now would you get the New York Times to remove their pre-Iraq invasion stories claiming President Bush has proof that Iraq has WMDs from the web?

  • Big Red Lie
  • Posted by Feudi Pandola on December 28, 2005 at 8:45am EST
  • I commend Inside Higher Ed for correcting this story and do womnder why it was not properly vetted when it first surfaced. I wonder why Professor Jane Nelson felt the need to cloud the issue with her comment about WMD's and the new York Times. Surely she does mean to imply that the New York Times, of all newspapers, is a stooge for George Bush! To paraphrase another Prefessor from long ago, sometimes, a mistake is just a mistake.

  • good grief
  • Posted by Rebecca Goetz on December 28, 2005 at 12:45pm EST
  • For goodness sakes, A.D., calm down. My original comment, and that of many others, was merely to give the student the benefit of the doubt while the matter was investigated. I hardly call that a one-sided political agenda. Reserving judgment while waiting for the author of the Inside Higher Ed piece to pursue the matter, rather than jumping all over journalists, professors, and the student seemed to be a sane approach. Now that the matter has been resolved, I hope the student in question get some psychological help.

  • A Few Questions that Riddle My Mind
  • Posted by Curious Student at NYU on December 28, 2005 at 1:39pm EST
  • Hi All,

    I've followed this story with interest, and have to admit (quite sadly) that it did not strike me as particularly ridiculous or unbelievable when it first came to my attention.

    It did seem a little weird that the book in question was Mao's book of teachings. I mean honestly, what sort of undergraduate student is going to topple democracies in South America with that sort of strategy? Don't you at least need guns these days? In short, I didn't fully understand the connection between the book, and the student's alleged travels. I didn't see what harm he could have done armed with his little red friend.:)

    But the wider question I have for academia is about the government's "watch list" of library books, and about the seemingly credible notion that the Department of Homeland Security is interested in policing our literary, political, sexual, and other archives.

    If I was a terrorist interested in obtaining "dangerous" information from library books, I would go to the library and photocopy it, or take pictures of it in the bathroom using my digital camera.

    If I was a really *nasty* terrorist, like the kind who blows people up, I would just tear out the pages I needed, and stick them in my bag. Mwa ha ha!

    Where did the idea originate that the books people check out will somehow reflect their evil or at least suspicious intentions? And where did the idea develop that any self-respecting terrorist would act like a normal library patron, checking out books and returning them on time?

    I know this sounds funny, but I'm serious: did academics devise the idea of a gov't 'watch list,' or is this really somehow a weird part of the Patriot Act?

  • Posted by Dan on December 28, 2005 at 3:31pm EST
  • The government is generally uninterested in what political philosophy you are reading. On a practical level, they lack the manpower to disambiguate someone reading Mein Kampf for research vs someone interested in setting up a neo-nazi group (as one example).

    What the government is interested in, are folks reading about how to make bombs. A scenerio would go like this: police find a pipe bomb. Suspect says "Not mine, I didn't build it". Police forensically examine internet records and library records for bomb-making tutorials (yes, they are out there).

    I don't think our government is filled with angels, by any means. However, when investigating someone, they generally want very specific incriminating information. Resource limitations and lack of perceived "pay-off" tend to prevent proactive fishing expeditions.

  • Federal officers don't like wasting their time either
  • Posted by Dan P. on December 29, 2005 at 4:27am EST
  • The story was preposterous on its face. Of course government agents wouldn't be investigating every kid who checked out a library book.

    The only reason federal investigators would give a damn about any library records is if they had an actual suspect, (a previously unknown person who showed up on a known terrorist's cell phone records, for example,) and wanted to know what he'd been reading. They may find it significant that an associate of a known terrorist currently has 17 books on the NYC Subway System, and two on how to write one's own will.

    Library records are potentially useful in investigating specific suspects. More often than not, they'll be one more dead lead that has to be followed anyway.

  • Watch yourself, sir
  • Posted by A.D. on December 29, 2005 at 10:01pm EST
  • How fascinating your words track those of the senior senator from Massachusetts --

    http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/12/29/umass_teacher_blasts_colleagues_on_hoax_story/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

    Kennedy, Carville, Limbaugh, Hannity -- all the same. Opinion first -- facts second. When they tell they're going help me -- I put my hand over my wallet.

    I hope this has been a learning experience for you about listening to the likes of Mr. Carville, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Limbaugh. Good luck in the future -- keep trying to improve yourself.

  • Rebecca and John
  • Posted by Bad English on December 31, 2005 at 11:54am EST
  • With respect to AD, you really are in no position to complain about his/her words. It is indeed high time that academics *learn how to think* through obviously silly accounts of persecution by demanding minimal evidence _before_ making public spectacles of themselves.

    Many of us -- not just AD -- are really, really tired of having the profession's reputation dragged through the gutter because of such unintelligent antics.

  • I hope we can get back to real issues
  • Posted by Larry on December 31, 2005 at 3:07pm EST
  • Besides gloating that I was the first on IHE to pick up on this, I have a few comments.

    Rebecca, You accused government agents of violating someone’s civil rights (there probably is a First Amendment right to check out books from a library that one has general borrowing privileges from, which includes ILLing). Then, when it was shown that this story was probably not true, you said that the agents (and their employer) should be presumed to be guilty of doing so, because you want to give this kid “the benefit of the doubt.” I guess if you were ever accused of, say, rape (as many people are each year), you would insist that the accuser be given the benefit of the doubt, and in the absence of clear proof that you didn’t rape anyone, you would gladly lock yourself away for 20 years, and then register as a sex offender for life.

    RAS, I have a rather narrow view of FERPA and I don’t see how it would apply (the focus of FERPA, as its name suggests is on “records”), but other people use it to justify all sorts of secrecy. If suitably motivated I probably could make a FERPA argument, but because it is the holiday season, I have to admit that I am not. However, the Umass system, and the Mass legislature has a more expansive view of privacy in some areas that people may be referring to. But, it is sort of crazy question since everything that this kid said was a lie.

    AD, I think that the kid existed. I think that he found himself not being able to finish some paper, and rather than whine for an extension of time like everyone else would do (and most professors did when they were undergrads) he played upon a dangerous form of groupthink. There is no “Free Ward Churchill” movement because he is not in jail. If this kid was subject to disciplinary action for whatever form of fraud he engaged in, I would expect that he could avail himself of the same sort of procedures that Mr. Churchill is entitled to. (Though because this kid is an undergrad, unfortunately, they will be more of a kangaroo court, because people seem to think that undergrads have less to lose.)

    I don’t think that any real parallels can be drawn between WMD and some lying undergrad. While it may be the case that some people wanted to find these things, there was some evidence that the existed, and the evidence that they existed was in line with the normal kind of evidence that people would expect to see of various weaponry. But, as I said, I am of a social class that is not impacted by the war, therefore, I don’t pretend to care about what happens.

    Curious Student, Dan is correct. So many people are reading so many books and websites that the government couldn’t possibly search by book. Instead, other behavior might flag an individuals, and then his reading habits might be analyzed. As a practical matter, political reading habits don’t do much good, but, from time to time, part of a case against someone is made by showing that someone knew what he was doing by showing his reading habits.

  • Posted by Heather on January 2, 2006 at 5:56pm EST
  • What is really sad is that if a such a situation ever does come up in real life, nobody will believe it, remembering this hoax.

    Also: people seem to be talking about how 'everyone' believed or wanted to believe this story. Some people did, that is true, but in my (admittedly unscientific) poll of my fellow librarians, every single one expressed doubt about the story -- attributing it variously to misreporting, immensely incomplete information, or outright falsehood. I find it also quite interesting that few people seemed to think to ask their librarians what they thought of the story -- after all, we are in the best profession to be able to render an opinion.