News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 26, 2007
In December, the psychology department at California State University of Long Beach added three statements to its Web site — all under the new heading of “Statements on Controversial Issues.” One endorsed principles of academic freedom, another emphasized the department’s commitment to diversity and equity, and the third discussed the “misuse of psychologists’ work.”
That statement says: “The department of psychology regards it as deeply unethical that any faculty member knowingly allows his/her work to be used to support groups that disseminate views of racial/ethnic superiority and/or racial/ethnic hatred.... We are concerned that psychological research has been used in the past in intellectually unjustifiable and socially harmful ways, such as limiting immigration of certain groups or justifying unequal opportunities in education and employment. We wish to make it clear that these uses are distortions of scholarship in the field.”
The department gave no indication why it felt the need to issue such a statement. But anyone who has been wondering will find the answers in a report released Wednesday by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. The report reviews the career and writings of Kevin MacDonald, a tenured full professor of psychology who has devoted much of his work to studying Jews and what he considers the “evolutionary” way Jewish people band together, in part to undercut white society in the United States. (MacDonald acknowledges that most people think Jews are white, and says that in a black/white/Asian trio of races, Jews would be white, but several times in a phone conversation he refers to the “Middle Eastern” genetic roots of European Jews and refers to Jewish people and white people as separate groups.)
MacDonald has taught at Long Beach since 1985, and for much of that time, his views on Jewish people, immigration and other topics have not been widely known. An editor of the student paper said that prior to the Southern Poverty Law Center investigation, there wasn’t much awareness of MacDonald’s views. But there have also been moments when he did attract attention, as when he testified on behalf of David Irving, a Holocaust denier who unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an Emory University historian, over her comments that he distorted history in his Holocaust denial. (MacDonald’s testimony and his explanation of why he backed Irving are available on the Web site of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denying group. MacDonald says he is not a denier, but was helping Irving defend unpopular views.)
The 2000 testimony prompted debate at Long Beach, but that has generally died down, and MacDonald teaches his courses and has been appointed to serve on various university committees. There are no reports that he discusses his views on Jewish people or members of other ethnic groups in class.
Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that the group’s aim in releasing the report was exposure, not to seek to have MacDonald fired. “This is a fellow who associates with white supremacists,” said Potok, who noted that MacDonald’s work has been frequently praised by and published by supremacist groups.
“We’re not demanding or trying to demand that he should be fired. We’re very much proponents of the First Amendment and academic freedom. Our concern is that this man may be teaching these ideas in his classroom. If you are getting a child development program, you are required to take a class with Kevin MacDonald. That is remarkable.” (A university spokeswoman said that it does not believe that any of MacDonald’s courses are required for any programs, and while some on campus disagree, the psychology chair did not respond to messages seeking clarification.)
Potok contrasted Long Beach’s approach — which has been to defend academic freedom without issuing strong statements denouncing MacDonald — with the way Northwestern University has responded to a Holocaust denier, Arthur R. Butz, an engineering professor.
When Butz makes news every few years — as he did last year when backing Iranian leaders’ claims that the Holocaust is a myth — Northwestern issues statements that defend Butz’s right to hold whatever views he wishes, but that also condemn those views with regard to the Holocaust. Northwestern President Henry S. Bienen’s statement last year used words like “contemptible insult” and “reprehensible opinions” to describe Butz’s latest remarks. Northwestern also has a policy that if Butz teaches a course that is required for graduation or any degree program, another section of that course must be offered at the same time, so no student ever has to enroll in one of his classes.
Northwestern’s approach “puts some distance” between the university and bigotry, Potok said.
In contrast, Long Beach’s statement about MacDonald says nothing about his ideas, states his right to academic freedom, and says that “the personal and academic opinions presented by individuals do not necessarily represent the opinions or beliefs of the university or the faculty as a whole.”
Potok also asked why Long Beach was not investigating whether MacDonald’s views are ever expressed in his courses.
Toni Beron, a spokeswoman for Long Beach, said that at least two classes a year taught by all professors — including MacDonald — have student evaluations, and that some of the questions on those evaluations are open-ended, allowing students to raise any issue. “Nothing has come through” to suggest bias in class, she said. “We don’t see it.”
If the university receives a formal complaint, faculty members would then conduct an investigation and might review what goes on in the classroom.
In an interview Wednesday, MacDonald said that he would never punish a student for his or her race or ethnicity, and that to do so would be wrong. He said that because he doesn’t discuss his more controversial views in class, he doubts students even know them. (Two entries on him on the RateMyProfessors Web site mention his views, but that site is notoriously unreliable about who is making entries and Beron said that those did not count as a formal complaint.)
While MacDonald insisted that his in-class performance couldn’t be questioned by the university, he didn’t hold back on his views. He boasted that David Duke loves his writing (but also added that some white groups that post his writing do so without his permission or endorsement). He said that the “basic civil rights revolution” of the ’60s was a good thing, but that immigration — legal and otherwise — generally is not. (MacDonald’s anti-immigration stance does not mean he doesn’t have immigration in his family’s roots: Relatives came from Scotland and Germany in the 19th century, he said.)
The problem with immigration, MacDonald said, is that it puts “white culture” at risk. He said that when America becomes a white-minority nation, groups like Jews, Latinos and African Americans will “hold grudges” and somehow harm white people. He said that Asian immigrants are out-performing white students on college admissions already. And he said he was just exercising his right as an ethnic American to look out for his interests. “European Americans have ethnic interests like everyone else,” he said.
MacDonald combines his ethnic theories with his views on Jews in a subject on which he has written a great deal: Jewish views on immigration policy. MacDonald said that he believes that Jewish people view “a homogeneous white population of North America as a threat, and they would be better off in a multicultural policy.” So as a result, he said, Jewish organizations work with Latino groups to let in Latinos and others to undermine American culture.
Asked if Jews might support immigration not because of some Jewish-Latino plot but because of Jewish experience as immigrants, and particularly because many Jewish lives during the Holocaust might have been saved with more open immigration in that period, MacDonald said that would have only been a justification while Hitler was in power. Once Hitler was out of power, he said, Jews supported the right of others to immigrate as part of “a historical grudge.” More broadly, MacDonald said, Jewish people — acting collectively — help themselves at the expense of white groups. Jewish support for liberal ideas is another example, he said.
Just as MacDonald distinguishes between his writing and what he talks about in class, so he divides his online portfolio. His university Web page does not contain his writings about Jewish issues, although it has a link to his own Web site, where he has many articles and links about his writing on Jews, as well as responses to his critics.
Several faculty members said that they did not want to discuss MacDonald — although there have been heated discussions of him on e-mail lists for professors. Rumors abound that MacDonald will threaten to sue those who criticize him, although several who have heard the rumors and cited them in not wanting to talk on the record said that they didn’t know of anyone who had been threatened.
Don Schwartz, a professor of European history who teaches about the Holocaust and who has spoken out against MacDonald, said he was pleased to see the Southern Poverty Law Center report. “I think most of the faculty are largely ignorant of what he has been writing,” he said. Schwartz said he wants people to know about MacDonald when they are deciding whether he deserves release time for writing or to be appointed to committees.
“We should think very carefully” about what efforts the university may be supporting, he said.
Schwartz also said, however, that he has had students who had previously taken MacDonald’s classes, and that none of them indicated any bias issues or that MacDonald shared his views on race and ethnicity in class.
Jonathan Knight, who handles academic freedom issues for the American Association of University Professors, said that if there are no indications that MacDonald shares his views in class, “I don’t see a basis for an investigation” into what goes on in his courses. Knight said that the basic principle is that professors should not be punished for the views they hold.
As to the suggestion that Long Beach should offer separate sections of courses taught by MacDonald, Knight noted that City College of the City University of New York tried that approach in 1990 with regard to Michael Levin, a professor whose articles on race and intelligence set off a huge controversy. A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that the creation of such “alternative” sections violated Levin’s rights, Knight said.
If colleges create “shadow sections” every time a professor offends, he said, academic freedom would be hurt. “I would find it very worrisome if an administration anxious not to offend the sensibilities of students could propose shadow courses because a professor’s views are disquieting on some subject,” he said.
Arlene Lazarowitz, a historian who is the director of Jewish studies at Long Beach, said she was very troubled by MacDonald’s research and disagreed with much of it. Lazarowitz teaches courses on American Jewish history and she said that the premise that there is a single Jewish view on most issues is simply not true — whether it is immigration policy about which MacDonald writes so much or Israel (while there might be a broad consensus among American Jews on Israel’s right to exist, there is a large diversity of views beyond that question, she said).
Lazarowitz said that she does not favor MacDonald’s censure or firing. “I very much believe in academic freedom,” she said. “And all of us at the university are doing research that in one way or another may offend someone.”
Her disappointment, she said, is that there have not been public debates in which others in MacDonald’s field publicly critique his views. “Several faculty members have offered to debate him. I’d like to see that,” she said.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
I congratulate the administration at Long Beach for their measured and reasonable response to this situation. Thanks to the author of the article, also, for a broad and balanced consideration of this very important issue.
F Mentch, at 9:15 am EDT on April 26, 2007
The purpose of academic freedom is to stimulate thought.
RWH is usually lucid in both his reasoning and conclusions. In this case, his conclusion that the grant of tenure to Prof. MacDonald was irresponsible lacks justification.
In addition to insufficient information available and no opportunity to Prof. MacDonald to respond, the study of why Jews are loyal to one another is a reasonable topic for those interested in culture (sic psychology).
The fact that Southern Law, RWH or anyone else would disagree with the views expressed by Prof. MacDonald is irrelevant in an academically free environment.
Prof. MacDonald offered sufficient defense to escape criticism; i.e., he is careful to present his views in a balanced way (beyond my criteria of only necessary to allow free expression of all views without penalty or abuse) and would never penalize a person for their heritage.
In response to the title of this article: “hate” does not describe Prof. MacDonald’s merely unorthodox opinions. He has also announced that he is ready to debate his position with people who he believes have sufficient style and knowledge to civilly articulate their position. We need more professors like him.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 9:50 am EDT on April 26, 2007
It is difficult to comment here on the specifics of Professor Macdonald’s work. However, the word “hate” seems unwarranted to describe an intellectual position on an issue, even when that position involves criticism of matters involving a particular social group. I worry that historical disadvantages that certain groups have suffered are frequently used in the service of suppressing critical perspectives. Such suppression of thought, even when it is misused by some, has implications far beyond restrictions on academic freedom.
Mathew, at 11:15 am EDT on April 26, 2007
I can’t believe people are defending this guy. While MacDonald’s Jewish immigration etc. plot is his, theories that the Jews conspire to undermine white majorities or, without exaggerating, take over the world have abounded for centuries. The most infamous example is, of course, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1897), a forgery concocted by an anti-Semite that perpetuated the lie of a Jewish conspiracy and subsequently helped to convince 17 million Germans to vote Nazi in 1933.
Jews have been accused of fictitious atrocities for centuries: poisoning wells, causing the Black Plague, and killing Christian children in order to drink their blood. Such falsehoods are inextricably bound with the Jewish conspiracy theories. Jews have been accused of Communist plotting as well as its converse, capitalist control; left wing social relativism and right wing imperialism; excessive pacifism and military aggression; extreme social reform and dogmatic conservatism. The Jews, in short, have become all conspiracies to all conspirators of all political persuasions. They made—apparently, still make—reliable scapegoats. The conspiracy narrative is always the same: blame the Jews for imagined—and fabricated—wrongdoing, and then punish them for it. Turn them from victims to perpetrators. Then kill them with righteous impunity.
It happened in 13th Century England, 15th Century Spain, 19th Century Poland and Russia, and, of course, 20th Century Germany, Poland, and Romania. Thanks to people like MacDonald, it could happen again.
JK, at 11:20 am EDT on April 26, 2007
In response to W. S. Scott, I have two things to say ... including an admission that I’m “revising.”.
1. My knowledge of Professor MacDonald’s work is clearly not first-hand ... and virtually all second-hand reports I have read cast his work as intellectually indefensible. That said, and given what I know, I should never have described his work as “bizarre.” I apologize!
2. This is clearly a revision of my earlier point, but I will not step away from my criticism of the Department of Psychology at Cal State – Long Beach. That criticism is based on my prejudice that every Community of Scholars – in the Paul Goodman sense – has every right to define itself as it will ... and then be subject to market conditions vis-a-vis the ideas it promulgates. I think interesting Communities of Scholars practice “diversity” to some degree – and I happen to believe there is a very strong positive correlation between intellectual diversity and simply being interesting ... perhaps even vital.
That said, CSLU (1) either invited Professor MacDonald to join one of its Communities of Scholars with insufficient information about the extent to which his “generation of ideas” would complement that of other scholars in their community and, therefore, contribute to their intellectual influence (that would be their lack of responsibility) OR (2) once Professor MacDonald was embraced by the CLSU Department of Psychology, they failed to stand by him (that would be their cowardice).
The “statement” in the second paragraph of Scott’s report – the one that F. Mentch found to be “measured and reasoned” – is nothing more than evidence of a cowardly breakdown of a Community of Scholars. Truth be known, if I were a psychology student looking for a graduate program or if I were a faculty member looking for hir first position, I would factor this information into my decision mechanism ... and with a fairly large weight.
P.S.
Please forgive me for departing from the subject, but I am now using “s/he” for “he or she,” “hir” for “him or her,” and “h-self” for “himself or herself.” It may seem a bit wussy, but (1) language is dynamic and (2) I can handle that. The alternatives seem so clumsy to me.
RWH, at 11:20 am EDT on April 26, 2007
So, where’s Horowitz these days?
People might wanna think about the alternatives to academic freedom—especially given the repressive climate in the U.S. today.
delia
canada
delia, at 12:30 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
As a professor who has read Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy ( a work of immense and impeccable scholarship)I must say that he is right. In fact, he quotes many prominent Jewish leaders that say exactly what he says. Somehow, if a Gentile professor simply quotes Jewish leaders he becomes an “anti-Semite,” if that is true then what are the leaders themselves?
I read with interest his work on the Jewish leadership in the long running campaign to change American immigration policies and transform America from a 90 percent European descended nation in 1960 into a nation where European Americans will become a minority. Jewish groups brag about this accomplishment.
Anyone can check out the citations for themselves.
Of course, as a Jew myself, I am very aware of Jewish cohesion, and although it is not perfect, I dare say that no people are earth are more organized and committed to their common interests.Ironicaly though when our Gentile competitors seek to look after their own interests, such as in the Mideast, we condemn them as anti-Semites. Does that make we Jews “anti-Gentiles.”
Every Jewish organization says that there needs to be even more Jewish solidarity, but somehow Kevin MacDonald just stating this truth has become an “anti-Semite.” One could not even imagine a Gentile group saying that there needs to be more Gentile solidarity!
Who is it making this accusation against MacDonald? None other than Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok of the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Two Jews who never use the resources of the SPLC to expose supporters in the United States of Apartheid policies in Israel. Most Americans don’t even know that in Israel a marriage between a Jew and Gentile is not legal, but the SPLC would be mighty upset if there were laws forbidding mixed marriages say between Blacks and Whites in America. Almost every Jewish organization in America has programs to fight against Jewish intermarriage with non-Jews. The SPLC is silent on that, but readily condemns any White organization who would campaign against intermarriage with non-Whites.
MacDonald is a scholar and is far from being an anti-Semite or racist of any kind. He is called that because he has dared to talk about the extreme ethnocentrism, even supremacism exhibited by some powerful Jewish groups in the United States. Liberal Jews in the United States, Israel, and all over the world are painfully aware of Jewish extremism, and we can talk about it to a degree, but woe to a Gentile professor who dares to speak about a reality that has powerful implications in the United States and around the world.
Professors Walt and Mearsheimer at the Harvard School of Government have exposed quite well the primary role of the Israeli (read Jewish) lobby the catastrophe of the Iraq War.
Jewish political, economic and media power is the proverbial gorilla in the room that everyone is aware of but no one can speak about.
The attacks on Prof. MacDonald are testimony to his intelligence and his courage.
The SPLC for trying to smear Dr. MacDonald as an anti-Semite should be the one condemned.
Dr. Max Rusky, Dr. at Moscow State University, at 12:35 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
I want to suggest that the handwringing over MacDonald’s research is inappropriate. No one would have a second thought were he to write about the “strategy” of the civil rights movement, or of the Mormon church in Utah, or of the AAUP, or indeed of the SPLC. If I for example were to say this whole ruckus is part of the SPLC tacky fundraising strategy my views would be essentially mainstream.
rgd, at 12:50 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
I agree the Long Beach administration has gotten this right. You will get these people from time to time, and it’s not the university’s job to police people’s politics, no matter how awful their views.
I’d think twice before appointing the guy to a hiring committee, but RWH’s “community” criterion is a bad idea — it’s vital that tenure does *not* do a broad audit of someone’s political views.
C, at 1:35 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
RWH did not — nor would he ever — suggest that someone’s political views should be considered relevant information for employment, promotion, or tenure decisions.
Scott’s article stated that “The [SPLC] report reviews the career and writings of Kevin MacDonald, a tenured full professor of psychology who has devoted much of his work to studying Jews and what he considers the ‘evolutionary’ way Jewish people band together, in part to undercut white society in the United States.”
I thought the complaints about MacDonald were about his scholarship, not about his politics. Or did I miss something?
My complaint about the “Long Beach administration” that C applauds stems from another statement in the article; to wit, “MacDonald has taught at Long Beach since 1985, and for much of that time, his views on Jewish people, immigration and other topics have not been widely known. An editor of the student paper said that prior to the Southern Poverty Law Center investigation [in Spring, 2007 no less], there wasn’t much awareness of MacDonald’s views.”
That is precisely what caused me to wonder how long those folks have had their heads in the sand. But I suppose it’s not called Cal State – Long Beach for nothing.
RWH, at 3:25 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
MacDonald’s scholarship is quite good.
The problems are the selection of what he chooses to believe and the opinions he draws from that scholarship are contrary to mainstream.
As evidenced by the Moscow State University Prof comment above, mainstream America is fed controlled information and is biased against any confrontation of Jews.
My observation is that all religious views get little criticism in America.
Is there a big picture here for all of us to see.
And, why the slur by RWH against Cal State -Long Beach. Easy to do when we do not know who he is. Cheap shot — not worthy of IHE.
Quizzical, at 4:25 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
For what it’s worth, if you read the whole article you will discover that Professor Macdonald was not doing this research at the time of his tenure and promotion — he was studying wolves and aggression in children. The university could hardly have taken his views into consideration in giving him tenure, since he hadn’t yet expressed them.
DA, at 4:25 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
David Duke defends him.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/2084_2084.html#more-2084
Ironic Irene, at 5:05 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
Mr. Jaschik. Don’t you think you did a disservice to IHE readers when he did not call David Horowitz for comment?
Thom, at 5:05 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
Persons interested in this debate might go to the archives of the History of Antisemitism list (on Humanities Net), for an extensive discussion of Macdonald’s scholarship. I have read the latter two volumes of his three volume trilogy and find them typical of other racialist discourses, and without empirical foundation.
Clare Spark, Independent Scholar, at 8:35 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
Readers might want to consult the extensive discussions of Macdonald on the History of Antisemitism website (H-Antisemitism is part of H-Net).
I have read the latter two books in his three volume trilogy on Jewish power and find it line with other grossly racialist discourses and without empirical foundation. The notion that a person with his training can write about historical matters beyond his ken is indicative of the general bogus character of interdisciplinary research and publication these days.
Naturally, the debate here has drawn out other antisemites in support of the insupportable. Academic freedom entails competence, which I challenge anyone here to assign to Macdonald. For instance, quote from his published work on the Jews and then find facts to support his allegations.
clare spark, Independent Scholar, at 8:35 pm EDT on April 26, 2007
I find so many of Dr. Rusky’s claims ridiculous. Jews bragging about transforming America’s racial composition? Never in all my time around Jews (my entire life) have I even heard allusion to this until this article and your post, much less bragging of any sort. Jews being the most organized and committed people on earth (how about, say, Armenians?) to their common interests (what would those be, exactly?- good luck finding more than a handful of Jews that precisely agree)? And I guess the general mechanism for Jewish organizations in America fighting against Jewish intermarriage would be what, having events with other Jews present?
Student, at 4:30 am EDT on April 27, 2007
One thing that hasn’t been commented upon here is the fact that Professor MacDonald does not teach in the History Department at Long Beach. He is not a historian. He will not ever teach in the History Department, either, as he lacks the minimum qualifications for an entry-level tenure-track position: a Ph.D. in History or a closely allied field with significant professional training in History.
McL, at 3:15 pm EDT on April 30, 2007
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Job Summary: Two Assistant Professor, Tenure-Line Positions. We are a highly collaborative, ... see job
School of Social Sciences Department of Cognitive Sciences Human Behavioral Genetics Position: Assistant Professor, ... see job
Winston-Salem State University and the College of Arts and Sciences invite applications for a tenure-track Assistant ... see job
Psychology – (Psych-1-09) About The American University in Cairo: Founded in 1919, AUC’s campus has moved to its ... see job
The Psychology department has been authorized to expand our faculty to meet growing department needs. see job
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
Roger Williams University is one of the top ranked liberal arts universities in the Northeast and is an Equal Opportunity ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Join one of the finest regional universities in the nation. James Madison University, home to 18,000 + students, welcomes you ... see job
The Department of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine invites applications for a faculty ... see job
Tell Me ... Who’s At Fault Here
Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said, “We’re not demanding or trying to demand that he should be fired. We’re very much proponents of the First Amendment and academic freedom. Our concern is that this man may be teaching these ideas in his classroom.”
Just yesterday I had occasion to explore definitions of academic freedom, and concluded that the two below capture the essence of the concept most comprehensively:
1. The Report of the First Global Colloquium of University Presidents (January 2005 at Columbia University) proffered the following definition ...
“At its simplest, academic freedom may be defined as the freedom to conduct research, teach, speak, and publish, subject to the norms and standards of scholarly inquiry, without interference or penalty, wherever the search for truth and understanding may lead.”
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications files/globalcolloquium.htm
2. The UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel is a very extensive and interesting statement about many dimensions of higher education. A segment of their definition states ...
“27. The principle of academic freedom should be scrupulously observed. Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source. Higher-education teaching personnel can effectively do justice to this principle if the environment in which they operate is conducive, which requires a democratic atmosphere; hence the challenge for all of developing a democratic society.”
http://www.caut.ca/en/issues/academicfreedom/unesco.asp
For better or for worse, the Kevin MacDonald situation is precisely what the principles of academic freedom are all about. And Mr. Potok’s lament, “Our concern is that this man may be teaching these ideas in his classroom” essential means the IPSP Law Center is NOT “very much a proponent of academic freedom.”
The sad part of this, of course, is there are some departments at some universities – e.g. Psychology at Cal State – Long Beach and Ethnic Studies at Colorado – that are not even close to being as diligent as they should be in their tenure decisions. Frankly, the tenure decision of a faculty vis-a-vis a new addition to that faculty is probably more critical than a marriage contract between two individuals. And any faculty that is careless about such decisions deserves what it gets and must learn to live with it.
That’s what the principles of academic freedom dictate ... and that’s the way it should be. The principle is waaay too important to be revised or scrapped because of a few careless decisions by less than responsible faculty. In my opinion (1) the theories of Kevin MacDonald are bizarre – although I might take one of his courses out of curiosity and for the pleasure of harassing him – and (2) the tenure decision by the department was, without equivocation, irresponsible.
RWH, at 8:20 am EDT on April 26, 2007