Search News


Browse Archives

News

Security Threat or Political Threat?

October 20, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Back in March, when a faculty panel at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln selected William Ayers to be the keynote speaker at a November conference at the College of Education, nobody really noticed.

But that was before Ayers -- who helped found the Weather Underground, and who has since built a reputation as a leading thinker on education reform -- became the professor most likely to be talked about by Sen. John McCain or Gov. Sarah Palin. They -- and other Republicans -- have been citing the work Ayers did on a school-reform committee with Sen. Barack Obama as evidence that the Democratic presidential nominee "pals around with terrorists."

On Friday, the university called off the Ayers appearance, citing security concerns. But the timing of the announcement -- after a 24-hour period in which Nebraska's governor and other politicians and donors demanded that Ayers be kept away -- left many dubious. Some faculty leaders say that the incident represents a serious violation of the principles of academic freedom.

Given that "there are people at the University of Nebraska with a deep knowledge of academic freedom and an equally deep commitment to it," it is "particularly painful to see this institution intimidated by politicians and donors into canceling Professor Bill Ayers's invited presentation," said Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors. "Genuine threats to campus security are rare. More common are occasions when 'security' is a code word for political or financial pressure. Academic freedom cannot survive unless we stand up to bullies with power or money."

Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And while his past with the Weather Underground remains bitterly debated, he was never convicted of breaking any laws. Federal riot and bombing conspiracy charges were brought against Ayers, but the charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct.

His more recent activities -- teaching, publishing, serving on various school reform panels -- are typical for education professors, and he has been highly successful at them. And it is that part of his career that led to the Nebraska invitation. With Ayers in the news, the university issued a statement noting that no state funds were being used for his visit and that he would be speaking on his scholarly research, not politics. But if university leaders thought the statement would keep things calm, they were wrong.

On Friday, Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican, called for the invitation to Ayers to be rescinded. "This is an embarrassment to the University of Nebraska and the State of Nebraska. Bill Ayers is a well known radical who should never have been invited to the University of Nebraska," said the governor. The state's attorney general, Jon Bruning, then followed with his own call for the invitation to be rescinded. "Academic freedom doesn’t require us to lose our good judgment and common sense. It’s time to take the invitation off the table," he said.

Alumni and donors started to send e-mails and call the university, with some threatening to halt donations. Among those who criticized the invitation was Chuck Hassebrook, chair of the Board of Regents, who was quoted saying: “Who we invite matters. In all honesty, if I were that college, I would disinvite him. In general I just don’t think it’s a good thing to go around blowing other people up.”

By Friday afternoon, the university announced that Ayers wouldn't be coming. A statement said that the "university’s threat assessment group monitored e-mails and other information UNL received regarding Ayers’ scheduled November 15 visit, and identified safety concerns which resulted in the university canceling the event."

James B. Milliken, president of the University of Nebraska system, followed up with a statement in which he said that he understood why "many Nebraskans were upset by the proposed Ayers lecture," but said that it would have been "inappropriate" to call it off because of that anger. "While the immediate controversy over Ayers' scheduled appearance may be over, the importance of recognizing that a university is a place for the open exchange of ideas, free of outside political or popular pressure, remains."

That statement notwithstanding, many professors -- and some others -- don't think the university stood up for academic freedom.

David Moshman, a professor of educational psychology at the university, called the cancellation of the lecture "a very serious infringement on academic freedom." Moshman said it was not credible to view the issue as a security threat, since the decision was made amid a huge controversy -- and a month away from the scheduled talk, meaning that the university would have had plenty of time to set up adequate security. He also noted that it was seriously detrimental to the faculty to have the regents' board chair and much of the political leadership of the state saying who could and could not be invited to campus.

"This was clearly political," said Moshman, who is on the board of the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska, "and that's not the way it's supposed to be."

Nelson of the AAUP noted that the association published a statement last year urging colleges and universities not to rescind invitations that become controversial.

Even figures who are happy Ayers will not be visiting are openly questioning the idea that the university acted for security reasons. Bruning, the attorney general, told The Omaha World-Herald that the university was "doing the right thing here, even if they can't be forthright about the reason." He explained: "If we can provide security for the president of the United States, security is a cop-out."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Security Threat or Political Threat?

  • being proactive
  • Posted by Cary Nelson , President at AAUP on October 20, 2008 at 7:55am EDT
  • Last fall the AAUP sent both a detailed statement and a 2-page summary about controversial speakers on campus to some 3,000 college and university presidents and to 300,000 faculty members. We urged schools to be proactive and distribute the shorter version to donors, politicians, legislators, and community members well in advance of the 2008 election season. We did so because there were several cancellations of controversial campus speakers in 2004, and we hoped to prevent the same thing happening again. Some schools took advantage of this opportunity. We pointed out that it is very difficult to gain a hearing for academic freedom once people are already angry.

    Cary Nelson
    AAUP President

  • Sure it was security... they wouldn't lie would they?
  • Posted by Diogenes on October 20, 2008 at 8:30am EDT
  • Of course it was. We can always trust everything Republicans and Conservatives say about every controversial figure and Republicans on every Board of Trustees are always non-political and only think of the American people as a whole. We can always trust Republican presidents to tell the truth as well. Its never political two weeks before an election anyway.

    Honestly I think most Americans are tired of the neo-McCarthy era and John Birch Society fear and smear tactics. But this certainly appeals to the base. The same base that calls a presidential candidate a traitor, a socialist, a terrorist and yells "Kill Him!" at their torch lit rallies. When one of their own stands up and says "certain" US senators are "unamerican," it isn't Ayers who looks scary folks. No, Ayers doesn't scare me at all.

  • About Bravery And Patriotism
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 20, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • In this Year of Political Distraction, I can only congratulate the University of Nebraska for taking an heroic action in support of principles so dear to the Republic. Oh that all colleges and universities would bravely and patriotically stand up for America and ban controversial speakers on their campuses.

    This is precisely what one would expect of a great university like the University of Nebraska. We’re Number one!!!

    Frizbane Manley, Director

    Center for the Restoration of the Principles of Joseph R. McCarthy

    P.S. And about that letter from AAUP ... with $5.00 and a letter from AAUP, you can purchase a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

  • No Excuses
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on October 20, 2008 at 9:00am EDT
  • Security reasons cannot justify a ban of a speaker from campus, no matter whether they are valid or not. As I note on my blog, it is absurd to claim that a month is insufficient time to prepare for a controversial speaker. Let's here the specific security threats, and let's see the university pursue and the government prosecute them. We need to stop these threats by putting the people who make them in jail. Otherwise, anybody who wants to ban a speaker from campus will just start making threats.

  • Particularly Upsetting to First Amendment
  • Posted by Paul Rutter on October 20, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • I read this with disbelief. The man has never been convicted of anything, and is tenured professor of education who is, it appears, highly respected by his peers. Where is the beef with that? Even if he were convicted of anything if he had served his time, to hear what he might say would be enlightening and I can make any judgments about it on my own.

    Can I no longer express my views? Since I'm a war Veteran, am I subject to being denounced as a killer at some later point? I'm getting ready to the work and write chapters 4-6 of my dissertation. Do I need to have the research proposal vetted by a political committee also? Is this the way academia works now?

    Thanks for any responses.

    Paul

  • What ever happened to meaningful dialogue?
  • Posted by James in Boston , Assoc. Dir., International Students/Scholars Ofc at Boston University on October 20, 2008 at 9:15am EDT
  • Ayers should be permitted to speak with a Q&A follow up. That way, people hear what he has to say and can decide for themselves if he is "dangerous" or not. They can also question his views and pose their own. Isn't that was Higher Ed is supposed to be? Simply by having someone speak on your campus does not mean the institution -- or even a majority of the campus community -- endorses the individual's views.

  • it's political
  • Posted by LindaMcP on October 20, 2008 at 9:25am EDT
  • The Thought Police are alive and well. Ayers was never convicted of any crime, whatever was done happened 40 years ago, and since then the man has built a brilliant reputation. Good grief.

  • Why not invite The Unabomber?
  • Posted by EngProf on October 20, 2008 at 9:25am EDT
  • Both Ayers and the Unabomber are equally repentant for their actions. I am sure Kaczynski is being a model prisoner and doing good things now.

    You'd think killing someone on purpose would be a disqualifier for such honors, but I guess not.

  • Privatize Billy Ayers
  • Posted by Buzz on October 20, 2008 at 9:25am EDT
  • Given the violence at campus "demonstrations" -- the comments about the Republicans were so laughable, even my dog appeared to giggle, as I rolled on the floor, laughing out loud.

    Worried about security? (I would be.) Want "academic freedom" (whatever that means -- get a different answer, every time)?

    Take Billy Ayers off-campus -- go private. Better yet -- pay for it yourselves, off the public dime. Do the taxpayers a favor and show your moral strength.

  • Dialogue
  • Posted by Wilbur Beauregard on October 20, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • Well I guess one thing is for sure, the University of Nebraska will never be up to the standards of a Columbia University where they have the courage to allow free speech even from Iranian presidents.

    Again, what is the harm in dialogue
    Nebraska's thinking pattern is rivaled by the one of the Bush II culture and how we got into this infernal Iraq war by not letting dialogue and sanctions.

    I already lost my brother to the military 23 years ago; I understand the grief of the families of the 4,000 plus killed in Iraq plus all the civilians who would not have their grief if we had allowed dialogue and diplomacy to have time.

    Dialogue helps, the Bush Doctrine fails.

    WB

  • Point of order
  • Posted by Buzz on October 20, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • " .. Ayers was never convicted of any crime .."

    Billy Ayers, whose daddy was CEO of ConEdison-Chicago, was lucky enough to have his arrest overturned on procedural grounds.

    If the AG and FBI had done their jobs correctly, Billy might have spent several years in an orange jump-suit and communal showers.

  • dissapointing
  • Posted by macktan on October 20, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • When was this invitation made? Clearly the reason Ayers was disinvited was because his appearance would have rightfully made McCain/Palin look foolish--after all, Nebraska could be accused of palling around with terrorists.

    This kind of narrowness was the target of 60s dissent, in which people fought against repression and bigotry. This underlying view that America cannot be criticized, challenged, or even condemned legitimately subverts the principles defining this country and does more damage to democracy than any dissenter can do.

    Democracy is an ongoing process that depends on challenge and dissent to evolve. Those who would shut that down aren't democratic.

  • Ayers
  • Posted by George on October 20, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • It still boggles my mind that an unrepentant killer is accepted and honored by the "liberal" academic community. He should be shunned but instead is invited to speak at different campus events. Mr. Ayers is no more than a fascist who tried to impose his will on the American people by violence. Being guilty has to do with the act, not whether a jury found him guilty or innocent. He is an stench in the nostrals of all the Vietnamese who fled their country and live in the US at this time and all the soldiers who give their lives to try to keep South Vietnam free.

  • Posted by John the Professor on October 20, 2008 at 10:20am EDT
  • Great Idea! And here's another: At the rally before the Huskers play BU, Milliken and Heineman can lead the chants by throwing copies of Ayer's books on the bonfire!

  • Posted by Gene Scaramella on October 20, 2008 at 10:20am EDT
  • It is becoming mighty tiresome of hearing the whining of left-wing, too much time on their hands, academics. Thank God that the Ayers generation will not be working in the field much longer.

    I believe Senator McCain is right when he refers to Ayers as a terrorist. What else do we call one who espouses the bombing of government buildings? A community organizer?

    I applaud the university for canceling the Ayers' visit.

    Gene Scaramella
    Dean, College of Behavioral Sciences

  • Threats My Foot
  • Posted by Denise on October 20, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • Ayers' connections with Obama has been a major liability to not only the Obama campaign but in mainstreaming the Progressivist Ideology. If he opens his mouth now every American would hear what Obama's prescription for America really is and could effectivly ruin his chances for victory. For liberals, the ends usually justify the means. Shut the guy up until after the election and then he'll be able to talk all he wants. Until then we can blame the disinvite on the bloodthirsty neocons.

  • Glimpse of things to come?
  • Posted by Susan Hoffpauir on October 20, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • This appears to be a glimpse of how freedom of speech and expression, let alone academic freedom, will look under a McCain presidency.

  • Posted by Labyrinth on October 20, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • "This appears to be a glimpse of hwo freedom of speech and expression, let alone academci freedom, will look under a McCain presidency."

    Hyperbole often do you, Susan? Hyperbole may worki with the weak-minded, Susan, but I doubt it'll have any effect here.

    Works both ways...if Obama wins, do we get the wondeful 'Fairness Doctrine' in the news media?

  • Ayers at Nebraska
  • Posted by Pamela Blome , Librarian at Colorado School of Mines on October 20, 2008 at 11:35am EDT
  • I'm not surprised, but disappointed that my alma mater made this choice. Dr. Ayers has made his mark in education and this was the purpose of the visit. If these folks wanted him for his education credentials--these have not changed!
    I remember the campus in the late '60s, early 70s, they didn't get excited about the Vietnam war--but they're afraid our current students will get violent now? What a sad commentary about Nebraska!

  • He abused his freedom
  • Posted by John Doe on October 20, 2008 at 11:45am EDT
  • I am extremely ashamed this person is so well accepted into our profession that promotes peace. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist as far as I am concerned. He should be in prison not on stage in front of our faces. I love America. He doesn't. If he did he would not have taken part in the Weather Underground. He is a scumbag like many of you who use freedom of speech to hide behind to explain away everything. Just because he is good at his job, does not make him a good person. You can't be mad at me for calling you a scumbag, because we have freedom of speech. :-D

  • On the other hand
  • Posted by jan , Educator on October 20, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • Perhaps the University of Nebraska would be more comfortable having Charles Keating (a true American terrorist) as speaker. Greed, fraud, corruption and the fiancial destruction of the American economy and way of life, seem to be perfectly acceptable attributes in our "heartland."
    Good thing for them, 'cause thanks to a failure to learn from history, "here we go again..." and I can guarantee that Nebraska and the University endowment fund will be feeling the effects of the handiwork of our true American terrorists, the white collar variety.

  • In Response To Buzzy
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 20, 2008 at 12:11pm EDT
  • You wrote, “If the AG and FBI had done their jobs correctly, Billy might have spent several years in an orange jump-suit and communal showers.”

    And if a frog had wings, he wouldn’t have to bounce along on his butt.

  • Posted by Greg on October 20, 2008 at 12:11pm EDT
  • Anyone read any Ginsberg? If so this should not surprise you.
    http://www.arras.net/circulars/archives/wichita_1.pdf

  • Posted by Sad to see this on October 20, 2008 at 12:37pm EDT
  • It's sad to see a large research university bowing so openly to political pressures. The contingent that invited Ayers to speak is still at the university, and, as others have said, a speaker doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the entire university, its professors, and students. What does this say about the integrity of the research agenda and publications of Nebraska? Are there Big Tobacco or Pharmaceutical payoffs to researchers? Politically biased research results?

  • Posted by Ann on October 20, 2008 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Laura Bush, the First Lady, was convicted of vehicular manslaughter, so if these brushes with the law are grounds from removal from public speaking and public office.....

  • Ayers invitation rescinded
  • Posted by Michelle Amodei on October 20, 2008 at 12:55pm EDT
  • What an unfortunate event in the world of higher education. How short-sighted to judge a man by acts which occurred 40 years ago and has since that time made significant contributions to the field of education. How we will ever progress as a society if we cannot put history in its proper context and move on from there? Furthermore, if universities are unable to break free from the chains of political pressure and stop this ugly cycle and allow true expression of freedom and ideas, society will not change. Shame on you University of Nebraska and shame on the politicians, alumni and others who can't see past the media hype!

  • Stunning Hypocrisy from the Left
  • Posted by Stubbornly Rational on October 20, 2008 at 12:55pm EDT
  • To begin, let me say I am strongly against the censorship of Dr. Ayers. He should be allowed to speak.

    Just as representatives of the Israeli government should have been allowed to speak. Just as Ann Coulter should have been allowed to speak.

    The problem with the Left is that it is totally inconsistent and hypocritical in matters of freedom of speech.

    One of our correspondents here lauds Columbia as a model of free speech, ignoring the numerous conservative speakers who have been silenced at Columbia, shouted down by leftists. Amazing.

    Another correspondent wrings his hands and warns gravely that Ayers is not the real problem, when anyone who can count knows that the vast majority of censorship and intimidation events on modern campuses are initiated by the Left, which trashes newspapers, slashes tires, invades email accounts, and shouts down speakers with reckless abandon.

    In Canada, people who even suggest certain ideas are now hounded down and attacked via Canada's alternative court system, euphemistically called the "Human Rights Tribunal." No doubt Pelosi and Obama have something like this planned for us soon. Pelosi has already attempted, via her "fairness doctrine," to effectively silence conservative public radio. And many of you writing here will undoubtedly approve, invoking the standard transparently vacuous rationalizations.

    As Bush and Palin found out, *nothing* is off-limits to the Leftist liberal press. On the other hand, *everything* can be labeled racist if it comes from a conservative. In his recent comedy appearance with McCain, Obama made fun of the Alfred E. Neumann aspect of his appearance. Obama's ears, and the obvious correlation of his appearance with the Mad Magazine character, were scruplously avoided by the right throughout this campaign. Although Bush supporters were treated to 8 years of "Chimp" jokes on Moveon.org, they are smart enough to know that the Left would crucify them as racists were they to concoct similar jokes. People made films about the assassination of Bush. They were strongly defended and applauded by Leftists. How about an assassination movie about Obama?

    The Leftist wrings his hands over Ayers and points to the fact that he's "never been convicted." Neither has Cheney! Ayers has freely admitted his guilt, Cheney hasn't.

    Can the Left be unaware of its own staggering hypocrisy? Future generations will see it.

  • A minor distinction
  • Posted by Stubbornly Rational on October 20, 2008 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Ann,

    I think most of us could actually distinguish between a sad nighttime automotive accident involving a 17 year old, and a deliberate, organized bombing of a building.

    Think intention, severity, age of the offender.

    Think also about Laura Bush's traumatized repentance versus Ayers' snickering self-justification and pride.

    Hope that helps...

  • Freedom of Speech? What's that?
  • Posted by Stubbornly paying attention... on October 20, 2008 at 1:50pm EDT
  • "The problem with the Left is that it is totally inconsistent and hypocritical in matters of freedom of speech."

    Indeed--and so is the Right, as is obvious from prior controversies that surrounded your very examples--Coulter, Cheney, et al.--in which those who backed their invitation and "right to speak" were equally outspoken against permitting "Leftist" speakers on their campuses. Neither side seems particularly good at upholding the values they proclaim are near and dear to democracy.

  • Ayers: a respected member of The Establishment
  • Posted by William Peltz on October 20, 2008 at 1:55pm EDT
  • 1. Fact-check: Ayers' prosecution wasn't dismissed because of prosecutorial error.

    According to the chief prosecutor of Ayers and the Weather Underground in the 1970s, the Weathermen indictment was not dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct. "It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director." (William C. Ibershof, letter to the editor, NY Times, Oct. 9, 2008.)

    2. An overlooked mark of Ayers' latter-day respectability is that he was honored by the Chicago establishment as the Citizen of the Year in 1997. The City Club of Chicago, a 1000 member aggregation of business leaders, investment bankers, university presidents, lawyers, and leading political figures saw fit to honor a "washed-up terrorist" and Distinguished Professor of Education.

    I haven't been able to find a list of the City Club's awardees, but in 2003 it was a leading Chicago lawyer, Joseph A. Power of Power, Rogers & Smith. In 1987, it was the president of the Chicago Sun-Times, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch at that time. Another Citizen of the Year, but I don't know which year, was a venture-capitalist, J. B. Pritzker, an extremely prominent figure in Chicago who's on private and governmental boards and commissions and who won the Humanitarian Award from the Holocaust Memorial Foundation of Illinois. Clearly, Ayers is in certified Respectable Company.

    For a bit of information overkill, take a look at the City Club of Chicago's corporate members: http://www.cityclub-chicago.com/corporate_members.asp. Also their "President's Club" members: http://www.cityclub-chicago.com/presidents_club.asp. Wikipedia has informative articles on the two foundations, the Annenberg Foundation and the Woods Fund of Chicago, and the Annenberg Challenge, where Obama and Ayers first met. (The Annenberg family is also a contributor to McCain's campaign.)

    In a final character reference, i chief prosecutor Ibershof wrote in his letter to the editor that he is "amazed and outraged" that "Obama is being linked to William Ayers' terrorist activities 40 years ago....Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased . . . that he has become a responsible citizen..."

  • Punishing the Perpetrators of Academic Fraud
  • Posted by CJ on October 20, 2008 at 3:00pm EDT
  • How do you punish a donor for using extortion to influence the academic decision of the state university system? You might start by revealing the names of these people. The loss of anonymity might dissuade some of these ideologues from covertly interfering in the academic freedom of the state university system. As for the politicians and the trustees, they are subject to the voters so the voters can decide their fate.

  • Posted by Henry on October 20, 2008 at 3:25pm EDT
  • It's obvious that the acrimony, bitterness, and hostility of 60s are back with a vengeance. I'm no fan of Ayers, and I have mixed feelings about the Nebraska dis-invitation here. But I think that we should all be very alarmed at the level of vitriol and hatred being spouted here in these interchanges. If one studies past world civilizations, this sort of vicious and polarizing discourse is a symptom of something much more ominous brewing: namely, possible civil violence...even civil war and the total, violent unraveling and disintegration of a civilization. Could this scenario be brewing here in the USA? If so, I fear for the future of our land.

  • Once Again
  • Posted by DFS on October 20, 2008 at 3:25pm EDT
  • Once again, those with the proper "deep knowledge of academic freedom and an equally deep commitment to it," according to our Cary Nelson of the AAUP, are " intimidated by politicians and donors" into regarding security as a "code word."

    (Explanation for those of us who are against Ayers and everything he stands for: "code word" means whatever someone is trying to convey to you -- if you're of deep understanding, you know, and if you're not, you don't matter.)

    Further, according to professor Moshman, “a very serious infringement on academic freedom" had occurred because "the decision was made amid a huge controversy." Remember, if there is some big controversy, no decision can be made. By this standard, Jeffrey Dahmer should have been allowed to address the Americal Psychiatric Association, Hitler any of various anti-defammation leagues, and Ahmedinejad any freedom-loving institution (No, wait . . .).

    "I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough." This is from October 2008, in the NYT again, reprinted from September 11, 2001 in the same publication.

    No "controversy" here.

  • the Nebraska Doctrine?
  • Posted by barry dank on October 20, 2008 at 5:35pm EDT
  • It should be obvious that the barring of Ayers from the University of Nebraska is simply a variant of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush administration engaged in a preemptive
    strike against Iraq because of the imminent threat of Iraqi usage of weapons of mass destruction. Now the University of Nebraska engages in a preemptive strike (prior restrain) against Ayers to prevent the purveyor of dangerous speech from being on campus. The irony is tht William Ayers could never have made it to the University of Nebraska since the Bush administration has put Ayers on their "no fly" list?

  • Denise and Stubbornly Rational
  • Posted by cts on October 20, 2008 at 5:35pm EDT
  • Oh joy: the self-annointed rationalist is back: "The problem with the Left is that it is totally inconsistent and hypocritical in matters of freedom of speech. One of our correspondents here lauds Columbia as a model of free speech, ignoring the numerous conservative speakers who have been silenced at Columbia, shouted down by leftists."
    I think the other poster's point was that Columbia University permitted the Iranian nut-job to speak. Note: THE UNIVERSITY. In the case of Ayers, it is the UNIVERISTY that revokes an invitation. To compare the decision of an institution with the misbehavior of noisy audience members is simply to miss the point. While I am surprised at Ayer's ascendancy in Chicago and in academe, the point is that an institution invited him as an academic speaker and then rescinded the invitation because he is - now - 'controversial.'
    Denise: Are we to take it that you think some leftist cabal is responsible for the U of Nebraska's decision? Yikes, give me old Stubbornly Rational any day.

  • Strength
  • Posted by Tom on October 20, 2008 at 5:55pm EDT
  • "The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself".

    Nice job Nebraska.

  • To Paul Rutter
  • Posted by E. Moran on October 20, 2008 at 6:35pm EDT
  • "Can I no longer express my views? Since I’m a war Veteran, am I subject to being denounced as a killer at some later point?"

    Paul, I am a Viet Nam vet and I can assure you this man Ayers you defend has already called me a killer in no uncertain terms, and by extention you too, as an American vet.

    He is what he always was.

  • A lack of courage. . .
  • Posted by Don Heller , Professor of Education at Penn State on October 21, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • . . .not just for refusing to stand up to the pressure to cancel the visit. But at least have the guts to admit that you canceled the visit due to political and donor pressure, not due to alleged "security concerns."

    If there are security concerns, you address them by providing adequate security. I'm sure there are "security concerns" every time the Nebraska football team plays in Lincoln, and the university somehow manages to handle it. So have the courage to admit why you are really canceling his visit.

  • Passive vs. Active University Policy
  • Posted by Stubbornly Rational on October 21, 2008 at 1:55pm EDT
  • cts's comments seek to distinguish between an official pronouncement of a university policy versus the university's effective policy. In his/her haste to score points, perhaps cts has forgotten the literally thousands of tracts on "systemic discrimination," or perhaps cts has simply been the victim of a mental set, since these tracts usually arise in the context of justifying reverse discrimination against conservatives and "whites."

    The modern university practices "systemic discrimination" against conservatives. Evidence can be found everywhere. The point is, when anti-abortionists tear up pro-live exhibits and attack pro-life presenters, university administrations look the other way. Somewhere in my files, I have a video of a student government member at a prominent Canadian university walking calmly up to a pro-life display, set up after all appropriate university permits were obtained. The student government member violently and systematically trashes the entire display, occasionally grinning for the camera. The university's response? They did precisely, absolutely nothing. Is this an official policy? No. Is it an effective policy? You betcha!

    When students at Berkeley trashed the student paper because it published Horowitz's ideas against racial reparations, what did the university do? Nothing.

    Many people from all over the political spectrum agree that race-based reparations are one of the dumbest ideas to come down the pike in recent years. But you can be physically attacked without university intervention for opposing such ideas.

    No, I don't confuse the disruptive acts of a few students with the official policy of a university. How could I? On the other hand, I, like most rational people, can deduce the *effective* policy of a university by observing its selective, politically motivated response (or lack thereof) to disruptive students.

    cts, I hope this helps.

  • Posted by Deborah on October 31, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • What an embarrassment for Nebraska to disinvite Ayers. While the right wing might like it, it will taint the university. When other academics hear "Nebraska" they'll remember the "brand," as we say in higher ed these days. It's called censorship. And there's nothing complicated about it.