Search News


Browse Archives

News

Banned in Boston

March 30, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The norm for protests over a William Ayers appearance on campus these days is for conservative critics to say that the University of Illinois at Chicago professor shouldn't be given a forum to speak because of the past violence of the Weather Underground, of which he was once a leader.

At Boston College, the debate has taken a new twist -- with the college calling off a talk by Ayers planned for tonight and citing a police killing that has never been definitively linked to the Weather Underground and that Ayers and others insist his group had nothing to do with. Nonetheless, that 1970 police killing is still associated by many in Boston with the Weather Underground and remains a political flashpoint -- as became clear on Friday.

Michael Graham, a local talk radio host, started calling on Boston College to revoke the invitation to Ayers, and he encouraged alumni, donors and others to call the college to demand that it deny Ayers a forum. Graham repeatedly linked Ayers and the Weather Underground to the 1970 killing of Walter Schroeder, the police officer, who was responding to a bank robbery by a group of radical students. Schroeder left a wife and nine children. His killing is periodically back in the news, and last received extensive coverage in 1993, when Katherine Ann Power -- one of those involved in the incident, who had evaded capture and lived under another name -- turned herself in.

Notably, the Weather Underground claimed credit over the years for plenty of incidents and its one-time leaders like Ayers who have since disavowed violence have admitted that the group did commit illegal and violent acts.

But the Weather Underground never claimed credit for the robbery and killing in 1970, and those involved have said that they were trying to get money for the Black Panthers, not the Weather Underground. (Dan Kennedy, an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University, and blogger on Boston media issues, over the weekend posted two items detailing all of the evidence suggesting that the Schroder killing was not the work of the Weather Underground -- see items here and here. Graham responded by calling Kennedy "some moron who claims to teach at Northeastern University.")

Boston College issued a statement in which it acknowledged barring Ayers, who had been invited by two student groups to talk about education reform (the focus of his work as a professor). "As a university, we pride ourselves on the free expression of ideas and on the prestige that Boston College holds as a destination of choice among prominent speakers. But we are also aware of the obligation we hold to be respectful of our host community. The emotional scars of the murder of Boston Police Sergeant Walter Schroeder, allegedly at the hands of the Weather Underground, which left nine children fatherless in the shadows of this campus, was an issue that we could not ignore."

So the college called off the event, the statement said, "out of respect for the Schroeder family and out of concern for the safety and well being of our students. We believe that, in light of these unique circumstances, the appropriate decision was made in this case."

Boston College students are now trying to find a site off campus for Ayers to speak tonight.

In an e-mail to Inside Higher Ed, Ayers condemned the college's decision to bar him from appearing on campus. "My involvement in the Weather Underground in the 1970s is well known and entirely public, and all legal issues were dealt with decades ago," he said.

Of Boston College's statement, he said: "The killing of the police officer they refer to resulted in several arrests and convictions, and the Weather Underground had nothing to do with it. There has to be more to the BC decision. The BC statement is outrageous, dishonest and indefensible."

Melissa Roberts, a senior at Boston College who was among those organizing the event, said she was bothered by several issues. First, she noted that there is no evidence that Ayers was "in any way involved" in the 1970 killing, so she wondered why a college should be taking actions based on "some people thinking that he was involved, when he wasn't."

Second, she noted that students had worked with administrators for "weeks and weeks" on the event, only to be told at the last minute that it would be called off.

And third, she noted that Boston College students must already accept some limits on the speakers they can bring to campus if they are likely to express views that conflict with Roman Catholic teachings. Now, she said, the college is going further. "If they can cancel any event that goes against the whims of wealthy conservative donors, that's very concerning to me. That's not academic freedom."

Ayers has been on the college lecture circuit for years, and before the McCain campaign last year tried to link him to Barack Obama, most of those appearances were uneventful. Since the campaign, Ayers's appearances have attracted protests, but have generally gone on as planned. But the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Georgia Southern University have uninvited Ayers, citing security issues.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he is worried about the implications of Ayers events being called off.

"Every Bill Ayers speech has now become a national test case for academic freedom. He is a distinguished professor of education with a past. But no one is really exercised about the Weather Underground any more," he said. "A protest about an Ayers speech is an opportunity to assert external power over campus intellectual life. You call up with an anonymous threat, and a college or university president gets to make solemn noises about security. The threatening phone call is now the ultimate heckler's veto. Every time a campus succumbs to one intellectual integrity is diminished for all of us."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Banned in Boston

  • $3,000 fee involved?
  • Posted by P.A. Hewson on March 30, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • " ..Every time a campus succumbs to one intellectual integrity is diminished for all of us."

    Excuse me -- Mr. Ayers, the ConEd CEO's son, is free to speak in any public space.

    But when a fee of $3,000 (plus expenses) -- a typical fee for this kind of display -- is involved, doesn't that change things? Really?

    What a great country. Paying a never-ending group of critics to tear it down.

  • Would have never known; now get over it
  • Posted by Abena , Faculty on March 30, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Most folks would have never known (or cared for that matter) who Bill Ayers was/is until the Obama election. Now all of a sudden these know nothing neocons, who likely could not tell you a thing about the Weather Underground, its members,or what they stood for at the time, want to scream and shout about this man who has obviously made good. What about redemption? Or is that only for a select few? He is free to speak, people. It's the past and you naysayers are not the judge nor jury. Stop acting like intellectual midgets and hypocrites.

  • Free Speech Matters
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on March 30, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • This kind of repression of free speech should appall everyone. The “obligation” to the “emotional scars” of a “host community” could justify banning every speaker. Suppose there is a Vietnamese person in Boston who lost a relative in the Vietnam War: Would anyone who supported the war (or who supported the Vietcong) be banned from speaking? If an Iraqi lives in Boston, would anyone who supported the war in Iraq be banned from speaking? If a Palestinian (or an Israeli) lives in Boston, should anyone who has taken one side in that dispute be banned?

    There is one difference between all of these examples and Bill Ayers: Ayers had absolutely nothing to do with the killing of this police officer. So now we’re dealing purely with three degrees of guilt by association: because Ayers was involved in the Weather Underground, and someone else involved in the Weather Underground was involved in a bank robbery where someone killed a police officer, therefore Ayers should be banned from speaking in Boston. If somebody involved in the Republican or Democratic Party committed a murder (and obviously they have), would that mean all Republicans and Democrats should be banned from giving speeches?

    The absurdity of Boston College’s stance is so obvious, it should embarrass anyone associated with the institution.

    Of course, Bill Ayers does have free speech elsewhere, and he will be speaking via satellite off-campus tonight (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/03/30/ayers_to_speak_at_bc_via_satellite_link/)

    The real victims here are the faculty, staff, and students of Boston College, who are being told by their university that if they have ever held unpopular views, they can be silenced by the administration.

  • Michael Graham
  • Posted by JohninMPLS on March 30, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Michael Graham used to have a show in DC when I lived there. Here are some of the highlights:

    During one show, in response to a news story where a defendant had taken the sidearm from a female police officer, he argued that women lack the physical ability to perform the functions of a peace officer. He further challenged that, if pressed, he could beat up any woman police officer he was matched up against.

    While wearing an INS t-shirt, Graham attempted to attend a Real ID protest hosted by a Hispanic advocacy group.

    He was eventually fired from the DC station for calling Islam a "terrorist organization" - 23 separate times during one show - and refusing to later refer to his characterization as hyperbole (I will not apologize for something that is true," he later stated about the firing). In that same show, he argued that "moderate Muslims are those that only want to kill Jews," and added that "The problem is not extremism. The problem is Islam."

    Why is this man included in anything even remotely close to academic discussion?

  • Posted by bystander on March 30, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • In just about every way I'm sorry to be my ancient age, but I DO remember the Weathermen and their violence. Ayers and his crowd were from wealthy families (unlike me) and I was baffled at their behavior. I was desperately trying to get a degree--to me and my blue collar dad, it was the ticket to a new world--and they wanted to blow up my dream world before I got there. He didn't have to "make good" as one commentator said--he was born to prosperity already. He's probably charismatic, but so are sociopaths. (Besides, he's a professor of education, so don't get so excited. They aren't as rigorous as the chemistry faculty. Argue with me all you want, but check the SATs.) He does not deserve "forgiveness" until he "repents." Check it out. He regrets nothing. Some of us might regret youthful excesses, but do not think such regret to be universal! It is not regret until someone says: "I'm sorry" and begins atonement. I have seen none of that from this man. Sorry, but I'm old enough to remember him when he was young, and his wife was young (and so was I), and they wanted to blow things up, and I wanted to get a degree. They did, and I did; and I have low regard for any college that hires them or pays them even a single dollar.

  • Abusive ad hominem
  • Posted by Bob on March 30, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • "As a university, we pride ourselves on the free expression of ideas and on the prestige that Boston College holds as a destination of choice among prominent speakers..."

    Why is it that every college that just denied someone the right to speak issues this same statement? Is there a microsoft document template floating around somewhere? Pride is not the issue, and stifling free expression is nothing to inspire "pridefulness".

    I have to agree with the commenter who said that noone cared who Ayers was until posited as the latest poster boy for conservative "primal scream" therapy during the elctions.

    However, I am indeed filled with pride that my alma mater (Millersville University of PA) did invite and allow Mr. Ayers to speak...and the world has not ended in a fiery conflagration.

    If the world can withstand listening to the likes of Graham and Limpbaugh on a daily basis...then Ayers should certainly be allowed to speak.

  • Banned in Boston
  • Posted by Chuck on March 30, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Of course, students should hear Bill Ayers speak......only then will most of them see and hear for themselves what a dreadful has-been he really is, still marooned in the 1960s, backpack and all.

    And as for those commenters who whine and preen here about the horrors of campus censorship, I know I can count on their equal outrage when freedom of speech on campus is withdrawn or disallowed for people like Ward Connerly, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and anyone who challenges the core beliefs of man-made global warming........

    Right?

  • The truth about Ayers
  • Posted by John on March 30, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Please tell me why you campus liberals try to "ban" Ann Coulter from speaking on college campuses? And how about when these conservatives were banned - where was your "outrage" then?

    Congressman Pat Toomey http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/256/BucknellToomey040604.htm
    Bay Buchanan http://yaf.org/blog/?p=146
    Ward Connerly http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/december_1998_1.html
    Bob Casey
    Congressman Tom Tancredo
    David Horowitz
    Star Parker
    Daniel Pipes
    John Leo

    Etc, etc. the list can go on and on. A simply google search for conservatives banned from speaking on campus returns over 1.7 million pages. You are all conveniently outraged now because one of your own is banned from speaking on campus. Welcome to the club YOU created.

    It is truly a shame to see how far left our colleges have gone. There is no “free exchange of ideas” when the only thought process is liberal. Liberals are so “closed minded” that they don’t want to hear another point of view.

    The Terrorist Ayers, and the WU, are admitted murderers; he's just been able to avoid prison because of a number of legal screw ups. It is sad to read the comments above where people think the "only people hurt by this decision are the students at BC, etc..." and comments like that. Tell that to the families of all those killed by Weatherman. Ayers' own wife planted a bomb in a women's bathroom at the Pentagon.

    Why don't you read Ayers' own words describing the Pentagon bombing then tell me why he should be permitted to speak on ANY campus. The man should NOT even be allowed to teach on a college campus!

    Ayers: The Day I Bombed The Pentagon
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ayers-the-day-i-bombed-the-pentagon

  • Posted by Ed on March 30, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Weatherman was involved in the 1981 Brinks robbery that left 2 policemen and one Brinks guard dead. Ayers wasn't a part of that, but his friends were. His wife went to prison for refusing to testify about the case.

    Yet Jaschik fails to mention that incident. One has to wonder why. If this were a court case and he were a defense attorney that would be understandable. But if Scott Jaschik is a reporter providing information for the public, why leave out such an important part of the story?

  • Posted by BC Student on March 30, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • In regards to the statement about banning conservative speakers; we have plenty of them at BC, especially from pro-life/anti-abortion individuals. We also had Condi Rice speak at Commencement a few years back, which was protested... by faculty. I was unable to attend, but from what I heard, most of the students in attendance were respectful. It was the faculty who turned around.

    BC has a fairly diverse student population as far as opinions goes. While I understand it is a private, Catholic university, I feel like stifling the public opinions of some groups goes against the whole point of a university (and, from what I understand, most of the Jesuit faculty is nowhere near as conservative as the administration and alumni... yet this is a Jesuit university). From what I understand, the point of college is to grow up, to learn, and to become your own person. You can't really do that when certain opinions are not allowed to be shared. I say this in regards to all of the censorship issues BC has had while I've been here, not just Ayers--I'm still not sure how I feel about this particular issue. Just wanted to throw in my two cents.

  • It's BC, not a public institution, get over it
  • Posted by John on March 30, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • @BC Student: As a student there, you should expect some form of "censorship" in terms of the speakers who come to your campus. It is not a publicly funded institution, nor obligated to "present both sides" as some people may want to put it. Same is true if you were going to Cal-Berkeley where you would "expect" mostly liberal and left leaning speakers. You, as a student, should understand this before choosing the university you want to attend. I attended a major Catholic Univ on the east coast, as you have, and I expected the speakers to share in the beliefs of the Catholic Church. And, considering the majority of speakers are funded via student activities fees, they had better understand this view point. If one doesn't like it, then leave the school.

    I have no problem with that form of censorship. My problem lies in the "selected outrage" we see now, present in the comments here as well. This outrage does not exist when a conservative or right leaning speaker is banned/uninvited from a campus.

    In a related story, our President should NOT have been invited to speak at Notre Dame. For ND to continue uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church, ND needs not invite anyone to speak there who is not "pro-life" (anti-abortion, etc...whatever you want to call it). Let him go give a commencement speech at say NYU or Columbia, but it need not be at a school rooted in the Catholic traditions and teachings. Same is true of the Terrorist Ayers, an admitted murderer (read his books or see my link above - he admits to numerous bombings and murders).

  • Free Speech
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Department of Mathematics at DePaul University on March 31, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  • It is a frightening part of the current state of university culture that people feel so free to ban speakers because they don't like what they have to say. When did the right of free speech get replaced by the right not to be offended?

    When I was in college in the early sixties, all kinds of people were invited to campuses. While some might have questioned the judgment of the hosts, none would have questioned the right to invite them.

    Now we have speech codes banning offensive speech. But how does one determine what speech is offensive? Who gets to decide? The people who design these codes and the larger group that has created the atmosphere that encourages and even demands their creation are being very short sighted.

    The first amendment that gives one group the right to speak their mind gives the people who disagree an equal right. And what is more, if you take the right away from one group, who is to say that those taking away the right to speak won't be the next to lose their rights.

    I don't like what the Weathermen did in the late sixties and the seventies. But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't listen to what they had to say. And though I disagree strongly with much of what Bill Ayers has to say today, I still don't want anyone taking away my right to hear him or for that matter to argue with him .

    One further point that should be made is to clear up some of the history. The article seems to be mixing up two events. One is the bombing of a San Francisco police station in early 1970 that resulted in the death of one policemen and the robbery of an armored car in the early 1980's that left several security guards dead.

    The 1980's robbery occurred after Bill Ayers had surfaced from the underground and while it involved some former Weathermen, it has not been claimed that Ayers had anything to do with it. On the other hand, the San Francisco bombing has never been solved and there is some evidence linking it to the Weathermen.

    My personal feeling is that Neither Bill Ayers or his wife Bernadine Dohrn have ever really come to grips with the morality of their actions, their impact on American politics or even their own motivations for doing it. They certainly have not done it publicly. And they have never really shown any remorse about what they did.

    And in spite of the protestations of the Obama campaign that he had very little relationship with Ayers, it is clear that Ayers had to have played some role in giving Obama the position of overseeing the Annenberg Challenge grant, the only administrative post Obama ever held.

    But none of these points about Ayers' history are really relevant. He was invited to speak and to cancel his speech because some people complain about his past is a clear violation of the principle of free speech. Such violations are particularly disturbing on college campuses.

  • Correction
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University on March 31, 2009 at 4:30am EDT
  • My apologies to Scott. He hasn't mixed up his incidents. I did not realize the article referred to the robbery committed by several people including two Brandeis students that indeed took place in 1970. However, the incident that some claim is linked to the Weatherman is the bombing of the San Francisco police station. To the best of my knowledge, nobody ever linked the Boston bank robbery to the Weatherman.

  • Banned in Boston
  • Posted by S. Ray DeRusse , Researcher at BCC Meteorites on March 31, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • People please calm down. I cannot believe the reactions to the choice for speaker. A university or college education is like an art gallery. It's supposed to entail what is sometimes a diversity of views, opinions, and even color. Every new artist may perchance bring something different to the gallery and you may not like the exhibit. So it boils down to, "its not my cup of tea". Here in cowtown (Fort Worth, Texas) you can count on finding the tired Remington bronze of a cowboy sitting on a horse busting the bronc. How many bronze cowboys on broncs does one have to see to become brain dead? The exposure to the diversity is part of the education and fosters an atmosphere of critical thinking which should better prepare the student for their future. If you don't agree with the speaker, you have an opportunity to tell him or her but censoring them is not a fair and balanced approach.

    http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html

  • Ayers Doing Good?
  • Posted by Paleoconservative , Prof at Frontline on March 31, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • Give me a break, Abena and all you others that think Ayers is a changed man. He fills the youth of this country with his radical socialist propoganda, like so many other left wing radicals that have grown up and infilitrated our institutions of higher learning. Innovators, dreamers, those that work hard, for freedoms and values is what made this country, not the whiners and freeloaders. Your socialist system doesn't do anything to identify the truely needy from the lazy but what the heck, just give welfare to everyone right and make them dependant on the state for everything....the government will fix it right? It is the same philosophy that makes Ayers a victim, not a co-conspirator. You all make me sick Maybe someday you will grow up and look back on your counterintuitive philosophies and maybe then you will wish, no wait you will say you are just a victim right? The conservatives of the Democratic, Republican, and other parties are sick and tired of all you Nimbys, Cave, and Environmental tools (read fools) of the United Socialist Party agenda.

  • ayers denied opportunity to speak
  • Posted by peter quinn on March 31, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • What else would one expect from an administration that awarded  Condoleesa Rice an "honorary doctorate "  ?    I'm  again  ashamed to be an alumni after this latest administrative decision.

     Dr. Peter Quinn  A&S  '62 

  • Paleoconservative
  • Posted by DFS on March 31, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • You are right, of course.

    The only venue in the entire world who is breathlessly awaiting any exposure to Bill Ayers -- technically not prosecutable because one of his constitutional rights was erroneously violated -- is Academia.

    That is the only such venue.

    Aren't we proud to be associated with such idiots?

    I add that the only way he has changed is that he no longer plants bombs -- at least, I think that he no longer does so. However, I could be wrong there.

  • Posted by Adjunct George on April 1, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • Bill Ayers has said ( a paraphrase) "Guilty as sin, free as a bird." He is one bird that ought to be shunned. Academia has no shame when it supports and invites such people to their universities. Guilt and innocence depend upon the act, not upon the courts. He has admitted his guilt. Thank you Boston College for not allowing Ayers to speak. He should have been shunned instead of invited. Shame on all of you that think believe that cancelling his appearance is censorship and want to give this terrorist a forum.