Of course, Melinda - the article was about the McCarthy period when the
government did the banning and censoring. Now it is Pacifica itself that does
the censoring and banning - and that was the point of my post.
But actually, in addition, now it is supposedly "Islamofashists" (like
Norman Finkelstein for instance) that are censored and banned at colleges and
universities. And, of course, anyone who seriously opposes in any way the U.S.
government policy in Iraq or in Iran or Afghanistan etc. etc. is labeled as an
"Islamofashist" and targeted as an enemy of America.
And actually I defended a person who was a college teacher at a local
junior college and graduate student and teaching assistant at Long Beach State
(and a Kuwait citizen) who was censored and banned and arrested for "terrorism"
and violation of the Patriot Act - totally unjustly and falsely charged - and
I got all the charges against him dismissed.
Today often it is people labeled as "Middle Easterners", and "Muslims" and
"Islamofashists" among others that are supposedly the new enemy that have to be
censored and banned by the government. So yes there are still many, many
instances of continued censoring and banning of college professors and of many
others although that was not the point of my post.
But Pacifica itself, no longer airs anything controversial enough for
Pacifica to be threatened to be censored or banned by the government even
though the government is at this very time restricting free speech and
restricting civil rights and censoring and banning as much or more than any
time in U.S. history.
The current assault on civil liberties and on free speech by the United
States government is massive. (I, myself, was visited by the Secret Service
and arrested as the result of posts that I supposedly wrote on the internet -
and again all charges dismissed)
But instead of airing any material controversial enough to be censored and
banned now this time around Pacifica is itself a censoring and banning agency -
very "Patriotic" of Pacifica is it not?
Jim D.
----- Original Message -----
From: Melinda Iley-Dohn
To: pacifica_now@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; fulcrumsofchange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
RealPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; pacificaradiowaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Pacifica_now] Communists Should Not Teach in American Colleges
Jim,
Check the date on the article.....It was written in 1949. Do you have any
examples of banning college professors AFTER the McCarthy red scare?
jdemaegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
An earlier version of the debate and struggle over free speech in
America and a version of the free speech debate that Pacifica was very, very
involved in. (Pacifica was threatened to be shut down over and over again by
various government agencies during that period.)
But is the debate (and the struggle) over free speech really over at
this time?
And are the issues involved in free speech and censorship really
totally different at the present time from the anti-communist censorship period
described below?
But hey just maybe at this time government agencies are not
threatening to shut down Pacifica for its controversial (and/or "communist")
speech but just maybe Pacifica itself is involved in restrictions and
censorship (and banning) of free speech. (and, of course also the "Pacifica
related" listservs" restrict, censor and ban like mad but that is perfectly O.K
because those listservs are "privately owned").
But does Pacifica really air any very "controversial" programs or
opinions at this time anyway? (And once a program on Pacifica becomes really
successful it becomes "privately owned" like Democracy Now does it not?- and
then the speech content of that "privately owned Pacifica program has its
content decided by "privately owned" deciders does it not?)
And now don't many Pacifica "activists" argue that restrictions on
free speech and censorship is necessary to "maintain order" and to insure
"quality programming" etc., etc?
So have we come "full circle"?
And did Senator McCarthy win out in the end?
Jim D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Communists Should Not Teach in American Colleges"
1949
by RAYMOND B. ALLEN
(President of the University of Washington, Seattle)
Published in: EDUCATIONAL FORUM (vol. 13, no. 4), May 1949.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of whether a member of the Communist Party should be allowed
to teach in an American college is by no means a simple one. Despite the fact
that many persons in educational circles appear to find easy answers to this
question, those of us who have examined the question most carefully perhaps
find the answers more difficult.
??????????????? The general outlines of the examination of this problem in
the recent cases at the University of Washington are probably well enough known
that they need not be reviewed in detail here. Suffice it to say that the
question was surveyed from every angle and with every facility available to the
administration and faculty of the University of Washington. The decision, while
it may not be fully satisfactory to everyone concerned, is in my opinion the
most thoroughly considered and best documented study of the relationship
between Communism and higher education yet attempted in America.
??????????????? Out of this long and painstaking examination I have come
reluctantly to the conclusion that members of the Communist Party should not be
allowed to teach in American colleges. I am now convinced that a member of the
Communist Party is not a free man. Freedom, I believe is the most essential
ingredient of American civilization and democracy. In the American scheme
educational institutions are the foundation stones upon which real freedom
rests. Educational institutions can prosper only as they maintain free teaching
and research. To maintain free teaching and research the personnel of higher
education must accept grave responsibilities and duties as well as the rights
and privileges of the academic profession. A teacher must, therefore, be a free
seeker after the truth. If, as Jefferson taught, the real purpose of education
is to seek out and teach the truth wherever it may lead, then the first
obligation and duty of the teacher is to be a free man. Any restraint on the
teacher's freedom is an obstacle to the accomplishment of the most important
purposes of education.
??????????????? This kind of freedom, without restraint from any quarter,
is the keystone of the unparalleled progress with which America and the
American way of life have faced the world. The justification for this kind of
freedom, especially as it relates to teaching and research, may be seen in the
great accomplishments of our classrooms and laboratories. In my own lifetime,
for instance, I have seen the free minds of scholarly men solve most of the
mysteries of travel in the air. I have also seen free research evolve a whole
new science of electronics that has revolutionized men?s ability to communicate
with one another. As a medical man I have seen free research wipe out some of
the most hideous diseases that have afflicted mankind down through the
centuries. Even my young children have seen free and scholarly men unlock and
control the vast and frightening power of the atom. In the past decade, all of
us have seen the virility of a free people win out in a death struggle with the
slave-states of Germany, Italy and Japan, only now to be faced again by another
and perhaps more vicious adversary. These accomplishments I submit are some of
the material fruits of freedom in scholarship and teaching.
??????????????? The freedom that America prizes so much, then, is a
positive and constructive concept. It starts, of course, by maintaining a
freedom from restraint. Its greatest glory, however, derives from freedom
considered in a more positive sense; that is, a freedom "for," a freedom to
accomplish. In this best sense, freedom is not only a right and a privilege,
but a responsibility which must rest heavily upon the institutions of freedom
upon which we depend for the progress and virility of our way of existence.
??????????????? This kind of freedom, I submit, is not allowed the
membership the Communist Party. I have come to this conclusion painfully and
reluctantly through a long series of hearings and deliberations. In my opinion
these careful studies by faculty and administrative agencies of the University
of Washington have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that a member of the
Communist Party is not a free man, that he is instead a slave to immutable
dogma and to a clandestine organization masquerading as a political party. They
have shown that a number of the Communist Party has abdicated control over his
intellectual life.
??????????????? The real issue between Communism and education is the
effect of Communist Party membership upon the freedom of the teacher and upon
the morale and professional standards of the profession of teaching. Many would
have us believe that it is an issue of civil liberty. This, I believe, it is
not. No man has a constitutional right to membership in any profession, and
those who maintain that he has are taking a narrow, legalistic point of view
which sees freedom only as a privilege and entirely disregards the duties and
responsibilities that are correlative with rights and privileges. The lack of
freedom permitted the Communist has a great deal more than a mere passing or
academic bearing upon the duties of a teacher.
??????????????? This bearing, I think, can best be illustrated by a number
of questions which I have asked many times and for which I have yet to receive
satisfactory answers. Imagine, if you can, a biologist who is unable freely to
accept or reject the Mendelian law of heredity. Imagine, instead, a so-called
scientist committed by his political affiliations to acceptance of the
immutable Lysenko doctrine on the inheritance of human traits. Since I am not a
geneticist I obviously should not and will not attempt to judge between these
scientific theories. I would point out, however, that the Communist is
committed by the party line to the latter point of view. He must accept the
Lysenko doctrine and has no freedom to accept or reject either that theory or
any other despite the weight of scientific evidence that supports the Mendelian
law and has brought it general acceptance among geneticists throughout the
world. It makes no difference here, it seems to me, whether Mendel or Lysenko
is right. The issue here involved is, instead, that the Communist has no
freedom to accept or reject on the basis of his own experience or thinking.
Instead, his mind is chained to that theory which is written into Communist
Party dogma.
??????????????? Or to bring the matter closer home imagine, if you can, a
social scientist unable freely to accept or reject the Marshall Plan for aid to
the war-stricken countries of Europe and Asia. I will attempt no argument on
the virtues or the shortcomings of the Marshall Plan, but I will suggest that
the scholar has an obligation to maintain his own freedom to evaluate the
Marshall Plan along with other controversial proposals in the present troubled
world scene on the basis of his own experience and reasoning. Yet, according to
the record of our hearings at the University of Washington, this kind of
freedom is not permitted members of the Communist Party who proclaim the right
to serve on our faculty. again the Communist Party member is chained to a party
dogma.
??????????????? Imagine, if you can, a philosopher who has committed
himself by membership in a political party to support universal military
training in Russia and to oppose the same principal in the United States. Is
this freedom? I say it is not. Yet this is the weird reasoning of one of the
men recently dismissed from the institution I have the honor to head. This man,
I maintain, is asserting a freedom which he has denied himself.
??????????????? For these reasons, I believe a member of the Communist
Party is not a free man. His lack of freedom disqualifies him from professional
service as a teacher. Because he is not free, I hold that he is incompetent to
be a teacher. Because he asserts a freedom he does not possess, I hold that he
is intellectually dishonest to his profession. Because he has failed to be a
free agent, because he is intolerant of the beliefs of others and because
education cannot tolerate organized intolerance, I hold that he is in neglect
of his most essential duty as a teacher. For these reasons I believe that
Communism is an enemy of American education and that members of the Communist
Party have disqualified themselves for service as teachers.
??????????????? Professor Sidney Hook, Chairman of the Department of
Philosophy at New York University, puts it all very succinctly in his recent
article in the New York Times magazine (February 27, 1949): "What is relevant
is that their (the Communist Party members') conclusions are not reached by a
free inquiry into the evidence. To stay in the Communist Party they must
believe and teach what the party line decrees."
??????????????? II
??????????????? The University of Washington's action in dismissing members
of the Communist Party from its faculty has been widely criticized as an
abridgment of academic freedom. Academic freedom in my opinion, however, has
been strengthened and not violated by this action. As Professor Hook puts it in
the article referred to above: "A professor occupies a position of trust, not
only in relation to the university and his student, but to the democratic
community which places its faith and hope in the processes of education ('If a
nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,' wrote
Jefferson, 'it expects what never was and what never will be'). Academic
freedom, therefore, carries with it duties correlative with rights. No
professor can violate them under the pretext that he is exercising his
freedom."
??????????????? Academic freedom in its positive and constructive sense is
essential to sound education. That this freedom must be maintained in any
university worthy of the name is beyond question. But, I insist, academic
freedom consists of something more than merely an absence of restraints placed
upon the teacher by the institution that employs him. It demands as well an
absence of restraints placed upon him by his political affiliations, by dogmas
that stand in the way of a free search for truth, or by rigid adherence to a
"party line" that sacrifices dignity, honor, and integrity to the
accomplishment of political ends. Men, and especially the teacher and the
scholar, must be free to think and discover and believe, else there will be no
new thought, no discovery, and no progress. But these freedom, are barren if
their fruits are to be hidden away and defined. Men must be free, of course,
but they must also be free, and willing, to stand up and profess what they
believe so that all may hear. This is an important, if not the most important,
part of our American heritage of freedom. It is this American heritage of
freedom that must be cherished and sustained by our institutions of education
if they are to survive.
??????????????? The University of Washington's answer to the tenure cases
left on its doorstep by a legislative investigating committee means that
whatever violence may have been done to the principles of academic freedom by
its dismissal of members of its staff, was done not by action of the University
but, instead, by the actions of the individuals involved and by their
affiliation with an organization whose dogmas prevented them from being free
seekers after truth. The University has maintained that freedom to seek the
truth, unhampered by any agency outside the mind of the individual, is the
first obligation of any scholar or teacher. It maintains that any such
restraint upon the freedom of the teacher puts in jeopardy not only his own
freedom, but that of the rest of the University as well and especially that of
honest liberals and indigenous radicals who certainly perform an essential
function in the American university. The University of Washington always has
and will continue to assert the right of honest nonconformist thought on the
part of its faculty members. Its action in these cases, in my opinion, is a
strong defense of liberal and radical thinking which is independent of party
dogma and dictation.
??????????????? It will be recalled that six members of the University
faculty were involved in the recent tenure hearings. Three of these faculty
members were dismissed by the Board of Regents on the basis of recommendations
by the President of the University and the findings of a faculty committee on
tenure and academic freedom. Two of the dismissals were based upon a belated
admission of membership in the Communist Party. Dismissal action in the third
case was taken, with the concurring recommendation of the faculty committee,
because of "an ambiguous relationship to the Communist Party" and for violation
of certain aspects of the administrative code of the University.
??????????????? Perhaps more important to the principles of academic
freedom was the disposition of the three other cases in which faculty members
were charged with violation of the University?s administrative code and whose
cases were heard by the same academic tribunal. These cases were muddied, it is
true, by the fact that the men involved were former members of the Communist
Party, and a certain element of censure was involved in the Regents' action
because of this past membership. However, in each of these three cases, the
individual involved, while admitting past membership in the Party, denied
present membership and thus asserted his freedom from restraint by Communist
dogma. In each of these all agencies concerned, including the Faculty
Committee, the President of the University, and the Board of Regents, refused
to take punitive action despite the fact that the individuals involved are well
to the left of center in their political thinking and, in one case at least,
asserted an intellectual belief in Marxist philosophy.
??????????????? My recommendation to the Regents in the latter case, and I
should point out that this recommendation was upheld by the Board of regents,
makes the following assertion: "Such philosophies (intellectual Marxism),
honestly held and divorced from the dogmas of the Communist Party are something
quite different from active and secret membership in the Party. I think it is
necessary that we maintain a place iii the University for the holding of such
philosophies, regardless of how strongly we may disagree with them, the only
condition being that they not be subject to dictation from outside the mind of
the holder. To close the University's doors to honest, nonconformist thought
would do violence to the principles of academic freedom that we must maintain
at all costs."
??????????????? Thus, the University's position has been not that it wished
to prescribe "the truth" but instead that it insisted that members of its
faculty be free to seek the truth and be not restricted in this search by any
agency other than the intellectual faculties of the individual himself.
??????????????? The University's insistence upon academic freedom goes
beyond the traditionally held concept that academic freedom can be abridged
only by the institution and asserts that members of the faculty must likewise
be free from other restraints that may restrict their freedom.
III
??????????????? It is perhaps unnecessary to do so, but so much
misinformation on the University of Washington cases has been disseminated and
unfortunately encouraged in some quarters that it may be worthwhile here to
clear up one or two points at which misunderstanding have occurred.
??????????????? First of all, re-emphasis needs to be given to the fact
that the University of Washington has attempted only to determine the effect of
Communist Party membership on qualifications for the teaching profession. No
effort has been made to examine the legality or illegality of the Communist
Party. Despite efforts to confuse this issue, the University has not attempted,
indeed has made every effort to avoid, a compromise of the basic civil rights
of the individuals involved. Every effort was made throughout the lengthy
proceedings to be scrupulously fair and to observe full due process, in
accordance with the American and Anglo-Saxon traditions, in order to provide
safeguards against summary or capricious administrative action. Due process in
this instance is spelled out in an established and recognized administrative
code, written, approved and accepted by the full faculty of the University.
Under the provisions of this code, respondents in these cases were represented
by counsel of their own choice, there was no restriction upon their right of
producing or questioning evidence, and all other traditions of Anglo-Saxon
procedure were observed to the letter. Full and fair hearings were provided by
all individuals and agencies participating in the decision, and I am happy to
report that there has been no complaint from any informed quarter that the
procedure was in any sense a ?witch hunt" or an infringement of basic American
rights.
??????????????? Secondly, it should be re-emphasized that the Regents'
action in dismissing two members of the faculty for membership in the Communist
Party had support in the findings of the Faculty Committee which first heard
the cases. This contradicts assertions that have been widely made that the
Faculty Committee's recommendations were disregarded in the President's
recommendations and in the Regents' action. This is distinctly not the case.
??????????????? The Faculty Committee's findings in the cases of Dr.
Phillips and Mr. Butterworth (the two faculty members dismissed for present
Communist Party membership) consisted of four minority opinions. Three members
of the eleven-member committee, in two opinions, recommended directly that
Phillips and Butterworth be dismissed; three others recommended in a joint
opinion that they be retained. The fourth minority opinion, signed by the five
other members of the committee, while it did not directly recommend dismissal,
clearly stated its agreement as a matter of policy with the opinions
recommending severance and explained its failure to join in this recommendation
on the ground that its members ?would thereby assume a policy-making function
beyond our powers.? This minority group of five (making a majority of eight of
the eleven members of the committee) went on to say: "We believe that it is
time that a policy be laid down, by some competent authority, whether it be the
faculty as a whole, the President, the Regents, or the Legislature, so as to
put this vexed subject upon a basis that cannot be misunderstood.?
??????????????? Thus, the majority committee finding was that Communist
Party membership is disqualifying for a teacher and that a policy to this
effect should be established. The recommendations of the President and the
action of the Board of Regents did establish a policy in line with this finding
of the Faculty Committee. Thus no one can charge in good faith and on the basis
of fact that the University of Washington acted on in the absence of ?due
process? and in disregard of the customary of usages and expectations of the
teaching profession. Likewise, no one can charge in good faith and on the basis
of facts that the University took action in these cases in contradiction to or
in disregard of the Faculty Committee findings.
IV
??????????????? Essentially the issue posed by the presence of Communists
on our faculties is much larger than that merely between Communism and free
education. My position that Communists are not qualified to be teachers grows
out of my belief that freedom has little meaning apart from the integrity of
the men and women who enjoy that freedom. The larger issue is the issue of the
integrity of the teacher and, beyond that, the corporate integrity of education
as a whole. Certainly no one will argue that an educational institution, can
have greater integrity than that of the individuals who make it up. The
Communist Party, with its concealed aims and objectives, with its clandestine
methods and techniques, with its consistent failure to put its full face
forward, is a serious reflection upon the integrity of educational institutions
that employ its members and upon a whole educational system that has failed to
take the Communist issue seriously.
??????????????? Individual faculty members have a duty and a responsibility
to defend the corporate integrity of scholarship and teaching. The atomistic,
over-specialized qualities of present day education are perhaps the most
serious problems facing the profession today. Education seems to lack a common
denominator of concept and belief around which to rally its potentially great
strength. In my opinion, however, this lack of a central rallying point for the
forces of education is more apparent that real. Education does have such a
common denominator. It is education's free and unfettered search for truth.
This freedom, it seems to me, is our most precious asset and should be defended
at all costs. Without it education as a whole is without orientation. There is
strong evidence that this is not a problem of education alone, but of our whole
western civilization as well. As a society we have failed to some extent at
least to find a common core of objectives, ideals, and an action program about
which our way of life may go forward to greater strength and progress. In this
view Communism is but one, perhaps minor, aspect of a larger problem that we as
a people must face if our democratic society is to survive. Thus Communism
assumes a different proportion. It is important because it represents in stark
outline the lack of essential integrity which is democracy's most serious
enemy. Without this integrity and the responsibility it entails, freedom is
folly itself. Without responsible freedom, democracy and all we hold dear lacks
meaning and the possibility of achievement. We as a people have chosen to live
by the hopeful, positive tenets of freedom. Communism is the antithesis and the
negation of these tenets. Communism would substitute a doctrine of fear, of
little faith and would submerge the human spirit to the vicious ends of a crass
materialism. Free education and its endless search for truth cannot gain by
association with this doctrine of fear and hate and inhumanity. The American
idea and the idea behind free education, and to my mind the two are
inseparable, are "the last best hope on earth." In the final analysis, both
rest upon the dignity, the integrity, and the goodwill of free men. As
Americans and as educators, it is our responsibility to cherish and sustain
this dignity, this integrity, this goodwill and this freedom.
??????????????? The classroom has been called "the chapel of democracy." As
the priests of the temple of education, members of the teaching profession have
a sacred duty to remove from their ranks the false and robot prophets of
Communism or of any other doctrine of slavery that seeks to be in, but never
of, our traditions of freedom.
??????????????? Never before has this country needed as it does today the
leadership of thoroughly trained men and women. We must have leaders inspired
from their earliest years with the ideals of true democracy. Education is our
first line of defense. In the conflict of principle and policy which divides
the world today, America's hope, our hope, the hope of the world, is in
education. Through education alone can we combat the tenets of communism.
[This quotation appears at the end of the article:]
??????????????? The unfettered soul of free man offers a spiritual
defense unconquered and unconquerable. We may not know what is behind the Iron
Curtain, but we do know that the intelligence of the people in the embattled
democracies of Europe, who live in front of the Iron Curtain, is the world's
best hope for peace today.--PRESIDENT TRUMAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.