********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************

The "uncomfortable truth" in this "civil discourse" is unfortunately unspoken; 
the trend to stifle and erase the freedom of expression from the pursuit of an 
education.  


Yes, rightists,  Zionist racists, and their reactionary ilk in the "academy" 
seek to prevent opponents of Israel from being a part of that discourse all the 
while defending their right to lie, obscure, and prevent students in 
universities and colleges from a complete appraisal of history, politics, 
science, or the arts never mind the preparation of new educators. But that is 
only a part of this trend. I submit that Steven Salaita's case would have been 
solved much more quickly had their been a stronger, more active element of 
academic freedom among professors and civil libertarians with a much more 
astute--that is less prone to knee-jerk reaction--defense of academic 
discourse. University administrators have latched on to the issue of civil 
discourse as a means to oppose academic freedom EVEN AS they appear to support 
it (witness the Duke administrations "disagreement" with Hough's statements)! 
Meanwhile, liberal, leftist, and Marxists "react" to this assault (yes, the 
Duke administrations "distancing" itself from Hough is a part of that assault) 
by employing some apparent notion of working class morality that seems to imply 
that "well, the racists and rightists are defending their own, we should defend 
ours".  


Instead of discussing this issue forthrightly, "we" (well, apparently, I) get a 
reprint of an article from a bourgeois higher education journal showing how the 
racist White professor is "gonna be ok" while professors of color are not, all 
with an apparent underlying message, "see, the 'real' problem is the repression 
of thought on Black and Brown people, Whites are only applying 'academic 
freedom' when it comes to defending racist Whites and 'nobody' is defending the 
oppressed, so, it's better if we 'revolutionaries' stick to defending the 
oppressed and observe how selectively academic freedom is employed by the 
oppressors". I suppose that ends the discussion, we can go about our business 
"defending the interests of the working class" by ignoring the broader assault 
on democracy that is literally thrown up not by some nefarious scheme on the 
part of the media, government, and university administrations but by the 
behavioral momentum of White privilege and capitalist social thought as 
reflected in the academy. In the last several weeks, we have gone (again, 
almost literally) from solidarity with Black rebellion in Baltimore to the 
observation of racism endemic to society. In this "civil discourse", we have 
observed racist machinations of police tweets and some subsequent firiings of 
racist police for their behavior, the exposure of  a White principal's 
racist-tinged comments in Georgia during high school commencement and her 
firing, and the apparent actions taken on a racist White professor (although it 
is not entirely clear what those actions are given this latest article by IHE) 
and all sorts of "positive actions" against clearly racist thought. Did it 
occur to anyone here that this kind of activity, while probably not a 
coordinated effort on the part of those "exposing" these events are, in fact, 
having the consequence to inoculate society with the grand idea that it is ok 
to stifle "extreme thought"? Wouldn't such a practice squarely support the aims 
of administrators and the anti-democratic movement of Democrats and Republicans 
to dismantle freedom of expression? How is this problem not as important as the 
consequent problems that are supported by it; racism and the ability to fight 
it, academic freedom and the ability to defend it, austerity and the ability to 
organize against it? Why are "we" so reluctant to recognize that in defending a 
racist White professor to speak his polluted mind that we are in fact defending 
the right of the oppressed to rise up against our oppression? "We" have a 
dismal record in defense of democratic rights when those rights are assaulted 
upon those who believe they are privileged to have them. It weakens our defense 
of the rights of the oppressed when we fall silent or, in this case, let others 
speak for us.
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to