Posted on 04/09/2005 9:38:38 AM PDT by jalisco555
On its official Web site, Northwestern offers an impressive biography of Law Prof. Bernardine Dohrn, detailing her work in children's law, her educational background, her academic appointments and other notable accomplishments. The university's profile curiously omits one of her most significant leadership positions: She was a principal organizer of the Weathermen, a radical cabal, during the late 60s and early 70s.
Among its many criminal exploits, the group claimed responsibility for no fewer than 12 bombings between 1970 and 1974, and Dohrn spent a decade hiding from federal authorities to avoid prosecution for assaulting a police officer.
A basic Internet search turns up additional details regarding Dohrn's checkered past, including a New York Times article which, ironically, hit newsstands on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The story featured Dohrn and her husband, Bill Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, about their days as domestic terrorists. In one of several outrageous statements, Ayers said he "did not regret setting bombs," concluding the Weathermen "did not do enough" in the way of violence. A search also turns up Dohrn's mug shot from when she was on the FBI's list of 10 most wanted fugitives in 1970.
Offended by Dohrn's statements and actions, and concerned that my tuition may help to pay the salary of an unrepentant former terrorist, I tried to contact her to set up an interview. I hoped Dohrn would be willing to condemn some of her crimes and strike a note of reconciliation. Dohrn would not even speak to me, however, and her assistant informed me that she only discusses her radical days with "certain magazines."
Since Dohrn flatly refuses to answer questions from skeptical sources, she makes it very difficult to discern whether she regrets her crimes and whether she now rejects terrorism as a means to achieve political ends. If Dorhn has truly changed her ways, it would behoove her to clear the air and continue pursuing her laudable work in child advocacy. Her refusal to even discuss these issues leaves many questions unanswered and turns skeptics into cynics.
Below is a sampling of the questions I intended to ask Dohrn. I believe that NU students, who subsidize her livelihood, deserve forthright answers to these questions:
1. According to The New York Times article, your husband is said to have described the Weathermen credo as, "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at." Did you subscribe to that ideology? Do you reject it now? If so, will you apologize for those statements?
2. During the 70s and 80s, you pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer, jumped bail, were indicted for inciting a riot and spent seven months in jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating a robbery. Do you regret any of those actions, and do you have any newfound respect for the rule of law?
3. Your group has claimed responsibility for several bombings, including attacks on New York's police headquarters, a Harvard University building, the Capitol and the Pentagon. Were these attacks justified? Did they constitute terrorist acts?
Dohrn's presence at NU can hardly be classified as breaking news. However, the fact that NU employs someone with Dohrn's past is astounding, and her stonewalling has not assuaged my concerns.
Despite the considerable evidence I managed to access online, I am quite hesitant to call for anyone's dismissal without hearing both sides of the story. Through her refusal to discuss the matter, it is Dohrn herself who acts as the greatest obstacle to a balanced assessment. Therefore, I hope that many of my fellow students will join me in demanding some answers from Prof. Dohrn.
Guy Benson is a Medill sophomore and co-host of Feedback on WNUR-FM (89.3) He can be reached at g-benson@northwestern.edu
really...
A government that is big enough to give you all you need is big enough to take it all away -Barry M. Goldwater
We all want less government here. I'm not a liberatarian but I want less government.
Goldwater opposed Civil Rights, because he felt it was a state's rights issue. Not, because he was racist. Some people here opposed Terri Shiavo on the basic of State's rights.
The purpose of State's rights is to give the individual more freedom and say in government.
Can we say.... Hillary?
I banged a few hippie broads. Does that count?
That was more than I needed to know.
Weatherman "liberals" did not exist. These were hard core revolutionaries who hated Liberals even more than they did conservatives. Their greatest fear was that Liberals would "coopt" the revolution.
Sarah Jane Olson with a degree.
She says she did not use terrorism to coerce a civilian population.
What response might she have if asked, did you use terrorism against our government?
There is absolutely no such thing as "States Rights" in the US Constitution. This concept is a word fabrication, like "Collective rights", that essentially mean nothing. Only individual human beings have the legal and moral standing of "Rights". The federal government and the states have "Powers, but "rights" are never mentioned in the text or context of the Constitution, nor are the terms used interchangeably. The Founding Fathers were specific as to what are rights and what are powers. Rights belong to the people only, the powers of government emanate from the people.
Furthermore, "Rights" are not a zero-sum game. That is, my "Right to Life" does not compel someone else to die, my right to Liberty does not compel another to slavery and my "Right to pursue Happiness" does not cause anothers sorrow. "Powers", however, are a zero-sum game. Powers granted the federal government are lost to the states. Powers residing with the state are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
This may all seem like so much semantics to you, but the word games played by the Left and the dogmatic right, depend upon the public being ignorant regarding these very real distinctions.
Goldwater did not oppose Civil Rights because he thought it was a "States Rights" (?) issue, but because the legislation proposed did not take into consideration the amount of social change that such legislation ignored. The fact that we still have racial problems today, 45 years later, is profound evidence of the ignorance of those times.
Exactly right.The Weatherfolks believed the "corporate liberals"were the REAL enemy.In fact,they welcolmed police repression because it would RADICALIZE the liberals.They wanted total polarization and eventual civil war in which the black ghetto dwellers,the student radicals and hippie lumpen would overthrow the system and then they would bring in a coalition of the third world from China,Cuba,Africa and Vietnam to rule as a prelude to establishing a communist-small"c"- society.
You might be surprised to know how many of these ex-radicals are comfortably ensconsed in the upper middle class they previously reviled.I remember one Leftist from Berkeley who at least LIVED his ideals-Frank Bardacke of the Oakland Seven-who quit it all to pick fruit for years in the Salinas area with Mexican farmworkers.He learned Spanish and became a union organizer.I may not like a lot of this man's politics but I RESPECT a man like this who LIVES his beliefs,unlike Dohrn and Ayers who are now The Establishment they so hated long ago!
Dohrn got her Law Degree way before she joined the Weathermen.She's from a very nice middle class Jewish family from Wisconsin but somewhere the sweet little girl got misled!I saw her in Berkeley in May,1969 wearing a yellow mini skirt and tight top.She was the unofficial sex symbol of the Movement back then!
My God. The 60s and 70s were crazy! Now, I'm not saying any of you were weathermen liberals. But how many people here were idealistic liberals in the 60s and 70s?
I was...then I grew up.
Stop Excusing these scum-bags.
Since I speak publicly about the war in Iraq, racism, children's rights, international law and human rights, Benson and all NU students are welcome to be part of the regular give-and-take I enjoy with students, audiences and activists. To clarify, I have never endorsed terrorism, the use of violence to intimidate or coerce a civilian (or any other) population.
I fought the illegal, immoral war against Vietnam and the organized terrorism of my government -- and I unequivocally oppose the terrorism of governments, individuals, and religious, political and irregular organizations. I believe we all have an obligation to speak up about what is being done in our name.
-- Bernardine Dohrn,
Shut up you lying GORGONITE.
Well, at the moment I was being very idealistic so I thought that might count. Sorry if I missed the boast.
Not sure about Illinois but I believe she was denied admittance to the Bar in New York because of her criminal activity. Amazing that she is teaching future lawyers.
Civil rights IS a state rights issue..
UNLESS we are a democracy and NOT a republic anymore..
The United States has ZERO citizens....
ONLY states have citizens... You are the citizen of a state..
The federal government is a mental construct..
Only states are real places with real citizens..
Suggestion: find out the difference between a democracy and a republic..
The U.S. Constitution has three important words completely missing from its text anywhere within it..
1) democracy...
2) democratic..
3) democrat..
Maybe you THINK the founders were more ignorant than you...
They were not.. those words are missing, ON PURPOSE.
Not flameing you, just posting this for lurkers..
Whom might think they are U.S. citizens and are NOT...
Democracy is a social disease.. and democrats are carriers..
Ayers was never anything but establishment. His father was the head of Commonwealth Edison, the electric company serving Chicago and its area, and very wealthy. He was educated at University of Michigan whereas Bernadine, sadly, went to one of my alma maters, the University of Chicago for her law degree.
They were typical of the bourgeoise which has always provided the core of communist leadership. It never was a party led by the working class. Lenin, Mao, Marx, Ho, Castro, Che none were workers.
Ne'er-the-less they are still revolutionairies. Revolutionairies being devoured by the Revolution is hardly a new nor unusual case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.