My response to the President of Columbia University and his email regarding Professor De Genova

Email from the Prsident of Columbia University | April 4, 2004 | Jeff Head

[Movemout]

We still have the PRINCIPLE of free speech in our Republic, and so long as this guy is representing himself and his own views, I'm not in favor of anyone "doing something" about it.

I think that Jeff Head has the same right. There are many well paid positions of responsibility in and out of government. In the private sector, if I had a VP who taught community college at night and advocated sacrifice of chickens to promote a voodoo agenda I would fire his butt. I would do this because his actions reflect on my enterprise. This prof's public comments reflect on the enterprise known as Columbia University. If his top priorities include advocating beliefs that are detrimental to national policy then I say fine, he has that right. Let him do it without the financial backing of a "private" university partially subsidized by my tax dollars and the generous donations of alumni who do not agree that our forces in the field should be subjected to many "Mogadishus.".

[Jeff Head]

Thanks for the update and clarification. Thank you nmh for also pointing this out.

Tenured or not, there are linits to an individual's actions and the harm they cause ... I know if the guy was tenured and called for the death or abject mistreatment of any number of liberal icons, he would be fired forthwith.

Therefore, we should continue on with our efforts. If the University is hurt enough by this in the pocketbook, they will make the appropriate decision.

[ppaul]

Keep us posted when you get a reply to your letter.
Thanks.

[joanie-f]

Thanks for the pings, Brian and Jeff. Both of your posts are spot on. And President Bollinger’s response to you, Jeff, is simply a barrel of double-speak. Why am I not surprised that he would hold a position of authority at an Ivy League (read that ‘bastion of leftist indoctrination’) school?

The argument that De Genova cannot be terminated because of tenure is a crock. Yes, tenure often protects those teachers who are burned out, incompetent, etc. But, no matter the terms of any tenure, if a teacher’s actions are egregious enough, tenure can be circumvented. There are always grey areas (severe professional misconduct, academic irresponsibility, default of academic integrity, conviction of a felony or other crime involving moral turpitude ....) which allow for tenure considerations to be waived. Tenure is an excellence in academics obstacle, but it is never an insurmountable one. The question is always: will those in positions of power have the resolve/character to invoke the causes for dismissal represented by those grey areas?

Apparently President Bollinger is not intending to spearhead the effort. I can’t help but wonder whether Bollinger is simply backbone-impaired, or whether he may somehow believe that such despicable comments are appropriate at an American institution of higher learning. Either option is not acceptable.

I don’t believe there is a legal name for what De Genova did. But I would rank it right up there with subversion, sedition and treason on the scale of abominations.

Anyone who is an alumnus of, studies at, teaches at, is otherwise employed by, or contributes to Columbia University – and who doesn’t believe that he/she needs to hold the university accountable for this man’s despicable behavior, and demand his removal – is just as culpable as he. Apathetic silence is sometimes the most insidious form of approval.

[Darksheare]

GREAT, so they're stonewalling and sending automated responses.

[wasp69]

bump for later

[Jeff Head]

Apathetic silence is sometimes the most insidious form of approval.

As usual Joanie ... you elequance with words hits the nail square on the head. We cannot be apathetic about this type of thing ... we must raise our voices and use our influence to insure that tangible consequences result from such behaviour. Else, we would lose the Republic.

[beachn4fun]

How does this University think that this guy's attitude is any different than those terrorist taliban guys who go into the schools in the middle east and teach the attributes of homicide bombings? Hmmm, maybe I didn't get this out right, but I hope you know what I mean?

[Jeff Head]

His attitude is not any different in substance. He is advocating the death of our personnel, the victory of our enemies ... and in fact went on to advocate that our own people frag their officers like the muslim Sgt. did to the 101st.

He needs to be fired, with no possibility of re-hire and his infamy needs to dog him the rest of his days. And that's the least. I actually believe his later comments are out and out sedition and should be actionable.

[beachn4fun]

Oh I agree because I don't see any difference about having a guy with this kind of attitude teaching in our schools than those of the terrorist groups teaching their attitude like the taliban did.

Also, FYI - I heard a Congressman talk to Hannity on the radio about taking a letter into Congress to get it signed and sent to the University demanding this guy be fired. He said he was sending a copy for Hannity to post on his site so that his fans could respond in kind.

[MEGoody]

Do you (or anyone) know if this so called 'teach in' occurred on campus property? If so,then even if the professor wasn't 'on the clock,' as an employee of the university, he should be held accountable just as though he had said this in the classroom.

[MEGoody]

"I don’t believe there is a legal name for what De Genova did."

Is treason a legal term?

[Jeff Head]

Over 100 congressional reps have already signed the letter.

[beachn4fun]

Oh, WOW. That's great.

[Jeff Head]

Yes it is.

... and all the while our service personnel and those of our allies are Winning Iraqi Freedom!

[Illbay]

He may have been on Campus property. The only way I'd hold the university liable in that case, though, is if they REFUSED to allow an opposing view to be expressed on their property.

[beachn4fun]

Oh wonderful. Thanks for the Link. I am going to share it with the Canteen crew. Have you been there?

[Jeff Head]

Yes. A few of them may know who I am.

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

This is my first post to FR, so I really hope I don't screw up. I've been reading avidly for several months (my husband is a long time FReeper, and I used to wonder why he'd get into heated discussions with his computer). Anyway, this subject of DeGenova has made me angry enough to post my first comments.

On 3/28, when I first read about DeGenova's awful remarks, I fired off an email to him and Bollinger. Here's what I wrote:
"De Genova: your public comments advocating death and destruction and a “million mogadishus” on our US troops is nothing short of treasonous. I shudder to think that your seditious opinions are being foisted upon impressionable mindsets in an academic setting. I’m ashamed of you, and I’m ashamed of Columbia University for tolerating such unambiguous hatred for our country. I also find it ironic and more than a little hypocritical that you would publicly declare your wish for US deaths (osenstibly hiding behind “freedom of speech” privileges) yet decry any similar calls for the same outcome to befall you! Freedom of speech carries immense responsibilities, and you’ve abused that privilege for which our troops are currently fighting.

President Professor Bollinger: I sincerely hope that Columbia University swiftly takes the proper measures to cast this poisonous traitor from your midst. It speaks ill of Columbia University to tolerate this blatant anti-Americanism, and it impugns what was formerly your sterling academic reputation. If you no longer care for your academic reputation, then you should at least care about your ability to successfully solicit donations. USF ruefully discovered that having a suspected terror-supporter on its faculty was not helpful in fundraising. There are always consequences to actions and inactions, and as President, you’ll need to evaluate those consequences seriously with regards to your discipline or toleration of De Genova’s disgusting public views."

Then yesterday, I got the same form email reply from one of Columbia's PR lackeys (email address of Public Affairs Rep7 only with Bollinger's signature) that the rest of you got. So, I fired off this reply to their reply:

"I disagree with you on your wimpy defense of Mr De Genova. So many irresponsible people hide behind the First Amendment. You wrote: "there are few things more precious on any University campus than freedom of thought and expression."

I'll tell you something that's more precious which you're overlooking, and it's RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY for the thoughts you express. That is what is sadly lacking in your generic public relations response, Mr or Ms Public Affairs Rep7.

There are LIMITS to "free speech", and you should realize that. It is a myth that anyone can say anything under the pretense of 'free speech'. You cannot preach overthrow of the government. You cannot preach hateful/violent action against others in the workplace or public arenas; you cannot yell "fire" in public spaces, and you cannot preach discriminatory actions/comments against a particular gender/sexual orientation/religion, etc. There are legal consequences for employers' tolerance of illegal action by their employees. Columbia University employs DeGenova, and as such, you are responsible for his comments and his actions. That you would tolerate his behavior speaks volumes about Columbia University. You cannot say you're appalled by his comments on the one hand, and on the other hand, defend him. You can't have it both ways. What you say and what you do must be congruent. And you should also know that when there's incongruence between oral and nonverbal communication, people always put credence in the nonverbal communication. By allowing him to continue to preach his hate for this county, you're giving tacit approval. Columbia University has certainly plummeted in my opinion."

And then thinking more about Columbia's tolerance for sedition, I got even madder today! So, I copied the US Sedition Act (kindly supplied by another FReeper on another thread) and sent it off to Mr/Ms Public Affairs Rep 7 with the subject line:
"I'm even angrier today about your inexcusable defense of DeGenova--pls read US Sedition Act excerpts below to refresh your memory about the limits of "free speech" "

For those of you who missed that thread, I'll copy that US Seditions Act.

16 May, 1918

The U.S. Sedition Act



United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.



Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

Thanks for letting me vent and do something constructive with my anger!

[Jeff Head]

Columbia University employs DeGenova, and as such, you are responsible for his comments and his actions. That you would tolerate his behavior speaks volumes about Columbia University. You cannot say you're appalled by his comments on the one hand, and on the other hand, defend him. You can't have it both ways. What you say and what you do must be congruent. And you should also know that when there's incongruence between oral and nonverbal communication, people always put credence in the nonverbal communication. By allowing him to continue to preach his hate for this county, you're giving tacit approval. Columbia University has certainly plummeted in my opinion

You are spot on!

Welcome to FR and that was an outstanding 1st post. Thank you.

Let's keep urging everyone we know to email Bollinger and voice their displeasure and to pass the word on to their entire email lists asking them to do the same.

Also, write your reps and have them sign the letter circulating in the House calling for De Genova's termination/censure. Urge them to adopt/support legislation to cut Columbia's funding. Many Alumni already are.

God bless, and don;t be afraid to become involved. We need a whole lot more Americans willing to do just that.

Jeff

We're Winning Iraqi Freedom, the de Genova's of this world not withstanding.