The constant refrain of Rod Blagojevich's successful 2002 campaign for Governor of Illinois, was that as a Democrat and a reformer, he'd make sure that politically connected firms (ones that dole out campaign donations to politicians such as Blagojevich), would not enjoy unfair advantages when bidding on state business.
The days of "business as usual" would be over, candidate Rod promised.
Well, it's not happening the way Rod said it would. Earlier this week, another Democrat, Auditor General Bill Holland, charged the state's Central Management Services office with not following state laws and regulations, and Holland's report claims that politically connected firms are still cutting into the front of the line when the state's cash spigot is opened.
What is the Central Management Services office? Well, they pretty much buy or lease all things the state needs to operate.
Holland didn't flat out say that CMS is breaking the law, but he sent a copy of his report to the Illinois State Attorney General, Lisa Madigan. Although she's Democrat too, Lisa and Governor Rod have chilly relations at best.
Supposedly, CMS had saved the state over $600 million dollars over the last two years by streamlining purchasing operations.
But Holland's report couldn't verify that claim.
Joe Birkett, DuPage County State's Attorney and potential Republican candidate for governor, called the report "The Magna Carta of Mismanagement."
Back to Blago. He looks like a young Dennis Kucinich. Same black wavy hair. Same financial management skills, too?
Bill Holland's scathing report should put an end, at least for now, to Blagojevich's 2008 presidential dreams, as his re-election chances next year are beginning to look dicey. Blago has over $10 million dollars in his campaign fund--no doubt significantly flush with cash from firms doing business with the state. But $10 million--or even $20 million--may not be enough to prevent Blagojevich from becoming a 0ne-termer. The candidate with the most money doesn't always win.
And that is the way it should be.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
Accuracy in Academia: Should the Pope intervene in Klocek case?
Malcom A. Kline writes about American CINO, that is "Catholic in Name Only" universities in Accuracy in Academia's Campusreportonline.net web site.
An interesting excerpt:
"The elevation of Pope Benedict XVI to the Papal Suite at the Vatican might give some of America’s Catholic colleges and universities the chance to be more than Catholic in Name Only (CINO).
“Catholic theology is not individual reflection but thinking with the faith of the Church,” then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in a 1999 U. S. visit. “If you will do other things and have other ideas of what God could be or could not be, there is the freedom of the person to do it, clearly.”
“But one should not say this is Catholic theology.”
Only three Catholic (or is is CINO?) universities are named in this article. One of them is DePaul. Of course, the Klocek case is mentioned.
From that same article:
“It is the great responsibility we have to give, on the one hand, the authentic witness of the faith, because Catholic people have the right to know what is Catholic and what is not Catholic, to defend Catholic identity, but also it is the great responsibility to not impose obligations and limitations of thinking where Catholic identity does not depend on these limitations.”
Ironically, it is in this latter realm that some Catholic colleges actually are trying to set limits. Too many Catholic colleges and universities are adopting an approach to academic freedom that mirrors the policies and practices of their secular counterparts.
Early last semester, at an activities fair at [Catholic] De Paul University, adjunct professor Thomas Klocek visited a table manned by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). He made the mistake of engaging SJP members in conversation.
“One of the SJP members said that the Israeli treatment of ‘Palestinians’ is as bad as the way Hitler treated the Jews,” Klocek remembers. “I took vast umbrage with this scurrilous statement and pointed out that there is a qualitative difference between [Hitler and] Israeli military forces seeking out known terrorists and people strapping on bombs and blowing themselves and others up in buses, cafes and Seder dinners.”
Klocek, a Catholic, was suspended. Could his predicament cry out for papal intervention? (I added the bold.)
A final note, to the talking heads who treated the election of the new pontiff as they would an American presidential contest and predicted that he will “grow in office”: The smoke that signaled the election of Pope Benedict XVI came from the Vatican, not the Washington Post recycling plant."
I linked it above, but click to the right for the entire article, CINO No More?
An interesting excerpt:
"The elevation of Pope Benedict XVI to the Papal Suite at the Vatican might give some of America’s Catholic colleges and universities the chance to be more than Catholic in Name Only (CINO).
“Catholic theology is not individual reflection but thinking with the faith of the Church,” then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in a 1999 U. S. visit. “If you will do other things and have other ideas of what God could be or could not be, there is the freedom of the person to do it, clearly.”
“But one should not say this is Catholic theology.”
Only three Catholic (or is is CINO?) universities are named in this article. One of them is DePaul. Of course, the Klocek case is mentioned.
From that same article:
“It is the great responsibility we have to give, on the one hand, the authentic witness of the faith, because Catholic people have the right to know what is Catholic and what is not Catholic, to defend Catholic identity, but also it is the great responsibility to not impose obligations and limitations of thinking where Catholic identity does not depend on these limitations.”
Ironically, it is in this latter realm that some Catholic colleges actually are trying to set limits. Too many Catholic colleges and universities are adopting an approach to academic freedom that mirrors the policies and practices of their secular counterparts.
Early last semester, at an activities fair at [Catholic] De Paul University, adjunct professor Thomas Klocek visited a table manned by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). He made the mistake of engaging SJP members in conversation.
“One of the SJP members said that the Israeli treatment of ‘Palestinians’ is as bad as the way Hitler treated the Jews,” Klocek remembers. “I took vast umbrage with this scurrilous statement and pointed out that there is a qualitative difference between [Hitler and] Israeli military forces seeking out known terrorists and people strapping on bombs and blowing themselves and others up in buses, cafes and Seder dinners.”
Klocek, a Catholic, was suspended. Could his predicament cry out for papal intervention? (I added the bold.)
A final note, to the talking heads who treated the election of the new pontiff as they would an American presidential contest and predicted that he will “grow in office”: The smoke that signaled the election of Pope Benedict XVI came from the Vatican, not the Washington Post recycling plant."
I linked it above, but click to the right for the entire article, CINO No More?
DePaul hires Jerry Wainwright as head basketball coach
Chicago native and former north shore high school basketball coach Jerry Wainwright was hired as DePaul's head coach yesterday. His last coaching job was as the skipper at Richmond. Looks like a good hire, and I have a hunch we won't bolt at the next job offer, as Pat Kennedy and Dave Leitoa did.
The goal of this blog is not just to dump on DePaul. Looks like they did a good job on this one.
The goal of this blog is not just to dump on DePaul. Looks like they did a good job on this one.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Chicago Tribune messes up twice in a week on "gangster" photos
Bloggers often get dismissed by mainstream media outlets for "not checking facts." Twice in the last two days, the Chicago Tribune published photos of"reputed" mobsters. In fact, they were "reputed photos of reputed mobsters."
The photos the Trib published were not in fact, those mobsters. Oops. One of the men pictured, a Park Ridge, IL businessman with the same name as a notorious Chicago mobster, is suing the Tribune.
The photos the Trib published were not in fact, those mobsters. Oops. One of the men pictured, a Park Ridge, IL businessman with the same name as a notorious Chicago mobster, is suing the Tribune.
Don't forget, sign the petition: In Support of Free Speech at DePaul
Thought I'd put this on the "top of the page." The petition in support of Thomas Klocek can be found here.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Repost: Dean Dumbleton's October letter to the DePaulia
(Actually, only Dean Dumbleton's letter is a re-post. The commentary is new.)
Yesterday, I posted about the disgraceful op-ed piece published in the DePaulia, the DePaul school newspaper. The student/writer Michael Gallo was grateful, in essence he told the DePaul administration "Thank you for protecting us from the bad man..." (Hat tip: Solomonia.com)
If the writer was just a run-of-the-mill student, I'd lay off the guy, but according to that article, he is a staff writer for the DePaulia. So for starters, he should possess a modest level of competence, and secondly, the piece must've been approved by at least one DePaulia editor. Oh, Professor Klocek was never contacted by Mr. Gallo for that piece
The headline, Goodbye, Klocek. Thanks, DPU, was contemptible. (DPU short, for DePaul University).
With my two prior posts, I tried to "fill in some of the lines" by posting in its entirety, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed article. "A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims.. ", which inspired Neil Steinberg's September 6 Chicago Sun-Times column that seems to have been the catalyst for the September 15 cafeteria discussion, albeit a heated one, between Professor Klocek and students from two Palestinian groups.
Professor Klocek was suspended by Dean Susanne Dumbleton shortly after the cafeteria incident. This letter to the editor from Dumbleton appeared in the October 8 issue of the DePaulia. Dumbleton just trashes Klocek, and I think it's a safe bet that she never read either Steinberg's or Al-Rashed's columns. Just a hunch, but I bet she never did.
This is the letter in it's entirety. I've highlighted the most objectionable (to me) passages.
"Special to The DePaulia: SNL seeks to resolve situation
by Susanne Dumbleton
Dear Editor:
I want to commend you for your coverage of the incident in which a part-time faculty member from my college offended members of Students for Justice in Palestine and United Muslims Moving Ahead. It is important that we talk about such issues so we can all learn from them.
A university is a sacrosanct place, a place where persons gather for the sole purpose of learning and seeking truth and coming to understand the human condition. At DePaul, we have dedicated ourselves in a particular way to honor the dignity of each individual, considering each person as uniquely valuable and honored.
At any university, teachers have a crucial role passing knowledge to a new generation, to be sure, but always with the main purpose of helping students develop their capacity to think critically, to define themselves, to shape their future and the future of human kind.
Great teachers at any university create a climate where students feel free and empowered to analyze information critically, consider the validity of ideas, make difficult choices, and imagine possibilities. At DePaul, we make a particular point of diversity, deliberately recruiting to our student body faculty and staff people with widely divergent histories and futures.
No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned that they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or ethnicity. No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions. This is particularly true at DePaul, which strives to be an institution in which the values of all faiths and all peoples are held in high esteem.
That does not mean that every person at a university needs to agree with the ideas of every other person. The opposite is true. The university must serve as a forum at which individuals are able to express contrary ideas, debate opposing positions, challenge assumptions, press areas of the unknown, and consider unimagined possibilities. Vital to such a forum is the climate of openness.
On Sept. 15, at the Loop Student Involvement Fair, these assumptions were violated. The students perspective was dishonored and their freedom demeaned. Individuals were deeply insulted.
Our college acted immediately by removing the instructor from the classroom. This is a part-time faculty member, whom the university contracts for individual courses. He has no further responsibilities with the university at this time.
In my meeting with the students on Sept. 23, I apologized to them for the insult and disrespect they had endured, acknowledged the seriousness of the offense, and informed them that this teacher had been removed from class. I repeat that apology now. I sincerely regret the assault on their dignity, their beliefs, their individual selves, and I continue to be saddened by the fact that they have experienced such pain at the hands of a person who taught at my school, which has defined commitment to social justice as one of its core values. Indeed, our mission says: “SNL deliberately works to shape a more just, livable world; to ensure that those who have historically been ignored, excluded, marginalized, oppressed and economically disenfranchised benefit from the many learning opportunities available through SNL and beyond.
In its curriculum, its classroom environments, its assessment practices, its advising strategies, and its formal advocacy, SNL creates an intellectual and social milieu where a plurality of worldviews, cultures and value systems are respected, understood, encouraged and appreciated.”
This event is not simply history. As Father Holtschneider said in his note sent to nearly 28,000 faculty, staff and students, it is our individual responsibility to remain vigilant about how our actions and words affect other members of our community. We have much to do.
Sincerely, Susanne Dumbleton Dean,
School for New Learning"
Now some commentary: First of all, Klocek never attacked the religious beliefs of the Palestinian students; he was referring to the Steinberg column. Secondly, who is Dean Dumbleton to say which beliefs are "erroneous." And was the freedom of those students really demeaned?? Was it really??? Someone raised their voice in front of them!!!!
Now, accounts vary on what Klocek said about the "legitimacy" of the Palestinian people. If he did, and I said, if he did say that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, admittedly, that is a controversial statement--but within the realm of academic discussion. At least I think so. Read here for more subject of a Palestinian homeland.
Not everyone is going to agree with what's written in the above link. But then again, I think far fewer people will agree on what the far more controversial Norman Finkelstein writes. Norman is a DePaul University political science professor. Scroll down a bit, you'll learn more Finkelstein here. According to writer Steven Plaut, Finkelstein is "most famous for his comments justifying Holocaust Deniers: "'Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud,'" according to Professor Finkelstein.
Finkelstein is still on the faculty of DePaul University. I wonder how many DePaulia articles there are about Finkelstein?
Yesterday, I posted about the disgraceful op-ed piece published in the DePaulia, the DePaul school newspaper. The student/writer Michael Gallo was grateful, in essence he told the DePaul administration "Thank you for protecting us from the bad man..." (Hat tip: Solomonia.com)
If the writer was just a run-of-the-mill student, I'd lay off the guy, but according to that article, he is a staff writer for the DePaulia. So for starters, he should possess a modest level of competence, and secondly, the piece must've been approved by at least one DePaulia editor. Oh, Professor Klocek was never contacted by Mr. Gallo for that piece
The headline, Goodbye, Klocek. Thanks, DPU, was contemptible. (DPU short, for DePaul University).
With my two prior posts, I tried to "fill in some of the lines" by posting in its entirety, Abdel Rahman al-Rashed article. "A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims.. ", which inspired Neil Steinberg's September 6 Chicago Sun-Times column that seems to have been the catalyst for the September 15 cafeteria discussion, albeit a heated one, between Professor Klocek and students from two Palestinian groups.
Professor Klocek was suspended by Dean Susanne Dumbleton shortly after the cafeteria incident. This letter to the editor from Dumbleton appeared in the October 8 issue of the DePaulia. Dumbleton just trashes Klocek, and I think it's a safe bet that she never read either Steinberg's or Al-Rashed's columns. Just a hunch, but I bet she never did.
This is the letter in it's entirety. I've highlighted the most objectionable (to me) passages.
"Special to The DePaulia: SNL seeks to resolve situation
by Susanne Dumbleton
Dear Editor:
I want to commend you for your coverage of the incident in which a part-time faculty member from my college offended members of Students for Justice in Palestine and United Muslims Moving Ahead. It is important that we talk about such issues so we can all learn from them.
A university is a sacrosanct place, a place where persons gather for the sole purpose of learning and seeking truth and coming to understand the human condition. At DePaul, we have dedicated ourselves in a particular way to honor the dignity of each individual, considering each person as uniquely valuable and honored.
At any university, teachers have a crucial role passing knowledge to a new generation, to be sure, but always with the main purpose of helping students develop their capacity to think critically, to define themselves, to shape their future and the future of human kind.
Great teachers at any university create a climate where students feel free and empowered to analyze information critically, consider the validity of ideas, make difficult choices, and imagine possibilities. At DePaul, we make a particular point of diversity, deliberately recruiting to our student body faculty and staff people with widely divergent histories and futures.
No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned that they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or ethnicity. No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions. This is particularly true at DePaul, which strives to be an institution in which the values of all faiths and all peoples are held in high esteem.
That does not mean that every person at a university needs to agree with the ideas of every other person. The opposite is true. The university must serve as a forum at which individuals are able to express contrary ideas, debate opposing positions, challenge assumptions, press areas of the unknown, and consider unimagined possibilities. Vital to such a forum is the climate of openness.
On Sept. 15, at the Loop Student Involvement Fair, these assumptions were violated. The students perspective was dishonored and their freedom demeaned. Individuals were deeply insulted.
Our college acted immediately by removing the instructor from the classroom. This is a part-time faculty member, whom the university contracts for individual courses. He has no further responsibilities with the university at this time.
In my meeting with the students on Sept. 23, I apologized to them for the insult and disrespect they had endured, acknowledged the seriousness of the offense, and informed them that this teacher had been removed from class. I repeat that apology now. I sincerely regret the assault on their dignity, their beliefs, their individual selves, and I continue to be saddened by the fact that they have experienced such pain at the hands of a person who taught at my school, which has defined commitment to social justice as one of its core values. Indeed, our mission says: “SNL deliberately works to shape a more just, livable world; to ensure that those who have historically been ignored, excluded, marginalized, oppressed and economically disenfranchised benefit from the many learning opportunities available through SNL and beyond.
In its curriculum, its classroom environments, its assessment practices, its advising strategies, and its formal advocacy, SNL creates an intellectual and social milieu where a plurality of worldviews, cultures and value systems are respected, understood, encouraged and appreciated.”
This event is not simply history. As Father Holtschneider said in his note sent to nearly 28,000 faculty, staff and students, it is our individual responsibility to remain vigilant about how our actions and words affect other members of our community. We have much to do.
Sincerely, Susanne Dumbleton Dean,
School for New Learning"
Now some commentary: First of all, Klocek never attacked the religious beliefs of the Palestinian students; he was referring to the Steinberg column. Secondly, who is Dean Dumbleton to say which beliefs are "erroneous." And was the freedom of those students really demeaned?? Was it really??? Someone raised their voice in front of them!!!!
Now, accounts vary on what Klocek said about the "legitimacy" of the Palestinian people. If he did, and I said, if he did say that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, admittedly, that is a controversial statement--but within the realm of academic discussion. At least I think so. Read here for more subject of a Palestinian homeland.
Not everyone is going to agree with what's written in the above link. But then again, I think far fewer people will agree on what the far more controversial Norman Finkelstein writes. Norman is a DePaul University political science professor. Scroll down a bit, you'll learn more Finkelstein here. According to writer Steven Plaut, Finkelstein is "most famous for his comments justifying Holocaust Deniers: "'Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud,'" according to Professor Finkelstein.
Finkelstein is still on the faculty of DePaul University. I wonder how many DePaulia articles there are about Finkelstein?
The Neil Steinberg Column
Not ten minutes after I did the previous post, a friend of the blog e-mailed me the September 04 Neil Steinberg column mentioned below. This friend of the blog performed a "paid search." Older Chicago Sun-Times articles can't be accessed by cheapskates such as myself. In his September 6, 2004 column, Steinberg mostly discusses the presidential campaign, but here is the relevant part of that article:
The most unexpected result of the horrific slaughter of schoolchildren at a school in Russia is a rare moment of introspection in the Arab media. The reported involvement of Arab terrorists in the attacks caused some in the Muslim world to pause and wonder, "Gee, maybe this stuff makes us look bad."
The Associated Press reports that the general manager of al-Arabiya television wrote "Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," in a column running under the headline, "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"
I'm sure the IRA would object to that. But at least some in the Arab world seem to finally get it. "If all the enemies of Islam united together and decided to harm it . . . they wouldn't have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations, and misunderstanding of the nature of this age," a columnist wrote in Egypt's al-Ahram newspaper.
Of course, such introspection only goes up to a point in the Arab world. I meant "moment of introspection" in its literal sense. There is always the relief valve that kicks in should self-doubt rise to unacceptable levels. One Arab scholar said, "I have no doubt in my mind that this is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims." I bet he doesn't.
Why not 'freedom fighters'?
This latest atrocity sent me to my dictionary to look up the word "militant." As a noun, it means, "a militant person, especially, a political activist."
A "political activist"? That sounds like somebody ringing doorbells for John Kerry. Am I alone in feeling that this is an awfully weak term to apply to killers who take over a school and slaughter more than 330 people, including about 150 children? Yet too many newspapers, including this one, repeatedly referred to the Chechens as "militants." The proper term should have been "terrorists." We've been through this before with Palestinian bombers in Israel. If we can't bring ourselves to call things what they are, then how can we expect the Arab media to be any different?
Well done, Neil. Now, can you look into the free speech case of Professor Klocek at DePaul?
The most unexpected result of the horrific slaughter of schoolchildren at a school in Russia is a rare moment of introspection in the Arab media. The reported involvement of Arab terrorists in the attacks caused some in the Muslim world to pause and wonder, "Gee, maybe this stuff makes us look bad."
The Associated Press reports that the general manager of al-Arabiya television wrote "Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture," in a column running under the headline, "The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"
I'm sure the IRA would object to that. But at least some in the Arab world seem to finally get it. "If all the enemies of Islam united together and decided to harm it . . . they wouldn't have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations, and misunderstanding of the nature of this age," a columnist wrote in Egypt's al-Ahram newspaper.
Of course, such introspection only goes up to a point in the Arab world. I meant "moment of introspection" in its literal sense. There is always the relief valve that kicks in should self-doubt rise to unacceptable levels. One Arab scholar said, "I have no doubt in my mind that this is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims." I bet he doesn't.
Why not 'freedom fighters'?
This latest atrocity sent me to my dictionary to look up the word "militant." As a noun, it means, "a militant person, especially, a political activist."
A "political activist"? That sounds like somebody ringing doorbells for John Kerry. Am I alone in feeling that this is an awfully weak term to apply to killers who take over a school and slaughter more than 330 people, including about 150 children? Yet too many newspapers, including this one, repeatedly referred to the Chechens as "militants." The proper term should have been "terrorists." We've been through this before with Palestinian bombers in Israel. If we can't bring ourselves to call things what they are, then how can we expect the Arab media to be any different?
Well done, Neil. Now, can you look into the free speech case of Professor Klocek at DePaul?
The column: "A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims.. "
One of the smears being spread about Professor Klocek is that during the September 15 cafeteria incident, he told the group of Palestinian DePaul students "Not all terrorists are Muslims, but all Muslims are terrorists." The quotation marks come from the below writer.
DePaulia writer Michael Gallo was the latest to use that "statement" against Professor Klocek.
The real story is a bit different than what the DePaul spin machine and Gallo is spewing. In numerous print explanations--as well as in a telephone conversation with me--Professor Klocek firmly stated in fact he was referring to a Neil Steinberg Chicago Sun-Times column, which in turn, was referring to this op-ed piece by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel. I haven't been able to track that Steinberg piece, but the original is posted below.
It's essential that I point out that Abdel Rahman al-Rashed can in no ways, be labeled an "Islamophobe."
This al-Rashed article was widely reprinted in the mainstream media. As it should have.
I found this in the online version of the Arab News, a publication that in no way can be labeled as "Islamophobic."
"A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims, by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed
It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.
The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.
Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.
Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.
What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement." Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?
These images, when put together or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realize the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.
Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the sheikh – the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric – and hear him recite his fatwa about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians.
This ailing sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians.
How could this sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country? How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?
In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives.
At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life.
Then came the neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry.
We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own.
We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.
We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.
We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.
*Abdel Rahman al-Rashed is general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel. This article first appeared in the London-based pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. "
DePaulia writer Michael Gallo was the latest to use that "statement" against Professor Klocek.
The real story is a bit different than what the DePaul spin machine and Gallo is spewing. In numerous print explanations--as well as in a telephone conversation with me--Professor Klocek firmly stated in fact he was referring to a Neil Steinberg Chicago Sun-Times column, which in turn, was referring to this op-ed piece by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel. I haven't been able to track that Steinberg piece, but the original is posted below.
It's essential that I point out that Abdel Rahman al-Rashed can in no ways, be labeled an "Islamophobe."
This al-Rashed article was widely reprinted in the mainstream media. As it should have.
I found this in the online version of the Arab News, a publication that in no way can be labeled as "Islamophobic."
"A Wake-up Call : Almost all terrorists are Muslims, by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed
It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.
The hostage-takers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, were Muslims. The other hostage-takers and subsequent murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. Those involved in rape and murder in Darfur, Sudan, are Muslims, with other Muslims chosen to be their victims.
Those responsible for the attacks on residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar were Muslims. The two women who crashed two airliners last week were also Muslims.
Osama bin Laden is a Muslim. The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim.
What a pathetic record. What an abominable "achievement." Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?
These images, when put together or taken separately, are shameful and degrading. But let us start with putting an end to a history of denial. Let us acknowledge their reality, instead of denying them and seeking to justify them with sound and fury signifying nothing.
For it would be easy to cure ourselves if we realize the seriousness of our sickness. Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession. We should then run after our terrorist sons, in the full knowledge that they are the sour grapes of a deformed culture.
Let us listen to Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the sheikh – the Qatar-based radical Egyptian cleric – and hear him recite his fatwa about the religious permissibility of killing civilian Americans in Iraq. Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians.
This ailing sheikh, in his last days, with two daughters studying in "infidel" Britain, soliciting children to kill innocent civilians.
How could this sheikh face the mother of the youthful Nick Berg, who was slaughtered in Iraq because he wanted to build communication towers in that ravished country? How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?
In a different era, we used to consider the extremists, with nationalist or leftist leanings, a menace and a source of corruption because of their adoption of violence as a means of discourse and their involvement in murder as an easy shortcut to their objectives.
At that time, the mosque used to be a haven, and the voice of religion used to be that of peace and reconciliation. Religious sermons were warm behests for a moral order and an ethical life.
Then came the neo-Muslims. An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry.
We can't call those who take schoolchildren as hostages our own.
We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image.
We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.
We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges.
*Abdel Rahman al-Rashed is general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel. This article first appeared in the London-based pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. "
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The DePaulia Newspaper publishes shameful op-ed on Klocek
A DePaul student named Michael Gallo wrote a shocking op-ed piece in support of Dean Dumblteton and response of DePaul University against Professor Klocek in the university newspaper, the DePaulia. I don't even know where to start on this one. It pushes out the same line, that DePaul had to "protect" its students. Protect them from what? A person who disagrees with them.
These students will have a rough go of it in the work force, as they'll encounter people disagreeing with them on a daily basis. Maybe even hourly. And they won't be able to run to a Dean Susanne Dumbleton when they're feelings are hurt.
Here is that article. DePaul moved the link, sorry if you tried to check it earlier.
Yuck!
These students will have a rough go of it in the work force, as they'll encounter people disagreeing with them on a daily basis. Maybe even hourly. And they won't be able to run to a Dean Susanne Dumbleton when they're feelings are hurt.
Here is that article. DePaul moved the link, sorry if you tried to check it earlier.
Yuck!
Monday, April 25, 2005
Media-savvy youth reject traditional journalism
A couple of posts back, while discussing the bizarre reluctance of the Chicago area major dailies in choosing to write about the Thomas Klocek/DePaul controversey, I theorized that perhaps the declining readership among the major dailies has a lot to do with what they write, or more importantly, what they don't write about.
In George Will's latest column, he goes into detail about those declining numbers and why those numbers are plummeting. Yes, he credits to an extent New Media, as well as the bias of the old media
Declining ratings among the nightly news broadsasts is also discussed.
In George Will's latest column, he goes into detail about those declining numbers and why those numbers are plummeting. Yes, he credits to an extent New Media, as well as the bias of the old media
Declining ratings among the nightly news broadsasts is also discussed.
Townhall.com picks up Joel Mowbray column on Klocek
Townhall.com, a side project of the conservative-minded Heritage Foundation, is one of my favorite web sites. Gettting a story published there is a good launching pad for breaking it into the mainstream media. Joel Mowbray's column on Klocek was originally published early last week on the Front Page Magazine site, Townhall put it on their site later that week.
I posted it here last week too, but for those who missed it, here it is: Muslim mythology thrives on PC college campuses
I posted it here last week too, but for those who missed it, here it is: Muslim mythology thrives on PC college campuses
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Sign the online petition: In Support of Free Speech at DePaul
Hat tip to Betsy's Page and Findory.
To: DePaul University
Whereas we the undersigned believe that academic institutions have an obligation to promote and encourage the free exchange of diverse ideas and opinions on controversial matters;
And whereas, after examining various accounts regarding the circumstances surrounding the unpaid suspension of DePaul Professor Thomas Klocek, we believe that he was punished primarily because of the content of opinions he expressed on a controversial subject;
And whereas we believe that his due process rights, including his right to an open, comprehensive hearing on the charges against him, his right to confront his accusers, and his right to academic freedom were completely ignored and flouted by DePaul University;
We the undersigned:
Call upon DePaul University to immediately and unconditionally reinstate Professor Klocek to his teaching position, and to convene an impartial hearing on any allegations against him, to be held by a group of independent First Amendment experts representing a variety of outlooks that reflect the views of the community as a whole.
2. Call upon scholars and other individuals who value the First Amendment and academic freedom to refrain from making monetary contributions to DePaul University, visiting the university, or attending any events involving the university until the above conditions are met.
3. Urgently request that organizations such as the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors that claim to support freedom of speech and academic freedom for all individuals regardless of their viewpoints, immediately speak out on behalf of the rights of Professor Klocek.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Sign that petition here.
To: DePaul University
Whereas we the undersigned believe that academic institutions have an obligation to promote and encourage the free exchange of diverse ideas and opinions on controversial matters;
And whereas, after examining various accounts regarding the circumstances surrounding the unpaid suspension of DePaul Professor Thomas Klocek, we believe that he was punished primarily because of the content of opinions he expressed on a controversial subject;
And whereas we believe that his due process rights, including his right to an open, comprehensive hearing on the charges against him, his right to confront his accusers, and his right to academic freedom were completely ignored and flouted by DePaul University;
We the undersigned:
Call upon DePaul University to immediately and unconditionally reinstate Professor Klocek to his teaching position, and to convene an impartial hearing on any allegations against him, to be held by a group of independent First Amendment experts representing a variety of outlooks that reflect the views of the community as a whole.
2. Call upon scholars and other individuals who value the First Amendment and academic freedom to refrain from making monetary contributions to DePaul University, visiting the university, or attending any events involving the university until the above conditions are met.
3. Urgently request that organizations such as the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors that claim to support freedom of speech and academic freedom for all individuals regardless of their viewpoints, immediately speak out on behalf of the rights of Professor Klocek.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Sign that petition here.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Sun-Times Neil Steinberg visits DePaul Palestinian art show, neglects to mention Klocek case
Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg has much in common with other Chicago newspaper columnists. He has yet to write a word about the DePaul/Klocek case. But he did find time to visit the "Subject of Palestine" art show at DePaul.
In this morning's Sun-Times, Neil writes about that visit. From that column:
"I slid up to DePaul University to take in "The Subject of Palestine,'' an art exhibit put on by the college museum. Local Jewish groups have been muttering that the show is offensive, and it seemed a good idea to lay eyes on it before the ruckus starts."
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
Well, Neil there is a ruckus going on at DePaul; it's about the shameful treatment received by suspended Professor Thomas Klocek by the administration of DePaul University. The previous post, a column written by Jay Ambrose, appeared in several newspapers today--it will surely be picked up by more.
Funny, both Chicago major dailies have been suffering from stagnant readership numbers for years. Publishers (and not just here in the Chicago area) wonder out loud why younger people in particular don't seem interested in reading newspapers. But of course, it's not just about "the kids."
Could it be that the dailies seem to ignore many stories that are important to conservatives? That could be one of the answers.
Young conservatives, by the way, must be a really tough market for the major newspapers to reach!
And there is this to ponder: The big dailies all have investigative journalists on their payrolls, and they often produce excellent work. But remember, it was the bloggers and New Media Internet sites that broke the "Rathergate" and the Eason Jordan/CNN scandals. "Guys in pajamas in their living room," to paraphrase one CBS staffer who dismissed the early (and correct) skeptics who questioned the authenticity of those now-infamous Bush "CYA" Texas National Guard "documents."
To be fair to Neil Steinberg, he didn't fawn all over DePaul's Palestinian art show. That was a relief. But he's overlooking the real story--an unhappy one--going on at DePaul. And oh yes, it is a real ruckus.
My advice to Neil: Read some other posts on this blog. Or do a web search, enter "Thomas Klocek." Find out about the real story at DePaul University.
In this morning's Sun-Times, Neil writes about that visit. From that column:
"I slid up to DePaul University to take in "The Subject of Palestine,'' an art exhibit put on by the college museum. Local Jewish groups have been muttering that the show is offensive, and it seemed a good idea to lay eyes on it before the ruckus starts."
(Bold emphasis added by me.)
Well, Neil there is a ruckus going on at DePaul; it's about the shameful treatment received by suspended Professor Thomas Klocek by the administration of DePaul University. The previous post, a column written by Jay Ambrose, appeared in several newspapers today--it will surely be picked up by more.
Funny, both Chicago major dailies have been suffering from stagnant readership numbers for years. Publishers (and not just here in the Chicago area) wonder out loud why younger people in particular don't seem interested in reading newspapers. But of course, it's not just about "the kids."
Could it be that the dailies seem to ignore many stories that are important to conservatives? That could be one of the answers.
Young conservatives, by the way, must be a really tough market for the major newspapers to reach!
And there is this to ponder: The big dailies all have investigative journalists on their payrolls, and they often produce excellent work. But remember, it was the bloggers and New Media Internet sites that broke the "Rathergate" and the Eason Jordan/CNN scandals. "Guys in pajamas in their living room," to paraphrase one CBS staffer who dismissed the early (and correct) skeptics who questioned the authenticity of those now-infamous Bush "CYA" Texas National Guard "documents."
To be fair to Neil Steinberg, he didn't fawn all over DePaul's Palestinian art show. That was a relief. But he's overlooking the real story--an unhappy one--going on at DePaul. And oh yes, it is a real ruckus.
My advice to Neil: Read some other posts on this blog. Or do a web search, enter "Thomas Klocek." Find out about the real story at DePaul University.
Ambroses' 3rd column on Klocek and PC DePaul: Another word for ‘politically correct’ is ‘intolerant’
Jay Ambrose of Scripps Howard had been on-the-ball with the Klocek's free speech struggle very early on. Thanks, Jay! Here is his latest column, reprinted in its entirety, here, courtesy of the Manchester Union Leader.
Another word for ‘politically correct’ is ‘intolerant’By JAY AMBROSE Guest Commentary
MY ONLINE dictionary has a politically correct definition of “politically correct,” saying that the phrase refers to support for “broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.”
It gives a hint at the real meaning when it says the phrase can point to someone who is perceived as being “overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters,” and that PC behavior “involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone.” But the definition still misses the boat.
Should the American Heritage Dictionary call on me for advice, I would tell its editors that the phrase refers to the attitude in certain circles that there is just one acceptable view of a host of issues related to supposed bigotry or insensitivity, and that those who don’t conform are inarguably wrong and worse.
The politically incorrect are, in fact, probably racist or sexist or otherwise misshapen human beings, according to this ideologically instructed, one-sided mode of thinking. Such malformed creatures really ought to shut up, the politically correct crowd believes. If they don’t, coercive steps may be taken. And there is also the tactic of branding the miscreants publicly for their imagined crimes while ignoring outrages committed in the name of the one true, politically correct way.
Thus it is that if you believe affirmative action usually translates into group preference in contradiction of a principle meant to safeguard all of us, including minorities, you are a redneck segregationist.
If you think courts have usurped the constitutional prerogative of legislatures in determining that marriage must be permitted people of the same sex for the first time in recorded history, you are a homophobe.
If you are repulsed by the thought of vacuuming babies’ brains from their skulls in what is euphemistically called “partial-birth abortion,” you have no respect for women.
And if you believe that Israelis are justified in fighting back against the suicide bombers who murder their children and wish the abolition of their nation, you are a moral thug intent on further marginalizing an indigenous people whose gravest error was finding themselves next door to the only Westernized democracy in the Middle East.
Let’s get concrete. Let’s visit Chicago’s DePaul University, where a math professor, Jonathan Cohen, talked to me about the politically correct atmosphere, such as the faculty session on Sept. 13, 2001, just two days after terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The session, he said, was hostile to the United States. One professor advised the others to identify with the terrorists and thereby see where their motivation came from — namely, how U.S. policies were responsible. Cohen gave other examples of how “political correctness has run amok” at the campus, but the major one we discussed is one I have written about before, the case of Thomas Klocek.
An untenured professor at the school, Klocek got in an argument with Muslim and pro-Palestinian students outside the classroom about the Israel-Palestine conflict, taking the Israeli side, and soon found himself removed from a teaching assignment with no other assignments coming his direction.
The school’s after-the-fact rationale is that it was the professor’s “belligerent” conduct that was at issue, but the chief complaint of the students was what he said. To some, it was racist and cause for firing that he identified the Palestinians as purposeful killers of civilians and denied that their claim to nationhood was historically legitimate.
Even though the students had called Israelis murderers and compared their leaders to Hitler, a dean worried in a letter to a student newspaper about how the students’ “perspective was dishonored” and their ideas demeaned. DePaul, she wrote, makes “a particular point of diversity.” And here we had a professor pressing “erroneous assertions,” which is to say, taking positions the dean did not like.
Contrary to what happened at Columbia University, where an ad-hoc committee pronounced everything hunky-dory after professors teaching about the Middle East and other subjects were accused of anti-Semitism and classroom intimidation of students not bowing obediently to their anti-Israel views, Klocek was clobbered. His career seems ruined. His life is wrecked.
Now that’s political correctness — injustice, not redressing injustice. I hope the people at American Heritage are taking note.
Another word for ‘politically correct’ is ‘intolerant’By JAY AMBROSE Guest Commentary
MY ONLINE dictionary has a politically correct definition of “politically correct,” saying that the phrase refers to support for “broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.”
It gives a hint at the real meaning when it says the phrase can point to someone who is perceived as being “overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters,” and that PC behavior “involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone.” But the definition still misses the boat.
Should the American Heritage Dictionary call on me for advice, I would tell its editors that the phrase refers to the attitude in certain circles that there is just one acceptable view of a host of issues related to supposed bigotry or insensitivity, and that those who don’t conform are inarguably wrong and worse.
The politically incorrect are, in fact, probably racist or sexist or otherwise misshapen human beings, according to this ideologically instructed, one-sided mode of thinking. Such malformed creatures really ought to shut up, the politically correct crowd believes. If they don’t, coercive steps may be taken. And there is also the tactic of branding the miscreants publicly for their imagined crimes while ignoring outrages committed in the name of the one true, politically correct way.
Thus it is that if you believe affirmative action usually translates into group preference in contradiction of a principle meant to safeguard all of us, including minorities, you are a redneck segregationist.
If you think courts have usurped the constitutional prerogative of legislatures in determining that marriage must be permitted people of the same sex for the first time in recorded history, you are a homophobe.
If you are repulsed by the thought of vacuuming babies’ brains from their skulls in what is euphemistically called “partial-birth abortion,” you have no respect for women.
And if you believe that Israelis are justified in fighting back against the suicide bombers who murder their children and wish the abolition of their nation, you are a moral thug intent on further marginalizing an indigenous people whose gravest error was finding themselves next door to the only Westernized democracy in the Middle East.
Let’s get concrete. Let’s visit Chicago’s DePaul University, where a math professor, Jonathan Cohen, talked to me about the politically correct atmosphere, such as the faculty session on Sept. 13, 2001, just two days after terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The session, he said, was hostile to the United States. One professor advised the others to identify with the terrorists and thereby see where their motivation came from — namely, how U.S. policies were responsible. Cohen gave other examples of how “political correctness has run amok” at the campus, but the major one we discussed is one I have written about before, the case of Thomas Klocek.
An untenured professor at the school, Klocek got in an argument with Muslim and pro-Palestinian students outside the classroom about the Israel-Palestine conflict, taking the Israeli side, and soon found himself removed from a teaching assignment with no other assignments coming his direction.
The school’s after-the-fact rationale is that it was the professor’s “belligerent” conduct that was at issue, but the chief complaint of the students was what he said. To some, it was racist and cause for firing that he identified the Palestinians as purposeful killers of civilians and denied that their claim to nationhood was historically legitimate.
Even though the students had called Israelis murderers and compared their leaders to Hitler, a dean worried in a letter to a student newspaper about how the students’ “perspective was dishonored” and their ideas demeaned. DePaul, she wrote, makes “a particular point of diversity.” And here we had a professor pressing “erroneous assertions,” which is to say, taking positions the dean did not like.
Contrary to what happened at Columbia University, where an ad-hoc committee pronounced everything hunky-dory after professors teaching about the Middle East and other subjects were accused of anti-Semitism and classroom intimidation of students not bowing obediently to their anti-Israel views, Klocek was clobbered. His career seems ruined. His life is wrecked.
Now that’s political correctness — injustice, not redressing injustice. I hope the people at American Heritage are taking note.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Final details on Klocek's radio show appearance today
As mentioned in the previous post, Professor Klocek will be on Joseph Farah's radio show today!
More information can be found here.
The call-in number for the show is 1-877-232-4855. Golden Broadcasters can be reached at 972-871-8802.
The show runs from 3pm to 6pm eastern time.
Klocek is scheduled (keep in mind, radio is fluid and schedules change) at 4pm Eastern, (3PM Chicago time).
More information can be found here.
The call-in number for the show is 1-877-232-4855. Golden Broadcasters can be reached at 972-871-8802.
The show runs from 3pm to 6pm eastern time.
Klocek is scheduled (keep in mind, radio is fluid and schedules change) at 4pm Eastern, (3PM Chicago time).
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Revised: Professor Klocek on Joseph Farah's radio show Thursday!
Joseph Farah, better known as the founder and editor of the online news site WorldNetDaily, also has a radio show and he'll be interviewing Professor Klocek tomorrow afternoon. You'll be able to listen online by clicking here, but you do need Windows Media Player.
Professor Klocek is scheduled to be interviewed at 4PM Eastern time, 3PM Central.
Joseph Farah, of course, has written about Professor Klocek's case on WorldNetDaily.
Professor Klocek is scheduled to be interviewed at 4PM Eastern time, 3PM Central.
Joseph Farah, of course, has written about Professor Klocek's case on WorldNetDaily.
Roger L. Simon blogs again on Klocek and DePaul
Roger has been very helpful, if not essential, in spreading the story of Professor Klocek's free speech battle at DePaul on his high-traffic blog. Like myself, he links to Richard Baehr's American Thinker article.
E-mail I received from a DePaul student
This came in my inbox two days ago:
Sure John: it's really depressing what happened to the brave and honest teacher at DePaul. I'm a part-time DePaul Student myself. I used to study for MBA but decided to switch to Interdisciplinary studies. I'm trying to select courses with no politicized content, but it's still disconcerting that my tuition money may be used to subsidize all these campus based organizations that are stifling the free speech. Unfortunately it happens in most leading colleges and universities, so for now we have no luxury of picking and choosing the right college where this stuff does not happen.
Sure John: it's really depressing what happened to the brave and honest teacher at DePaul. I'm a part-time DePaul Student myself. I used to study for MBA but decided to switch to Interdisciplinary studies. I'm trying to select courses with no politicized content, but it's still disconcerting that my tuition money may be used to subsidize all these campus based organizations that are stifling the free speech. Unfortunately it happens in most leading colleges and universities, so for now we have no luxury of picking and choosing the right college where this stuff does not happen.
AZ writer on Klocek, and his own experiences at DePaul
Tough stuff again on DePaul, from Richard Baehr and his site, American Thinker. My initial thought was to excerpt parts, but I didn't know where to start. I'm reprinting in it's entirety. The article has gotten pretty good distribution already, having been posted on Free Republic and Lucianne.com.
DePaul’s Jihad against academic freedom
April 18th, 2005
DePaul University in Chicago is one of the fastest growing universities in the country. It has become the largest Catholic-affiliated university in America. Muslim and Arab students are one of the segments of DePaul's student population that has seen the greatest increase in numbers in recent years. Although no figures are available, these students are an important source of revenue for the University, and many may well pay full tuition, making their attendance particularly lucrative.
Perhaps in recognition of this market segment, the University hired Norman Finkelstein to teach in its Political Science Department. This acquisition of “talent” took place after Finkelstein had lost his job at two different colleges in New York, following controversy over his support of holocaust denier David Irving and his bitterly abusive attacks on the state of Israel.
DePaul, like many other colleges and universities, may have also received significant funding for new academic chairs and programs from various Arab countries. When a college can find a Jew who loathes Israel like Finkelstein, supports holocaust deniers, and is the go-to-guy on lots of viciously anti-Semitic websites, Arab money is almost sure to follow.
To top it all off, DePaul is currently exhibiting a Palestinian art exhibit, cosponsored by twelve academic departments of the university, which might suggest to any fair minded observer, that for Palestinians, art is defined only by hatred of Israel and Jews.
This is the backdrop for an almost astonishing violation of the academic freedom of Thomas Klocek which has been perpetrated by the University. For 14 years a part time adjunct professor in DePaul’s School of New Learning, Klocek has been a popular professor, with large enrollments, and excellent student reviews for his teaching.
But Klocek has lost his teaching position and school-paid health insurance benefits, and faces a bleak future due to his chronic health problems. He is guilty of a thought-crime, challenging the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel mindset which has come to dominate the DePaul campus
Klocek’s challenge to this new campus orthodoxy occurred in a cafeteria during a student activities fair last September.
For 15-20 minutes, Klocek, who is Catholic, not Jewish, confronted a group of 8 students manning two tables for the groups Students for Justice in Palestine, and United Muslims Moving Ahead. Klocek says he argued that the materials the groups were disseminating were one-sided. On this, he is indisputably correct. Neither group pretends to provide balanced information on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That of course, is perfectly understandable and acceptable. These are advocacy groups.
Klocek says the discussion was heated at times, and he admits to raising his voice. He says he told the students that Palestinians were Arabs who lived in the West Bank and Gaza - that they had no unique national historical identity. He challenged one student’s assertion that Israel was behaving like the Nazis. He stated that while most Muslims were not terrorists, pretty much all terrorists these days were Muslim. This statement had originally been made by the manager of an Arab news channel, and had recently been quoted in the Chicago Sun Times. It has the incidental merit of being true.
(My note: Here is that article: A Wake-up call: Almost all terrorists are Muslims... From the Arab News.)
Clearly, the students were not used to such a challenge. DePaul in fact has gone out of its way in recent years to make the campus dialogue “safe” for Muslim and Arab students. The University administration warned the campus community after the September 11th attacks that offensive speech hostile to Muslims would not be tolerated.
But speech hostile to Jews, or Israelis, or for that matter, the great mass of Americans grieving and offended by the 9/11 attacks, was perfectly legitimate. While New York and Washington were digging up their 3,000 dead, Muslims students at DePaul were using the post 9/11 environment to publicly attack America and Israel for their crimes and policies at campus forums, paid for with student fees. The campus has welcomed representatives of the Palestinian terror group Islamic Jihad to campus. The scurrilous propaganda “documentary” Jenin Jenin has been shown on campus.
I have a bit of personal experience with DePaul’s concept of academic discussion and balance. I was invited a few years back to participate in a debate that was a final class project for a course on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There were six debate participants, three on each side. That much seemed fair enough. However the class material that had been distributed to students before the debate had been provided by pro-Palestinian groups including Students for Justice in Palestine.
The suggested reading list could have been prepared by Norman Finkelstein himself. Two of the three debate moderators were aggressively hostile to the pro-Israel speakers (the third played it down the middle). The audience constantly interrupted the pro-Israel speakers.
I have participated in several such debates, and the atmosphere at this one was more physically threatening than any other in which I took part. Two of my family members who attended said they were concerned about my safety at times during the debate, as some audience members (almost all of whom were Palestinian supporters) shook their fingers and approached the podium, with the audience loudly cheering and hooting. It was, for a good part of the time, a free-for-all. Such is a final class project at DePaul these days.
During his cafeteria confrontation with the students, Klocek did not identify himself as a professor at the school. He did not know any of the students, and had not had any of them in a class. After realizing that the argument needed to end, Klocek started to walk off. One student then asked if he taught at DePaul, and if so, what classes. The students followed Klocek, eager to continue arguing with him. He signaled he was done with the debate by thumbing his chin, meant to indicate, he says, enough already. The Muslim students later claimed this gesture was obscene.
For his behavior in this brief debate with the students, Klocek, a popular long-time DePaul professor, has lost his job, his health benefits, and has been smeared and humiliated by the University administration.
It has gotten so bad that Klocek has even been told not to pray at the campus chapel, which he formerly did regularly during his DePaul teaching stint. Such is the retribution of a Catholic University for a professor who has taken the risk of challenging the established mindset at DePaul on the subject of Israel and the Palestinians.
It would be too easy to compare Klocek’s alleged misbehavior – engaging in a short debate in a cafeteria with students who were not in any of his classes and who did not even know he was affiliated with DePaul - with the recent well-publicized events at Columbia University. At Columbia, one professor was alleged to have ordered a pro-Israel student out of his classroom, and to have accused a former Israeli soldier of being a murderer at a public lecture. Another professor ridiculed a Jewish student for her eye color, using this as justification to deny any real Semitic link.
Critics of Columbia also have charged that the Middle East Studies Department had become little more than an advocacy forum for Israel-bashing professors. When the charges of faculty misconduct from the Columbia students were considered by a faculty panel, the faculty members appointed by the university were individuals who had demonstrated in the past that they were Palestinian sympathizers. Not surprisingly, with only one small exception, the students’ complaints were rejected. So Columbia University has formally indicated that far more egregious conduct in the classroom is quite important to academic freedom.
What is surprising at DePaul is that groups which might normally come to the defense of a beleaguered professor unjustly removed from his position have been nowhere in sight. The ACLU has been silent. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has also not yet gotten involved. Perhaps for these groups, the “crime” of defending Israel may trump a professor’s right to free speech.
The University wasted little time after hearing of the students’ complaints about Klocek. The students first met with their advisors and then with a series of University administration members. They said that he had insulted them and their religion and (imagine this!) acted as if he was right and they were wrong. DePaul accepted the charges in toto and without holding a hearing (to which Klocek was entitled) quickly suspended the Professor.
The Muslim students also sent out an email to a large population at DePaul declaring a fatwa on Klocek for insulting Islam. With the recent history of the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the secret life of Salman Rushdie for more than a decade since the Iranian fatwa directed against him, one might have expected DePaul to have viewed this email as possibly threatening to Professor Klocek, and as potentially criminal behavior.
But that would be to misunderstand the political environment and cowardice at DePaul. Threaten the life of a pro-Israel professor, and it is apparently no concern to DePaul’s administration. But argue with a group of pro-Palestinian students, and you create great offense, and hurt.
The public comments by the DePaul administration prove their self-interested narrow vision of academic freedom: the freedom to preach the party line only. Amazingly the President of DePaul, Father Dennis Holtschneider, argues that the proof that DePaul values academic freedom is that they protect Norman Finkelstein’s ability to make his case against holocaust survivors and Israel, regardless of its unpopularity (and regardless of course of its untruth!). For DePaul the defense against charges that it is limiting the ability of pro-Israel speakers to make their case is that they allow anti-Israel speakers to make theirs!
DePaul has argued that they object to Klocek’s behavior, not to his speech nor to his views. This is nonsense. Susanne Dumbleton, Dean of the School of New Learning, Klocek’s boss, made the following priceless remark about the Klocek case :
“No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions.”
So what Klocek argued was erroneous (meaning of course that the pro-Israel position is wrong). But at the same time, no opinion should ever be argued as right or wrong (the absoluteness of an opinion). And no teacher should ever tell a student that he is wrong about anything. Make these three contradictory statements in one sentence, and you too qualify to be a dean at DePaul.
When she met with him, Dumbleton also told Klocek that the students were hurt and crushed by his behavior. She effectively accused Klocek of being a religious bigot and a racist with this comment:
“No student anywhere should ever have to be concerned that they will be verbally attacked for their religious beliefs or ethnicity.”
Dumbleton's comment picked up on the theme of a student emailer who said the incident was a “racist encounter.” Accusing somebody who disagrees with you of being a racist is a very common technique, especially by those who lack history or facts to make their case. Apparently none of the students were so badly injured by Klocek that they missed classes due to their distress.
Dumbleton also accused Klocek of using his power as a professor, and therefore his power over the students, to force them to accept his views as true. But until the students asked, Klocek revealed nothing about his campus teaching role, and had no power relationship (professor with his students) to use against any of the student complainers. DePaul, in defending its actions, went so far as to argue that since Klocek was older than the students, that in and of itself, established a power relationship. Evidently older people are to be cautioned against disagreeing with their juniors, on the danger of wielding power. At DePaul, evidently the student inmates run the asylum, based on the principle of Bizzaro-world seniority.
As for forcing the students to accept his views as true, if that were indeed the case, then Klocek presumably should have stuck around until he forced the students to accept his views, rather than walk off realizing the discussion was not changing anybody’s minds (neither his nor theirs). Klocek clearly accepted that failure to ever agree. What the students seemed to resent, in his view, is that somebody on campus did not accept their views.
Dean Dumbelton said in an interview with the campus paper that she was “deeply saddened by the loss of intellectual empowerment that the students suffered.”
She later wrote a letter to the same paper that the
"students’ perspective was dishonored, and their freedom demeaned. Individuals were deeply insulted.”
She said she had met with the students and apologized to them for the insult and disrespect they endured.
“I regret the assault on their dignity, their beliefs, their individual selves.”
Remember that these alleged abuses and injuries were all suffered as a result of one 15-minute conversation with Professor Klocek in the cafeteria. One wonders how the University might describe a rape or murder victim. Could such an offense to a victim be any greater than that supposedly suffered by the Muslim students who were forced to discuss their propaganda with somebody who did not agree with them?
As the humorist Dave Barry would say, I am not making any of this up. This is the house of horrors that DePaul has become, and this is how the university administration defends its outrageous behavior. It is why Professor Klocek plans to sue the university.
In the black-is-white, white-is-black world that is DePaul, he has been left with no other option. When you stand for Israel at DePaul, you will not be left standing much longer.
DePaul’s Jihad against academic freedom
April 18th, 2005
DePaul University in Chicago is one of the fastest growing universities in the country. It has become the largest Catholic-affiliated university in America. Muslim and Arab students are one of the segments of DePaul's student population that has seen the greatest increase in numbers in recent years. Although no figures are available, these students are an important source of revenue for the University, and many may well pay full tuition, making their attendance particularly lucrative.
Perhaps in recognition of this market segment, the University hired Norman Finkelstein to teach in its Political Science Department. This acquisition of “talent” took place after Finkelstein had lost his job at two different colleges in New York, following controversy over his support of holocaust denier David Irving and his bitterly abusive attacks on the state of Israel.
DePaul, like many other colleges and universities, may have also received significant funding for new academic chairs and programs from various Arab countries. When a college can find a Jew who loathes Israel like Finkelstein, supports holocaust deniers, and is the go-to-guy on lots of viciously anti-Semitic websites, Arab money is almost sure to follow.
To top it all off, DePaul is currently exhibiting a Palestinian art exhibit, cosponsored by twelve academic departments of the university, which might suggest to any fair minded observer, that for Palestinians, art is defined only by hatred of Israel and Jews.
This is the backdrop for an almost astonishing violation of the academic freedom of Thomas Klocek which has been perpetrated by the University. For 14 years a part time adjunct professor in DePaul’s School of New Learning, Klocek has been a popular professor, with large enrollments, and excellent student reviews for his teaching.
But Klocek has lost his teaching position and school-paid health insurance benefits, and faces a bleak future due to his chronic health problems. He is guilty of a thought-crime, challenging the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel mindset which has come to dominate the DePaul campus
Klocek’s challenge to this new campus orthodoxy occurred in a cafeteria during a student activities fair last September.
For 15-20 minutes, Klocek, who is Catholic, not Jewish, confronted a group of 8 students manning two tables for the groups Students for Justice in Palestine, and United Muslims Moving Ahead. Klocek says he argued that the materials the groups were disseminating were one-sided. On this, he is indisputably correct. Neither group pretends to provide balanced information on the Israeli Palestinian conflict. That of course, is perfectly understandable and acceptable. These are advocacy groups.
Klocek says the discussion was heated at times, and he admits to raising his voice. He says he told the students that Palestinians were Arabs who lived in the West Bank and Gaza - that they had no unique national historical identity. He challenged one student’s assertion that Israel was behaving like the Nazis. He stated that while most Muslims were not terrorists, pretty much all terrorists these days were Muslim. This statement had originally been made by the manager of an Arab news channel, and had recently been quoted in the Chicago Sun Times. It has the incidental merit of being true.
(My note: Here is that article: A Wake-up call: Almost all terrorists are Muslims... From the Arab News.)
Clearly, the students were not used to such a challenge. DePaul in fact has gone out of its way in recent years to make the campus dialogue “safe” for Muslim and Arab students. The University administration warned the campus community after the September 11th attacks that offensive speech hostile to Muslims would not be tolerated.
But speech hostile to Jews, or Israelis, or for that matter, the great mass of Americans grieving and offended by the 9/11 attacks, was perfectly legitimate. While New York and Washington were digging up their 3,000 dead, Muslims students at DePaul were using the post 9/11 environment to publicly attack America and Israel for their crimes and policies at campus forums, paid for with student fees. The campus has welcomed representatives of the Palestinian terror group Islamic Jihad to campus. The scurrilous propaganda “documentary” Jenin Jenin has been shown on campus.
I have a bit of personal experience with DePaul’s concept of academic discussion and balance. I was invited a few years back to participate in a debate that was a final class project for a course on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There were six debate participants, three on each side. That much seemed fair enough. However the class material that had been distributed to students before the debate had been provided by pro-Palestinian groups including Students for Justice in Palestine.
The suggested reading list could have been prepared by Norman Finkelstein himself. Two of the three debate moderators were aggressively hostile to the pro-Israel speakers (the third played it down the middle). The audience constantly interrupted the pro-Israel speakers.
I have participated in several such debates, and the atmosphere at this one was more physically threatening than any other in which I took part. Two of my family members who attended said they were concerned about my safety at times during the debate, as some audience members (almost all of whom were Palestinian supporters) shook their fingers and approached the podium, with the audience loudly cheering and hooting. It was, for a good part of the time, a free-for-all. Such is a final class project at DePaul these days.
During his cafeteria confrontation with the students, Klocek did not identify himself as a professor at the school. He did not know any of the students, and had not had any of them in a class. After realizing that the argument needed to end, Klocek started to walk off. One student then asked if he taught at DePaul, and if so, what classes. The students followed Klocek, eager to continue arguing with him. He signaled he was done with the debate by thumbing his chin, meant to indicate, he says, enough already. The Muslim students later claimed this gesture was obscene.
For his behavior in this brief debate with the students, Klocek, a popular long-time DePaul professor, has lost his job, his health benefits, and has been smeared and humiliated by the University administration.
It has gotten so bad that Klocek has even been told not to pray at the campus chapel, which he formerly did regularly during his DePaul teaching stint. Such is the retribution of a Catholic University for a professor who has taken the risk of challenging the established mindset at DePaul on the subject of Israel and the Palestinians.
It would be too easy to compare Klocek’s alleged misbehavior – engaging in a short debate in a cafeteria with students who were not in any of his classes and who did not even know he was affiliated with DePaul - with the recent well-publicized events at Columbia University. At Columbia, one professor was alleged to have ordered a pro-Israel student out of his classroom, and to have accused a former Israeli soldier of being a murderer at a public lecture. Another professor ridiculed a Jewish student for her eye color, using this as justification to deny any real Semitic link.
Critics of Columbia also have charged that the Middle East Studies Department had become little more than an advocacy forum for Israel-bashing professors. When the charges of faculty misconduct from the Columbia students were considered by a faculty panel, the faculty members appointed by the university were individuals who had demonstrated in the past that they were Palestinian sympathizers. Not surprisingly, with only one small exception, the students’ complaints were rejected. So Columbia University has formally indicated that far more egregious conduct in the classroom is quite important to academic freedom.
What is surprising at DePaul is that groups which might normally come to the defense of a beleaguered professor unjustly removed from his position have been nowhere in sight. The ACLU has been silent. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has also not yet gotten involved. Perhaps for these groups, the “crime” of defending Israel may trump a professor’s right to free speech.
The University wasted little time after hearing of the students’ complaints about Klocek. The students first met with their advisors and then with a series of University administration members. They said that he had insulted them and their religion and (imagine this!) acted as if he was right and they were wrong. DePaul accepted the charges in toto and without holding a hearing (to which Klocek was entitled) quickly suspended the Professor.
The Muslim students also sent out an email to a large population at DePaul declaring a fatwa on Klocek for insulting Islam. With the recent history of the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the secret life of Salman Rushdie for more than a decade since the Iranian fatwa directed against him, one might have expected DePaul to have viewed this email as possibly threatening to Professor Klocek, and as potentially criminal behavior.
But that would be to misunderstand the political environment and cowardice at DePaul. Threaten the life of a pro-Israel professor, and it is apparently no concern to DePaul’s administration. But argue with a group of pro-Palestinian students, and you create great offense, and hurt.
The public comments by the DePaul administration prove their self-interested narrow vision of academic freedom: the freedom to preach the party line only. Amazingly the President of DePaul, Father Dennis Holtschneider, argues that the proof that DePaul values academic freedom is that they protect Norman Finkelstein’s ability to make his case against holocaust survivors and Israel, regardless of its unpopularity (and regardless of course of its untruth!). For DePaul the defense against charges that it is limiting the ability of pro-Israel speakers to make their case is that they allow anti-Israel speakers to make theirs!
DePaul has argued that they object to Klocek’s behavior, not to his speech nor to his views. This is nonsense. Susanne Dumbleton, Dean of the School of New Learning, Klocek’s boss, made the following priceless remark about the Klocek case :
“No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions.”
So what Klocek argued was erroneous (meaning of course that the pro-Israel position is wrong). But at the same time, no opinion should ever be argued as right or wrong (the absoluteness of an opinion). And no teacher should ever tell a student that he is wrong about anything. Make these three contradictory statements in one sentence, and you too qualify to be a dean at DePaul.
When she met with him, Dumbleton also told Klocek that the students were hurt and crushed by his behavior. She effectively accused Klocek of being a religious bigot and a racist with this comment:
“No student anywhere should ever have to be concerned that they will be verbally attacked for their religious beliefs or ethnicity.”
Dumbleton's comment picked up on the theme of a student emailer who said the incident was a “racist encounter.” Accusing somebody who disagrees with you of being a racist is a very common technique, especially by those who lack history or facts to make their case. Apparently none of the students were so badly injured by Klocek that they missed classes due to their distress.
Dumbleton also accused Klocek of using his power as a professor, and therefore his power over the students, to force them to accept his views as true. But until the students asked, Klocek revealed nothing about his campus teaching role, and had no power relationship (professor with his students) to use against any of the student complainers. DePaul, in defending its actions, went so far as to argue that since Klocek was older than the students, that in and of itself, established a power relationship. Evidently older people are to be cautioned against disagreeing with their juniors, on the danger of wielding power. At DePaul, evidently the student inmates run the asylum, based on the principle of Bizzaro-world seniority.
As for forcing the students to accept his views as true, if that were indeed the case, then Klocek presumably should have stuck around until he forced the students to accept his views, rather than walk off realizing the discussion was not changing anybody’s minds (neither his nor theirs). Klocek clearly accepted that failure to ever agree. What the students seemed to resent, in his view, is that somebody on campus did not accept their views.
Dean Dumbelton said in an interview with the campus paper that she was “deeply saddened by the loss of intellectual empowerment that the students suffered.”
She later wrote a letter to the same paper that the
"students’ perspective was dishonored, and their freedom demeaned. Individuals were deeply insulted.”
She said she had met with the students and apologized to them for the insult and disrespect they endured.
“I regret the assault on their dignity, their beliefs, their individual selves.”
Remember that these alleged abuses and injuries were all suffered as a result of one 15-minute conversation with Professor Klocek in the cafeteria. One wonders how the University might describe a rape or murder victim. Could such an offense to a victim be any greater than that supposedly suffered by the Muslim students who were forced to discuss their propaganda with somebody who did not agree with them?
As the humorist Dave Barry would say, I am not making any of this up. This is the house of horrors that DePaul has become, and this is how the university administration defends its outrageous behavior. It is why Professor Klocek plans to sue the university.
In the black-is-white, white-is-black world that is DePaul, he has been left with no other option. When you stand for Israel at DePaul, you will not be left standing much longer.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Pope Benedict XVI
We have a new Pope. I don't want to link to these trashy sites, but some London tabloids are hammering the new Pope over his Hitler Youth membership. Membership--let me remind you Fleet Street--was mandatory in the Hitler Youth.
May you have a successful reign, Pope Benedict.
May you have a successful reign, Pope Benedict.
Joel Mowbray weighs in again on Klocek and DePaul
This was sent to be by a tipster. Joel has written about Professor Klocek before, in fact he was one of the first writers to champion the cause of Thomas Klocek and his free speech struggle with DePaul University.
A couple of days ago this appeared in the DC Examiner, as Joel tackles the problem of stubborn "groupthink" going on at most college campuses today. And of course Joel contrasts this situation with Thomas Klocek's troubles at DePaul.
A couple of days ago this appeared in the DC Examiner, as Joel tackles the problem of stubborn "groupthink" going on at most college campuses today. And of course Joel contrasts this situation with Thomas Klocek's troubles at DePaul.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Vanessa Kerry tops her Dad: Starts and finishes the Boston Marathon
Vanessa Kerry has finished the Boston Marathon with a very impressive net time, also known as the chip-time ,of 3:31:05, pace per mile was 8:05. An excellent marathon time, and since this apparently was her first marathon, a great achievement.
So it's in the books: A member of the Kerry family has officially finished the Boston Marathon. Now, will Senator Kerry still claim to have run it? Or will he pull the "bandit card," claiming he ran it, but never officially entered.
Sort of like, "voting for that bill, before I voted against it?"
Know anyone else who ran in Boston today? You can check their results here.
So it's in the books: A member of the Kerry family has officially finished the Boston Marathon. Now, will Senator Kerry still claim to have run it? Or will he pull the "bandit card," claiming he ran it, but never officially entered.
Sort of like, "voting for that bill, before I voted against it?"
Know anyone else who ran in Boston today? You can check their results here.
Catherine "The Great" Wins fourth Boston Marathon, Elfenesh Alemu wins men's race
Defending champion Catherine "The Great" Ndereba of Kenya won the women's division of the Boston Marathon this afternoon. Elfenesh Alemu of Ethiopia, who was fifth last year, won the men's race.
There were two repeat winners in the wheelchair division: South African Ernst Van Dyk won the men's for the fifth straight time. In the women's race, Californian Cheri Blauwet won, as she did last year.
There were two repeat winners in the wheelchair division: South African Ernst Van Dyk won the men's for the fifth straight time. In the women's race, Californian Cheri Blauwet won, as she did last year.
It's Marathon Monday in Boston!
Today is the 109th running of the world's greatest running race, the Boston Marathon.
At about the time this gets posted, John Kerry will have fired the starting gun and the wheelchair division of this venerable race will have begun. You'll hear it hear first if he atones for his "Yes, I ran the Boston Marathon" lies, or if he signs SF-180, the form authorizing the release to the public his military records.
Several friends of the blog are running today. Also, Vanessa Kerry, daughter of the senator, is entered, and we'll be following her progress.
At about the time this gets posted, John Kerry will have fired the starting gun and the wheelchair division of this venerable race will have begun. You'll hear it hear first if he atones for his "Yes, I ran the Boston Marathon" lies, or if he signs SF-180, the form authorizing the release to the public his military records.
Several friends of the blog are running today. Also, Vanessa Kerry, daughter of the senator, is entered, and we'll be following her progress.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Ghost of McCarthy on campus (Jay Ambrose on Klocek)
This brilliant article is printed in its entirety, courtesy of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.
Incidentally, I've talked to Professor Klocek too, nothing in this article contradicts what he's told me.
Chicago’s DePaul University, which has taken a couple of hits for its grotesque squashing of a professor’s free-speech rights, is hitting back, adding defamatory insult to career-ending injury – and a question comes to mind.
It’s a question that was asked by the counsel for the Army in 1954 when Sen. Joseph McCarthy was seeking out Communists in the government. He threw his charges around with little or no evidence; others in Congress did the same, and sometimes reputations were recklessly ruined.
In the hearing, McCarthy got tangled with the counsel, Joseph Welch, in suggesting that a young associate of Welch’s had Communist ties because of an affiliation in his university years.
The question matters today because what’s going on at DePaul and elsewhere is a New McCarthyism, directed this time around not at suspected Communists, but at those who voice views contrary to the politically correct, intellect-stops-here glop that passes for idealism.
The facts of the DePaul case are that Thomas Klocek, a non-tenured professor, got involved in an argument with students from Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups at an activities fair in September 2004 about their insistence that Israel was murderous in fighting back against Palestinian suicide bombers. He was booted from a class he was teaching without a hearing that DePaul’s rules demand, and it appears he will get no future assignments after 14 years of highly praised teaching.
PR staffers and the president of DePaul, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, have responded to news accounts and comments with e-mails to readers and letters to newspapers, managing in their self-exculpatory balderdash to worsen the original offense. Some of the ways are:
•They contend Klocek was fired for his conduct, not for what he said. The president has written that Klocek confronted the students “in a belligerent and menacing manner,” raising his voice and throwing pamphlets.
David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, says the students were upset because Klocek “said something insensitive to (their) politically correct point of view.” He “got tossed because he hurt feelings,” French said, adding: “What really infuriates me is that the students were handing out literature that is provocative.”
•The DePaul president says there was a “mutual decision” that Klocek would step down after he refused to “acknowledge the inappropriateness of his behavior.” The university has encouraged him “to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied,” he wrote, also saying: “Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then, he (the lawyer) hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.”
Unbelievable.
Here is a 23,000-student rich institution with its own lawyers and PR types stomping all over someone, and the president gets his dander up because the poor soul is fighting back.
John Mauk, the attorney for Klocek, points out that his client was called to a meeting where he was not advised of possible consequences, was supplied with no written charges, was given no chance to confront witnesses against him and was given no chance to keep teaching. That’s far from what the university’s rules require, and far from any notion of fair play.
•On top of everything else, the DePaul president, in an e-mail, talks of Klocek staying away from a teaching assignment “while he attended to personal health issues that we discovered were impacting his effectiveness in the classroom.” The president, says French, was “darkly hinting at mental instability.” There is no evidence of that. French says, and I agree, that the medical issue “is a smear.”
All of which brings me to that question Welch asked McCarthy.
“Have you no decency, sir, at long last?”
Incidentally, I've talked to Professor Klocek too, nothing in this article contradicts what he's told me.
Chicago’s DePaul University, which has taken a couple of hits for its grotesque squashing of a professor’s free-speech rights, is hitting back, adding defamatory insult to career-ending injury – and a question comes to mind.
It’s a question that was asked by the counsel for the Army in 1954 when Sen. Joseph McCarthy was seeking out Communists in the government. He threw his charges around with little or no evidence; others in Congress did the same, and sometimes reputations were recklessly ruined.
In the hearing, McCarthy got tangled with the counsel, Joseph Welch, in suggesting that a young associate of Welch’s had Communist ties because of an affiliation in his university years.
The question matters today because what’s going on at DePaul and elsewhere is a New McCarthyism, directed this time around not at suspected Communists, but at those who voice views contrary to the politically correct, intellect-stops-here glop that passes for idealism.
The facts of the DePaul case are that Thomas Klocek, a non-tenured professor, got involved in an argument with students from Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups at an activities fair in September 2004 about their insistence that Israel was murderous in fighting back against Palestinian suicide bombers. He was booted from a class he was teaching without a hearing that DePaul’s rules demand, and it appears he will get no future assignments after 14 years of highly praised teaching.
PR staffers and the president of DePaul, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, have responded to news accounts and comments with e-mails to readers and letters to newspapers, managing in their self-exculpatory balderdash to worsen the original offense. Some of the ways are:
•They contend Klocek was fired for his conduct, not for what he said. The president has written that Klocek confronted the students “in a belligerent and menacing manner,” raising his voice and throwing pamphlets.
David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, says the students were upset because Klocek “said something insensitive to (their) politically correct point of view.” He “got tossed because he hurt feelings,” French said, adding: “What really infuriates me is that the students were handing out literature that is provocative.”
•The DePaul president says there was a “mutual decision” that Klocek would step down after he refused to “acknowledge the inappropriateness of his behavior.” The university has encouraged him “to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied,” he wrote, also saying: “Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then, he (the lawyer) hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.”
Unbelievable.
Here is a 23,000-student rich institution with its own lawyers and PR types stomping all over someone, and the president gets his dander up because the poor soul is fighting back.
John Mauk, the attorney for Klocek, points out that his client was called to a meeting where he was not advised of possible consequences, was supplied with no written charges, was given no chance to confront witnesses against him and was given no chance to keep teaching. That’s far from what the university’s rules require, and far from any notion of fair play.
•On top of everything else, the DePaul president, in an e-mail, talks of Klocek staying away from a teaching assignment “while he attended to personal health issues that we discovered were impacting his effectiveness in the classroom.” The president, says French, was “darkly hinting at mental instability.” There is no evidence of that. French says, and I agree, that the medical issue “is a smear.”
All of which brings me to that question Welch asked McCarthy.
“Have you no decency, sir, at long last?”
This Wisconsin prof offered extra credit points for promoting anti-smoking ban for town
Ever since I began blogging the Klocek/DePaul controversey, I've come across all kinds of stories on the PC craziness that is undermining our colleges and universities. There are entire web sites devoted to this sorry situation, such as FIRE.
This story on the surface seems small, but in Stevens Point, WI, best known as the town where Point Beer is brewed, a professor there, John Munson, sent an e-mail from his University of Wisconsin-Stevens Pont acccount offering his students 1,500 extra credit points if they, according to the AP article, "(patronized) non-smoking establishments and collect signatures to put an anti-smoking referendum on the ballot.
The referendum failed, but business in Stevens Point haven't forgotten about Munson, and they're suing Professor Munson.
From that same article: "The group is asking for a ruling declaring that Munson, a professor of health promotion and human development, illegally used his classroom for political advocacy, which is barred for state employees. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages."
This story on the surface seems small, but in Stevens Point, WI, best known as the town where Point Beer is brewed, a professor there, John Munson, sent an e-mail from his University of Wisconsin-Stevens Pont acccount offering his students 1,500 extra credit points if they, according to the AP article, "(patronized) non-smoking establishments and collect signatures to put an anti-smoking referendum on the ballot.
The referendum failed, but business in Stevens Point haven't forgotten about Munson, and they're suing Professor Munson.
From that same article: "The group is asking for a ruling declaring that Munson, a professor of health promotion and human development, illegally used his classroom for political advocacy, which is barred for state employees. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages."
DePaul's media relations office has an additional chore now
The hardworking media relations office of DePaul University now will also be dealing with DePaul's search for a new basketball coach, as Dave Leitao will be heading to Charlottesville, VA to become head coach at Virginia.
DePaul, of course, has to find a new basketball coach. One of the rumored candidates, Joe Mihalich, is presently the head coach at Niagara, where DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider toiled before accepting his current position.
DePaul, of course, has to find a new basketball coach. One of the rumored candidates, Joe Mihalich, is presently the head coach at Niagara, where DePaul president Dennis Holtschneider toiled before accepting his current position.
Friday, April 15, 2005
For those Boston Marathon runners who'll see Kerry Monday, ask him about Form SF-180
For those lucky runners (or spectators) who'll be at the Boston Marathon Monday, you may want to ask Senator Kerry when he's going to sign Form SF-180, which will authorize the release to the public his military records. On Tim Russert's Meet the Press show on January 30, Kerry promised he'd sign that paperwork authorizing (finally) their release. That was 75 days ago.
Hat tip to Kerry Haters.
Hat tip to Kerry Haters.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Kerry to be official wheelchair race starter at Boston Marathon
This press release went out last week from the Boston Marathon office....here is an excerpt....
Senator John F. Kerry (D., Mass.) will be the official starter of the wheelchair division race, which begins at 11:25 a.m. Kerry has been a strong supporter of the Boston Marathon's wheelchair division since the early 1980s.
No mention of his fabled "marathon run" of circa 1980.
More from that same press release...
"Jacqueline Gareau, the women's open division champion in 1980, will serve at the Boston Marathon's grand marshal this year. She will ride in a pace vehicle, ahead of the elite women's field. Gareau, from Canada, is the Boston Marathon's first grand marshal other than John A. Kelley, who passed away on October 6, 2004. Gareau's victory 25 years ago was overshadowed by Rosie Ruiz, who only ran a part of that year's race, but who crossed the finish line ahead of Gareau. Ruiz was subsequently disqualified."
1980. And that is one of the years Kerry claimed to have run Boston? And Rosie Ruiz? She "ran" it in 1980.
I was going to write, "John, why don't you just stay home." But Vanessa Kerry, his youngest daughter, is running, and yep, I looked it up. Her race number is 17553.
Good luck Vanessa!!! And tell your Dad to lay off the "tall tales."
Senator John F. Kerry (D., Mass.) will be the official starter of the wheelchair division race, which begins at 11:25 a.m. Kerry has been a strong supporter of the Boston Marathon's wheelchair division since the early 1980s.
No mention of his fabled "marathon run" of circa 1980.
More from that same press release...
"Jacqueline Gareau, the women's open division champion in 1980, will serve at the Boston Marathon's grand marshal this year. She will ride in a pace vehicle, ahead of the elite women's field. Gareau, from Canada, is the Boston Marathon's first grand marshal other than John A. Kelley, who passed away on October 6, 2004. Gareau's victory 25 years ago was overshadowed by Rosie Ruiz, who only ran a part of that year's race, but who crossed the finish line ahead of Gareau. Ruiz was subsequently disqualified."
1980. And that is one of the years Kerry claimed to have run Boston? And Rosie Ruiz? She "ran" it in 1980.
I was going to write, "John, why don't you just stay home." But Vanessa Kerry, his youngest daughter, is running, and yep, I looked it up. Her race number is 17553.
Good luck Vanessa!!! And tell your Dad to lay off the "tall tales."
The Jewish Post's Anti-Semitism Chronicle reports on the Klocek case
A tipster sent this my way. Also, the article refers to Roger L. Simon's blog as its source, showing the growing strength of New Media. The Jewish Post is a New York based monthly chronicle.
Read the article here.
Read the article here.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
NY's Jewish News on DePaul, Klocek and Holocaust minimizer Finkelstein
A friend of the blog just sent this my way, this breath of fresh air comes from the Jewish Press, a New York City weekly newspaper with good size readership of about 100 thousand or so.
The author, Israeli professor Steve Plaut, now has written two articles on the DePaul/Klocek affair.
Read the entire article here: DeNial At DePaul: The Thomas Klocek Affair
Here is a key excerpt:
"Klocek tells us his side of the story:"A Student Activities Fair was being held at DePaul on 9.15.04 at the Loop campus. It was open to all. When the incident began, I had not identified myself as a faculty member. I visited various booths and tables, among them `Students for Justice in Palestine(SJP).` I gave them my e-mail address and asked for some of their literature. I then stood about reading this incendiary piece about Rachel Corrie and the Israeli bulldozing of Arab homes and properties. I stated that there is no such entity as Palestine on the current map and that U.S. newspapers only began using the term Palestinians some 25-30 years ago. One of the SJP members said that the Israeli treatment of ‘Palestinians’ is as bad as the way Hitler treated the Jews. I took vast umbrage with this scurrilous statement."
At no time did I threaten any of the students physically or verbally, but the volume of the talking turned loud on both sides."
Some few days later, the Dean, Susanne Dumbleton of the School for New Learning, called me in and had in her hand two letters from students. I never saw these but she appeared to read from them, outlining charges against me made by the student groups, among them that I was `disrespectful` and that they were `hurt and crushed` by my remarks. She stated that I was to be suspended from teaching until further notice. She also announced that the school would make a response to the school newspaper.
“It should be noted that Dean Dumbleton had previously met with both student groups and their faculty advisors without my being present, and, when I asked her why, she replied that I was too `passionate` about the subject."
Large numbers of bloggers and some DePaul faculty have come out in favor of Klocek and against his inquisitors. Perhaps more important, the Catholic Church as an institution is finally beginning to learn the details of the Klocek case, and several local authorities have indicated their sympathy.DePaul`s sudden horror at the supposed "unprofessorial behavior" by Klocek is all because they claim he made an impolite hand gesture.
Note how dramatically this stands in sharp contrast with the university`s record regarding Norman Finkelstein, arguably the most openly anti-Semitic Jew on the planet, certainly in American academia. DePaul recruited Finkelstein as an assistant professor in political science after Finkelstein was fired from two New York-area adjunct teaching jobs (at New York University and Hunter College). The Anti-Defamation League calls Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accuses him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda.
The author, Israeli professor Steve Plaut, now has written two articles on the DePaul/Klocek affair.
Read the entire article here: DeNial At DePaul: The Thomas Klocek Affair
Here is a key excerpt:
"Klocek tells us his side of the story:"A Student Activities Fair was being held at DePaul on 9.15.04 at the Loop campus. It was open to all. When the incident began, I had not identified myself as a faculty member. I visited various booths and tables, among them `Students for Justice in Palestine(SJP).` I gave them my e-mail address and asked for some of their literature. I then stood about reading this incendiary piece about Rachel Corrie and the Israeli bulldozing of Arab homes and properties. I stated that there is no such entity as Palestine on the current map and that U.S. newspapers only began using the term Palestinians some 25-30 years ago. One of the SJP members said that the Israeli treatment of ‘Palestinians’ is as bad as the way Hitler treated the Jews. I took vast umbrage with this scurrilous statement."
At no time did I threaten any of the students physically or verbally, but the volume of the talking turned loud on both sides."
Some few days later, the Dean, Susanne Dumbleton of the School for New Learning, called me in and had in her hand two letters from students. I never saw these but she appeared to read from them, outlining charges against me made by the student groups, among them that I was `disrespectful` and that they were `hurt and crushed` by my remarks. She stated that I was to be suspended from teaching until further notice. She also announced that the school would make a response to the school newspaper.
“It should be noted that Dean Dumbleton had previously met with both student groups and their faculty advisors without my being present, and, when I asked her why, she replied that I was too `passionate` about the subject."
Large numbers of bloggers and some DePaul faculty have come out in favor of Klocek and against his inquisitors. Perhaps more important, the Catholic Church as an institution is finally beginning to learn the details of the Klocek case, and several local authorities have indicated their sympathy.DePaul`s sudden horror at the supposed "unprofessorial behavior" by Klocek is all because they claim he made an impolite hand gesture.
Note how dramatically this stands in sharp contrast with the university`s record regarding Norman Finkelstein, arguably the most openly anti-Semitic Jew on the planet, certainly in American academia. DePaul recruited Finkelstein as an assistant professor in political science after Finkelstein was fired from two New York-area adjunct teaching jobs (at New York University and Hunter College). The Anti-Defamation League calls Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accuses him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda.
Israeli paper picks up a couple of Klocek articles
These have been excerpted here, but it's nice to know the Israeli media knows a good press story, unlike the surprisingly tame Chicago area media. From Israel Campus Beat. You may have to scroll down a but they're there.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
President Andrew Jackson, speaking for the bloggers of today
"One man with courage makes a majority." Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.
Monday, April 11, 2005
DePaul twists the truth on Klocek case
This response by DePaul president Dennis H. Holtschneider to the Jay Ambrose column about the Thomas Klocek case was published two days ago in the Rocky Mountain News.
The response is pretty much the same letter and e-mail DePaul has been sending out to, and they've used this word, "clarify" the Klocek case.
I've picked the response a part a bit, now I'm going to hammer on this sentence from the Rocky Mountain News letter from Holtschneider.
"Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement. "
Wrong. I've confirmed this with both the publicist Professor Klocek himself. The publicisit is working for Professor Klocek's law firm.
Klocek has not "hired" a publicist. DePaul of course has a full time media relations department trying to portray him in less-than-credible manner.
The response is pretty much the same letter and e-mail DePaul has been sending out to, and they've used this word, "clarify" the Klocek case.
I've picked the response a part a bit, now I'm going to hammer on this sentence from the Rocky Mountain News letter from Holtschneider.
"Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement. "
Wrong. I've confirmed this with both the publicist Professor Klocek himself. The publicisit is working for Professor Klocek's law firm.
Klocek has not "hired" a publicist. DePaul of course has a full time media relations department trying to portray him in less-than-credible manner.
Obama via MoveOn raising dough for Robert Byrd
This was in a Lynn Sweet article in this morning's Chicago Sun-Times
From that source:
"Senator Robert Byrd was one of the first senators I met with when I came to the Senate three months ago,'' Obama wrote in an e-mail sent out on behalf of the political action committee run by MoveOn.Org, the liberal advocacy group.
"Senator Byrd understands the history, the importance and the role Senate plays in our government -- at 87 years old, he's the most senior senator. He has spoken out passionately against a Bush foreign policy that has alienated our allies throughout the world. Today, he is fighting an attempt by Republicans to change the 200-year-old rules of the Senate that would allow Republicans to ram federal judges through the Senate with no regard for what others might say. Above all, Robert Byrd understands just how sacred the Constitution of our country truly is and fights every day to protect it.''
But Byrd was a major player in the 1940s in the Ku Klux Klan and was a segregationist in the 1950s and 1960s.
From that source:
"Senator Robert Byrd was one of the first senators I met with when I came to the Senate three months ago,'' Obama wrote in an e-mail sent out on behalf of the political action committee run by MoveOn.Org, the liberal advocacy group.
"Senator Byrd understands the history, the importance and the role Senate plays in our government -- at 87 years old, he's the most senior senator. He has spoken out passionately against a Bush foreign policy that has alienated our allies throughout the world. Today, he is fighting an attempt by Republicans to change the 200-year-old rules of the Senate that would allow Republicans to ram federal judges through the Senate with no regard for what others might say. Above all, Robert Byrd understands just how sacred the Constitution of our country truly is and fights every day to protect it.''
But Byrd was a major player in the 1940s in the Ku Klux Klan and was a segregationist in the 1950s and 1960s.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Klocek case continues to gain momentum, Columbia University newspaper joins the fray
A tipster led me to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) web site, they have a blog, The Torch.
That blog led me to this article from the Columbia University student newspaper, the Spectator, which ties in the hypocrisy of those left-wing free speech advocates who stand up for the vile anti-American comments made by pseudo-Indian and alleged plagiarist, Professor Ward Churchill of Colorado University, as well as those fervently anti-Israeli spewings by Columbia University Assistant Professor (and classroom bully) Joseph Massad.
Both men have taken their lumps in the media, but mostly the "new media" and conservative friendly outlets such as Fox News. Leftits of course have eagerly jumped to defend the free speech rights of Churchill and Mossad.
The Columbia Spectator correctly points out (as I've mentioned here) that those lefties so drawn to support the phony Indian and the lecture hall thug have been largely AWOL in supporting the free speech rights of those who have views that don't conform to the left wing "truths "in Academia. Thomas Klocek of DePaul, who's cause we continue to champion here is mentioned, as is the situation surrounding the January comments by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who mentioned that maybe there is an "intrinsic" reason women have less success in advance scientific studies than men.
Of course, "off the PC reservation" remarks (sorry Ward, but I had to use that metaphor), don't seem to be viewed as free speech, but rather as racist and sexist rants by those the PC academic left.
Free speech for some, it seems to be.
That blog led me to this article from the Columbia University student newspaper, the Spectator, which ties in the hypocrisy of those left-wing free speech advocates who stand up for the vile anti-American comments made by pseudo-Indian and alleged plagiarist, Professor Ward Churchill of Colorado University, as well as those fervently anti-Israeli spewings by Columbia University Assistant Professor (and classroom bully) Joseph Massad.
Both men have taken their lumps in the media, but mostly the "new media" and conservative friendly outlets such as Fox News. Leftits of course have eagerly jumped to defend the free speech rights of Churchill and Mossad.
The Columbia Spectator correctly points out (as I've mentioned here) that those lefties so drawn to support the phony Indian and the lecture hall thug have been largely AWOL in supporting the free speech rights of those who have views that don't conform to the left wing "truths "in Academia. Thomas Klocek of DePaul, who's cause we continue to champion here is mentioned, as is the situation surrounding the January comments by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who mentioned that maybe there is an "intrinsic" reason women have less success in advance scientific studies than men.
Of course, "off the PC reservation" remarks (sorry Ward, but I had to use that metaphor), don't seem to be viewed as free speech, but rather as racist and sexist rants by those the PC academic left.
Free speech for some, it seems to be.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Big march this morning in Chicago honoring the Pope
As I mentioned a couple of posts back, I've been seeing lots of Polish car-flags flying from vehicles as I drive around town. There was a big march on Milwaukee Avenue on Chicago's northwest side honoring John Paul II. I guess other cities in the US could make this claim too, but John Paul II always, because of our large Polish-American population, the hometown Pope.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Latest on Klocek case: Lawsuit against DePaul may be near
The Chicago Journal, a downtown community paper, has spoken out about the free speech controversey at DePaul University. As with this blog, they mention that the Chicago area mainstream media has remained for the most part silent on this story.
John Mauck is representing Professor Klocek. Some interesting excerpts:
"Mauck said he decided to take the case after reading an October 8 letter from (School of New Learning Dean Susanne) Dumbleton printed in the school’s newspaper, The DePaulia, after Dumbleton advised Klocek not to speak to the press. Mauck took particular umbrage at a passage that focused on the content of Klocek’s speech rather than his conduct toward the students:
“'No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or their ethnicity,” Dumbleton wrote. “No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions.'”
(The boldface was added by me for emphasis.)
Says Mauck, “That’s what got me going,” he said. “This was about content, not conduct.”
As I type this tonight, the link to that October letter from Dean Dumbleton is MISSING!!! Maybe their server is down. Maybe not. Stay tuned.
Notes: 4/8/2005 Blogspot's server was down too last night, so I've added couple of things that should've been there in the first place!
2nd Revision for 4/8. I found that link, the October 8 letter to the DePaulia from Dean Susanne Dumbleton.
And according to Klocek's attorney...
"Mauck says he expects to file suit against DePaul in the next few weeks on behalf of Klocek “unless DePaul should turn around and say we’re sorry and we’re going to make it right.”
John Mauck is representing Professor Klocek. Some interesting excerpts:
"Mauck said he decided to take the case after reading an October 8 letter from (School of New Learning Dean Susanne) Dumbleton printed in the school’s newspaper, The DePaulia, after Dumbleton advised Klocek not to speak to the press. Mauck took particular umbrage at a passage that focused on the content of Klocek’s speech rather than his conduct toward the students:
“'No students anywhere should ever have to be concerned they will be verbally attacked for their religious belief or their ethnicity,” Dumbleton wrote. “No one should ever use the role of teacher to demean the ideas of others or insist on the absoluteness of an opinion, much less press erroneous assertions.'”
(The boldface was added by me for emphasis.)
Says Mauck, “That’s what got me going,” he said. “This was about content, not conduct.”
As I type this tonight, the link to that October letter from Dean Dumbleton is MISSING!!! Maybe their server is down. Maybe not. Stay tuned.
Notes: 4/8/2005 Blogspot's server was down too last night, so I've added couple of things that should've been there in the first place!
2nd Revision for 4/8. I found that link, the October 8 letter to the DePaulia from Dean Susanne Dumbleton.
And according to Klocek's attorney...
"Mauck says he expects to file suit against DePaul in the next few weeks on behalf of Klocek “unless DePaul should turn around and say we’re sorry and we’re going to make it right.”
Polish car flags salute Pope in Chicago area
I live in and work in an area with a large Polish-American population. Well it seems most of those Polish-Americans have car flags and they've hoisted them onto their vehicles in a salute to Pope John Paul II. I'm not exagerrating: Every two or three blocks while driving I see a car with a Polish flag on it.
Kerry staffer continues the Marathon Myth
Well, John Kerry is getting out and about for a while on crutches, according to the CNN web site.
The reason, according Kerry staffer April Boyd, "was an outpatient procedure to repair cartilage in his knee, which was damaged by "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running."
Well this site and it's predecessor, Blue States for Bush, has discussed the fabled marathon run of John "Baron Munchhausen" Kerry.
First, Kerry said he ran the Boston Marathon sometime around 1980. After Blue States for Bush correspondent Christopher Riley visited Boston Marathon headquarters and discovered there was no record of John Kerry ever finishing the legendary 26 miler, they pulled out what Football Fans for Truth called the "bandit card," i.e., he ran the race, without officially entering.
Now after "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running" John Kerry has been forced to have knee surgery.
How many marathons have you run, John?
And when are you going to sign that Form 180, authorizing the release of your military records to the public, Senator? You promised Meet the Press' Tim Russert you'd do that on January 30.
The reason, according Kerry staffer April Boyd, "was an outpatient procedure to repair cartilage in his knee, which was damaged by "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running."
Well this site and it's predecessor, Blue States for Bush, has discussed the fabled marathon run of John "Baron Munchhausen" Kerry.
First, Kerry said he ran the Boston Marathon sometime around 1980. After Blue States for Bush correspondent Christopher Riley visited Boston Marathon headquarters and discovered there was no record of John Kerry ever finishing the legendary 26 miler, they pulled out what Football Fans for Truth called the "bandit card," i.e., he ran the race, without officially entering.
Now after "years of soccer, hockey and marathon running" John Kerry has been forced to have knee surgery.
How many marathons have you run, John?
And when are you going to sign that Form 180, authorizing the release of your military records to the public, Senator? You promised Meet the Press' Tim Russert you'd do that on January 30.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
DePaul response to previous article
To be fair, I'll run this one in its entirety. I'll list my points afterwards.
Professor's critic grossly ill-informed
by The Post Editorial Board
by Robin Florzak, March 31, 2005
I was disappointed to read Daniel Hiester's U-Wire column that ran in The Post on March 28 ("Political discussions need to be leveled").
Since neither Hiester nor the syndicated columnist he cites in his piece called DePaul University to check their facts, the author erroneously characterized the incident involving DePaul instructor Thomas Klocek as a matter of academic freedom.
DePaul University has great respect for academic freedom. For more than a century, DePaul has fostered a free and open environment where vigorous debate is encouraged.
Contrary to Hiester's contention, academic freedom and personal beliefs are not the issue here. The incident involving Klocek is about inappropriate and threatening behavior directed at our students.
Last September, Klocek acted in a belligerent and menacing manner toward students who were passing out literature at a table in the cafeteria. He raised his voice, threw pamphlets at students, pointed his finger near their faces and displayed a gesture interpreted as obscene. This continued for some time before other students in the crowded cafeteria summoned staff help to intervene.
Quite simply, the issue is Klocek's conduct, not the content of his speech.
After university administrators met with Klocek, DePaul took action to protect our students and maintain a professional standard of conduct at the university. As an adjunct instructor who is hired on an as-needed basis each term, Klocek does not receive the same privileges as full-time tenured professors. However, the university and its Faculty Council have encouraged him to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied. In the six months since that suggestion was made, Klocek has not done so.
Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.
DePaul University continues to honor its commitment to academic freedom, open expression and due process, but DePaul also insists on the highest professional standards of behavior from our faculty and staff. DePaul's 23,570 students deserve nothing less.
-Robin Florzak is the director of media relations at DePaul University. Send her an e-mail at rflorzak@depaul.edu
Okay, here we go. Klocek does have a publicist working for him, but the law firm representing him hired the publicist. Not quite the same thing.
Secondly, Robin does not mention this nugget: Professor Klocek never received a hearing from DePaul and the School of New Learning. I haven't yet got to the bottom of this angle of the story, but it's my impression that the ball has been in DePaul and the School of New Learning's Dean Susanne Dumbleton since his suspension last fall.
Thirdly, pointing a finger, throwing pamphlets and the raising of a voice (and it's unclear if any or all of these things occurred in the way Ms. Florzak desribes above) is not recommended behavior. But since Professor Klocek has not been offered a hearing on these alleged transgressions.
Finally, DePaul's story keeps changing. Ten days ago or so, it was Professor Klocek's health problems which preventing the School of New Learning from putting him back in the classroom with the same number of classes as in the fall semester.
Professor's critic grossly ill-informed
by The Post Editorial Board
by Robin Florzak, March 31, 2005
I was disappointed to read Daniel Hiester's U-Wire column that ran in The Post on March 28 ("Political discussions need to be leveled").
Since neither Hiester nor the syndicated columnist he cites in his piece called DePaul University to check their facts, the author erroneously characterized the incident involving DePaul instructor Thomas Klocek as a matter of academic freedom.
DePaul University has great respect for academic freedom. For more than a century, DePaul has fostered a free and open environment where vigorous debate is encouraged.
Contrary to Hiester's contention, academic freedom and personal beliefs are not the issue here. The incident involving Klocek is about inappropriate and threatening behavior directed at our students.
Last September, Klocek acted in a belligerent and menacing manner toward students who were passing out literature at a table in the cafeteria. He raised his voice, threw pamphlets at students, pointed his finger near their faces and displayed a gesture interpreted as obscene. This continued for some time before other students in the crowded cafeteria summoned staff help to intervene.
Quite simply, the issue is Klocek's conduct, not the content of his speech.
After university administrators met with Klocek, DePaul took action to protect our students and maintain a professional standard of conduct at the university. As an adjunct instructor who is hired on an as-needed basis each term, Klocek does not receive the same privileges as full-time tenured professors. However, the university and its Faculty Council have encouraged him to file a grievance and receive the hearing he claims he was denied. In the six months since that suggestion was made, Klocek has not done so.
Instead, his lawyer threatened DePaul with litigation and demanded a large sum of money. Then he hired a publicist in an attempt to exert pressure to secure the financial settlement.
DePaul University continues to honor its commitment to academic freedom, open expression and due process, but DePaul also insists on the highest professional standards of behavior from our faculty and staff. DePaul's 23,570 students deserve nothing less.
-Robin Florzak is the director of media relations at DePaul University. Send her an e-mail at rflorzak@depaul.edu
Okay, here we go. Klocek does have a publicist working for him, but the law firm representing him hired the publicist. Not quite the same thing.
Secondly, Robin does not mention this nugget: Professor Klocek never received a hearing from DePaul and the School of New Learning. I haven't yet got to the bottom of this angle of the story, but it's my impression that the ball has been in DePaul and the School of New Learning's Dean Susanne Dumbleton since his suspension last fall.
Thirdly, pointing a finger, throwing pamphlets and the raising of a voice (and it's unclear if any or all of these things occurred in the way Ms. Florzak desribes above) is not recommended behavior. But since Professor Klocek has not been offered a hearing on these alleged transgressions.
Finally, DePaul's story keeps changing. Ten days ago or so, it was Professor Klocek's health problems which preventing the School of New Learning from putting him back in the classroom with the same number of classes as in the fall semester.
U-wire writer speaks up for Klocek
This came into my e-mail box last week (still catching up on things) I'll run it in it entirety. This was published, via the U-wire (a college newspaper version of AP) by the Ohio University Post.
Political discussions need to be leveled
U-Wire
by Daniel Hiester
Indiana University, March 28, 2005
Liberals need to watch their mouths. After the build-up to war and the presidential election, it's as if they got drunk and said some things they shouldn't have. On www.sorryeverybody.com, liberals have posted messages such as, "We're sorry half our country is a bunch of morons." That translates from drunk-speak to English as "Hey, I'm not going down without a fight!" It's as if now, instead of sobering up and apologizing for their indignation, they're just getting drunker in their bitterness.
It's gotten so out of hand, columnist Jay Ambrose recently wrote that liberals' lack of tolerance for conservative or moderate ideas amounts to "New McCarthyism."
That is an ironic choice of words, because the phrase is usually used to describe radical liberals being visited by Secret Service agents, investigating reports of "Un-American behavior." If liberals are so intolerant that someone would flip "New McCarthyism" around on them, it's a good time to stop and think about it.
In his column, Ambrose wrote about the leftist intellectuals standing up to defend University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. The "mad professor" is most infamous for saying the thousands who died in the World Trade Center on 9-11 were "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolf Eichmann, who helped Hitler exterminate Jews during World War II.
While many were initially offended by the comparison, when one looks at Churchill's essay, to place his statements in context, his argument is nothing new: "the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved," he said, to the "mighty engine of profit." That doesn't seem too hard to swallow. The same thing happened with the British, French and Spanish back in their heyday.
If capitalism drives war, maybe it's just one small step to imply that those who work for "The Man" are guilty by association.
Most people I know who have asked themselves this question don't want to answer it, so they get up and fix themselves something to eat. I guess Churchill was hoping to preempt the snack attack by tossing the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.
Unfortunately, that use of hyperbolic rhetoric tainted the credibility of his entire argument and of anyone defending him.
Granted, Churchill is entitled to his opinion, and others are entitled to debate him; that's how things work in the marketplace of ideas. But should he be fired from his job?
If Churchill wasn't fired for his views, what about DePaul University professor Thomas Klocek? He was suspended without a university hearing after he debated against students who believed Israel is Nazi-like toward the Palestinians. Many believe Klocek was fired for not fitting into the cookie-cutter mold of what a liberal is "supposed to believe."
Why does it seem as though left-wing radicals are more entitled to their opinion than those on the right -or even in the middle?
A lot of radical opinions are more emotional than they are intelligent. It's easy to get emotional about things such as tyranny and war, but those who argue about it in public must understand the role they play in the big picture. When they let emotion drive their arguments, they're accidentally using one of the techniques Hitler used to rally support behind the Third Reich.
It is possible to engage the public's humanity without appealing to its emotions. Liberals hate to admit it, but President Bush does that all the time. We need to follow Bush's example and bring our political discussion back down to the level we can talk about at the dinner table, not the level that's liable to start a drunken bar brawl.
Political discussions need to be leveled
U-Wire
by Daniel Hiester
Indiana University, March 28, 2005
Liberals need to watch their mouths. After the build-up to war and the presidential election, it's as if they got drunk and said some things they shouldn't have. On www.sorryeverybody.com, liberals have posted messages such as, "We're sorry half our country is a bunch of morons." That translates from drunk-speak to English as "Hey, I'm not going down without a fight!" It's as if now, instead of sobering up and apologizing for their indignation, they're just getting drunker in their bitterness.
It's gotten so out of hand, columnist Jay Ambrose recently wrote that liberals' lack of tolerance for conservative or moderate ideas amounts to "New McCarthyism."
That is an ironic choice of words, because the phrase is usually used to describe radical liberals being visited by Secret Service agents, investigating reports of "Un-American behavior." If liberals are so intolerant that someone would flip "New McCarthyism" around on them, it's a good time to stop and think about it.
In his column, Ambrose wrote about the leftist intellectuals standing up to defend University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. The "mad professor" is most infamous for saying the thousands who died in the World Trade Center on 9-11 were "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolf Eichmann, who helped Hitler exterminate Jews during World War II.
While many were initially offended by the comparison, when one looks at Churchill's essay, to place his statements in context, his argument is nothing new: "the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved," he said, to the "mighty engine of profit." That doesn't seem too hard to swallow. The same thing happened with the British, French and Spanish back in their heyday.
If capitalism drives war, maybe it's just one small step to imply that those who work for "The Man" are guilty by association.
Most people I know who have asked themselves this question don't want to answer it, so they get up and fix themselves something to eat. I guess Churchill was hoping to preempt the snack attack by tossing the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.
Unfortunately, that use of hyperbolic rhetoric tainted the credibility of his entire argument and of anyone defending him.
Granted, Churchill is entitled to his opinion, and others are entitled to debate him; that's how things work in the marketplace of ideas. But should he be fired from his job?
If Churchill wasn't fired for his views, what about DePaul University professor Thomas Klocek? He was suspended without a university hearing after he debated against students who believed Israel is Nazi-like toward the Palestinians. Many believe Klocek was fired for not fitting into the cookie-cutter mold of what a liberal is "supposed to believe."
Why does it seem as though left-wing radicals are more entitled to their opinion than those on the right -or even in the middle?
A lot of radical opinions are more emotional than they are intelligent. It's easy to get emotional about things such as tyranny and war, but those who argue about it in public must understand the role they play in the big picture. When they let emotion drive their arguments, they're accidentally using one of the techniques Hitler used to rally support behind the Third Reich.
It is possible to engage the public's humanity without appealing to its emotions. Liberals hate to admit it, but President Bush does that all the time. We need to follow Bush's example and bring our political discussion back down to the level we can talk about at the dinner table, not the level that's liable to start a drunken bar brawl.
DePaul school newspaper responds on Klocek controversy
Okay, this is from last week, but I have some catching up to do now that I'm back from California. The DePaulia, in this article, discusses free speech, or more accurately in my opinion, the lack of free speech at DePaul University in Chicago.
It looks like things are starting to stir up at DePaul, according to The DePaulia.
Many petitions are circulating around DePaul’s campus in an attempt to defend the right to free speech. Some students are not even aware of (Klocek's) suspension, but several who are have been getting quite riled up over the event.
Good. Very good.
Now, once again, as far as I know, the Chicago area media, outside of ABC 7 Chicago, WBBM Newsradio 78 (article not archived) and the Chicago Jewish News have completely ignored this story.
And the mainstream media seem stupefied why there are bloggers out there! Would this story have died without blogging?
It looks like things are starting to stir up at DePaul, according to The DePaulia.
Many petitions are circulating around DePaul’s campus in an attempt to defend the right to free speech. Some students are not even aware of (Klocek's) suspension, but several who are have been getting quite riled up over the event.
Good. Very good.
Now, once again, as far as I know, the Chicago area media, outside of ABC 7 Chicago, WBBM Newsradio 78 (article not archived) and the Chicago Jewish News have completely ignored this story.
And the mainstream media seem stupefied why there are bloggers out there! Would this story have died without blogging?
Back in town, more blogging to follow
Hello, got back into town very late late night. The best I could, I've been keeping an eye on DePaul and the Klocek case. San Diego is great family destination (Sea World, the Zoo, Wild Animal Park and more).
Had two epic runs during the trip. (Yes, I really do run marathons). The first from Silver Strand Beach State Park in Imperial Beach, CA south to the Tia Juana Estuary--about a mile north of the international border. That's as far as I dared to go, as there were four helicopters at all times in the air, and a white border patrol pickup truck was racing my way when I turned around. (The estuary, most of which traverses thru Mexico is polluted--another good reason NOT to run further south, as I would've had to have waded though three feet deep filthy water to go further south.)
I ran a total of 12 miles that day.
The second run was two days ago, a 10 miler on the Pacific Crest Trail--a path that begins (0r ends) at the Mexican border and finishes at the Canadian border. I encounter just two people on that run, a Swiss couple who has just started their hike along the entire trail, a 2,600 mile jouney; they expect to finish their quest in 5 or 6 months. Awesome.
Look for more stuff on the Klocek case soon.
Had two epic runs during the trip. (Yes, I really do run marathons). The first from Silver Strand Beach State Park in Imperial Beach, CA south to the Tia Juana Estuary--about a mile north of the international border. That's as far as I dared to go, as there were four helicopters at all times in the air, and a white border patrol pickup truck was racing my way when I turned around. (The estuary, most of which traverses thru Mexico is polluted--another good reason NOT to run further south, as I would've had to have waded though three feet deep filthy water to go further south.)
I ran a total of 12 miles that day.
The second run was two days ago, a 10 miler on the Pacific Crest Trail--a path that begins (0r ends) at the Mexican border and finishes at the Canadian border. I encounter just two people on that run, a Swiss couple who has just started their hike along the entire trail, a 2,600 mile jouney; they expect to finish their quest in 5 or 6 months. Awesome.
Look for more stuff on the Klocek case soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)