104 House members demand firing of Columbia professor

[Mel]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet.....

Columbia professor - Nicholas DeGenova (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/094/region/104_House_members_demand_firin:.shtml)

Excerpt from article :

Nicholas DeGenova, an assistant professor of anthropology at the university, called for the defeat of U.S. forces in Iraq and told an anti-war gathering that he wanted to see ''a million Mogadishus'' a reference to an operation in Somalia in 1993 in which elite U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force units were pinned down in a fierce firefight. Eighteen were killed and 84 wounded.

''The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military,'' DeGenova said, according to reports in Newsday.

---

This really makes my blood boil. This monster is called an educator?

[Supercharts]

His whereabouts is unknown. Apparently he's been receiving death threats.:eek:

[crackmonkey]

Of course, it's up to the university to keep or fire him, but I understand the sentiments.
He doesn't sound very anti-war, does he? He's pro-war, but for the other side.

[Darat]

From the article


...snip...

but they were not made in a classroom

...snip...


So what is the problem? If he said these words in a classroom it would be wrong – politics shouldn’t be brought into school accept as a subject to learn about.

However the USA has a constitution that prevents the Government from removing the right to freedom of speech by citizens, therefore he is entitled to say anything he wants as a private citizen. Isn’t he?

The “right” to free-speech is not about letting people say only things the majority of people want or like to hear - its about letting anyone say whatever they want, without fear of prosecution.

(Yet these government representatives seem to want to limit that right when it is something they don’t like – I would suggest anyone who supports the USA constitution ensures they don’t vote for any of these people again.)

[Peach Jr.]

I don't see the problem here.

Columbia is a private university still, is it not? Congress needs to keep its big fat collective noses out of there.

We still have the rights of protected free speech, do we not? If we do, it could be in (and IMO really is ) in poor taste to say what he did, but not illegal, and not worthy of having him fired. If it had been in a classroom setting, same deal - you'd be amazed at what a professor will say to a captive audience. Again, not illegal (short, of course, of a direct threat to the President of the US).

[aerocontrols]

He excercised his free speech, and will have to live with the consequences.

These members of Congress have now exercised theirs (and note here: They've written a letter, not a law) and will have to deal with the consequences.

People are protected from prosecution (by the government) for their speech, but only governement employees are protected from being fired for their speech (at least by the 1st amendment). If Columbia is in fact a private university, then the 1st amendment protects him from jail, not dismissal. It's quite likely, however, that Columbia has in place a tenure mechanism that protects his ability to say whatever garbage he likes.

MattJ

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
He excercised his free speech, and will have to live with the consequences.

These members of Congress have now exercised theirs (and note here: They've written a letter, not a law) and will have to deal with the consequences.

People are protected from prosecution (by the government) for their speech, but only governement employees are protected from being fired for their speech (at least by the 1st amendment). If Columbia is in fact a private university, then the 1st amendment protects him from jail, not dismissal. It's quite likely, however, that Columbia has in place a tenure mechanism that protects his ability to say whatever garbage he likes.


He is not yet tenured.

I think the US Congresspeople should butt their asses out. They have no businesses writing to any private employer urging the blackballing of someone for expressing unpopular views. Dumbass McCarthyism all over again. We need to remind everyone that McCarthyism was one of the biggest embarrassments in our country's history.

Columbia will deal with him in the manner that they see fit.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I think the US Congresspeople should butt their asses out. They have no businesses writing to any private employer urging the blackballing of someone for expressing unpopular views. Dumbass McCarthyism all over again. We need to remind everyone that McCarthyism was one of the biggest embarrassments in our country's history.


I thought the problem with McCarthyism was that the accusations were false and the accuser was a liar.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I thought the problem with McCarthyism was that the accusations were false and the accuser was a liar.

No, the problem with it was that the government tried to put a stop to what it considered to be subversive thoughts and views.

It is 100% opposed to what the consistution stands for.

[swellman]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I think the US Congresspeople should butt their asses out. They have no businesses writing to any private employer urging the blackballing of someone for expressing unpopular views. Dumbass McCarthyism all over again. We need to remind everyone that McCarthyism was one of the biggest embarrassments in our country's history.

Columbia will deal with him in the manner that they see fit.

So members of Congress should not exercise their 1st amendment rights? Remember, this is not an official action of Congress, just a letter signed by 104 US citizens, albeit highly placed citizens.

[Skeptic]

The firest amendment protects from GOVERNMENT interferiung with people's right for free speech. A PRIVATE organization (like Columbia University) can put any free speech restrictions it wants in place.

I don't know if he should be fired or not--since traditionally at least universities were one of the PRIVATE places where freedom of speech had the widest limits, due to academic and philosophical reasons. But IF he is, it would be Columbia, not Congress, who fires him, and it would be a private matter, not a first amendment issue.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by swellman


So members of Congress should not exercise their 1st amendment rights? Remember, this is not an official action of Congress, just a letter signed by 104 US citizens, albeit highly placed citizens.

I never said they didn't have the right to do so. I just said they have no _business_ doing so. This is a matter for Columbia, a private institution, to handle. Hiring and promotion of faculty is not the public's business.

You know, I hear a lot of people talking about how celebraties should not be making political statements. They will say, yeah, of course they have a right to say them but they are taking advantage of their celebraty status.

How many news outlets would have covered this letter if it had just been 100 citizens from AverageTown, USA? It's the congresspeople using their status to publicize an issue. If you think that this is OK, then I trust you won't complain about hearing a celebrety criticize the war on Larry King.

[swellman]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

I never said they didn't have the right to do so. I just said they have no _business_ doing so.

Point taken. I misunderstood your comment.

This is a matter for Columbia, a private institution, to handle. Hiring and promotion of faculty is not the public's business.

I agree with you here. But I still say if a professor is going to make outrageous statements in a public forum, he should expect criticism. Of course, no one but his employer has the right to decide the consequences, not even Congress.

How many news outlets would have covered this letter if it had just been 100 citizens from AverageTown, USA? It's the congresspeople using their status to publicize an issue. If you think that this is OK, then I trust you won't complain about hearing a celebrety criticize the war on Larry King.

This incident was discussed when it was first made public in http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16519

The letter from the 104 is just piling on a popular issue. It has no bearing on how I view the incident. As to celebrities commenting on the war in the media, I fully support their right to do so. I also have the right to think they are often dimwits parroting something they heard at a party.

[Roadtoad]

(1.) Agreed: the government has NO business sticking it's nose in a private entity's business. The Prof may be an idiot, an *******, an imbecile, but he's Columbia's problem. Not ours.

(2.) I would not vote for any of those 104 congressmen who signed that letter. Yup, there's consequences for your words, and this sort of reverse PC garbage should be treated to the same consequences.

(3.) If I were sending my kid to Columbia, and this clown were still around by the beginning of the next semester, I'd be pulling my kid out of school, and sending him somewhere else. I send my kids to school to learn, not to be indoctrinated. I don't care which side of the political fence we're talking about.

(4.) Dr. DeGenova is getting death threats? Sorry about that. Hope they catch the people making them. But, if you're going to shoot your mouth off, you'd better expect people to shoot back.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Supercharts
His whereabouts is unknown. Apparently he's been receiving death threats.:eek:

True, true. The lad has gone into hiding.

Basically what the professor did was spit in the faces of US Special Forces troops, the last people on this planet that you want to piss off. :eek:

Institutions of leftist hate like the Columbia University academia do that. This time, however, the battle they chose wasn't a very smart one, in my opinion. Pissing on the graves of soldiers and then telling everyone it is raining is really bad, bad business.

JK

[Scorpy]

How should we view people who exercise their right to free speech by demanding the punishment of a person because he exercised his right to free speech? :confused:

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The firest amendment protects from GOVERNMENT interferiung with people's right for free speech. A PRIVATE organization (like Columbia University) can put any free speech restrictions it wants in place.

I don't know if he should be fired or not--since traditionally at least universities were one of the PRIVATE places where freedom of speech had the widest limits, due to academic and philosophical reasons. But IF he is, it would be Columbia, not Congress, who fires him, and it would be a private matter, not a first amendment issue.
Wrong-o. You are apparently quite ignorant of the current concepts and practices of academic freedom in American academia.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(1.) Agreed: the government has NO business sticking it's nose in a private entity's business. The Prof may be an idiot, an *******, an imbecile, but he's Columbia's problem. Not ours.


He is Columbia's problem. 104 members of congress signed a letter calling on his firing. Its Columbia's choice whether or not to do it. Notice, congress is not firing him, the choice is still Columbia's.


(2.) I would not vote for any of those 104 congressmen who signed that letter. Yup, there's consequences for your words, and this sort of reverse PC garbage should be treated to the same consequences.


You wouldn't vote for them for using their bully pulpit to put pressure on Columbia to remove a staff member who said he wanted to see his fellow countrymen die violently? This isnt reverse political correctness.


(3.) If I were sending my kid to Columbia, and this clown were still around by the beginning of the next semester, I'd be pulling my kid out of school, and sending him somewhere else. I send my kids to school to learn, not to be indoctrinated. I don't care which side of the political fence we're talking about.


It was at an anti-war rally and not in the classroom. Attending a rally is voluntary indoctrination.


(4.) Dr. DeGenova is getting death threats? Sorry about that. Hope they catch the people making them. But, if you're going to shoot your mouth off, you'd better expect people to shoot back.
I doubt anyone has threatened in seriousness to kill him, probably just threatened to whip his lily ass. Probably a good idea.

[Advocate]

I think the people who need to let Columbia know what they think of this guy are the alumni donors. This is a private institution and money talks. I'd say if a few major donors decided to let Columbia know they don't like him then he will be gone.

[arcticpenguin]

Columbia will have to come up with legitimate reasons to fire him. There are rules to follow, and I trust you all understand the benefit of free inquiry. Probably the easise thing would be for Columbia to drug him and take compromising photos of him with an under-aged sexual partner.

[Advocate]

As I recall his position is not tenured. I think they could simply not renew his contract. Unless there is some law protecting non-government employees from firing there. I know here in Florida he could be fired. If he was tenured that would be different. Fortunately he is not.

[corplinx]

I live in a right to hire/right to fire state. Be much easier to can someone like that here.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Columbia will have to come up with legitimate reasons to fire him. There are rules to follow, and I trust you all understand the benefit of free inquiry. Probably the easise thing would be for Columbia to drug him and take compromising photos of him with an under-aged sexual partner.

I don't think the guy should be fired--but he should apologize to the soldiers for what he said.

The professor doesn't need to be fired and moved somewhere else where he can terrorize others with his leftist poison. He needs to stay with the other leftist storm troopers at Columbia where he belongs. Columbia University is part of the evil empire.

JK

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Advocate
As I recall his position is not tenured. I think they could simply not renew his contract. Unless there is some law protecting non-government employees from firing there. I know here in Florida he could be fired. If he was tenured that would be different. Fortunately he is not.
His position is listed as assistant professor. That means he is tenure-track, but is not yet tenured. I would suspect if the university fires him they would have to give a reason, and there is a list of which reasons are considered valid.

I mentioned in another thread the case of Barbara Foley, a Communist asst. prof in the English dept. at Northwestern a while ago. Some of the stupid things she did and said interfered with the free speech rights of others, and the University used this as grounds for not giving her tenure. Academic freedom cuts both ways. It doesn't appear that the present case would meet the same criteria, although I'm sure someone at Columbia is going over the fine print very carefully.

[arcticpenguin]

AAUP statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure (http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm)

[Roadtoad]

Corplinx:

He is Columbia's problem. 104 members of congress signed a letter calling on his firing. Its Columbia's choice whether or not to do it. Notice, congress is not firing him, the choice is still Columbia's.

Well, so far, we agree... :D

You wouldn't vote for them for using their bully pulpit to put pressure on Columbia to remove a staff member who said he wanted to see his fellow countrymen die violently? This isnt reverse political correctness.

I stand corrected on correctness.

However, it seems to me Congress has better things to do with its time than play thought police. Personally, if the decision were mine, I'd have fired him right from the start simply for discrediting the university by his vile actions and words. Near as I can tell, in may places, that's still something for which you can be terminated. I know I can be.

It was at an anti-war rally and not in the classroom. Attending a rally is voluntary indoctrination.

I'd be real surprised if what he said at an anti-war rally doesn't also come out in his classroom.

I doubt anyone has threatened in seriousness to kill him, probably just threatened to whip his lily ass. Probably a good idea.

I'd like to. :D

BTW: My son is due home from the Gulf within the next couple of days. This may be the end of his military career. I'm of mixed emotions about it. I'll let you know later what's up.

[bva]

I wonder why Nicholas doesnt stand up for his convictions? I wish he would stand and face the adversity. Be a strong man and support his strong views. Hey if he feels so strongly then he should stop teaching and march the earth state to state, street to street, door to door sharing his views :) He is a jellyfish. Im sure threre is a rape room with his name on it somewhere in the wild blue yonder..

[shecky]

Originally posted by bva
I wonder why Nicholas doesnt stand up for his convictions? I wish he would stand and face the adversity. Be a strong man and support his strong views. Hey if he feels so strongly then he should stop teaching and march the earth state to state, street to street, door to door sharing his views :) He is a jellyfish. Im sure threre is a rape room with his name on it somewhere in the wild blue yonder..

I think it's kinda cheap to criticize him for looking out for his own health. Even in jest.

There's a difference between declaring a unpopular view and cramming it down the throat of the unsympathetic. Asking someone to be brave is different from asking someone to be reckless. After all, this would be like calling a abortion performing doctor a coward for not going door to door in the bible belt advertising the fact. An act liable to cause bodily harm up to and including death.

Apparently, congress has no more quasi-French items to rename, so politically incorrect academics are next on the list. :rolleyes:

[Peach Jr.]

Originally posted by Advocate
As I recall his position is not tenured. I think they could simply not renew his contract. Unless there is some law protecting non-government employees from firing there. I know here in Florida he could be fired. If he was tenured that would be different. Fortunately he is not.

I believe that if a professor is not tenured, the university can let them go whenever they want. Since he doesn't appear to have tenure yet, Columbia will most likely let him go.

I still stand by what I said earlier - Congress should get back to the business of running the country and keep their damn noses out of a private institution.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Scorpy
How should we view people who exercise their right to free speech by demanding the punishment of a person because he exercised his right to free speech? :confused:

I have viewed them as butting in where they don't belong.

If Joe Leftist Celebrity came out in support of him, I wonder how many would be falling all over themselves to cry that no one cares what celebrities think and that they are just using their status to push their views.

That's what the congresspeople are doing here.

They have a right, like all other citizens, to voice their opinion to the university. OTOH, when other citizens do so, we don't have new outlets reporting it.

Columbia will chose to do what they will. Not the public's decision. Hiring and promotion policy is not and cannot be based on public opinion.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by bva
I wonder why Nicholas doesnt stand up for his convictions? I wish he would stand and face the adversity. Be a strong man and support his strong views. Hey if he feels so strongly then he should stop teaching and march the earth state to state, street to street, door to door sharing his views :) He is a jellyfish. Im sure threre is a rape room with his name on it somewhere in the wild blue yonder..

Or not.

In all seriousness, I agree that he's a boorish and vulgar pig, and that he's proven himself a moral and intellectual microbe, but I'm not about to waste my time and breath arguing with someone like that. Why bother? People are figuring out that he's a loser on their own.

And as to Congress, maybe they ought to quit butting their noses into Columbia's business and get back to dealing with their own. Like maybe working on this current budget. (Of course, this assumes they can balance their own checkbooks, so they might manage to balance the nation's...)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by bva
I wonder why Nicholas doesnt stand up for his convictions? I wish he would stand and face the adversity. Be a strong man and support his strong views. Hey if he feels so strongly then he should stop teaching and march the earth state to state, street to street, door to door sharing his views :) He is a jellyfish. Im sure threre is a rape room with his name on it somewhere in the wild blue yonder..

Or not.

In all seriousness, I agree that he's a boorish and vulgar pig, and that he's proven himself a moral and intellectual microbe, but I'm not about to waste my time and breath arguing with someone like that. Why bother? People are figuring out that he's a loser on their own.

And as to Congress, maybe they ought to quit butting their noses into Columbia's business and get back to dealing with their own. Like maybe working on this current budget. (Of course, this assumes they can balance their own checkbooks, so they might manage to balance the nation's...)