As much of the world recently watched footage of assaults on journalists and protesters in Egypt, America's academics received word of a danger to their own free expression. Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science and sociology at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, was getting death threats from followers of Glenn Beck, the conservative commentator.
Although Mr. Beck has never directly urged his followers to menace Ms. Piven, he has frequently been subjecting the leftist scholar to tirades on Fox News and his widely syndicated radio show. He has called her an "enemy of the Constitution" and one of the "nine most dangerous people in the world," and accused her of trying to destroy the economy and incite violence. The anonymous threats that his followers made against the 78-year-old scholar took the form of since-deleted posts in the comment field of one of his Web sites, The Blaze.
Commenters wrote: "I am all for violence and change Frances: Where do your loved ones live?"; "We should blow up Piven's office and home."; "Maybe they should burst through the front door of this arrogant elitist and slit the hateful cow's throat."
Like those who have sought to link the recent shootings in Tucson, Ariz., to the right's harshest rhetoric, many prominent academics have declared that the threats against Ms. Piven signal that the level of debate in America has deteriorated so badly, and grown so uncivil, that other scholars are in jeopardy, and academic freedom is at risk. Calls for Mr. Beck and Fox News to disavow violence and tone down the commentary have been issued by leaders of the American Association of University Professors, the American Political Science Association, the American Sociological Association, and the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
Sally T. Hillsman, executive officer of the American Sociological Association, said her organization plans to release next week a second statement in defense of Ms. Piven, signed by more than 20 academic groups. The new statement will argue that America's academic community, having often expressed support for persecuted scholars in other nations, is obliged to speak out when those in the United States face attack.
In an interview this week, Ms. Piven said she also has received obscene or otherwise vitriolic e-mails and phone calls. But it is the threats against her that drew the attention of newspapers such as The New York Times and The Observer of London, and that have been cited by those declaring that Mr. Beck has gone too far. In one statement issued this month, Cary Nelson, president of the AAUP, characterized Ms. Piven as the victim of "what nearly amounts to an American fatwa" as a result of Mr. Beck's "virulent attacks."
Trading Accusations
For his part, Mr. Beck has denied any responsibility for the threats against the scholar. In a response to a New York Times story on the controversy, he said on one of his shows, "Let me just say this: I am against violence in all cases." He reiterated his view that Ms. Piven herself has used violent rhetoric by, for example, recently writing an article for The Nation calling for a protest movement by the unemployed that, to be effective, would have to look like recent student protests in England (which have turned violent), or "like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union."
Fox News has similarly denied culpability. In response to a letter from officials of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil-rights organization, that accused Mr. Beck of "recklessly endangering" Ms. Piven with an incendiary "campaign of misinformation," Dianne Brandi, Fox News's executive vice president for legal and business affairs, wrote back that Mr. Beck denounces violence, defends the free-speech rights of Ms. Piven and others, and has based his criticisms of the scholar on her own words. Noting that the center had publicly disseminated its letter via a news release, Ms. Brandi said, "we doubt this is a sincere effort on your part to stop hostile public speech, but rather an attempt to create ill will for our company."
The scholarly association leaders rallying around Ms. Piven seem disinclined to let Mr. Beck or Fox News off the hook. While emphasizing that they strongly support the free exchange of ideas, they argue that reasonable debate requires tolerance and civility, and cannot occur where people are personally vilified.
In the statement they issued last month, officers of the American Sociological Association accused Mr. Beck of engaging in "plain demagoguery" rather than any serious discussion of issues. "While it is true that death threats are generally only a form of extremist rhetoric," the statement said, "they indicate an overheated emotional atmosphere that researchers on collective violence call 'the hysteria zone.' It is a zone in which deranged individuals can be motivated to real violence against those targeted by demagoguery." The statement invoked the shootings in Tucson as an example "of how abundant, polarizing rhetoric by political leaders and commentators can spur mass murder."
Occupational Hazard?
It is worth noting that Ms. Piven is hardly the first American academic to get a death threat over scholarship or ideas (as opposed to threats from people with some sort of personal grudge).
Among the many others, the renowned philosopher Herbert Marcuse felt compelled to call the FBI and flee his home after getting a threat signed "Ku Klux Klan" while teaching at the University of California at San Diego in 1968. Ward Churchill reported receiving more than 100 death threats in response to controversial statements he made about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks while an ethnic-studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Murray Sperber, now a visiting professor in the graduate school of education at the University of California at Berkeley, got death threats for criticizing Bobby Knight, the basketball coach, while working at Indiana University. Many scholars involved in controversial research, such as that involving live animals, soon discover that death threats come with the territory.
It is also worth keeping in mind that not every reported "death threat" to a scholar actually is one. Many scholars have reported getting death threats based on hearing statements like "I hope you die an early death," which, while uncivil, hardly amount to explicit warnings of intent to do bodily harm.
The last time the AAUP issued a statement denouncing threats was in defense of Salman Rushdie, in 1989. Considering how often American scholars have previously reported death threats without a public outcry, a question arises: Why are academic associations speaking out against such intimidation now?
Technology might be a factor. As Carole Pateman, president of the American Political Science Association, noted in a letter sent to Mr. Beck and his bosses, "In an era of electronic communication, insults, intimidation, and threats are easy to broadcast." Besides making it easier to send anonymous threats, the Internet is distributing provocative scholarly speech to millions who had little access to it before, including those with little training in civil discourse.
Ms. Piven's prominence in academe also might have played a role in generating support for her. Of the scholarly groups that have issued statements on her behalf, she is a past vice president of the political-science association, and a past president of both the sociological association and the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
She has gone on the offensive, frequently discussing her situation in the news media. In an interview last month with The Guardian, she characterized the uproar surrounding the threats as "an opportunity to rein in Fox News and Glenn Beck" and "to assert the value of the politics we stand for." Asked this week to elaborate, she said she wanted to see Mr. Beck pressured to practice journalism more responsibly, but she is mainly out to do something about "the way the right-wing media has demonized advocates of the poor."
Barks and Bites
Ms. Piven reported the threats against her to the local police and the FBI. Security guards have been posted in her classroom. It is unclear, however, just how much danger she is in.
Although it is rare for American scholars to be physically attacked for their ideas, it happens. David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University, was almost killed in 1993 by a mail bomb sent by the Unabomber, who was motivated by opposition to technology. Richard Flacks, a research professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, was an associate professor at the University of Chicago in 1969 when someone apparently opposed to his support for leftist student protesters walked into his office and beat him so savagely that he has never fully recovered from the injuries.
Neither Mr. Gelernter nor Mr. Flacks received threats before the assaults on them, however. In fact, about the only scholars who have been attacked by people who previously threatened them for ideological reasons are those whose research is opposed by radical environmental or animal-rights activists. And so far, it has been their property, and not their persons, that have been attacked, although the activists' use of arson certainly risks causing bodily harm.
Aries W. Kruglanski, a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland at College Park and an expert on terrorism, says people who make death threats on their own seldom act on them. The threat itself usually is how they lash out, he says. The people who make good on threats are generally those associated with groups of like-minded people, who reinforce their thinking and offer them support.
J. Reid Meloy, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Diego who has extensively studied attacks on public figures, says a 1995 Secret Service study of post-1950 assassination attempts in the United States, as well as his own similar study in 2007 of attacks on public figures in Europe, found that none of the targets were threatened by their attackers beforehand. "Typically, hunters don't threaten," he says.
Thus the good news for scholars who receive death threats is that the threateners are unlikely to act. The bad news is that any attack on them is likely to come without any warning.
Comments
1. gharbisonne - February 11, 2011 at 05:32 am
In return for expessing for what are generally mainstream conservative views, and for working to help pass an anti racial/ gender preferences initiative, I have been harassed by local leftist activiists, who created a malicious and libelous blog about me, stalked me and my family, posted personal details about me on local political blogs, lied about my teaching on these blogs, etc.. Not a peep from the local AAUP chapter. So color me unimpresssed. If anyone has threatened Ms. Piven, they should be prosecuted. As for the rest, that's just the normal hurly-burly of American politics these days. What she preaches is a little uncivil; it seems a bit odd to complain when the uncivility is returned in kind.
2. gharbisonne - February 11, 2011 at 06:42 am
Mr Schmidt might also have mentioned the bombing of the office of historian William Bundy at MIT. Oh, but that was actually carried out by a member of the professoriate, Bill Ayers, later professor of education at U of I Chicago. And then there was Angela Davis.
That's a pretty tendentious little article you've written there, Mr Schmidt.
3. medendo - February 11, 2011 at 07:26 am
Let me see if I understand this correctly. In the interest of protecting Ms. Piven's freedom of expression (which inculdes calls to violence), the American Association of University Professors, the American Political Science Association,the American Sociological Association, and the Society for the Study of Social Problems are asking Glen Beck to curtail his . . . freedom of expression (which has not, to date, included calls to violence)? I think Glen Beck is a nutcase, but I also know hypocrisy when I see it. I feel sorry for Ms. Piven, no one should be subject to that type of threat, but I will give more credence to these sanctimonious proclamations when I see these organizations stride out in defence of a conservative subject to the same treatment.
4. drhypersonic - February 11, 2011 at 07:26 am
I concur oncur with 1 and 2. If Ms. Piven has indeed been threatened, and has gone to law enforcement authorities, then presumably an investigation is underway and culprits will be sought and, hopefully, run to ground. But it is curious that it is the left that is the most violent within the academy, and then protests the loudest when their advocacy is questioned, even in the slightest. The only academics that I am aware of that have been killed on American campuses by terrorist violence were killed by the left--remember--and mourn--the University of Wisconsin math student,anyone? Tendentious little article indeed...one-sided, too...
5. feudi - February 11, 2011 at 07:59 am
Glenn Beck, Ward Churchill, Limbaugh, Chomsky, nutcases all. The sad part is that the nutcases are given so much more attention in the media than any of them deserve. All that does is drive up the temperature...and the ratings.
6. tenstring - February 11, 2011 at 08:07 am
The right-wing defenders of demogoguery can be counted on to rear their heads on the Chronicle comments page. The Oklahoma City bombing seems like a significant right-wing act against the federal government that should be mentioned. And Mr. Schmidt overlooked the briefly famous incident involving Religious Studies prof Paul Mirecki at the University of Kansas, who was assaulted and battered for commenting on the right-wing religious fundamentalists who have been forcing their views on people for quite some time now. http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/node/10447 And, one may recall the murder of Alan Berg, the Denver talk show icon murdered for his anti-KKK crusade on air in the 1980s. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12615628 I'm certain there are many more examples of right-wing violence. The right is much more powerful than the left in the U.S., and much more prone to violence. It is a testiment to the left's general advocacy of peace that there aren't more acts of violence in this country where leftist voices are rather hard to find on the airwaves.
7. livefreeordie2 - February 11, 2011 at 09:03 am
I agree with Gharbisonne. It's pretty much a hoot that Schmidt and others are all over Beck when it's been Piven that's been calling for violence for 40 years plus. And let's remember, the quotes that he uses to validate the death threats came from two anonymous commenters on that Beck web site. Personally, I think it's just as likely that a leftist put up both of those quotes precisely to be able to make the kinds of claims about violence that are being made. As drhypersonic alluded to, the vast majority of violence over the last 50 years has come from the left. And Piven herself encourages it! Beck, on the other hand, has always condemned violence. Yeah. . . sorry. This isn't just hypocracy - it sounds more like a put-up job. After all, isn't that the foundation of what Piven advocates? Overwhelm the system until it collapses? Not much of a jump backwards from that to a couple of scam blog comments posted by some of her adherents.
8. periniuf - February 11, 2011 at 09:14 am
Amen to comments from #1 thru #4! And #7, now that I can see it as I type this. Chickens coming home to roost! Hey, wasn't that Obama's "religious guide" who said that?
9. thelastrubin - February 11, 2011 at 09:30 am
Piven does not encourage violence; she encourages the collective mobilization of poor and typically "voiceless" sectors of society who lack the ability or resources to give their needs "voice."
10. cdwickstrom - February 11, 2011 at 09:39 am
The political voices at the extremes will always dominate when there is no strong and reasoned voice for the "middle ground". There was a time in this country when the terms "liberal Republican" and "conservative Democrat" were not oxymoronic. At least part of the problem can be traced to the decline in willingness to participate in the political debate by the "vast middle", a lack of commitment to statemanship and reasoned discourse, and a failure to understand that social problems demand solutions that very frequently cannot be chosen and implemented within one congressional election cycle. In this situation, the shrill calls from the far edges at both extremes demanding "immediate action" will continue to dominate.
11. 22067030 - February 11, 2011 at 09:47 am
Um, not to be critical of Ms. Piven, but she responds to threats inspired by a talk show host by giving interviews to newspapers? We know very well that if Mark Twain had been similarly treated by Beck, he would challenge Beck to a debate live on Fox.
Of course, Beck is one of the best performance artists alive (Twain was better, but he's dead), so Piven may be wise in keeping her distance. Perhaps, like Charles Darwin, she could find a bulldog, much as Darwin had Thomas Huxley.
The point is: neither the Times nor the Guardian (nor the Nation, for that matter) are reaching the marginalized people Piven wants to help. Beck is. And if Beck unwittingly offers her a soapbox, she should grab it.
-----GLMcColm
12. trendisnotdestiny - February 11, 2011 at 10:02 am
@ feudi
"Glenn Beck, Ward Churchill, Limbaugh, Chomsky, nutcases all."
This is moronic... Equating two media whores with scholars?
Chomsky has done more before breakfast than anyone here combined over their whole career. I must have missed the class on bullshit that equates a Phd in linguistics from Penn (tenured at MIT) with media figures who specialize in white male privileged disinformation.
Then it wouldn't surprise me if you weren't paid to troll these blogging sites to provoke these types of bizarre comparisons
13. supertatie - February 11, 2011 at 10:13 am
@thelastrubin: "collective mobilization"? Oh, is that what we're calling it now?
Fox Piven's own writings compare favorably what she is advocating to the protests in Europe, which included the destruction of buildings, deliberately-set fires, the immolation of innocent people, and other physical violence.
Nor is Fix Piven alone; she is part of a very long tradition. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Jong-il, Mao, and Pol Pot have all had their apologists in this country: Duranty, Penn, Stone, Churchill (Ward, not Winston), Dunn, and a host of other "useful idiots."
This is the way the Left has always worked: Leftist-Statist ideologies always justify violence, and suffering, and starvation, and death on a widespread scale - because they are for the greater good, you see. So, violence is to be decried when it is one person doing it or threatening it, but embraced when hundreds or thousands of people are behind it, and apologized for when millions of people endure it.
And their tried-and-true tactic in this psy-ops campaign is to characterize righteous indignation as murderous rage.
Defend ideologies which resulted in the slaughter of millions in the name of "the poor"? You're a victim and a hero. Castigate someone who defends ideologies which resulted in the slaughter of millions in the name of "the poor"? You're a nutcase and a threat.
Don't take my word for it, ask your patron saint, Bill Ayers.
This would be boring, if it were not so pervasive and, regrettably, so effective.
14. jaysanderson - February 11, 2011 at 10:15 am
Ms. Piven has the right (and the forum) to express her view that violent protest is a good idea for the unemployed. She has the right, but that doesn't make it the correct thing to do. It's foolish for anyone to promote such nonsense and not expect some nuts to come out of the woodwork. I have found that there is no shortage of crazy either on the right or the left of the political spectrum.
Violence is always the least desirable option, and ordinary people always seem to suffer the most in any "revolution", whether from the right or left.
15. alvitap - February 11, 2011 at 10:19 am
The fact that Beck continues to express the Nazi sentiments of the US on national TV demonstrates that Nazis are in control of the Media. Piven is not our enemy, Beck's slobbery-little-boy comments are stupid. That's the right word: stupid. He is leading his pack of supportive stupids to their suicidal confrontations with like-minded stupids, armed to their deaths. Who knows what he says? Did he flunk out of social studies in the Eighth grade? Does he think that human rights is an abomination? Does he wish we had millions more people on a par with the wretched of the earth? Who gives him his welfare check? Nazi bloat meister!!!!
16. physicsprof - February 11, 2011 at 10:40 am
The right-wing apologism is troubling. How can one compare educated, progressive, and enlightened expression from Prof. Pavin with uneducated, backward, and ignorant ranting from Mr. Beck? There is nothing wrong with curbing Mr. Beck's freedom of expression that might motivate his followers to commit act of violence.
17. 11232247 - February 11, 2011 at 10:41 am
Could someone please tell me who is Frances Fox Priven and why I should give a whit about whatever it is she might think? Much like the cited academic fraud Ward Chuchill, Ms. Priven seems famous simply because she is a recently discovered, and dare I add, very ordinary, leftist nobody.
That aside, I am still not entirely clear on how the Glenn Beck detractors (include Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Morris, Hannity, Bozell, Terrill, Diane West, the players and coaches of the Green Bay Packers, etc, etc, etc...) propose to censure him and yet still remain faithful the US Constitution. Or does that matter?
18. davi2665 - February 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
physicsprof: If curbing Mr. Beck's freedom of expression that "might" motivate his followers to commit acts of violence is OK, then the Marxist drivel that issues forth from most of our left wing "scholars" should be equally curtailed due to the fact that support of such actions as "collective mobilization" might also motivate followers (as has happened in Europe and elsewhere) to commit acts of violence. This is the typical collectivist authoritarian agenda- censor anyone who does not agree with the political rhetoric de jour. It is interesting how pointed and extensive the attacks on Fox News have been since the annointed one has come onto the political scene. FOX is one of the few voices for common sense that can see through the fog of endless deficits, out of control spending, and boondoggles for cronies that has been ushered in during the past couple of years.
19. oldsport - February 11, 2011 at 11:16 am
I was wondering, did I clink onto the wrong page? I thought I was reading Academe Today, not a right wing rant blog! Wow, where has the academiy gone?
20. paprieto - February 11, 2011 at 11:23 am
Equating Noam Chomsky with Beck illustrates how low the level of the discurse is. While one may diagree with some of the more conspiratorial aspects of Chomsky´s explanations of the sad current state of affairs, he has undeniable contributions to the field of linguistics and in a gentle and deeply docummented fashion has allerted the public on the attrocities of the extreme left and the extreme right. His opposition to the occupation of Palestine has brought him criticism from all sorts of camps. He has condemened violence and does not use insult as an ordinary tool. The values of the Constitution are being challenged by people who subside to the instant gratification that violence provides. Mark Twain challenging somebody to appear in Fox. He was a man of letters he would have chosen PBS. Well...he is dead isn´t he? There is no way we can make a reasonable guess on what he would do unless we deeply understand his life and works and yet we would only be able to make a reasonable inference. That would be schollarly work.
21. drspektor - February 11, 2011 at 11:28 am
I agree with oldsport. Apparently the GOP has now hired trolls to infiltrate the boards here at The Chronicle. How can any sane person defend glen beck?? or limbaugh?? What I cannot fathom is how these people ever get to the point where anyone actually listens to their nuttiness.
This sort of nonsense is why I work so hard to teach politics and governemtn to high school and jr. high students. I am hoping that the upcoiming generation will have better information at their disposal, and will at least have an inkling as to what constitutes reasoned debate in a civil society - which hopefully can be regained.
22. physicsprof - February 11, 2011 at 11:57 am
GOP hiring to infiltrate esteemed boards at The Chronicle? If it is not paranoia, where should I go to get hired?
23. loriminnite - February 11, 2011 at 11:59 am
For all of those readers posting comments here claiming that Frances Fox Piven advocates violence (and I refer to comments by people who appear to believe she thinks "violent protest is a good idea for the unemployed," or who say things like, "it's been Piven that's been calling for violence for 40 years plus,"): would you please provide the evidence of these claims? Or is it that you think the massing of people on its own is violence, or that demonstrations and protests are violence, or that civil disobedience is violence? I am a friend and co-author of Piven's. I have been reading and monitoring what Glenn Beck and many of his supporters and admirers have said about Piven for more than a year. I would expect readers of The Chronicle of Higher Education to be better informed and to demonstrate a higher level of intellectual integrity than those posting comments to Beck's website, The Blaze. Silly me. If any of you would like to read some of the now deleted violent rhetoric from people who would like to see Piven executed, please email me at lminnite@gmail.com. Think about how you'd feel if these comments were pointed at you and then we can have a civil discussion about freedom of speech. That these losers are not likely to pick up a gun against Piven provides little comfort at time when a congresswoman can be gunned down at a "meet and greet" in a shopping center parking lot.
Lori Minnite
24. 22235933 - February 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Most of the comments here are ridiculous. The Right gets upset when someone advocates violence and disorder in support of some agenda that the so-called Left is pushing. The Left gets upset when someone advocates violence and disorder in support of some agenda the so-called Right is pushing. Violence and disorder or the threat of violence and disorder is the ONLY way to generate significant attention to facilitate fundamental change in social order. Name me ONE social movement that created significant social change that happened without violence and disorder. If you disagree with Fox-Piven, then call her out, fight against her. If you disagree with Beck, then call him out, fight against him. But for Fox to cry foul and hide behind so-called Academic Freedom is ludicrous. Have the courage of your convictions. Attack Beck in kind and offer to debate him live - challenge him! And for Beck to cry foul and hide behind his so-called Free Speech rights is ludicrous as well. Have the courage of your convictions. Debate her one on one if you dare instead of creating illogical strawmen to savage. Challenge her if you are so confident in your idealism and intellectual superiority!
A pox on both of you and this is coming from someone who cherishes "Regulating the Poor" by Fox and Cloward.
25. 11272784 - February 11, 2011 at 12:33 pm
In reverence to "Glenn Beck, Ward Churchill, Limbaugh, Chomsky, nutcases all", trendisnotdestiny says "This is moronic... Equating two media whores with scholars?"
I've watched the drama around Churchill (aka: Plagiarism R'Us), and I count three media whores, only two of whm get paid for it. Chomsky is the only one that might be exempted from that label.
But anyone can reasonably ask: why the death threats whenever someone is singled out for criticism by the right-wing?
26. 11272784 - February 11, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I'm laughing at my own typo....make that "In reference to..."
Definitely worth a chuckle!
27. lisalita - February 11, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Peter Wood's commentary on this issue was far superior to this predictable piece.
28. 11234296 - February 11, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Robert Fassnacht was the young researcher killed at the University of Wisconsin. Rhetoric is a gift that, too often, is misused. Can we all reduce the amount of emotion and look for a way to find solutions together? Conservative and Liberal alike?
29. lost_angeleno - February 11, 2011 at 01:01 pm
Still in denial about the rise of the third wave of American Fascism. Dishonest, and sad. No historical perspective here, where there realy should be. Corporate funded, delusional, right wing nutjobs persecuting the weakest of their opponents. That's Fascism in its purest form (Mussolini, early Hitler, Franco, Peron. Fast forward to McCarthy/McCarran/Dies; Nixon; now America's third wave: the corporate backed teabaggers, Fox Fascist Propaganda channel, Rush "The Dope Fiend" Lamebawl, and crazy televangelist Beck.)
Welcome to the new reality--American governed by screeching, banana republic Fascists, persecuting the weak, the old, the intellectual. I've seen this all before in my life, lived thought it all, and I know what I'm seeing arise again. I'm glad I'm old too, and won't have to see the full arc of the precipitous decline of Amerikkka under these ignorant, insane fools. From time to time, it was a good country. Was.
30. westernfields - February 11, 2011 at 01:08 pm
What's with the paranoid persecutory complex? Is it not possible that there are actually non-leftists working at institutions of higher education who read The Chronicle on a daily basis? Are center-right (to far right) professors who are incensed at this grotesque one-sided libel prohibited from commenting? Is academia the sole purview of liberal demagogues? No, no, no, any dissent clearly comes from an outside campaign. Is the liberal sanctum sanctorum (higher education) getting "infiltrated" with Right leaning professors? It's unthinkable!
The skiddish commentary reveals the predominant political homogeneity of professorialship. But alas, I continue to be impressed by the ability of the "enlightened" educators to simultaneously speak from both sides of their mouth: "Don't tell us what we can and cannot say in the Ivory Tower. For if we advocate civil unrest and disobedience, we are admirable and courageous; silence, ye vile conservative professors, administrators and political pundits. Your campaign for civil unrest and disobedience is foolhearty and anti-intellectual. I hate you for your hatefulness! Criticism is only sound when we speak it!!!"
In any case, I expect an article to be written on the hateful rhetoric of leftists and the death threats toward members of the Right to get published next week. We wouldn't want to think that this is a one sided forum...
No doubt Piven will buy herself some 80% cocoa bars (100% natural, of course) and soothe herself with a marathon of Bill Maher and The View episodes tonight. The question remains, will she invite you other enlightened folk to party-hard with her tonight?
31. physicsprof - February 11, 2011 at 01:17 pm
#29, early Hitler was a rightist? You have no knowledge of history. From his May 1927 speech:
-- "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak,..."
From NSDAP program:
-- "The abolition of incomes unearned by work."
-- "We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts)."
-- "We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises."
-- "We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
Besides, Hitler borrowed the idea of 5-year ecomonic planning from Stalin.
32. gsawpenny - February 11, 2011 at 01:21 pm
Chomsky = brilliant
Limbaugh = gifted comedian
Beck = radio talk show host
Ward Churchill = fake academic (and all that is wrong with a system that hires people because they fill a unreal gap in the false paradigm of "multiculturism")
Stewart = another gifted comedian
Olbermann = angry sports writer with a nice vocabulary
This is simple, pick the ones you want to be educated by or amused by and dump the rest. With the exception of Chomsky, the other are of average education and limited intellect.
33. lost_angeleno - February 11, 2011 at 01:22 pm
Ah the hypocrisy of the Fascist right. Demand the same hateful, incendary tirades from the Left, and then scream at them for being just like Fascists. Sorry, you can fool the great public sheepherd, but you can't fool me.
34. lost_angeleno - February 11, 2011 at 01:24 pm
Hitler: Red Fascist. Check with someone who knows their political history for a complete definition and explanation.
35. tee_bee - February 11, 2011 at 01:29 pm
Wow. If one only read this thread, without reading the article, one would never, ever get the idea that this conversation were among "scholars." This is no better than the usual discourse in the blogosophere.
And I will make physicsprof a deal: As a political scientist, I won't attempt to describe Newtonian mechanics if you don't try to explain politicial ideology. Although I can say that I'd likely do a better job.
36. physicsprof - February 11, 2011 at 01:38 pm
The difference between Newtonian mechanics and political science is that the former is an exact science while the latter is open to interpretation (=BS). Surely the left would like to disown Lenin and Hitler and would readily twist the evidence, but the facts are simple, both parties had exactly the same name (NSDRP vs NSDAP, with R and A standing for the same word, labor, written in Russian and German) and carbon-copied programs.
37. physicsprof - February 11, 2011 at 01:47 pm
Correction, Lenin's party was RSDRP -- Russian (rather than National) Socialist Democratip Labor Party.
38. jomille19 - February 11, 2011 at 01:47 pm
The Smith College School for Social Work has released a statement of support for Frances Fox Piven that can be found at http://www.smith.edu/ssw/admin/news_flash_fpiven.php
Joshua Miller, Professor
39. azprof - February 11, 2011 at 01:48 pm
When you have a political agenda, you demonize the other side, and call on people to rise up against... oops which side am I talking about?
40. tuxthepenguin - February 11, 2011 at 01:52 pm
Hate to interrupt the nonsense, but the article was about death threats. I must admit, though, that it does expose a commenter when he/she/it equates Limbaugh and Chomsky.
41. westernfields - February 11, 2011 at 02:20 pm
Waddling frozen flightless bird, clearly your concern about death threats will reach beyond that of Piven. Naturally you will condemn anyone who threatens anyone, right? Or will you sit comfortably in your chair when public figures in academic and/or political camps other than yours get harangued for their positions? Finally, what makes a persons commentary valid, the letters after their name? The body of work? Vetted publications in scholarly journal articles? I'm guessing that you must be well published if you expect me to take you seriously (according to your standard, that is). Are you limiting insights to just those housed in academia and lauded by like-minded individuals? What happens when inbreeding occurs over a prolonged period of time? Or is it possible that non-formally educated persons can contribute to critical thought? Careful, you may unwittingly eliminate some pretty important contributers if you denounce this possibility. Is being autodidactic an invalidated dead art? As for me, if someone can present a solid argument, I could give a flying fig about their formal credentials. Maybe that's because I've known enough illogical intellectuals to not put my faith in a title.
42. trendisnotdestiny - February 11, 2011 at 03:02 pm
QUOTE
"Wow. If one only read this thread, without reading the article, one would never, ever get the idea that this conversation were among "scholars." This is no better than the usual discourse in the blogosophere."
Thats the single biggest reason (converstion devolution) that we attribute to the idea that there are paid bloggers here to sell, provoke and gauge opinion in order to shape it..... Let's not be so naive as to think that people who post here are exclusively academics. This would be an error.
43. jmalmstrom - February 11, 2011 at 03:32 pm
I find it curious how the righties come out for any discussion like this and attempt to drown out any other voices. Oh and by the way, before you complain; I'm a retired Navy officer and I was tired of your ideologically driven drivel while I was on active duty.
44. westernfields - February 11, 2011 at 03:55 pm
@jmalmstrom: I find it curious how the lefties come out for any discussion like this and attempt to drown out any other voices. Oh and by the way, before you complain; I'm a current academician and am tired of your ideologically driven drivel that dominates the ivory tower.
45. trendisnotdestiny - February 11, 2011 at 04:07 pm
@ Everyone
To further make a distinction between what a scholar sounds like versus a corporate white male privilege gimmick machine, why not look at some of the past things that Mr. Beck has said and compare them to Fox-Piven's article in the Nation. For those unfamiliar with Beck's work here are a few gems:
7/28/2009 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON OBAMA
1) "This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy with a deep-seeded hatred for white people or white culture.. I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying the guy has a problems. This guy is, I believe a racist."
5/27/2009 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON SONJA SOTOMAYOR
2) "I think she is a racist. I believe she decides things based on race. I think that she says that a Hispanic woman can make decisions that a white man can't make. I can't imagine saying that. That's like saying them Hispanics can't make money decision like them Jews."
4/24/2009 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON AL GORE
3) "Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. Its the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the UN, and everybody on the global warming bandwagon did."
3/10/2009 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON OBAMA & STEM CELL RESEARCH
4) "So here you have Obama going in and spending money on embryonic stem cell research.... Eugenics. In case you don't know what Eugenics led us to: The Final Solution. A Master race... A perfect person... The stuff we are facing now is absolutetly frightening."
4/2/2007 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON WHITENESS
5) "Because if you are a white human that loves American and is a Christian, forget about it jack."
(2005) Glenn Beck QUOTE ON MICHAEL MOORE
6) " I'm think about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill himself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No. I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing the What would Jesus-- band --- do and I have lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say: "Yeah I'd kill Michael Moore, and then I would see this little band (what would Jesus do)? And then I would realize: 'Oh, you would kill Michael Moore or at least you wouldn't choke him to death. And you know now, I'm not sure."
Unknown Date Glenn Beck QUOTE ON IF HE WERE PRESIDENT
7) "The most used phrase in my administration if I were president would be: 'what the hell do you mean we are out of missiles?'
8/15/2005 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON CINDY SHEEHAN
8) "Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut."
6/7/2006 Glenn Beck QUOTE ON MANIPULATING AN AUDIENCE
9) " See, when you take a little bit of truth and mix it with an untruth, or your theory, thats when you get people to believe. You know? Its like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth and then mixed in: 'its the Jews fault'. Thats where things get a little troublesome. And that's exactly what is happening."
3/3/2008 Glenn Beck QUOTE IN RESPONSE TO GLORIA STEINEM
10) " You pinhead. You think we would actually be here and saying: look at the way she is dressed? If she were John McCain.... Stop it! You self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960's because too many people were doing LSD. We are not on LSD anymore---- we need to start making sense."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Limbaugh is no prize either. Here is a smattering of his thoughts:
6/7/2000 LIMBAUGH QUOTE
1) " Have you ever noticed how all the composite pictures of wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson."
8/26/2007 RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTE ON SOUTH AFRICA
2) " Right! So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa to get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Mandela who was bankrolled by the communists at one time, had the support of communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia and do the same thing?"
1/22/2007 RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTE ON THE NFL
3) "Look, let me put it to you this way: 'the NLF all too often looks like a game between the crips and bloods without any weapons. There I said it."
6/7/2000 RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTE ON NAACP
4) "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
7/16/2003 RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTE ON AFRICAN AMERICANS
5) " They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares?"
7/16/2003 RUSH LIMBAUGH QUOTE DURING CALL IN SHOW
6) " {to an African American female caller}: 'take that bone out of nose and call me back.'
6/22/2009 RUSH LIMBAUGH ON OBAMA
7) "Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
RUSH LIMBAUGH RACIST NICKNAMES FOR OBAMA:
a) "Halfrican American"
b) "Affirmative Action Candidate"
c) "Barack the magic Negro"
Equating these racists with genuine scholars like Chomsky and Fox-Piven is an insult to everyone who can walk without their knuckles dragging on the ground.
This is my patronus of the day
Peace
46. jameswilliams123 - February 11, 2011 at 04:22 pm
Down with leftists everywhere, I say. In higher education, they have been largely responsible for the near total erosion of free expression, imposing penalties on those who fail to adhere to politically correct speech.
47. lost_angeleno - February 11, 2011 at 04:36 pm
Around here, the people eroding free speech are the right-wing militarists, imposing penalties on those who fail to adhere to politically right-wing Fascist propaganda speech.
Quite serious. This "university" just appointed a certified member in good standing of the military (Navy Officer)/industrial (Fed bank vice director) complex, and a pc racist, as its CEO. Now if he brings in back-door corporate funding for our institution, we'll have a fully-defined Fascist running our show. Members of our university community really, really, don't like this appointment. But a corporatist Bored of Reagents has the final word.
48. westernfields - February 11, 2011 at 04:53 pm
@trendisnotdestiny. Good for you in posting all those illuminating quotes by Beck and Limbaugh. Really, nothing revelatory here. But I'm curious, are you giving a free pass to the radical left-wing commentators and their call for intolerance? Or, as I've suggested in a previous post, has the intellectual/academic inbreeding of higher education disabled your ability to identify the preposterous suppositions promulgated by your like-minded pundits? Here's a challenge for you (assuming you're up to it): the same energy and time you devoted to copying and pasting quotes from your superficial internet scan, give to radical leftists. My guess is, John Stuart Mill would refuse to debate with you because you've solely focused on one side of the debate. It might also be frightening for you as it will undermine your acerbic castigations of the right. Good luck in keeping the faith.
And your final term employed is shallow since you mean nothing of the kind.
Here's my beef with articles like this one: it's myopic. To leave out all the hateful rhetoric of the left and the threats issued to right leaning members of society is limited in breadth. Don't be brash and say this is a one way street, baby. Do not fail to acknowledge the offenses given within your own home.
49. tcli5026 - February 11, 2011 at 05:24 pm
Regarding many of the comments posted here, Quod erat demonstrandum.
50. inama - February 11, 2011 at 05:24 pm
I rarely comment on Chronicle stories. As a tenured history professor, the ignorance of twentieth century history here is astonishing and revolting.
51. trendisnotdestiny - February 11, 2011 at 06:19 pm
@ westernfields
What is missing in your disingenuous post are some central contextual and cultural facts:
1) Who has the most power to shape consent (left,right center)
2) What function does media, academia play in shaping consent
3) What does the current political context represent
The left has failed institutionally(church, unions, higher education, democratic party and government all have failed the lefts platform over the last 30 years). I say this as someone who starts from the left to advocate only for finding a balance between individual and community needs.
However, what this means practically, that any movement away from current power dynamics results in an amazing backlash with words being used like socialism, communism and anti-business (as if most on the right have forgotten the origins and consequences of the depression)... As a result, we liberals have one domain left that has not completely succumbed to neoliberal finances yet, higher education.
When I read all this trash about liberal media, I laugh because five companies own this space. When I hear about the liberal plague in academia, I am more and more amused as the managerial class, for-profit online institutions embed themselves into the left's last artery and sanctuary.
Your disingenuous post is about self-criticism or calling out the left's rhetoric as a means to be more fair and balanced (John Stuart Mill style). Well, you miss how thoroughly gutted academia has been over the last few decades by corportist interest. Also, you miss how certain forces want to wipe out the left altogether. We see this when our presidential administrations (democratic) are more hostile to progressive groups than Bill O'Reilly.
No, I do not feel the need to make a huge list of all the leftist that say weird and inane things; they do. But, I'll leave this up to someone else. My contribution has been to highlight the differences between our scholars like Chomsky, Giroux, McLaren, Butler, hooks and Fox-Piven who have earned the right (Ph.d) to comment and those who use power's purchased megaphone to chant what noise they know will manipulate an audience for personal gain. There is a big difference between how dominant power and minority resistance works in the economy.
What is amusing is watching this unfold in academia where the dominant class has more been left while the right has been in the minority resisting. What we on the left hear all the time from those in academia on the right is that they are treated unfairly and where is the acceptance of all schools of thought. I winder if the perception of intolerance isn't really a more macro-economic fight as higher education is or was the last place for people on left to be in majority. The idea is that as the mamagerial class takes away our last area of dominance, then the we have little place to go. What the right in academia miss is that the rest of economy suits their politics. What the left miss is that the war to defend our turf in academia was lost a long time ago. Many on the academic left want to harken back to a time that does presently exist. Many on the academic right want to fast forward to a future that isn't sustainable. I genuinely wish their was a way to keep academia dominance to left, but more inclusive to those who differ, but we know that the corporatist mentality has always been to seek more power and more profit.
Westernfields, maybe you could fill the void that is uncovering leftist hateful rhetoric instead of trying to outsource it to me. Since there is so much rhetoric to wade through, I hope you are already tenured....
QUOTE
"And your final term employed is shallow since you mean nothing of the kind."
Actually, one of most consistent truths of the internet is that we rarely get to really know the people we communicate with here. I am reminded that many here really have little understanding of who we are people (just bloggers). In this vein, I will remind you that I get to characterize my salutations and meanings myself. I prefer that you do not edit me here or my meaning.
I write Peace and I mean it.
Peace to all
52. westernfields - February 11, 2011 at 06:41 pm
@trendisdestiny. That was a great post. I appreciated the depth of it and your further explanation. Although I do not agree with it in its entirety, your points were well made. May you have a restful and respectful evening and weekend.
53. trendisnotdestiny - February 11, 2011 at 06:43 pm
to many spelling and grammar mistakes to, too little time
"wonder", "managerial",
54. trendisnotdestiny - February 11, 2011 at 06:49 pm
@ westernfields,
You as well!
55. lost_angeleno - February 11, 2011 at 07:48 pm
inama
Please clarify the history involved for us (especially those of us who lived through the Fascist part of the 20th century).
Everyone will benefit from your vast (or is it half-vast?) knowledge.
56. jchakra - February 11, 2011 at 09:19 pm
Great article.
Enjoyed it!
57. kopernikus - February 11, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Robert Faurisson was beaten severely on account of his historical research.
58. 22097984 - February 12, 2011 at 12:29 am
@ trendisnotdestiny
You asked:
1) Who has the most power to shape consent (left,right center)
2) What function does media, academia play in shaping consent
3) What does the current political context represent
Easy:
1) Left...see Left of Center President and Health Care Reform.
2) None. Not a little or not much, I honestly mean none. The only people that think media and academics matter in shaping consent are either in the media or academics that worry about the media. Honestly, no one else cares. Your endorsement of Obama did not "swing Missouri". I know that shocks you, but it is the hard, cold truth.
3) What the hell does that matter? I mean, outside your (no doubt interesting!) Poli Sci 234 class, who the heck cares? The question, "What does the current political context represent" really asks "Does the rainbow go from left to right or right to left? This is really important for us to find the end of the rainbow and the pot of gold!"
Geez, not one of you could get tenure in a Business Department. You do not read outside your little irrelivant field, you live in L-la Land and you spend 3/4 your day complaining about everyone elses pay and/or the sad situation of the hiring status of Humanities. Go outside. Breath the frest air. Realize the world is more complex (and much more direct) than your simple French philosopher told you.
59. ottomaddox - February 12, 2011 at 12:46 am
Isn't it ironic that the people clamoring for speech restrictions against Beck and other conservatives could very well be the very same people who clamored for free speech on college campuses back in the 1960'? My, how times have changed.
60. trendisnotdestiny - February 12, 2011 at 02:41 am
@ 22097984
QUOTE
"You asked:
1) Who has the most power to shape consent (left,right center)
2) What function does media, academia play in shaping consent
3) What does the current political context represent"
22097984, these comments are a apart of dialogue (one that the author I was dialoguing with had agreed that it was well constructed). So, I didn't ask these questions. I challenged westernfields to consider these questions in light of his/her comments. There is a difference. Also, butting into another's conversation unannounced is a tad rude, but doing so with not referencing the context of the conversation, well that's just trying to pick a fight.
In terms of your answers, I wonder what planet you reside on.
1) "Obama is a left of center president" comment is typical of someone who finds simplistic answers to complex questions. His financial advisors come from the very heart of corporate america (Immelt, Daley, Rubin, Summers, Geithner etc). This confirms very little difference between the two parties as elite investors want middle and lower classes to be fractured while they make money no matter what --- this is called the public-private-partnership. The fact that you are so enraged by healthcare is representative of a myopic view. The reason Obama tackled healthcare was not to appease the left, but that medical insurance rates have been escalating out of control for years making it hard to employ people here on planet earth. Ironically, maybe you hadn't heard that Obama has been talking about making a deal with republicans over social security (something a true left of center president would NEVER do).... He is apart of the mechanism that is eliminating the social safety net (FCIC recommendations). While I am sure that there is nothing I can offer to change your mind about him being left of center, you are wrong! Since I am of the left, I know how they behave better than someone who is into stereotypes of the left.
QUOTE
2) "None. Not a little or not much, I honestly mean none. The only people that think media and academics matter in shaping consent are either in the media or academics that worry about the media. Honestly, no one else cares."
I do not have time to educate you here in this space. The number of advertisements a baby in this society experiences before the age of 5 is in the millions. We live in an instant word of texting, e-mail, video clips, games, and television. To miss this is to not comprehend how our unconscious has been trained to equate retirement with a sandy beach or getting married with a sparkingly diamond/big wedding or the gag reflex most get when hearing about a tax increase. This is why we have focus groups and test audiences constantly (to gauge consent). To narrowly suggest that media or academia have no real impact is like driving with one eye open.
One last thing in this section is that I have no idea at all what you mean by "YOUR ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA" and Missouri. wtf?
QUOTE
3) "What the hell does that matter?"
Brilliant! The current political context doesn't matter but yet you 'cling to it' by saying that Obama is a left of center president. Got hypocritic milk?
QUOTE
"Geez, not one of you could get tenure in a Business Department. You do not read outside your little irrelivant field, you live in L-la Land and you spend 3/4 your day complaining about everyone elses pay and/or the sad situation of the hiring status of Humanities. Go outside. Breath the frest air. Realize the world is more complex (and much more direct) than your simple French philosopher told you."
First, I come from the business world, so you are wrong again. Second, getting tenure in business school nowadays is no great shakes; they are often reminded that their predictive models are fictional as the US dollar is properly debauched. Also, they use language and mathematics to hide the fact that what they know is frequently wrong in applied settings (see the financial crisis and Nouriel Roubini's/Taleb's responses).... Third, I doubt that you read much (other than what already confirms your worldview) as readers tend not to project assumptions like knowing my field. Ad hominum attacks are so cute by insolent trolls. Lastly, if you knew anything about French philsophers (which I am betting you don't), they are anything but simple.
Sell crazy someplace else!
61. chimichanga - February 12, 2011 at 02:55 am
From the article and subsequent comments I have learned the following:
Glenn Beck is a child playing with grown up things.
He gets simpletons in his audience worked up.
Liberals are depressingly insular and unjustifiably arrogant.
This infuriates conservatives who don't fit into the cartoon of the right which the left has manufactured.
The left takes this fury as further evidence that the right is stupid, angry and dangerous.
Around and around we go.
62. stixx44 - February 12, 2011 at 07:31 am
Believe it or not, sometimes liberals actually post these things, pretending to be Beck fans. It's an age-old problem. Let's face it, the Chronicle isn't a fair and balanced journal, as it should really try to be. I haven't read one item about Obama that wasn't totally in favor or everything he's done regarding education.
63. inama - February 12, 2011 at 09:27 am
Dearest Lost Angeleno,
I do not know what "Please clarify the history involved for us" means. Is that a sentence?
Love,
Inama
64. shanestreet - February 12, 2011 at 11:06 am
Lori Minnite (#23) asks what I hope is the honestly intended question, with respect to accusations that Fox Piven has called for violence:
"...would you please provide the evidence of these claims? Or is it that you think the massing of people on its own is violence, or that demonstrations and protests are violence, or that civil disobedience is violence?"
The current source for the claim is not the 1966 The Nation article, but the more recent one (http://www.thenation.com/article/157292/mobilizing-jobless) in which Fox Piven writes:
An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees
Perhaps Lori Minnite has been to a peaceful riot, but the Greek riots in particular have been violent and resulted in the loss of life. Thus, in wishing for "Greek style" protests, it is fair to claim that Fox Piven is endorsing violent action. Such a call for violence from the academic Left is troubling, to say the least, but not out of character.
65. libmale - February 12, 2011 at 11:59 am
First let me bore you with my credentials: I am an 81 year old High School dropout, Libertarian , Atheist, Free Man!
I read Arts and Letters Daily to see what idiocy still grips the world of academe.
A recent article on ALD was about a speaker at a conference of social scientist/professors who asked the audience of several hundred academics "How many consider themselves Liberals". About 80 percent raised their hands. "How many consider themselves Conservative/ Libertarians" Three hands went up!! Nuff said!
66. rkevinhill - February 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm
A street mugging is violent. So was the American Revolution. So was the Holocaust. Complaining that someone has called for violence, standing alone, is meaningless. I happen to not agree with very many of Piven's views, though I claim no expertise on them, having not done Mr. Beck's "research." But I'm sure that I can find plenty of conservative voices whose comments can be twisted into, characterized as calls for violence. In September of 2009, a columnist for NewsMax, John Perry, actually advocated the overthrow of the federal government, for example. Perhaps he meant a peaceful overthrow.
There are first-order political debates, about what goals we should pursue, what the causal structures are that any pursuit of our goals must be responsive to, what the evidence for the causal claims are, etc. Then there are second-order political issues, like, how "civil" or intemperate should disagreement about the first-order stuff be, morally speaking. I think we confuse matters when we mix these two issues together.
The problem I see with Beck and his influence is not necessarily with his express goals, but I don't think it is with his lack of civility. It is with the paranoid conspiracy theories being presented as if they were simple facts you could obtain from a reference librarian. I suspect that these theories are offered in bad faith, which would make the offering worse, but for all I know, Mr. Beck actually believes that there is some room somewhere in which Osama Bin Laden, Bill Ayres, Prof. Piven, George Soros and President Obama are plotting to destroy your livelihood and your system of government. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that this kind of dishonest rhetoric terrifies and enrages ordinary people, and alienates them from their own political processes and institutions. "Incivility" is simply the surface effect, the natural response of terrified and enraged people. We have seen where this sort of thing can lead. Another side-effect is that it completely discredits what is of value and worthy of discussion in so-called conservative thought. I think of myself as a classical liberal, which is to say, closer to what is currently called "libertarian" or "conservative" in my understanding of how social processes work and what policies are desirable, but at some point one has to stand up with whoever one finds oneself standing next to and denounce things like the Beck attack on Piven for the dishonest, paranoid, malicious and dangerous propaganda that they are.
67. aztek001 - February 12, 2011 at 01:54 pm
Beck lacks much in the way of common sense, but acknowledging his past and background it makes sense. He can be thankful that he lives in a democracy that allows him to spout off his stupidity.
68. fergbutt - February 12, 2011 at 01:56 pm
So it's Piven who calls for "angry mobs" in her article in The Nation, but it's Beck being called out by The Chronicle? Typical. If you're a left-leaning professor, you're the hero of the story, and if you question the motives of that person, then you're the villain.
69. shanestreet - February 12, 2011 at 03:45 pm
Fox Piven lacks much in the way of common sense, but acknowledging her past and background it make sense. She can be thankful that she lives in a democracy that allows her to spout off her stupidity.
Too easy.
70. i_callahan - February 12, 2011 at 03:46 pm
Oldsport says,
"I was wondering, did I clink onto the wrong page? I thought I was reading Academe Today, not a right wing rant blog! Wow, where has the academiy gone?"
I bet you liked it in your echo chamber, didn't you. No one ever questions what you think because you surround yourself with people who think just like you.
I know it must be comfy in there, but every once in a while you gotta come out into the rest of the world.
71. authentic - February 12, 2011 at 06:52 pm
Why does a University not censure the claptrap espoused by Piven?
72. stavrogin - February 12, 2011 at 07:45 pm
Funny how the people that regularly agree with the paranoid trash spewn by Beck are also the ones suddenly terrified of political violence. Look at the rest of the world, where violence has more or less become a regularity in people's lives. The U.S. has been lucky to not have had major domestic strife since the Civil War. This has made the average, politically-uninformed American assume the U.S. to be invincible, but also to become much more sensitive to any ripple in the water. Take a step back and look at the picture again: a magazine article calling for social mobilization is enough to make the people on this board scream "violence!" Using remote controlled drones to kill civilians in other countries, meanwhile, elicits no reaction and no mention. Where are your heads?
I feel this is why so many people in the world scoff at Americans (and no, not because they hate our freedom). We've become completely detached from reality, in the sense of how 90% of the world's population experiences. This detachment has gotten to this pathetic level, that a raving lunatic like Beck, who if dirtied up and placed on a stret corner would be ignored by most people, has a significant number of the population actually believing that Obama and Piven are conspiring to bring down the country!
America's declining global power and this recession have jarred these same people, who have lived their lives in a peaceful coccoon and indoctrinated from grade school with stars, stripes, and bald eagles, out of their comfort zone. These Manchurian candidates, who like Beck, are trained to swell with patriotism at the sound of keywords like "liberty", "freedom", and "free markets" are now terrified. Their way of life, which they assumed to be applicable to the world over, is actually being contested. They feel themselves being pushed into a corner by the onslaught of faceless enemies - liberals, communists, socialists, baby-killers, intellectuals, welfare queens, blacks, Jews, hispanics, China, and so on. And like cornered animals, they will lash out, crudely and violently.
Should the Tea Party/GOP gain substantial, prolonged influence over the federal government in this time of stagnation, their policies will only further undermine the U.S., both domestically and internationally. Once that happens, social conditions will degrade even further and make domestic strife all the more likely. Then they will really see what violence is, and they will have far bigger problems on their hands than elderly professors.
73. lost_angeleno - February 12, 2011 at 08:24 pm
Inama
Yes, and a rather good one too. The difficulty is in your use of the word "history," which you used in a rather ambiguous way, hence the need for clarification. You see, there is no such thing as "history." If there is, bring in a one-gallon bucket of blue "history" and show it around. Whose idea of history, or which concept of history are you referencing? The Stewart/Colbert version? Most likely.
You still haven't presented us with any "history" that backs up your assertion. Nice bit of wiggly around, but I see what you're up to.
74. ulyssesmsu - February 12, 2011 at 08:38 pm
Ideas have consequences. Piven put her ideas into the public arena. She's fair game for criticism and analysis.
75. nondualquantifier - February 12, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Whoa! This is beginning to sound like academia today, much ado about increments. Yet, democracy and academia need increments, even sophmorics, emotions, and, yes, language. But language can be a form a violence, used to advantage by those skilled in such matters.
A turn toward simple non-religious meditation, where all concerned just sit quietly for a while, then go home and sleep, would be good. Tom Jefferson would cover his ears and go to his study.
Faux le Mieux. Beck and Piven, Beck and Piven, mouthpieces and symbols for unrealizable fantasies. Drop both of them into Port-au-Prince, Detroit, Ciudad Juarez, or most places in the world apart from their--and our--safe and smug spaces and see.
Squabbling over intellectual positions (and I use the phrase extremely loosely since Beck et al. are involved and apologies to Prof. Chomsky) goes as far as a meal and a place to sleep. But rather than take-up Piven's time-worn arguments, distribute meditation cushions at soup-kitchens and from the backs of rice-trucks and from air-drops. When the food runs out, see if meditation cushions may be consumed. We humans are, if anything, unpredictable. Now what was the topic? Ah, the duality people, clear thinking, my own hypocracy, fashionable reflexivity, irony, and mostly endless unbearable pain.