• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Totems in America

May 9, 2011, 10:51 am

Tony Kushner’s play The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism with a Key to the Scriptures is currently in performance at New York’s Public Theater. Kushner is an acclaimed playwright, best known for Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (1993), for which he received a Pulitzer Prize. Along the way he has received, according to The New York Times, 15 honorary degrees.

The total would have been 16 except that early last week, the trustees of City University of New York failed to summon the requisite number of votes to approve a proposal from John Jay College to award Kushner another honorary degree. The board acted after one trustee, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, spoke at the meeting for four minutes against the motion. Wiesenfeld’s opposition was not based on objections to Kushner’s plays. He was, rather, concerned about Kushner’s record as a harsh critic of the state of Israel. Kushner has written, for example, that “the historical record shows, incontrovertibly, that the forced removal of Palestinians from their homes as part of the creation of the state of Israel was ethnic cleansing.” Kushner has accused Israel of “a deliberate destruction of Palestinian culture and a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people.”

The immediate aftermath of the CUNY board’s decision included three articles in The New York Times, an account in The Jewish Week, an essay by KC Johnson on Minding the Campus, and an effort led by the CUNY Faculty Senate to force “immediate dismissal or resignation” of Jeffrey Wiesenfeld. The board is meeting again on Monday, May 9, to reconsider its decision on awarding Kushner an honorary degree.

What should we make of all this? Kushner’s views on Israel were well-known and highly controversial before Mr. Wiesenfeld’s short speech drawing attention to them. When the faculty of John Jay College recommended Kushner for an honorary degree, they did so presumably in full knowledge of his record, including an episode in 2006 when pro-Israel groups unsuccessfully tried to persuade Brandeis University not to award him an honorary degree.

Kushner’s views on Israel, far from being a strike against him in garnering honorary degrees, appear to have worked mostly as a condiment. Honoring him at commencement is a kind of PC trifecta: a prominent gay playwright; a writer who embodies a general disdain for traditional American values; and someone who reviles Israel—or who at least appears to, since Kushner now says he is “proudly identified as a Jew” and maintains “a passionate support for the continuous existence of the State of Israel.”

Kushner has responded to the CUNY board decision with indignation that borders closely on delight. According to the Times, he demanded an apology from the board “for not following the dictates of simple fairness and decency when this happened, and allowing someone who deserved better treatment to be treated so shabbily.” He also told the Times that he has received an outpouring of support that is “completely overwhelming.”

It is not clear to me that a university board’s decision not to award someone an honorary degree meets the definition of shabby treatment. Honorary degrees are just that: honorary. No one earns such a degree or receives it by right. The decision to award them is clearly at the discretion of boards of trustees. What has astonished the campus left in this case is that a member of a board of trustees actually took it upon himself to engage in some of that “critical thinking” that American higher education promotes as the great goal of colleges and universities. The critical thought that Mr. Wiesenfeld injected into the discussion is that maybe it is not such a good idea for CUNY to rubberstamp a proposal that embodies the increasingly fashionable academic bias against Israel.

Maybe that is a debatable point. Maybe CUNY should be engaged in further buffing the resume of someone who is an outspoken critic of Israel. Nothing that Mr. Wiesenfeld did or said last week impeded such a debate. What he did say, however, persuaded the trustees by a vote of 11 to 1 to table the proposed degree. That sounds to me like “fairness and decency” in action. The board remains free to revisit its decision; Mr. Kushner’s reputation and career were not harmed, and the CUNY board experienced a welcome demonstration of a trustee who took his position seriously.

I do see thuggishness in this train of events: not against Kushner, but against his critic. A campaign is underway to smear Mr. Wiesenfeld and force him from office, perhaps by the intervention of the mayor of New York City or the governor of New York State. The New York Times weighed in with its own article quoting Wiesenfeld rejecting a reporter’s question on the grounds that it set up a “moral equivalence” between Palestinians and Israelis. The Times quotes Wiesenfeld as saying, “People who worship death for their children are not human.”  The Times of course never quite manages to quote even more provocative statements by Mr. Kushner.

We are faced here with a profusion of double standards. These days, honorary degrees are unfortunately mainly exercises in appealing to the vanity of celebrities. Denying one to a celebrity who already has more than a dozen may wound his vanity—but it is surely just a scratch, no matter how much Mr. Kushner wails.  On the other hand, colleges and universities award honorary degrees when they are not just looking for crowd-pleasers, to people whose lives and actions are exemplary and who warrant emulation.  In that sense, boards of trustees would do well to follow Mr. Wiesenfeld’s lead. They should be asking more questions about the people routinely sent up for their approval.  They would find that Mr. Kushner is far from the only one picked more as a totem of political correctness than for his actual accomplishments.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • chuckkle

    Assertions without any attempt to back them up:

    “a writer who embodies a general disdain for traditional American values”

    “Mr. Kushner is … picked more as a totem of political correctness than for his actual accomplishments”

    How about some proof of this? Or should we rather more accurately say Peter Wood thinks of himself as the supreme arbiter of “American values,” and in PW’s mind, Kushner hasn’t accomplished much as a playwright?

    Chuck Kleinhans

  • 22086364

    This is a facile piece, and it wasted time I’ll never get back. And yet, in this imperfect system, even a one-off like this can get a hearing. Despite my regret at expecting a thoughtful essay and reading tapioca, I think the system works, and will continue to look for thoughtful, balanced, pieces on this issue. Something about a diversity of voices and opinions. . . which Wood and the lone CUNY trustee seem to value a bit less than I, at least, would hope.

  • emcdermott

    Such sloppy thinking. Perhaps Mr. Wood can explain how Mr. Kushner’s criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people is, in any way, incompatible with the pride he feels in his religious heritage, or with his support for the existence of the State of Israel?

  • jamesebryan

    Why is it that a playwright’s suitability for an honorary degree should be contingent upon his political opinions and actions? Shouldn’t his professional accomplishments and contributions be the criteria?

    As an interesting comparison, William Morris, the great nineteenth-century author, critic, and designer, was considered as a candidate for Poet Laureate of England, a position in the royal household, AFTER he had become prominent for his socialist political activism. He declined rather than be connected to a political establishment with which he disagreed, but even so, it would seem that some Victorians could be more open minded than some of us today.

  • lexalexander

    In this *particular* case, Kushner was being honored for his undeniable achievements as a playwright. That’s an academic decision from which the board of trustees would have been wiser to stay away. For all I know, Kushner could be a total jackass as a human being, but Bruce Springsteen has a response for that: Trust the song, not the singer.

    In *general*, CUNY’s trustees appear to be well within their rights to overrule faculty with respect to honorary degrees. But that right ought to be exercised only in extreme cases — ones, say, in which new, directly relevant information comes to light that is substantially at odds with the basis on which the faculty decides to award an honorary degree. Mere differences of opinion, particularly on issues extraneous to the basis for that award, don’t meet this test. In light of this standard, I find Wiesenfeld’s position wrong and am pleased that last night CUNY board overturned its earlier decision.

    And for the record, Peter Wood, I support Israel almost as much as I support this, my native country, but when the jackboot fits, you need to shut up and wear it. Questions of 1948 aside, the merits of what Israel is doing in Gaza TODAY wouldn’t even be debated if it were anyone but the U.S. or Israel doing it.

  • goxewu

    The nut of Prof. Woods’s post is this: “It is not clear to me that a university board’s decision not to award
    someone an honorary degree meets the definition of shabby treatment.”

    It’s fallacious and he knows it–or certainly should know it.

    If a list of proposed recipients of honorary degrees with Mr. Kushner’s name left off it had been forwarded to the Board and had the Board at OK’d that list, the “decision not to award someone an honorary degree” would not have constituted “shabby treatment.” But that wasn’t the problem. The problem was that Mr. Kushner’s name *was* on the list, a Board member tried to strike it on the grounds that Mr. Kushner’s opinions on Israel somehow disqualified him, and his attempt was made public.

    To re-state it in language that even Prof. Woods should understand: Simply not awarding someone an honorary degree is not “shabby treatment”; publicly trying to prevent the awarding of the degree, on the basis of wholly irrelevant criteria, to someone who’s been proposed by the appropriate committee *is* “shabby treatment.”

  • jupiter125

    Kushner’s plays are only and always about politics, so his political views can hardly be considered off-limits when his artistic output is assessed. The cascade of honors he receives from universities, as Wood notes, is due at least as much to their self-congratulatory stance at sharing his pieties as to his dramatic gift. When accepting honorary degrees, his speeches also stress politics, and all feel the glow of his advanced thinking.

    An article in today’s New York Observer quotes Wiesenfeld as saying he never expected the trustees to agree with him but he needed to speak his mind about Kushner’s demonstrably appalling statements. The trustees have since predictably backed down.

  • goxewu

    “The cascade of honors he receives from universities, as Wood notes, is
    due at least as much to their self-congratulatory stance at sharing his
    pieties as to his dramatic gift.”

    Love it: “as Wood notes,” as if it’s a fact. An assertion, a guess, suspicion, or a stereotype (Oh, those liberal universities, handing out honorary degrees in self-congratulation to piety-sharers!), but hardly something one “notes.”