From the issue dated April 18, 2003
|
|
|
The Most Hated Professor in AmericaBy THOMAS BARTLETTIf you call Columbia University's main switchboard and ask for Nicholas De
When a reporter calls back and says he wants to speak to the professor rather than lodge a complaint, the operator replies, "So you're not going to call me a bastard or a whore?" "No. Have other people called you that?" "Oh, yeah," she says. "They need to understand that he's the one who said that stuff, not us." The stuff he said continues to elicit angry denunciations, demands for his dismissal, and death threats. During a teach-in last month at Columbia, Mr. De Genova, a 35-year-old assistant professor of anthropology and Latino studies, told 3,000 students and faculty members that he hoped Iraq would defeat the United States. He also wished for "a million Mogadishus," a reference to the 1993 battle in Somalia in which 18 U.S. soldiers were killed. After Newsday reported his remarks, the backlash was swift and strong. A letter from 104 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives demanded that the university's president fire the untenured professor. (While distancing himself from the comments, Mr. Bollinger has supported the professor's First Amendment rights.) A group of alumni has promised to withhold its donations so long as Mr. De Genova remains at Columbia. He has been lambasted in newspaper editorials and on television programs in the United States and abroad. A columnist in Australia described the Mogadishu comment as "the poisonous fantasy of an obscure American academic." After a week of maintaining a low profile, Mr. De Genova returned to class on April 8, albeit with two security guards. He has written a letter to the Columbia Daily Spectator, the student newspaper, but he has refused requests for interviews until now. Q. Were you surprised by the reaction to your speech? A. I certainly was not expecting anything on the scale of this controversy. ... It so happens that a single journalist from a tabloid newspaper who was interested in scandalmongering was present at the event. In a way that was fairly devious, he tried to solicit comments from me the following day, and in a manner calculated to generate the most inflammatory possible effect, quoted me out of context. ... Q. But many of those present have condemned your comments. One organizer of the teach-in called what you said "idiotic." A. I certainly would never deny that my perspective is controversial. My intervention was intended as a challenge among people who share a certain set of basic premises concerning the fact that this war is unjust. Unfortunately, there has been no dialogue concerning the substance of my speech and its meaning for the antiwar movement. To defensively denounce what I said as "idiotic" merely contributes to the pro-war campaign of vilification. There are people with a very vested interest in exploiting this issue and manipulating it for their own ends, and attacks against me are therefore attacks against the entire antiwar movement. Q. If that's the case, then didn't you play right into their hands? A. I think that it's healthy to generate debate and controversy if there is the possibility of clarifying positions, elucidating and elaborating positions in order to provoke more critical thinking. ... Q. So you would argue that your comments have been healthy and helpful? A. There is an impulse to jingoistic, patriotic hysteria during wartime that will seek to discredit the antiwar movement. And that is to be expected. Those of us in the antiwar movement need to confront the really concerted power, money, and resources that have been devoted to trying to narrow the range of possible speech. The real discussion of the substantive issues that I raised has yet to begin and is long overdue. In that sense, I don't think that there's any conclusive way to judge what the effect has been at this point, either for the antiwar movement or for the forces that would be invested in silencing us. Q. Your comment about wishing for "a million Mogadishus" has attracted the most attention. I read your letter in the "Columbia Daily Spectator," which gave some more context, but I have to confess I don't see how the context changes the meaning of that statement. A. I was referring to what Mogadishu symbolizes politically. The U.S. invasion of Somalia was humiliated in an excruciating way by the Somali people. And Mogadishu was the premier symbol of that. What I was really emphasizing in the larger context of my comments was the question of Vietnam and that historical lesson. ... What I was intent to emphasize was that the importance of Vietnam is that it was a defeat for the U.S. war machine and a victory for the cause of human self-determination. Q. I'm a little hazy on the rhetorical connection between Mogadishu and Vietnam. A. The analogy between Mogadishu and Vietnam is that they were defeats for U.S. imperialism and U.S. military action against people in poor countries that had none of the sophisticated technology or weaponry that the U.S. was able to mobilize against them. The analogy between Mogadishu and Iraq is simply that there was an invasion of Somalia and there was an invasion of Iraq. Q. Just so we're clear: Do you welcome or wish for the deaths of American soldiers? A. No, precisely not. That's one of the reasons I am against the war. I am against the war because people like George Bush and his war cabinet are invested in needlessly wasting the lives of people who have absolutely no interest in perpetrating this war and should not be there. And any responsibility for the loss of their lives will rest in the hands of the warmakers on the side of the U.S. Q. There are millions of people in this country and elsewhere who share that point of view. Why did you choose to express it in those terms? A. Because I was interested in contesting the notion that an effective strategy for the antiwar movement is to capitulate to the patriotic pro-war pressure that demands that one must affirm support for the troops. It really is a disguised form of pressuring people who are antiwar to support the war. Q. You've certainly heard from detractors. Have you heard from any supporters? A. Yes, absolutely. Q. Would you characterize the support as fairly strong? A. There is an important and growing movement to defend me and to affirm the important role I play at this university for the students who have had contact with me, and to support my right to free speech and the invaluable place of critical perspectives like mine in the larger debate and dialogue. Q. The comment you made linking patriotism and white supremacy has also caused controversy. Can you expand a bit on that? A. It's an oversimplification, and a crude one at that, to say that I am simply calling anyone who is a patriot of the United States a white supremacist. But I did trace a historical relationship between U.S. invasions and conquests and colonization to the history of white supremacy and racism in the U.S. Q. You don't have tenure yet. Are you worried that this could interfere with your chances of achieving tenure at Columbia? A. I really have no comment on that question. Q. If you had it to do over again, would you make the same remarks? A. There is a lesson here for all of us, far and wide, beyond my immediate circle of colleagues and this particular university. There is a message for all people who affirm the importance of free speech and the freedom of thought and expression. ... Q. I guess my question is, would you have attempted to be clearer? A. Had I known that there was a devious yellow journalist from a tabloid newspaper among the audience, I certainly would have selected my words somewhat more carefully. But I would not have changed the message. Unfortunately, that message has been largely lost on people who were not at the event. http://chronicle.com Section: The Faculty Volume 49, Issue 32, Page A56
|
Copyright © 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education