The current mantra of the left seems to be that they are under McCarthyist oppression at the hands of the right everywhere, but especially in American colleges and universities; and that was certainly the prevailing view of the “Academic Work and the New McCarthyism I” panel during the Modern Language Association 2005 conference held just before New Years.
One of the speakers, Bill Mullen, spoke out against the action of Daniel J. Flynn and the “surveillance group” Accuracy in Academia [this made me laugh, then worry about the visibility of my name tag and my safety]. Mullen attacked Flynn’s criticism of W. E. B. Dubois as anti-American in his book. “We need to look at Dubois as someone who promotes free speech and freedom rather than ceding him to the right,” said Mullen, who teaches at the University of Texas, San Antonio.
The roundtable, presented by the Radical Caucus of the MLA, centered around discussions of anti-war English curricula, the “frightening” legislative influence of the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR), criticisms of the Patriot Act, and how “politics of panic” and “hypernationalism” created attacks on professors since 9/11.
Jacqueline Brady of Kingsborough Community College, City University of New York told the group how she uses 1984 by George Orwell and draws comparisons to the empire of the Bush administration. She sees a similarity between the rhetoricians in the book and the “intentional manipulations of public discourse by Bush.” In Brady’s English 24 class (an interdisciplinary course) they also read Iraq war readers, material on the bombing of Japan, The Insider and Democracy Now.
The anti-war curriculum is used by Brady to teach her working-class students. Brady was pleased that “it may have prevented my students from joining the military.”
Later during the question and answer session, someone “playing devil’s advocate” asked if the panel members would object to someone choosing to create a pro-war curriculum or would they hire someone who wanted to do that.
“I would have a problem with hiring someone who wanted to teach a pro-war stance, but I’m not currently in a position to hire anyone,” said Brady.
Grover Furr of Montclair University was in the audience and said he hopes “we all” have a problem with someone wanting to teach a pro-war class. “All ideas are not equally valid. The pro-war arguments are in many cases, like in creationism and Intelligent Design, based on historical falsehood. So pro-war arguments are a disqualification for those who want to teach others,” Furr explained.
Michael Bennett, a professor at Long Island University, answered that most professors do not support the war because “we’ve been taught to think critically and we hear ‘pre-emptive strikes’ and think ‘Blitzkrieg that’s not a good idea’.”
The only dissenting opinion came from panelist Julie Gerk Hernandez of the University of Cincinnati, who said as long as the curriculum allowed for dissenting viewpoints she would be okay with a professor teaching a pro-war curriculum.
Hernandez’ earlier discussion was about ABOR. “The American Council of Trustees and Alumni and Students for Academic Freedom work in tandem to prevent anti-war teaching and intimidate professors who ‘silence conservative students’,” said Hernandez. This is a problem, because as professors it is our job to provide alternative information and encourage critical thought, she said.
Sophia A. McClennan of Penn State University followed Hernandez’ talk with her concerns that the attacks on professors who take anti-war positions are fueled by the politics of panic and hypernationalism.
Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.
