'Why is David Epstein Still a Columbia University Professor After Incest Plea?'

Good question.

A Columbia Professor of POLITICAL SCIENCE?

See The Other McCain for the reply.

Epstein's homepage is here.

Back to Teaching at California State Universities

From Naomi Schaefer Riley, at Los Angeles Times, "Cal State system: It's time to get back to teaching."

There's no quick quote to capture the essence here. Full-time faculty don't do much teaching, it turns out, or at least not "the bulk" of it. Mostly adjuncts nowadays. It's weird, though, because I had the best professors at Fresno State. I think I had one grad student TA, in math. And the professor referred all questions to him, and while the TA was a good guy, proficient, etc., that's probably not the best example of cutting-edge teaching. The Political Science Department was great though. So much better than the University of California, in terms of access to the professors. I mentioned previously that the more hands on attention professors provide, the more they'll help their students. That's what happening in my classes, and I still can't do enough to overcome the skills deficits kids bring to college. So yeah, focus on teaching at Cal State. (And check that link: Schaefer Riley notes that Cal State's at risk of closing ten campuses and turning away 100,000 students --- seems unreal.)

David Protess of the Innocence Project Now Defends Himself

Read this piece, at New York Times, "A Watchdog Professor, Now Defending Himself." (At Memeorandum.)

A key passage:

It is often said that academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low, but in the matter of Mr. Protess and the wrongly convicted men he helped to free, the stakes could not have been higher.

I know something about academic politics and high stakes. A few days back I mentioned that I'd have a report on some of the bloggers at Lawyers, Guns and Money, and not Dave Brockington (about which, here). I'm still waiting, because attorneys are involved, but this is going to be blockbuster when I can write about it.

Anyway, I don't know anything about David Protess, but I can see that he developed some powerful enemies in his work, people who want to destroy him. Again, I know the feeling, although I haven't gotten anyone released from death row. But some people have been extremely threatened by the things that I write here, and allegations and high-level threats have been made. I'm not kidding when I say high level. Seriously. Readers are going to be blown away when this comes out.

Stay tuned.

Bush White House Sought CIA Probe for 'Damaging Personal Information' on Leftist Professor Juan Cole?

Wow.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Honestly, though, arrest him if there's evidence of aiding and abetting terrorism. But don't just smear the guy using the CIA. Sounds like something from the Nixon years.

At New York Times, "Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic":

WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.

Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.

In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.

It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that information or who at the White House had requested it.

Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.

“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.

More at that link at top.

And what the heck? Check over at Juan Cole's, the freak: "Ret’d. CIA Official Alleges Bush White House Used Agency to “Get” Cole," and "Cole on Goodman & CIA Surveillance."

And, "Repeal the PATRIOT Act is the Lesson of Bush White House Spying."

Nope, not going that far. Patriot Act does not authorize CIA spying domestically. It simply allows coordination of intelligence gathering activities. Longstanding bureaucratic norms would still drive domestic surveillance operations, and frankly, the legacy of the 1960s and 1970s still contributes to a culture of legal safeguards that obviously make cases of spying --- like that alleged against Professor Juan Cole --- beyond the pale. Bust him if he's a treasonous dirtbag. Otherwise, let him spew his bilious hatred. No doubt he's earned some enemies on that basis alone.

Conservative Law Professor Denied Emeritus Status at University of Montana

It's hard out there for the good ones.

At TaxProf Blog, "Conservative Law Prof Decries Faculty's 'Petty' Decision to Deny Emeritus Status." ( via Volokh).

More at the Missoulian, "Former UM law professor Natelson denied emeritus status by faculty."

Former University of Montana law professor and outspoken conservative Rob Natelson has been denied his request for professor emeritus status, a decision he called "petty" and "inexplicable."

Natelson, who retired in May 2010 after serving 23 years as a professor in the law school to take a job as a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, was informed upon his return to Montana in June that the law school faculty had voted against granting the constitutional scholar emeritus status.

Emeritus status is granted to a retiring professor whose colleagues feel he or she is worthy of the academic recognition and prestige based on the faculty member's research, service and instruction during his teaching tenure.

"Emeritus status for retirees is pretty routine and almost always given," Natelson said. "I find the whole thing very peculiar. Even though there's a history here, this thing seems so petty, so small."

Natelson was apparently one the most published professors on the faculty. Denial of emeritus status was clearly driven by ideological hatred. Progressives suck.

Yale Kills Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism

From Abby Wisse Schachter, at New York Post, "Yale's Gift to Anti-Semitism":

Yale University last week killed the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplin ary Study of Antisemitism -- the only program of its kind in the country, an academically stellar one-stop anti-Semitism research shop. Worse, it almost certainly did so because YIISA refused to ignore the most virulent, genocidal and common form of Jew-hatred today: Muslim anti-Semitism.

Citing an official review by a faculty committee that it refuses to identify, Yale will shut down the program at the end of next month. The university's top flack, Director of Strategic Communications Charles "Robin" Hogen, wrote an e-mail claiming that YIISA had failed a key test: It was supposed to "serve the research and teaching interests of some significant group of Yale faculty and . . . be sustained by the creative energy of a critical mass of Yale faculty."

Funny, last year, at YIISA's hugely successful inaugural conference on global anti-Semitism, Yale Deputy Provost Frances Rosenbluth said just the opposite, noting that YIISA was "guided by an outstanding group of scholars from all over the university representing many different disciplines," including professors of history, sociology, comparative languages, psychiatry, economics and political science. Actually, Hogen's e-mail itself contradicts Yale's stated excuse: He notes that "the steering committee did express continued support for the faculty reading group on anti-Semitism." Plus, "institutional support will remain for the group of faculty who wish to continue their scholarly exploration of this important subject."
Which is it -- no faculty interested in studying anti-Semitism, or lots of faculty interest in studying anti-Semitism?

Well, depends on what kind of anti-Semitism. Can't be studying the Islamic kind, now can we?

College is Too Easy

Bird Dog links to Mark Bauerlein's discussion of Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa's research on student learning and college performance. And that reminds me of the Arum and Roksa piece that ran in Friday's Los Angeles Times, "College, too easy for its own good":

We recently tracked several thousand students as they moved through and graduated from a diverse set of more than two dozen colleges and universities, and we found consistent evidence that many students were not being appropriately challenged. In a typical semester, 50% of students did not take a single course requiring more than 20 pages of writing, 32% did not have any classes that required reading more than 40 pages per week, and 36% reported studying alone five or fewer hours per week.

Not surprisingly, given such a widespread lack of academic rigor, about a third of students failed to demonstrate significant gains in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing ability (as measured by the Collegiate Learning Assessment) during their four years of college.

The students themselves must bear some of the blame for this, of course. Improvement in thinking and writing skills requires academic engagement; simply hanging out on a college campus for multiple years isn't enough. Yet at many institutions, that seems to be sufficient to earn a degree. At many schools, students can choose from a menu of easy programs and classes that allow them to graduate without having received a rigorous college education. Colleges are complicit, in that they reward students with high grades for little effort. Indeed, the students in our study who reported studying alone five or fewer hours per week nevertheless had an average cumulative GPA of 3.16.

To be sure, there were many exceptions to this dismal portrait of the state of undergraduate learning. Some academic programs and colleges are quite rigorous, and some students we followed pushed themselves and excelled. In general, traditional arts and science fields (math, science, humanities and the social sciences) tended to be more demanding, and students who majored in those subjects studied more and showed higher gains. So too did students attending more selective colleges. In addition, at every college and university examined, we found some students who were applying themselves and learning at impressive levels.

These real accomplishments do not, however, exonerate the colleges and universities that are happy to collect annual tuition dollars but then fail to provide many students with a high-quality education.

There's more, especially the discussion of why higher education got off track. Still, it'd be worth checking the book itself, for in my experience it's the absence of skills and the culture of anti-intellectualism that's most detrimental to college learning. I'm tempted to say I struggled with maintaining high standards when I first started at LBCC. But that wouldn't be quite accurate. Over time experience has shown how I can better maintain high standards AND improve student performance (it requires intensely personalized instruction, which is hard to do with hundreds of students). That said, I'm less rigid than I was 8 or 9 years ago, and in some cases that means I'm just plain easier (flexibility is key, which sometimes might mean "easier"). Professors are dealing with a range of abilities starting with students who'd be doing just fine at Berkeley or UCLA to those who can barely string a couple of correct sentences together. I'm sad sometimes when I meet students who literally can't read. I largely quit having students do expository reading in class (reading aloud) because I felt bad for the students who struggled to read through a paragraph from the textbook. It's not one particular demographic in particular, although a lot of Latino students are ESL and a lot of blacks demonstrate something of a stunted degree of formal learning, and I'm talking rudimentary basic skills acquisition. And worse, with the exception of the odd student here or there, black kids generally don't seem to care. (Don't even get me going about the black student athletes.)

Sociology and Other 'Meathead' Majors

From Harvey Mansfield, at Wall Street Journal (and here, in case it's behind the paywall).

Substituting "political science" for "economics" at the essay also works. (Recall this post.)

Disgruntled Student Sues Her Law School Over 'False' Employment Statistics After Taking Out $150,000 in School Loans

And it's a $50 million class action lawsuit. I guess she needs the money. At The Tax Prof's Blog, "Grad Files $50m Class Action v. Law School for Misrepresenting Placement Data." Her name's Anna Alaburda. She's working as a "document reviewer," whatever that is. Also, at ABA Journal:

Filed by attorney Brian Procel of Miller Barondess, the suit seeks class action status and compensatory damages of $50 million for a claimed class of some 2,300 TJSL attendees.

Beth Kransberger, who serves as the law school's associate dean for student affairs, tells the legal publication there was no misrepresentation and says TJSL followed guidelines set by the American Bar Association when reporting its employment statistics..

"We've always been accurate in what we report, and we've always followed the system given to us by the ABA," she says. "This lawsuit is very much about a larger debate. This is part of the debate about whether it's practical to pursue a graduate degree in these difficult economic times."

Hat Tip: Instapundit.

Student Activism at AIPAC

The video is especially interesting after 6:00 minutes.

And Barbara Efraim touched base with me yesterday, the first chance she's had since getting back from AIPAC in D.C. I already posted Barbara's recent commentary piece at The Daily Bruin, but she wanted to give me a heads up on this comment at the article:

Equating Noam Chomsky – a world-renowned public intellectual, linguist, writer, and emeritus professor at one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world – to some marginal, goblin-like hate-monger as Horowitz is just plain foolish.

What “threat” of Sharia Law do you speak of? What Israeli “democracy” do you speak of? Your rhetoric is tired and ineffective.

Harvard's Stephen Walt Speaks at Code Pink's Move Over AIPAC! Summit, May 21, 2011

Alana Goodman had the heads up last month: "Move Over AIPAC, Here Come the Geriatric Anti-Semites."

It's shameful. The schedule is here. And check the group's list of ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS & PARTNERS. It's a one-stop shop for the global left's international solidarity movement. And of course Code Pink's the premiere fifth column organization working against both American interests and Israel's existence.

It's shameful for Stephen Walt, and it's shameful for Harvard and the political science profession.

RELATED: "Stephen Walt, Harvard's Israel-Bashing Political Scientist, Implicated in Libyan Influence-Peddling Scandal."

EXTRA: While enjoying sensational success on the anti-Israel left, Walt's book, The Israel Lobby, hasn't held up well to scholarly scrutiny. See Itamar Rabinovich, "Testing the 'Israel Lobby' Thesis."

Scott Eric Kaufman Awards Students Who Like to Say F**k!

Well, it's no big f**king deal if you're a scumbag postmodern academic like UCI Composition Lecturer Scott Eric Kaufman. Nope. No qualms about it. See: "Fuckity fuck fuck. Fuck fuck fuckity fuck. Q.F.E.F.D. (F.F.)." I guess that's where Dolt Douche Thers gets HIS oeuvre. But hey, five'll get you ten SEK calls his buddies "cocksuckers" in private, or well, maybe that'd be more of Carl Salonen's patter.

In any case, check Scott "F**kity f**k" Kaufman's winning submission for the comic Scott McCloud assignment, "Every quarter I present my students with five panels from McCloud..." And get this: The winner "wishes to remain anonymous." Well, yeah. Scoring GPA points for profanity probably isn't the highlight of the grad school/law school apps (or, well, it's been a while since I took the GRE, so who knows?). The student's a beam in SEK's eyes, apparently: "Congratulations! I hate you! You're awesome!" At least he didn't say "I'll end you"!!

Freakin asshat.

David Horowitz at UCLA, 'Intellectual Terrorism: The Left's War on Free Speech'

From Mark Tapson, at FrontPage Magazine, "Horowitz and Intellectual Terrorism at UCLA":

Last Wednesday, evening the Freedom Center’s David Horowitz gave a much anticipated and ferociously opposed presentation before a crowd of more than 300 people at Moore Hall at the University of California at Los Angeles. The event was hosted by the Bruin Republicans, self-described as “the only officially right-of-center organization on the UCLA campus” – which is a good, albeit disheartening, indicator of the very issue Horowitz has been addressing on hundreds of campuses across this country, and which was the evening’s topic: the fact that our institutions of supposedly higher learning are utterly dominated by intolerant progressive academics who are ill-serving and mentally straight-jacketing their students.

Horowitz’s speech was as blunt as the title of his presentation – “Intellectual Terrorism: The Left’s War on Free Speech.” Pacing back and forth at the front of the hall, he was revved up right out of the gate and became even more impassioned as he went on. He began the wide-ranging, forty-minute speech with a condemnation of academics who indoctrinate rather than teach (“The students who suffer most are those of you who are on the left, because your assumptions are never challenged.”) Among other topics, he went on to decry campus anti-Semitism and to identify Islam as the greatest oppressor of women and gays in the world today. He delivered a myth-busting history of “Palestine” and a concise explanation of his opposition to slavery reparations a hundred years after the fact. And he attacked the Muslim Student Association, ubiquitous on major college campuses, as a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas and the sponsor of Israel Apartheid weeks across the country.

He was flanked throughout the speech by very visible security – a tragic necessity for Horowitz, who is a lightning rod for some of the most bilious hatred that has ever been directed at a conservative public figure. He regularly receives threats prior to speaking engagements and has in fact been physically attacked. This is the inevitable result of his having once been a radical leftist himself, for the Left is only marginally more forgiving of its apostates than fundamentalist Muslims are of theirs.

RTWT at the link.

I mentioned Horowitz's security earlier: "Tense Atmosphere at David Horowitz Lecture at UCLA."

Plus, from Thursday morning: "VIDEO: David Horowitz at UCLA, "The Left's War on Free Speech," May 11, 2011."

Tense Atmosphere at David Horowitz Lecture at UCLA

There were rumors that communists and Muslims were planning protests against David Howoritz's talk at UCLA on Wednesday night. The disruptions never materialized, but one couldn't miss how much security David Horowitz requires. He had his personal security guards, of course, and then UCLA police were on hand as well. There were a couple of tense moments when I saw what looked like some leftist students moving quickly up and down the aisles in the lecture hall, but nothing happened. I keep looking over at the event organizers, the Bruin Republicans, as well. They looked apprehensive.

In any case, David Swindle has a report on this, "At UCLA the Campus Left and MSA Skip David Horowitz’s Speech."

Noam Chomsky, Osama Bin Laden's Fellow Traveler

See Bret Stephens, at Wall Street Journal, "From Chomsky to bin Laden":

Ho-hum: Can anyone be surprised anymore by what Mr. Chomsky thinks and says? Not really. In one of those little ironies of leftist politics, the author of "Manufacturing Consent" has become a victim of what my former colleague Tom Frank likes to call "the commodification of dissent," in which even the most radical ideas come stamped with their own ISBN number. In the West at least, the marketplace of ideas is also the great equalizer of ideas, blunting edges that might once have had the power to wound and kill.

So it is that Mr. Chomsky can be the recipient of over 20 honorary degrees, including from Harvard, Cambridge and the University of Chicago. None of these degrees, as far as I know, was conferred for Mr. Chomsky's political musings, but neither did those musings provoke any apparent misgivings about the fitness of granting the award. So Mr. Chomsky is the purveyor of some controversial ideas about this or that aspect of American power. So what?

Here's what: Dulled (and dull) as Mr. Chomsky's ideas might be in the West, they remain razors outside of it. "Among the most capable of those from your side who speak on this topic [the war in Iraq] and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war," said bin Laden in 2007. He was singing the professor's praises again last year, saying "Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the mafia."

These words seem to have been deeply felt. Every wannabe philosopher—and bin Laden was certainly that—seeks the imprimatur of someone he supposes to be a real philosopher. Mr. Chomsky could not furnish bin Laden with a theology, but he did provide an intellectual architecture for his hatred of the United States. That Mr. Chomsky speaks from the highest tower of American academe, that he is so widely feted as the great mind of his generation, that his every utterance finds a publisher and an audience, could only have sustained bin Laden in the conceit that his thinking was on a high plane. Maybe it would have been different if Mr. Chomsky had been dismissed decades ago for what he is: a two-nickel crank.

More at the link.

PREVIOUSLY: "Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'," and "Noam Chomsky Lecture at UCLA Tonight: 'Palestine and Israel in Crisis'."

Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'

I experimented with video blogging, and this clip captures more of Chomsky's comments on U.S. policy than his remarks on Israeli expansionism. Here he argues that from Washington's perspective democracy and freedom in the Middle East are antithetical to American interests. The U.S. and Israel allegedly fear the Arab Spring because the revolutions threaten American hegemony in the region. Chomsky spouts a lot of disinformation, which is his trademark. He says at 40 seconds that "about 90 percent of Egyptians view the United States as the main enemy" and that "about 80 percent in the region wanted to be sure Iran had nuclear weapons":

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there's obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there's no support for Chomky's claim of "80 percent" across the region supporting Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, "a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat" (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what's even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky's America-bashing is observing the rock star status he's afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I'll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on "American imperialism" and "corporate dominance" were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm. There was a long line out in front of the lecture hall, and while I was dressed casual with my baggy shorts and Famous Stars and Straps shirt and cap, I nevertheless hid the cover of Peter Collier and David Horowitz's, Anti Chomsky Reader with my copy Chomsky and Ilan Pappé's Gaza in Crisis. No need to get these thugs riled. That said, I haven't shaved in weeks, and the beard's getting a little scruffy, frankly, and thus I imagine that grizzled look went over well among the hordes. Honestly, some Muslim women simply do not smell good, and that's to say nothing of the countercultural radicals who look like they just awoke from a night's sleep out on the sidewalks of Westwood. Hey, I guess it's a good thing that the Muslim dude I saw in building of the Samueli School of Engineering, where I stopped off to take a leak before heading back out to the parking garage, was performing his ablutions right there at the bathroom sink!

In any case, listening to Chomsky drone on lethargically, I was reminded of this passage from David Horowitz's essay at the reader, "Noam Chomsky's Anti-American Obsession":

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky's lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe -- his pathological hatred of his own country.

The point was evident at the moment Chomsky commenced. The talk was on "Palestine and Israel in Crisis," but Chomsky was emphatic in stressing the everything Israel does "is at the direction of the United States." That claim sets the tone, of course, for Chomsky's attacks on America's imperial ambitions in the region. But despite the monotonous delivery, Chomsky was sharp intellectually and stayed on point in discussing the Middle East "crisis." And note that nothing, not a single fact surrounding the cycles of violence and bloodshed in the region, is the fault of the Palestinians. He made a big point, a number of times, to stress that the U.S. and Israel face a "crisis of legitimation" in world opinion. He argued, by that token, that this was in fact an increasing "crisis of delegitimation" that's bringing about a "tsunami" of condemnation against the United States, which Chomsky eagerly claimed to be a declining power, but which will nevertheless will remain influential of global affairs for some time to come. (Which begs the question of course of whether or not the U.S. really is the "hegemon" that's the basis for Chomsky's decades-long excoriation of his own country.)

Another term Chomsky used repeatedly was "illegal" --- as in Israel "illegally" occupying Gaza and now "illegally" occupying the West Bank with its "illegal" settlements that form the basis for its policy of "expansion over security." That theme, which was essentially the thesis of the night, was that, according to Chomsky, never has Israel been about peace in the Middle East. He cited a number times when Israel allegedly rejected accommodation with the Palestinians, and instead the Jewish state was alleged to be bent in expansion into the territories it claimed in its numerous wars of conquest. Chomsky laid out a vision of either a future two-state accommodation on the basis of peace (not likely) or Israel's complete decimation of Palestine resulting in a one-state domination. A third option was "what's happening right now." Israel will continue to expand the "illegal" settlements, and the U.S. will continue its "hegemonic" role of regional domination in the Middle East.

At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned to the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel's crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I note here at the end that Chomsky concluded the question and answer session by arguing that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, "murdered," so that the U.S. could avoid putting Bin Laden on trial, because "they have no evidence against him."

That final jab at the U.S. went over extremely well with the crowd of anti-Americans and Arafat-styled student-cum-terrorists.

Scott Lemieux Backs Anti-Semitic Tony Kushner at Lawyers, Guns and Money

So now Lawyers, Guns and Money is a Jew-bashing, BDS-backing, anti-Semitic hate-site? Well, of course we know that Robert Farley worships Che Guevara, so fanatical Israel-hatred is the logical next step for LGM. The confirmation is in Scott Lemieux's jihad against Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, a Member of the Board of Trustees of the City University of New York, who has spoken out against the the university's plan to give an honorary degree to gay socialist playwright Tony Kushner. Here's the screencap of Lemieux's attack on Wiesenfeld this morning, "The CUNY Disgrace."

I commented at the post:

I’m calling you out right now as an Israel-basher, Scott. And a hypocrite. You’re for free-speech for Israel’s critics but you want to punish Israel’s defenders. Seriously. You’re a sick fucker.

And here's the hypocrisy, from an earlier post where Lemieux decried "political correctness":

If there was a contest among the trustees to see who could commit the most egregious breach of CUNY’s mission and traditions, I think we have a winner! Well, at least we know that Roger Kimball has a point about “political correctness” running amok on campuses ...

Actually, the issue here isn't political correctness. It's whether some forms of speech, while protected, are unworthy of the legitimacy and recognition that's conferred with an honorary degree. Frankly, Kushner's attacks on Israel are anti-Semitic, as Wiesenfeld wrote in an essay at The Algemeiner:

When you hold the State of Israel – a nation in a struggle for its survival from the beginning, a target for the misogynist, racist, anti-western, dictatorial regimes which surround it – to a standard you would hold no other nation under normal circumstances, let alone under such exigencies – and when you spew libel against our sole regional democratic ally for “crimes” concocted by delegitimizers, you are an anti-Semite.

See also, "Transcript of CUNY Trustee’s Speech on Kushner Award."

And Bruce Kesler's been all over this at Maggie's Farm, for example, "CUNY Chairman: Kushner 'made the trains run on time'."

And from Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "The New York Times Piles on Kushner’s Critic":

A New York arts world that considers a hard-core leftist theatrical polemicist like Tony Kushner to be “compassionate” and fair-minded must find it hard to accept the fact that there are people in the world who deem his anti-Zionism so hard to stomach they refuse to remain silent when asked to honor him. The belief that Kushner is a “writer of rare intellectual scope” with an “extraordinary, active empathy that pervades every one of his plays” is clearly the dominant viewpoint among the city’s chattering classes, and it is hardly surprising that dissenters like Wiesenfeld will be treated harshly as a consequence. The drumbeat of incitement against Wiesenfeld, in which Kushner is falsely portrayed as a victim, will accelerate in the days to come. By the time this nonsense is played out, Kushner may be in line for a Nobel Peace Prize.

That is the way the cultural elites play hardball. Wiesenfeld must understand that he will not be forgiven for his act of lese majeste against a leading cultural liberal. But in standing up against a man whose opposition to Israel has always brought him honor rather than the shame it deserved, Wiesenfeld has restored a little bit of balance to New York’s cockeyed world of high culture.

Also, from Phyllis Chesler, "Communist University of NY (CUNY) Denies Honor to Israel-Bashing Playwright Tony Kushner":

I once labored at the City University of New York (CUNY). I am amazed but thrilled that enough (five) members on their twelve member Board of Trustees actually viewed Kushner’s views on Israel as “racist.”

I once taught a graduate course at the very branch of CUNY which proposed Kushner. Once, I was friendly with some of the professorial union thugs who literally occupy positions to the left of Stalin.

Yes, many are gay, many are feminists. Some are also homophobic and sexist. Life is complicated over there at Communist U because I am describing the same people as well as their opponents.

God bless CUNY Trustee Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, who was the first to speak against Kushner. He said that Kushner had tied the founding of the state of Israel to a policy of “ethnic cleansing.” He was surprised that he got the votes necessary to knock Kushner’s honorary degree off the table.

RELATED: From David Horowitz, "Andrew Sullivan’s Misguided Defense of the Regrettable Mr. Kushner":

Andrew Sullivan has posted an attack on CUNY trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld for blocking a politically motivated honorary degree that was to be given to the over-rated, crypto-communist and Israel-demonizing playwright Tony Kushner. Andrew’s intelligence is on display in the opening paragraph of his piece where he reiterates his clear-headed views of Kushner’s inflated literary reputation. Kushner’s Pulitzer-winning agitprop, Angels in America, is a puerile embarrassment and in recognizing this Andrew shows that he is capable of breaking out of the bubble of liberal derangement when it suits him. All the more reason that Andrew’s attack on Wiesenfeld is an instructive illustration of the unhinged attitudes of current “critics” of Israel, who are apologists for Hamas and their Gaza supporter.

More at the link.

Also, on the front page of today's New York Times, "Tony Kushner Is Now Likely to Get CUNY Honor."

Figures.

Front page treatment at New York Times too. Another nail in the coffin.

City University of New York Blocks Honorary Degree for Anti-Semitic Playwright Tony Kushner

At NYT, "CUNY Blocks Honor for Tony Kushner."

And see Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, "Tony Kushner, an Extremist, Can’t Represent CUNY" (via Maggie's Farm):

Following our consensus decision to table the honorary degree nomination of Mr. Tony Kushner it is worthy to note that Mr. Kushner repeats the ugly charges against Israel for which he is known in a letter to the City University Board of Trustees and the media, in which he attempts to defend himself. He is disingenuous and dissembling.

If his libelous statements against Israel were made by anyone outside the Jewish community, that person would be correctly labeled an anti-Semite. When you hold the State of Israel – a nation in a struggle for its survival from the beginning, a target for the misogynist, racist, anti-western, dictatorial regimes which surround it – to a standard you would hold no other nation under normal circumstances, let alone under such exigencies – and when you spew libel against our sole regional democratic ally for “crimes” concocted by delegitimizers, you are an anti-Semite.

More at the link above.

And it turns out that Kushner's views on Israel are informed by hardline BDS types, including Norman Finklestein, who Weisenfeld cited when calling out Kushner.

And right on cue the Israel-hating left has jumped to Kushner's defense, at Lawyers, Guns and Murder and Mondoweiss. Plus, some overtime action from Justin Elliot at and Salon: "School blocks Kushner honor over Israel" and "Fight over Israel and Tony Kushner heats up" (via Memeorandum).