3/31/2003 01:18:00 AM | Timothy Here's Some Dishonest Right-Wing Bullspit about Columbia's reaction to De Genova's comments Read the New York Post editorial "jokingly" wishing for another Kent State. The Post editorial says: Columbia, of course, couldn't summon the courage even to address what its hireling had said - let alone condemn it.... But isn't De Genova himself a representative of Columbia University? He's on the faculty. Along with a gaggle of Columbia-based lefty lugnuts, he was speaking Thursday night as a professor, on university property, largely to university students - when he called down disaster on thousands of brave young Americans.The idiotic Murdochites claim that the statements of one Professor represent the views of Columbia. What about the statements of two Columbia Professors (including an organizer of the event) who publically repudiated some of De Genova's sentiments? Do they also simultaneously represent the views of Columbia? And those dishonest writers who give conservatives a bad name do not even mention President Bollinger's reaction. If The New York Post will consider De Genova and every other untenured professor a representative of Columbia, cannot it extend that courtesy to the President of Columbia?! Sheesh. This was printed in The New York Times (which I'm sure The Post editors did not read, and would have changed their editorial had they just known... yeah right): "Under well-established principles of the First Amendment, this is within a person's right to free speech," Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia, said in an interview. "Not for a second, however, does that insulate it from criticism. I am shocked that someone would make such statements. I am especially saddened for the families of those whose lives are now at risk." ..."Professor De Genova's speech did not represent the views of the organizers," said Eric Foner, a history professor who was one of the teach-in's organizers. "I personally found it quite reprehensible. The antiwar movement does not desire the death of American soldiers. We do not accept his view of what it means to be a patriot. I began my talk, which came later, by repudiating his definition of patriotism, saying the teach-in was a patriotic act, that I believe patriots are those who seek to improve their country." perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP |