Writing at Townhall, Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at UNC-Wilmington, reports on an associate professor at Kent State who is admittedly—and actively — supporting the jihadi movement:
Yesterday afternoon, I logged on to the “Global War†blog of Associate Professor Julio Pino—a Muslim convert who teaches at Kent State University. The heading for the site used to read “The Worldwide Web of Jihad: Daily News from the Most Dangerous Muslim in America.†Now it reads “Are You Prepared for Jihad?†IN THE NAME OF OBL. 2007: THE YEAR OF ISLAMIC VICTORY!“
[…]
Pino began his morning of not going into his office at Kent State by penning a post under the title “Frightened British Crusaders Rush More Troops to Occupied Afghanistan.†Using terms like “occupation†and “Crusaders†it isn’t really necessary to read these posts in order to ascertain who this employee of the State of Ohio is rooting for in the War on Terror.
But, just in case you were curious about the purpose of this site, it is provided in the upper right corner: “We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide. All we want is to get Allah’s pleasure. We will write ‘Jihad’ across our foreheads, and the stars. The angels will carry our message throughout the world.â€Â
There is also an “Oath of Freedom†in the upper right corner: “We were born free. We will live freely and when death comes to us, we will die freely. Jihad is changing all that can be changed; freeing ourselves through our own efforts; and the conviction that truth will prevail, inshallah.â€Â
Under the entry “Sister Detonates Herself to Eliminate Shia Traitors†there is a description of a female suicide bomber who recently killed 41 people. Just in case you wondered how the host of the site feels about the suicide bomber, the next line tells you: “Now she lies on the Golden Couch of Paradise.â€Â
[…]
[…] just to be fair to Pino, he is more balanced in his teaching than a lot of my colleagues at UNC-Wilmington. In fact, he’s even willing to criticize an occasional Democrat. He says that John F. Kennedy once planned “genocide against the Cuban people” in the 1960s. He also claims that President Bill Clinton killed “more than 500,000 Iraqi children” in the 1990s.
Although obsessed with the notion that America is being over-run by “Christian fascism,” he has affectionately referred to his students his “little Jihadists” and his “beloved Taliban.” In other words, he makes no bones about the fact that he works to indoctrinate, not educate, the children of the taxpayers of the State of Ohio.
Many people believe that Julio Pino deserves to be fired because of his public statements about the War on Terror. I disagree. A simple firing is too light a punishment.
Dr. Julio Pino, for his decision to “provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our (enemies) worldwide” deserves to be arrested and sent to an island off the coast of North America, striped naked, interrogated, and, if necessary, tortured to ascertain the extent of his involvement in assisting our enemies.
Well. I don’t think that last bit will go over well with many people—and I’m not sure Adams isn’t being a bit tongue-in-cheek there—but I do think his condemnation has raised some interesting questions about academic freedom.
After all (the argument will go), shouldn’t we be protecting Dr Pino’s right to host a private site espousing his political and religious views?—which are separate from his teaching? And wouldn’t his firing by a state-run institution for same mark a clear violation of Pino’s First Amendment rights?
Because believe me, the minute Pino is dismissed—before the ink is even dry on the ACLU lawsuit— the push by those on the left to go after academic bloggers like Glenn Reynolds will be swift and furious, citing his alleged “hate speech” as a reason his university should take a closer look at his blogging. This tactic has, in fact, already been rehearsed by academic “progressives” like the University of Colorado’s Paul Campos—and if you believe that others won’t eagerly climb aboard the false equivalency train, you haven’t been following the trajectory of progressive political maneuverings.
That there is no comparison between Reynolds and Pino in practice is beside the point—which point will be addressed in the realm of the theoretical and the rhetorical, and will redound to prevailing social sensibilities inside the academy concerning “hate” and “tolerance.” Because the goal of many progressive demagogues—as we saw yesterday—is to expand such terms as “extremist” and “sociopath” to include fairly mainstream conservative thought (or, as in the case of Reynolds, libertarian thought that makes the mistake of not being stridently anti-Bush)—and to do this, they must rely on a type of relativism that plays much better once it escapes into the ethereal realm of the hypothetical.
Such moves, though, are almost to be expected—particularly because we in this country, committed as we are to pluralism and individual rights, are extraordinarily careful in alleging sedition or treason (remember John Walker Lindh?), almost to a fault. Consequently, our unwillingness to make severe judgments has left us willing only to make very general and qualified ones, and in such situations, a pernicious form of intellectual relativism has a way of insinuating itself, to a dangerous degree, into the very structures of our thinking.
Another problem arises when we look at the specific case of Dr Pino. First, it is impossible not to regard his avowed aid to our enemies as anything short of actively fighting against his own countrymen—but that many of his own countrymen don’t agree with the course our government has taken provides Pino a kind of cover he might not otherwise receive. And at what point can we separate “aiding and abetting” in effect with “aiding and abetting” by design? See, for instance, Dick Cheney’s recent remarks concerning the Democrats plan to hamstring the fighting of the war—something that he compares in effect to helping al Qaeda carry out its terror strategy.
Second, there is the fact of Islamism itself. So long as we continue to view it as a legitimate “religion” (separated from its political demands), we will have a great deal of trouble fighting against it in First Amendment cases. This is the case with any theocratic system, but in the case of Islamism, the system itself carries with it religious demands for conquering by force. It is one thing to fight against political speech—which we are prepared, I suspect, to see as potentially treasonous; but it is more difficult to conclude that a “religion” is by its very nature treasonous—an observation that compelled a few lawmakers in Germany to try to label the Koran a political document, and indict it as a treatise demanding that its adherents subvert the laws of the state to the dictates of Koranic political assertions.
So how do we deal with cases like that of Dr Pino—where he is openly supporting the jihadi movement under the aegis of a religious demand? After all, can we really prove that by providing news or training manuals (what is a training manual, in this respect? Online material that teaches people how to hold a gun? How to run military maneuvers? What ingredients go into an incendiary device?), Pino is demonstrably breaking the law?
At what point can the state step in and say that certain speech is over the line—especially when they’ve been so reluctant to appeal to that line for decades, and in fact have taken great pains to walk back that line, in keeping with First Amendment principles.
Rusty Shackleford at Jawa Report writes:
I’d say that Pino has definitely exceeded the bounds of normal academic freedom. He should be fired. Immediately. Academic freedom is a license to criticize, but it is not a license to facillitate and encourage illegal acts. And if The Jawa Report was started for one reason, it was to expose the real role jihadi propaganda plays in the death and murder of so many around the world.
All of which I—and I’m sure many here—would agree with. But I do wonder—at what point is it safe to begin punishing people for “encouraging” illegal acts (I’m reminded of the final “Seinfeld” episode, for some reason) as opposed to, say, actively engaging in them? And is “facilitation” a matter merely of intent? Because the case can be made that illegal acts can be “facilitated” by information never meant to be used as such. So it remains unclear, from a legal standpoint, whether one would be “facilitating” simply by dint of collecting and transmitting information that is otherwise available, only in different contexts.
Make no mistake: personally, I believe the state of Ohio should be heavily scrutinizing this professor. Similarly, I wouldn’t find it at all troubling if some of our national security agencies wanted to a closer look at Dr Pino.
But I also do wonder if, in the absence of using sedition and treason statutes (which we seem particularly loath to do), there are grounds for firing Dr Pino that wouldn’t run afoul of First Amendment protections.
Thoughts?
(via LGF; h/t CJ Burch)
Any relation, you suppose, to the alleged “Dr.” Vittorio de la Vega, or whatever was his handle? I note similarities beyond the Latinate name.
Cordially…
I wonder what these folks have to say about it.
I’m a bit unclear on the history of Dr. Pino’s website…and I think it would probably be best if I didn’t go digging around on that site while at work.
Is it possible this is a prank? Some sort of bizarre class project? A ploy to get people ginned up over the site just so Dr. Pino can shout “See! everyone but me is a fascist!”
I’m just asking, because Mr. Adam’s post seems thin on the site history.
Adams is a favorite columnist of mine, hailing as I do from the fair state in which he teaches.
As a grace note, how about invoking the idea that actions speak louder than words – and then prosecute the actions. Sort of like loving the sinner but condemning the sin. As for condemning, imagine military-justince trial.
Thought experiment: what would happen if the good professor was instead a proponent of the Klan, and used his website to celebrate whites who had been accused/convicted of attacks against blacks, while calling for continued attacks of such a nature?
Of course, our “progressive” “friends” would say that no, it’s not tit for tat, as – ahem – their tit far, far outweighs our wingnutted tat.
justice. justince makes me wince.
I’m still worried that our contradictions concerning church and state will come back to harm us over the long run.
We’ve discussed this before, but there are certain leeways given to certain religions in this country that are not granted to others. Church bells for instance violate state noise ordinances but they are given a pass because, well, they are church bells. Hammatramck (sp?) Michigan has a muslim majority and they recently had battles over the right to blast the call to prayer five times a day from the local mosque. By any logical standard, if we are going to allow churches to use the bells, then muslims should be allowed to blast the call to prayer, because it is essentially the same thing.
Now we have the problem of charities supporting terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, that use religious cover for their operations. It doesn’t help that we now have to add in the professors such as Dr. Pino who openly support terrorists, but it is going to get vey messy when defense attorneys use client privilege when it comes to confessions or evidence presented through a religious institution.
I’m afraid that they would have a point. Right now I can confess to murder to a priest in church and the testimony cannot be used against me. What’s the over/under before this happens with a Mullah?
Personally, I’d like to send a letter to every parent whose kids go to the school and inform them of Dr. Pino’s actions.
Then, he’ll be fired as a “business decision” instead of a “free speech” issue and your hands will remain clean (although the same result).
To be fair, send a letter to every parent at Instapundit’s haunt and I’m sure it will be read and placed in the same pile as all the 1.7% Refinancing offers and Kroger ads.
Personally, there is a level to where a threat should be accepted as real. If Dr. Jihad is actively preaching this stuff, why shouldn’t we take it at face value? A man who walks into a bank claiming to have a gun should be shot dead regardless if he only has his booger hook in his front pocket.
Why does his being a teacher grant him special rights that you and I don’t enjoy? I have to be careful because my employer may not take kindly to the fact I’m an overarmed gun-nut and post about it regularly. If they were to think I was a threat to their business (whether as an actual, physical threat or perceived threat by stock-holders’ views) they can fire me just as easily as I could quit and walk out.
I’d even go so far as to try him for treason and instead of killing him outright, ship his ass to Karsplakistan and let him Jihad it up in some dung covered hovel.
I dunno, Jeff. I’m kind of with SGIC on this one. If it’s true, and if he’s openly inciting jihad or peddling jihadi propaganda, I expect some kind of scrutiny to be turned his way. However, even if that happens, I don’t expect much to happen. I fully expect the academic iron curtain will close ranks in his defense, especially on a campus like Kent State. That place is the modern day iconic equivalent for the modern hard Left of Picasso’s “Guernica”. At the most, I expect he’ll receive a “talking to” by the campus administration, some modifications to his page, and an explanation like “it was only an academic exercise” like SGIC mentioned.
“And is “facilitation†a matter merely of intent? Because the case can be made that illegal acts can be “facilitated†by information never meant to be used as such”
Intent is the magic word here.
It had to be Kent State, didn’t it.
All it would take to get Professor Pino bounced is for Richard Melon Scaife to pay the class fees for a couple of non-fellow Jihadist travellers to take the Professor’s course.
I’ve no doubt that the professor would violate some provision of his employment contract (threats, assaults, et cetera) as a result, which would give Kent State the cover it needs to get rid of this guy.
–
Tman, you are a little off there. If the Muslims had rang a bell instead of a warbling chant in a language nobody understood, you would have heard not a peep. It’s the bell that is allowed, not the church. We’ve got a carillon behind where I work that bongs 4 times an hour, 24×7, no religious connotations whatsoever, and it passes muster.
The courthouse downtown chimes twice an hour.
So, I think you’re confusing the issue a little.
Is it really ok for me to post 2 comments without at least one line of snark?
It’s not that he’s a teacher so much as he’s a state employee.
Robb,
The church bells in parts of Nashville ring as a call to prayer on Sundays. I am aware that there are “secular” bells in the sense that they aren’t about calls to prayer, but the point is that if you give one religion the ability to forgo the noise ordinances, why can’t another religion do the same? Since I pretty much worship Jimi Hendrix, by the same logic I should be able to blast Axis:Bold As Love as my call to prayer at 3 in the morning.
I’m using this example as a precursor. The bigger problem lies at the client/privilege aspect.
i think that’s pretty much it. The way to get rid of him is just to show everybody what he says. No matter how permissive and “liberal” the campus is, someone there with some sway is gonna put the hurt on him post-haste once this reaches the donors/alumni.
If that doesn’t do the trick, fine. Let’s have a national conversation about this dumb shit.
First thing that is not clear to me is whether he is tenured, “associates” usually aren’t. If he isn’t tenured, he probably won’t be.
Second thing is, if he’s tenured, and he does his job (lecturing, grading papers, etc.), and leaves his politics out of it, then, the school should leave him alone.
Third thing is, aid and comfort to enemy: This might be a good reason to declare war against specific enemies so charges of treason could actually stick. So far, it just reads like a fan site for terrorism, which is disgusting, but it’s his site. A fan site is not the same as actually communicating with known terrorists. If he was doing that, then arrest him subject to habeas corpus. Period.
Tmann,why can the courthouse go around it? Why can the business park I work in get around it with their gaudy carillon that you can hear for miles?
It has nothing to do with religion and all to do with societal norms. We’re used to bells. Some people use them as a call to prayer, I use them to realize I’ve spent too long in the shitter and should get back to work. If Marvin the Muslim wanted to call to prayer banging on a large iron barrel, so be it.
As for Hendrix, you can blare that at any time as far as I’m concerned.
And Jeff, let me rephrase my statement then. Why does his being a state employee grant him special rights that you and I don’t enjoy. If a state employee, on his or her own time, started writing intricate, online stories of their desire to engage in child molestation, even if there were no acts with children involved, why should the state be barred from firing him or her?
I’m not visiting his site either, but if he is knowingly “providing” training manuals to any designated foreign terrorist organization, the DoJ will want to speak with him.
I guess the issue I have is how the hell did they find that site? what the hell made whats-his-name log on to a crummy little blog on a crummy little bloghost. Second, if this is infact for real, how did someone so stupid get hired to teach?
I’m not buying it, Looking at his info on the Kent State page, he looks like your average pinko social justice type. Heavy on Latin American revolution and racism. But the blog is really clumsy and overdone, and why blogroll MEMRI? Other issues, like for instance, the IED picture is hotlinked from google image search to an MIT class trip page.
If it’s real, then sure get it out in the open, sunlight is the best disinfectant, but if it isn’t…
Anyway, I can garantee it that none of the fifteen billion accounting majors will ever take this guy’s class. Not worth freaking out over until he blows himself up in the kitchen trying to make one of those bombs from that book he was reading.
But he does know a hell of a lot about Brazil…hmmmmmmmm.
Kent State? Can’t the Ohio National Guard just shoot him or something?
as Admiral Ackbar might put it- “It’s a trap!”
Is it possible someone is setting up the usual conservative suspects (LGF, Malkin, us?) to try and get a demonstration of “scalping” going?
And how lame would that be?
Jeff brings up points that are worthy of discussion regardless of the site’s actual intent but boy it sure seems like a parody site to me.
Here are some post titles:
Jihadi Weapon of the Day: IED INSIDE DEAD DOG!
WHO’S DUMBER, BUSHITLER OR AUSSIE PM HOWARD?
Here an old classic:
Ode To Anthrax: Poetry Corner
This guy is way past one of Jeff’s lefty parodies or even that ShezzbubleWhatever idiot on Pandagon. Maybe the Acacdemic life does that to you?
And this guy has not had his clock cleaned yet? Are there any men on campus at Kent State?
Note: I reversed the status of “assistant” and “associate” – this guy is probably tenured. Get used to it.
Some other thoughts:
1. Whatever happened to Professor “Million Mogadiscus”? I considered that more treasonous than anything I have seen about Professor Pinos.
2. Do some checking on Vietnam and the academy. This is small potatoes.
I don’t pretend to know anything about the history of this site or this professor, so consider him just the occasion for the questions raised in the post.
That is, let’s assume, for the moment, this isn’t some ridiculous hoax to try to “snare” REICHWINGERS looking for a scalp. Because, well, if there were any truth to this, they certainly would be justified in their alarm. So as a prank I’m not sure it speaks to rightwing eagerness to catch somebody so much as it does to the ability of many on the left to transcend parody.
Instead, let’s proceed as if this is demonstrably real. Because in truth, I didn’t read the website myself, but instead relied on Adams’ honesty in characterizing it by his having quoted directly from it.
Does he have tenure?
How does this differ from Churchill at CU? Churchill isn’t even under review at this time for his written takes on encouraging violence against the US. He’s under review due to plagiarism and possible acts of violence he’s personally committed.
If you’re a dean and you look at these situations it’s no wonder they’d rather just take a pass. Churchill is still teaching and on the payroll. They have to go through a three year brain cramp to get rid of a professor, all the while dealing with protests and appeals.
I mean, this guy in particular has the absolute balls (h/t Malkin) to create a website and publish his desire to assist our enemies. He does so because the wacky brigade of professors in this country believe their isolated echo chamber of political belief is a universal truth beyond argument. In others words, and as others quickly conclude from news like this… the guy is nuts.
The difference is because after Churchill made his “L’il Eichmanns” comment, people went through his writings for tenure-breaking errors. They found them, but, they can’t escape that their search was informed by a desire to get him for his free speech. Thus they have compromised (as I understand it) for him to be on leave for 3 years. Then he will be back.
And, I didn’t like Churchill’s comments either, but, I do respect tenure. (Even though it’s hard to respect many of the people who have it.) And I also respect academic freedom and free speech generally.
BTW,
This the site Adams refers to:
http://global-war.bloghi.com/
Here is Julio Pino:
http://dept.kent.edu/history/faculty/pino.html
Same guy? I don’t think so.
I think Broome Community College will always have a spot for such a scholar and shaper of young characters.
Cordially…
Nicholas De Genova, Mr Million Mogadishus himself, is still at Columbia University where he is resident expert on the transnational urban and conceptual spaces that Mexican-Americans inhabit ‘n’ shit.
What can I say? It is what it is.
WHOIS query is not bringing up Julio.
I don’t know what’s going on, but I’d advise holding fire.
And someone should ask/tell Adams.
Well, I am not a constitutional lawyer or anything but it would appear to me that in no way would his firing infringe on his first amendment rights.
Unless Congress fires him I guess.
In response to the meta-question, I would say that the conduct is on a very fine line.
I would keep track of the guy and I would talk to him.
If he breaks any law, he’s gone.
If people really want him gone, complain.
Short of breaking the law, I would ignore him.
Suppling PDF manuals on how to kill Americans is legal?
Seriously though (taking the position this was real and not a hoax) I’m not interested in having the guy fired. I’m interested in having him arrested and thrown in jail.
I can’t go around threatening others with harm and claim “Christ compels me” as a defense. If someone truly threatens the safety of others then this is the “Fire in a crowded theater” scenario if I’ve ever heard one.
As most people do. However the First Ammendment does not, and should not, absolve us from the consequenses of what we say. Especially when taxpayer dollers are involved (Churchills’ tenure).
Scratch an hispanic, wound an arab.
Steve,
The whois resolves to the bloghost.
My take, seriously, is that this is a fake created by some pissed-off student. the guy does a class on Latin-American/African and Arab revolution and another on Third World revolution and I’m sure he is probably very extreme in his views. If he’s this bad, though, only his mother and a few thousand web surfers and maybe his poor students and a couple million talk-radio listeners and maybe some future O’Reilly factor watchers who don’t overlap with the web-surfing radio-listeners will know.
All I can say is, thank God I graduated and don’t have to deal with that crap any more. Someday ask me about my “Sex in literature” class. (hint: NOT what I thought)
I want to know what kind of dog they are using for an IUD.
IUD, IED, what’s the difference.
If this story is true, the response should start with law enforcement. I doubt he would keep his job if he was in jail. Otherwise this’ll be akin to discussing whether Hertz should keep OJ as a spokesman.
If the professor did something illegal, there is nothing about tenure that prevents the authorities from arresting him and charging him with a crime. Seems to me his actions deserve some scrutiny on those grounds.
If he did nothing illegal, then it just reflects badly on the school for hiring him in the first place. With tenure, however, I think he should stay. Its my understanding that Associate Professors generally have tenure. Assistant Professors do not have tenure, but some assistant professors are on a tenure-track, which makes them harder to fire than Assistant Professors who are not tenure track and Adjunct Professors who are generally on an annual or even class by class contractual basis.
If you have a problem with the professor, then there should be a review of the tenure process, but in my mind, tenure is there for a reason. The process for awarding the promotion is the problem, not the promotion itself.
BTW, Julio has a history.
having looked at Dr. Pino’s CV here it quite surprising (or not surprising) that Pino was given tenure with almost no refereed journal articles. This is quite disturbing if accurate and if he indeed does have tenure. But the title of Associate generally means that the professor has been given the promotion with tenure.
It should be noted that tenure isn’t only about publications. At a school like Kent State, community service and the impact of his work in the field is a big factor, as are other factors that you really can’t uniformly attribute a weight to. However, I would say that his CV is a little thin.
Exactly.
He is an employee of the citizens of Ohio. If he says something or does something that pisses off the people of Ohio enough, then they should have the right to fire him, period. Screw “Tenure”.
You have the right to say anything you want. You also have the right to get fired because of it.
This is one of the few newspaper reports I could find on Pino, it suggests that if he is not the person running the “Global War” blog, he runs something very similar. And a commenter calling himself “skip” at the Townhall link says he “spoke to Prof Pino’s department chair. he was aware of the issue. He told me that Prof pino only contributes “news stories” to the web site.” But I’d like to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth.
The Dispatch article says he “now has a blog on the Internet where he writes that U.S. servicemen are butchers who massacre Iraqis and urges readers to ‘join the Islamic resistance.’” The date on the article is April 21, 2006. Sheesh.
You asked for thoughts. Here’s one that keeps Professor Pino gainfully employed and subject to continued scrutiny – New courses.
[url=”http://otherclub.blogspot.com/2007/02/pino-noir.html” target=”_blank”]
Pino Noir[/url]
Obviously, I disagree with Scape-Goat, as I would disagree with the many many people who wanted academics like Friedman, Hayek, etc. fired for their irresponsible support of free market capitalism or the many others who challenged the social truths of their day, or the those who call for the firing of certain law professors for promoting assassinations. Are these people the same as Pino? Laughably not, but the free exchange of ideas is worth the cost of having people like Pino trolling departments.
This of course reminds of an anecdote from the untouchables film; Malone;
“What’s your name,”
“George Stone”
“Na, what’s your real name before you changed it”
“Guiseppe Petri”
The reason is a Moslem convert, this is not likely to be his real name, and he should be
referred to by that name. Just like Abdullah
Al Muhajir “slave of the foreigner” Jose Padilla,
and Suleiman Faris, aka Hamza (John Walker Lindh)
The irony that this guy would be teaching at Kent
State, is somewhat appropriate.
The trouble is that in our country the Constitution is a suicide pact.
I have to agree with Friend in his three posts.
1. Academic Freedom exists for a reason. Basically, if you let or eggheads be themselves once in a blue moon one of them will hatch. Think of Pino as part of the cost of R & D.
2. There’s hardly a college in the country that doesn’t have access to taxpayer money one way or the other. That’s part of the interdependence bred by having large governments. But that should not translate into a violation of traditional power separations.
3. As an apparent Hispanic Muslim, Pino is a double counter, which makes him a dream for faculty quotas as well as a dream for Hispanic or Muslim students looking to go to college and sign over their student loan chits (usually comprised of federal dollars) to Kent State. That’s how colleges make a living.
What can I say? Academia is a business. Pino is good for business. He is obviously an idiot but I didn’t make the world.
Then who are Academics answerable to?
No one?
That appears to be where you and Steve are coming from.
Why is it that in every other business, pretty much any other organization, at least that I can think of, you can be called to account for your words and your actions, but not if you’re a tenured professor. Why is that?
Did the Academic World just “decide” that they are above the petty concerns of other business entities? That they aren’t anything as crass as an employee, but rather some greater, something…special.
I think not.
You have the freedom to teach anyway you want.
You have the freedom to get fired by it.
They are employees. Nothing more.
And they should treated as such.
You would have to see a couple of things before acting in any fashion:
Is this website really his?
What, if anything, has he “provided” and to whom?
It sounds a little like an intellectual-mastrubatory-virtual-jihadi-fantasy-role-play if he hasn’t actually “provided” anything.
If he is a chickenjihadi and just puffing, then he needs to be ridiculed, publicized and let the pay-rents of the kids of Ohio make the call….well, and the alumni-donors.
If he has “provided” aid to the bad guys – a little visit by the FBI is in order. Patrick Fitzgerald is available again for prosecution duties. Until Mayor Daley steps on his crank or the Governor of Illinois puts his foot in it…
The whole idea behind tenure is that academics can pursue their work impervious to precisely the kinds of threats you are making. Why? because academicians—going back to medieval times—constantly got in trouble for the writings or their research, and invariably whenever they did something new, they were doing something proscribed by the morals of the day.
I mean, if you want to abolish academic freedom, then, first, you have to establish who is going to define the limits of academic freedom, and what those limits are going to be. And then you have to get everyone to agree with you, etc. etc.
There is an economic aspect to tenure also. Most academicians don’t make a lot of money. Tenure is a reward for spending most of your ‘20’s getting credentials and most of your ‘30’s working for shit wages.
IN the whole discussion of free speech, isn’t the whole idea is that you’re free to say what you want (within reasonable bounds), just like it’s OK to criticize someone else’s speech, and one has to live with the consequences.
And, by the way, based on the experiences of the Middle Ages and then Europe in the Enlightenment, the concept of academic freedom arose in Prussia because the State was trying to dictate not only what professors could and could not say or teach, but also what students could study.
It was brought over to the US from Germany along with a lot of other things in academia in the 19th Century. One of the reasons academic freedom was seized on here was because some prof got in trouble for advocating the labor movement and strikes. Should someone lose their job for that now? The people running the colleges and universities were the ones who endorsed the policy, not the professors.
And I think it’s a good policy. Otherwise, you have just another branch of the State Police to contend with.
I certainly agree that academia has given us more than enough ammo to think as you do, but academia is (at least I still believe) about discovering and disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of truth. So many “truths” have been challenged by the free exchange of ideas, many of which we now take as common knowledge, that its difficult to take a big picture approach to this, but we must.
Does Israel deserve our support as its ally? Will the cultural values of immigrants from different locations be consistent with our current social values? Is that thing they call “Global Warming” for real? Rational people could answer yes or no to any of these questions, but can come with a political cost to the academic seeking evidence to answer these questions without Scape Goat calling for his/her job because he doesn’t like the answer.
I don’t know how broadly the 1st amendment can be interpreted. No doubt that is a matter for interpretation.
I would say the obvious grounds for firing Pino are that he is a ‘fucking idiot’, and ‘fucking idiots’ should not be teachers.
The limits are determined by those paying the bills IMO. You work for me? You do as I say. Simple. Don’t like it? Leave. Academics all work for someone, that someone decides what they think is out of line. The EMPLOYER decides, NOT the EMPLOYEE. The Employer in this case as I understand it is the People of Ohio. They are the “Definers”, acting through their proxies- the politicians and the University Administrators.
Bottom line though is this, I disagree with Academics being outside of what the people decide. They aren’t any more special than any other State Employee, quite frankly IMO, most of them are far more useless. I’d much rather have a guy around to patch my roads, arrest the bad guys, fight the fires and pick up the trash than a frickin’ philosophy or Gender Studies professor any time. I’d pay them more too. All the above are answerable to the public. All State Employees should be. So why not the Academics?
You want Academic Freedom without having to worry about public opinion costing you your job? Go join a private university where only the marketplace will decide what you can get away with. You work at a PUBLIC University (or Public School for that matter), then you listen to the community. If enough of them say jump, you ask how high. If the PUBLIC University is not serving the PUBLIC as they deem fit, then the PUBLIC should be able to expect some action to be taken by the PUBLIC servants, be they the politicians or the school administration itself.
We’re going round and round here. I’ll not change your mind(s), you won’t change mine. So I’ll stop now.
Have a good evening.
Completely agree with you on this one Steve and I might be looking at this too simplistically. But in my mind, which is soaked in vodka(fair warning), if you say crazy shit like this guy does and go so far as to put together a website, don’t hide behind the 1st amendment when Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and others take you to task for it. In the case of Ward Churchill, for example, he said some things that upset some people. They in turn started taking a closer look at his work and credentials. They found what they needed to get him a long vacation. Hey, he paid the price for what he said but it in no way infringed on his first amendment rights IMHO.
Mission statement from the website:
Emphasis mine. That’s what caught my eye. I seems it would make it an issue for law enforcment and not the folks at Kent anyway.
John —
I think this is indeed a First Amendment issue. Pointing me to the text of the First Amendment is a bit insulting, but I’ll live with it. But because we are dealing with a state employee posting on his own time, to fire him over what he wrote would seem to me to be the state stepping in and saying that we have jurisdiction over your private speech. This is not the same as Congress making a law abridging speech or the free exercise of religion. But it has the same effect—something courts have generally frowned upon.
Jeff,
But so long as certain Ohioans are paying the fookin bills, you will say what they want or thye’ll have you fired and replace you with people to pick up their shit, protect their shit and fill in those shitty pot holes. Call it the maid state.
Jeff,
The first ammendment was not quoted for you, or as an insult, but if you took it that way, many appologies.
I agree with you. I dont think he should be fired for the website. My point is that these profs. should not hide behind the first ammendment to avoid scrutiny. The Churchill case is a perfect example. Under the light of day he was exposed as a fraud, but he brought that light on himself.
I may rethink it in the morning though….
Cause of teh vodka!
I just bitch-slapped myself for the Amanda-like non-appology. I am sorry that you were offended….not if…
friend, Steve
There is no academic freedom today. You are talking theory and ignoring reality. If the professor in question had a website advocating killing muslims, a muslim organization would already have demanded he be fired and he would already have been fired, tenure or no. Freedom that only goes one direction is not freedom.
Here’s the url to an article about a professor who was fired for anti-semitic and racist hate speech. I say the more professors fired, the better!
To say that some blog commenter is wrong, “without Scape Goat calling for his/her job”, to even call for Pino to be fired is simply ludicrous.
“The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life. For this task, it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn’t need its brain anymore so it eats it!” (It’s rather like getting tenure.) —Daniel Dennett, _Consciousness Explained_, p. 177
klrfz1
Many many professors advocate killing Muslims without a blink of an eye from their administration. Just war theory, assassinations, pre-emptive and preventative strikes, strategic versus tactical nuclear strikes, etc. are all part of a language used in academia and in the military to justify fucking up whole cities full of Muslims.
I said Scape Goat was wrong not because he/she wants Pino fired, but because he/she thinks anyone s/he disagrees with should be fired because s/he pays the bills, ie. is a taxpayer. I think Pino needs to be questioned by authorities. Tenure does not protect you from breaking the law, but it should protect you from saying preposterous things.
You’re url doesn’t work, so I don’t know if your example is valid. Surely you can find an example of liberals going wild without going to some obscure corner of the internet.
Jeff,
Holy crap was I tanked yesterday…….sorry for my offense. I didn’t bitch-slap myself for the second non-appology.
Cause of teh hangover!
I was thinking more of the Churhill situation with my first point. He didn’t really even bother me until he started bitching about the attention (thevastrightwingsmearmachine). He seemed to think that the 1A absolved him from scrutiny and investigation. That the investigation turned up actionable information was a stroke of luck, but I dont know if it infringed on his 1A rights.
But I also must admit I am not that familiar with acadamia. I took one look at college and joined the military. I have been thinking of taking (a much needed) writing class though…….
What would it take for a prof. to lose tenure? Do the students or parents that pay tuition have any recourse if they have a problem with this Pino guy? I mean other then pulling out of the school and taking their money elsewhere.