Beloved teacher, translator, poet, scholar, and mentor, Allen Mandelbaum died on October 27th, 2011 at the age of 85. Mandelbaum is perhaps best known for his award winning translations of The Divine Comedy and the Aeneid, which won him the National Book Award in 1973, but he also published several volumes of his own poetry. He was a professor of English and Comparative literature at the Graduate Center from its founding in the 1960s until his move to Wake Forest University in 1989. During his time at the GC he deeply inspired his students, many of whom now hold academic positions at the Graduate Center and other prestigious institutions. Below are short remembrances of Professor Mandelbaum from several of his former students.

Ammiel Alcalay

Graduate Center, CUNY

It was 1980 — I’d returned to New York from two years in Jerusalem where I managed to cobble together a BA from Empire State College after dropping out of City College in 1978. I’d moved from Ancient Greek and Latin to Hebrew, Arabic, and Spanish, and wondered how I might pursue these interests in some more formal way. As a classic academic underachiever (my high school years were 1969 to 1973 and there were far more interesting things to do than go to school), I wasn’t cut out for most graduate programs. I got the Columbia application and, after looking it over quickly, tore it to shreds in a combination of relief and despair. I simply didn’t know where to turn. It was then I decided to go find Allen Mandelbaum at the old Graduate Center on 42nd Street. I knew some of his poetry (Leaves of Absence, Chelmaxioms), and his early translations of Quasimodo, Ungaretti, and the Aeneid. I intuited that he might be a person to whom one could utter names like William Carlos Williams, Charles Olson, Lorine Niedecker, Luis Zukofsky or Pier Paolo Pasolini without getting a blank stare. This was not a simple proposition in the academy of 1980. What I didn’t yet know but soon found out was that I could also utter names such as Ibn Arabi, Ibn Ezra or Mouloud Mammeri, and he would know what I was talking about. I never encountered anyone who knew so much but yet read like a poet, who knew that even Dante was struggling to figure out how to use words, and learned as he went along, not really understanding how to use the word “when” (“cuando”) until Canto XXVI. Through Allen I was able to pinpoint the journey of a vowel or a sound cluster across millenia in ways I could only intuit before. We spent several hours together in what would be the first of countless sessions in Allen’s office or apartment, in his characteristically conspiratorial hush that made you feel like you were in on some cosmic poetic operation, and actually an essential part of it. At a certain point, he marched me down to the Comparative Literature office and asked that they attend to the formalities of getting me into the program. It was, undoubtedly, a very different world.

Under Allen’s guidance, I feel like I was one of the last students in this country (generationally speaking), to get a certain kind of philological training. This meant working through at least three or four generations of scholarship (Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, French and English, in my case), as well as Allen’s legendary bibliographies, made not for a semester or an exam but for at least a lifetime. He made sure I had access to Saintsbury’s History of English Prosody, not in the abridged one volume version but the complete three volumes, by loaning it to me for several years. Allen’s generosity was, at times, overwhelming. He had grown up with Hebrew and when I began to further my studies in medieval Hebrew poetry I got wind of an old Jewish bookstore under the Manhattan Bridge that was going out of business. I wandered, with great longing, through stacks of coveted volumes that were extremely hard to find anywhere. When I reported this back to Allen, who was very aware of my limited financial situation, he simply gave me a signed blank check and told me to get whatever was necessary. When I was living in Jerusalem and very ready to give up on finishing my dissertation (what would become After Jews and Arabs), Allen gave me and my wife Klara an offer we couldn’t refuse: he invited us to Venice and paid for lodging at a pensione close enough to meet for coffee every morning in order to convince me I needed to finish my doctorate. I told this story to some of my students after class one night, just two days before hearing of Allen’s death, and one of them, Mariana Soto, a CUNY/BA student I’ve been working with, wrote me after seeing my posting about Allen’s death: “I was just thinking about how I was glad you finished your PhD. I keep feeling like the class you’re teaching and the space/intersections it creates have been/are really significant for all of us. There’s so much bullshit in big buildings of education. It really matters to have not just professors but teachers. What I meant to say is when I read this message I feel moved by the death of this person I never knew. Teachers matter.” I will be forever grateful that I had the good fortune to have Allen as my teacher.

Henry Weinfield

University of Notre Dame

“You taught me how man makes himself eternal”–thus Dante to his old teacher, Brunetto Latini, in Allen’s translation of the Inferno. That’s more or less what I learned from my old teacher, and it sums up how I feel about him as well. He was without question the largest, most generous, most magnanimous human being I have ever known. Wonderfully funny and completely without pomposity, he was a poet and teacher of the utmost seriousness, and when one became his student one learned, first of all, that the things of the intellect were to be taken with the utmost seriousness.

More than anyone I have ever known, Allen lived in that Republic of Letters–or (to use the metaphor he borrowed from Ungaretti) terra promessa–in which the great poets and thinkers are continually in conversation with one another. There Dante conversed with Virgil and Ovid, but also with Goethe and Mallarmé. Having once entered through the Mandelbaum Gate, they held discourse with one another in perfect freedom and without any concern for anachronism. Such was his erudition–and generosity–that everyone of any significance was included. When one entered through the Mandelbaum Gate, anything could happen. The lion could lie down with the lamb. Aquinas could find himself in dialogue with Ezra Pound or with the great Yiddish poet, Yankev Glatshteyn.

Those of us who were privileged to be his students were immediately included in the ongoing conversation he was perpetually having with himself. His range of reference was so vast and he spoke so elliptically that until one learned how to connect the dots, one was completely at sea. The first class I ever took with him (it must have been in 1974) I remember raising my hand and saying, “Professor Mandelbaum, could you please repeat the last half hour!” It was sink or swim, and if we stayed the course it was not only because of Allen’s brilliance but because we knew that in him we had found a true model of what the intellectual life could be.

In those years when there was much talk of the “anxiety of influence” and so forth, learning from Allen meant inhabiting a very different sort of intellectual universe, one in which the relations among poets and thinkers were “fraternal” rather than antagonistic. Allen was attuned to the tragic ironies of history, but he was a genuinely utopian thinker, at least as far as his understanding of the human potential afforded by the traditions of poetry, art, and thought was concerned. In the Limbo canto of the Inferno, Dante and Virgil reach “a meadow of green flowering plants” (basically the Elysian Fields that Dante has taken over from the Aeneid), and we are told: “The people here had eyes both grave and slow; / their features carried great authority; / they spoke infrequently, with gentle voices.” As the nobility of his rendering of those lines indicates, in a very real sense Allen lived there too.

When I was a young man, I came under his influence, and that changed me irrevocably. His example helped me form the image of myself that I wanted to pursue. He was a teacher in the highest sense, and I cannot separate anything I have done or tried to do from what I learned from him. I carry his image in my mind, and will until I die.

Farewell, beloved teacher and friend!

Burt Kimmelman

New Jersey Institute of Technology

Allen was Allen.

I speak of Allen Mandelbaum tautologically to avoid the ineffability inherent in describing the supernal. I also mean to impart some sense, though, of how completely sui generis Allen was.

I studied with some brilliant people at the Graduate Center in the 1980s. Allen was not brilliant. He was a genius. Yet he was not at all distant (he once wept in class over a poem).

To be around Allen was to live with depth and intensity of language, which was absolutely exhilarating—so thrilling I was addicted to it. And Allen spoke his own language. When he spoke, his subtlety and quickness of association beckoning, one had to scramble to think both critically and poetically at once. Jack Hall, who taught at the Graduate Center then, once said of him (quite enjoying the cleverness of his baseball metaphor, and in obvious admiration): “With Allen, you have to take the first pitch.”

Allen did not seek me out to work with him (though his canny insistence that I write the particular paper I did in the course I took with him set me up for a wealth of future scholarly publications, and soon thereafter he wrote the foreword for my first book of poems). After some protestation he gave in to me when I came to his office to confess my need to work with him. What ensued was one of the most cherished relationships of my life. And in time the roles of our friendship, while he remained my mentor, reversed.

Love took my hand and smiling did reply,

“Who made the eyes but I?

“Truth, Lord, but I have marr’d them; let my shame

Go where it doth deserve.”

“And know you not,” says Love, “who bore the blame?”

“My dear, then I will serve.”

Once my dissertation proposal passed the English program’s committee I took the summer off to write a first draft. Trying to flesh out the plan in the proposal, I decided to begin with some background commentary (typical avoidance behavior), sort of an introduction to the introduction I was supposed to be writing. Two weeks later I said to my wife, Diane Simmons (we met at the Graduate Center), “you know, when this dissertation is done, I think I have another book here.” A week after that I realized that I was going to write that book then and there. I plunged in, saying nothing to Allen or anyone else. By the end of August I had a rough first draft (which years later became a book Allen blurbed).

I brought the draft over to Allen’s apartment. Diane was teaching so I had our baby daughter with me, who constantly smiled at Allen’s attentions. In his typical way he explained, “It’s the glasses, dear, the glint of light.”

She and I occupied his couch while Allen sat at a desk with his back to us, turning pages slowly, smoking one cigarette after another. After an hour he broke the silence: “Uh, I think we have an idea here.” He told me to clean up the draft and get it to my readers.

Allen sensed my need to go my own way and he was a hands-off adviser (though he knew that my readers, Bob Payne and Fred Goldin, would write extensive marginalia—a great team). After my dissertation defense Allen joined us for drinks. Eventually I found a job and the years passed. At odd times the phone would ring and, picking it up, I would hear that voice speaking in medeas res; it was an indescribable joy. He would call to see what I was up to and I would tell him and ask him what he was up to and he would tell me (“I the unkind, ungrateful”).

I think we all desired admittance into Allen’s bella scuola (thinking here of his great translation of the Commedia), Allen Dante’s Homer. His intellect was beyond my ken. He was a mensch, in any case. He had me play by his rules (but he let me figure out how to maneuver within them), not the rules we should have followed. I was so very lucky for that.

Joan Richardson

Graduate Center, CUNY

Early afternoon, Saturday, October 29th —howling storm, rain mixed with snow, and wild wind darkening, chilling all: “Washed into rinds by rotting winter rains,” the words kept coming up, punctuating and distracting my attention as I attempted to address the task at hand, meeting a deadline, finding source indications of lines and phrases I had quoted in an essay about William James and pragmatism. Lightning, then whistling thunder sounding like a jet passing low, whooshing branches of the huge, old sycamore lashing roof and windows: “Washed into rinds by rotting winter rains”—and then, in counterpoint, the ping of an email arriving: from Ammiel Alcalay with the news that Allen had died. Tears came up and I more than shuddered: it was from Allen that I had learned how to read and hear that line from Stevens that had, like so much else I began to learn from Allen, become part of my being, “Washed into rinds by rotting winter rains.” The reality of spirit.

On Thursday night I had dreamed I was on a stage talking about Allen—I only learned a day after Ammiel’s Saturday email that Allen had died on Thursday—about how he used to sing, or, rather, quietly intone, the Psalms in Hebrew as we worked on the page proofs for his Inferno—I was his research assistant that year, his marks in the margin in the Peacock Green ink he used for his fountain pen. Shades, shades. This dream, of course, returned as I felt what I felt on hearing he had died, and I cried and thought of how I should honor his spirit and realized, naturally, that I could do no better than continuing to do my work, and so went on paging through my heavily marked copy of James’s Pragmatism to locate page numbers for phrases, that, like all that has come to matter, I know by heart. Tears uppoured again as I came to: “To anyone who has ever looked on the face of a dead child or parent the mere fact that matter could have taken for a time that precious form, ought to make matter sacred ever after…. That beloved incarnation was among matter’s possibilities.”

“Spirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!”—Emerson. Had I not learned to read Stevens and the other Modernist poets with Allen, and then back through the Romantics to Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer, I don’t think I would have begun to hear Emerson or James in Stevens or Donne in Eliot or the Vita Nuova in Pound. Allen Mandelbaum lived, and still lives, in the shapes and sound of words he taught us, his most fortunate students, to hear, and to see through them worlds within worlds and angels falling, where in Paradise Lost there are two—otherwise thought impossible—stress maximums on the fifth syllable: Exhilarating!—“There is no wing like meaning.” He revealed to us language’s elegant mysteries. He would be thrilled, in response, by a question about the place of a comma.

On finding myself during my first semester as a graduate student in the Program of Comparative Literature in Allen’s seminar on Modern Poetry offered by the Program in English, I took notes furiously, transcribing what seemed a foreign language. I would spend days following in the dictionary and in the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, translating my notes. Three or four weeks went by before I gathered courage enough to describe my quandary to one of my classmates—none of whom had said anything more than I did in seminar. But some occasionally nodded, and so did not seem uncomprehending. I had thought to myself that I was the index pointing the difference between those who had been English majors in college—those weighted down by Norton anthologies—and lesser beings. In response, then, to my voicing my ignorance to one of my classmates at the end of the meeting when I had been asked to give a “précis” on Eliot’s use of the quatrain in comparison to Theophile Gautier’s Emaux et Camees during our next session: “I don’t understand what he’s saying…!,” he replied, “Oh, don’t worry, nobody does…,” I was grateful, if still perplexed. We all had a lot to learn, and we did. Allen was my first dissertation director, when my topic was “The Difference between the Operation of Metaphor in Poetic and Ordinary Language.” Following his guidance, I began gathering all the references to metaphor from the pre-Socratics on. After many months in the library of Union Theological Seminary, when I was only up to the Church Fathers, I realized that I would never get to write that dissertation, but Allen knew I had to learn that for myself.

For some years during my graduate career, Allen was Executive Officer of the Program in English and I was one of the student representatives to the Graduate Council. Allen was passionate in arguing at meetings for giving official designation/documentation to/for candidates who had completed all requirements and who were deepening their research and writing the dissertation. Dressed in one of his exquisitely-cut Italian tweed jackets, dark shirt, thin suede or horizontally-striped raw silk tie, removing the cigarette holder with the nicotine-removing filter from his teeth—it was his habit to chew on it as he was thinking, and we all smoked then—he stood one afternoon and described how the ABD—“All But Dissertation” designation—would give candidates a “serenity platform”—a residence in time permitting the kind of learning he exemplified and valued. It was pure Allen, one of my beloved teachers.

“They will come no more/ The old men with beautiful manners.”

Share on Facebook

Wel­come to the Occupy CUNY blog. We’ll be cov­er­ing the recent sit­u­a­tion developing at CUNY around proposed tuition hikes, the protests against them, and the unacceptably forceful response from the police and university brass. We will be report­ing on this cri­sis and related news begin­ning today. The most recent updates will appear at the top with a EST stamp.

6:30pm A second arrest now being reported, though still unconfirmed. Details forthcoming as they become available.

5:31pm Riot gear cops moving up on Baruch protest (h/t @RDevro):

5:30pm Word reaching the Advocate is that the Board of Trustees just approved three-year tuition hike.

5:15pmThe Grad Center’s own Sandor John addressing the crowd outside BoT meeting as helicopters hover above…

5:00pm The folks at http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc have gained access into Baruch and are looking to get into the Board of Trustees meeting!

4:52pm CUNY Distinguished Professor David Harvey spotted in the crowd, enjoying a cup of coffee!

4:51pm Party atmosphere inside the pen. Rude Mechanical Orchestra inside playing “Whose Side Are You On?”

4:50pm Ryan Devereuz reports that young man who burned his student loan bill has been arrested.  Still not sure if this is the same kid our reporter witnessed being hauled away.  More as it becomes available.

4:47pm City Councilperson and City College alum Ydanis Rodriguez is in the mix with protesters at Baruch.

4:45pm Chant now is “1, 2, 3, CUNY will be free.”

4:40pm Advocate’s man on the ground now reporting first arrest…Chants of “Shame!”

4:35pm Nick Pinto just now: Picketers circling on 15th in front of Baruch, but bulk of the march is clumped against barricades by the armory.”

4:30pm Penny Red reporting just now: “Two girls in crowd: ‘so this is a different movement?’ ‘No, it’s one movement with different issues.’ This gets it about right…

4:25pm Chant resounding again: “Off our campus!”

4:20pm Police giving no room whatsoever on streets for protesters to make easy forward progress. Mopeds are barricading protesters.  Advocate reporter on the ground reporting that situation tense between crowd and cops…

4:15pm Penny Red tweets: Police chasing students with motorcycles at Baruch College student walkout #ows #studentstrike

4:12pm Word now coming to the Advocate protesters are marching around the Vertical Campus Building and on up Lexington…

4:10pm Ryan Devereaux just posted this picture to his Twitter feed of protesters marching to Baruch:

4:05pm For those interested, the Village Voice‘s Steven Thrasher interviews Conor Tomas Reed, one of the five students arrested last week at Baruch.

4:00pm  John Knefel tweets just now: “Baruch is barricaded & closed @ 25th & 3rd. Able to enter via Lex. Huge police presence #ows”

3:00pm Barbara Bowen sends along this response, issued to Chancellor Matthew Godlstein, to Baruch President Mitchell Wallerstein’s notice over the weekend of class cancellations and administrative leaves granted to college employees after 3:00pm.  It reads:

Dear Chancellor Goldstein:

I write on behalf of the 25,000 CUNY employees the PSC represents to object in the strongest terms to the cancellation of classes and denial of student access to Baruch College as of 3:00 p.m. today. It is inconceivable to us as faculty and staff that a college would cancel its primary activity—teaching—on the grounds that doing so will “ensure the safety of all students, faculty and staff during the period surrounding the meeting of the CUNY Board of Trustees,” as President Wallerstein writes. What creates unsafe conditions is not the presence of peaceful protesters on a college campus, but rather the college’s approach to policing: confining student protesters to an inadequate area and limiting access to public space at this public college.

President Wallerstein’s decision sends the message that Baruch College, and by extension CUNY, puts the desire for control ahead of the interests of education. That is the wrong message for a university—especially a public university—to send. Speaking for faculty and staff who want to continue the work of education uninterrupted, I call on you to ask President Wallerstein to rescind his decision.

The lockdown of the Vertical Campus is not about our safety or the safety of our students. It is about repressing student protest, intimidating those who wish to dissent, effectively closing an open meeting, and making Baruch a campus where free speech may take place only in designated spaces. President Wallerstein apparently believes that “the right of free expression on the Baruch College campus” must await the construction of an outdoor public plaza or the designation of specific areas in which that right may be exercised.

The right of free expression does not stop at the door of the Trustees’ meeting. Free expression as a right has no meaning if it can be curtailed whenever Trustees might be inconvenienced or embarrassed by its being exercised. Students, faculty, staff and the community have a legitimate right to engage in peaceful protest, and the PSC will do everything lawfully in our power to protect it.

The decision to reschedule classes and close administrative offices was made without consultation with the PSC representative at Baruch, and, as far as I have been able to determine, without consultation with the elected faculty governance or student leaders on campus. President Wallerstein apparently fails to recognize that many of the faculty who teach after 3:00 p.m. on Mondays, particularly adjuncts but also full-time faculty, may not be available at the time he has unilaterally declared for the rescheduling of their classes. Faculty may have other professional commitments at that time. In addition, some faculty and students participate in religious observances that prevent their being available on Friday evenings. The ability of professional staff to fulfill their responsibilities is not addressed in President Wallerstein’s message. The union will not tolerate speed-up for professional staff as a result of the closing of offices early today.

It is not too late to reconsider the decision to shut down Baruch’s Vertical Campus. On behalf of the faculty and staff who make CUNY work, I call on you to ask President Wallerstein to rescind his announcement and allow work to continue. Open the campus, open the meeting, and let this university be a university again.

Sincerely,

Barbara Bowen
President

cc: President Mitchel Wallerstein
Professor Peter Hitchcock, PSC Chapter Chair, Baruch College
PSC Membership

1:00pm In response to President Kelly’s message, students and faculty began letters in answer.  A particularly good one comes from Priya Chandrasekaran, a CUNY GC doctoral student in anthropology. It follows below:

Dear President Kelly:

I am a doctoral student in Anthropology at The CUNY Graduate Center. Before I address the purpose of this letter I would like to thank you for your help with the recent commemoration for our late professor, Fernando Coronil. The event was a truly beautiful celebration of Fernando as well as to the potential depth, meaning, and joy of the academic life.

I am writing in response to your message addressing security issues at The Graduate Center. I write with both hope and a heaviness of heart. I write in response to your statement and with an honest appeal which I hope you will consider seriously. Most importantly, I write as someone of our university’s academic and political community who holds a profound sense of belonging and gratitude for this place and network we call The CUNY Graduate Center. The words that follow are shaped and inspired by my experiences here.

There are people who would admonish me for writing you such a letter. They would claim that you represent those on the other side of the blunt force that was used against us on Monday at Baruch, that this letter is wasted time, these words are wasted breath. And perhaps they are right. But unfortunately and fortunately, I am not someone inclined towards cynicism. I have my education to thank for that.

I will not go through the details of events at Baruch on Monday; for that I could direct you here: http://studentweekofaction.wordpress.com/. I can tell you that I am someone committed to nonviolence both politically and spiritually. I can also tell you I am committed to public education. I have been a public educator in some capacity for fifteen years. I was there on Monday and I saw the terror, disillusionment, anger, resolve, and defiance on student’s faces when they were assaulted with batons by CUNY security and – as substantial and reliable evidence reveals – NYPD was called into the building. I know of someone who was sexually harassed that day by CUNY security. I have heard firsthand testimonials of people who were hit and jabbed. I was grabbed roughly by my arm and I witnessed a male acquaintance being grabbed, thrown, and taken away by 2 men in uniform because he was feeling claustrophobic and leaned his body out of a packed elevator. My friend’s cell phone was smashed to bits. Another’s glasses were broken. I have colleagues who were arrested. I realize you do not know me, but I am not exaggerating. There are video and audio recordings documenting these events, which is why so many faculty – some of our most esteemed – have come forward to support us and why the petition to oust Chancellor Goldstein has already acquired over 2000 signatures. Every student I have referred to thus far is from The Graduate Center.

I am not merely being hopeful and naïve when I say the winds of change are here. As they blow – and they will blow fast – you have the opportunity to be someone who mattered to public education in a deeper, larger sense. There is much reason to believe that Matthew Goldstein’s tenure as CUNY Chancellor is over. He is not respected enough to be feared, not considered eloquent enough to be convincing or ethical enough to be trusted, and he has no credible commitment to public education. He, along with many Board members, has displayed what appears to be – deep down – terror of free thought and the racially and ethnically diverse youth and labor of this city; these are elements to be contained, if necessary with violence. But the very seclusion and elitism that has, over recent years, protected the Chancellor and the Board is now their Achilles heel. I speak for many when I say we feel no allegiance to them. It is not just that they are stirring up an atmosphere of violence and threat, but they are, simultaneously, becoming obsolete. At a historical moment when CUNY students are standing up with self-dignity, finding the right words, fueled by a sense of purpose and righteousness, and coming together in solidarity around public space and public education, neither the Chancellor’s money nor his political connections will save him. I am sure if Antonio Gramsci were alive, he’d be able to explain this better than me.

You say that you value the exchange of ideas and respect. You say you support free speech and civility. You, as much as any of us, should know that without the former the latter cannot exist. Civility in a climate of censorship and violence – economic, social, and physical – is merely a ruse that erodes the very foundation of anything that could be called an education. No step towards justice in history, recorded or unwritten, has ever been taken without deeply disrupting prevailing patterns of work and life. This is because brutality, in its most terrible form, dons the garb of normality. If those of the Civil Rights movement were concerned about enabling people to go to work and study “as usual” the institution at which you are at the helm would look far different today, and the robust intellect that fills its halls would be largely absent. My education has taught me that to be “civil” is to boldly stand up for the most humane thing, not to meekly relinquish to dehumanizing norms. With candor born of respect, I am saying that your proclamation to balance free speech and what you have called “civility” is not a substantial response to recent events ay CUNY. Regardless of the earnestness with which you may have made this call, it essentially amounts to false appeasement.

I must admit that I am deeply disappointed that – after the violence inflicted upon — NOT perpetrated by– us on Monday, you followed orders and added security on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, trying to ward off the threat of a potential “occupation.” I would have thought that your real concern, as President of our college, would have been for our safety. I would have thought you might have used that money to send security to protect us – your students – on the 28^th. I must tell you that in the eyes of the students with whom I have spoken, there is simply no good justification for this decision. I would have thought that you would have understood that the professors and students who comprise our community fundamentally believe in The Graduate Center as a place where radical thought and political discussions can and should exist. I thought The Graduate Center was a place that we, the students and faculty, did “occupy” with our minds, bodies, passions, voices, and beliefs. Isn’t that its greatest strength?

I ask that you reconsider how you respond to calls for more security to watch your students. I ask that you make a public declaration, supported by irrefutable evidence, that no NYPD will be called into our school because of a fear of “occupation.” I ask that you come out in support of your students with a commitment to protect their freedom of expression, even if that means not following orders from above. I ask, in short, that you be a leader worthy of this great institution of public higher education that I, and so many others, have grown to cherish and would risk much to defend.

Your public actions will be read as your response to issues raised in this letter.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

12:30pm The Graduate Center’s president, Bill Kelly, issued a community letter over the weekend addressing concerns about police presence on campus. It reads, in full:

Dear Friends,

I’ve received a message from the Officers of the Doctoral Students’ Council regarding security practices at The Graduate Center. I was pleased to have their thoughtful inquiry. The concerns they raised are of general import, so I take the liberty of answering in the form of a community message. I will also address security issues their letter did not raise.  I’ll begin with some specifics and then turn to broader themes.

I’ve been asked whether the size of our security staff has been increased. It has not. To the contrary, staffing has been reduced in the last year by 4.2 positions. That reduction is the consequence of an over 50% increase in contract guard billing rates. Since 1999, we are down a total of seven positions. We have had some turn-over this year, so if you see an unfamiliar face, please introduce yourself.

The greater security presence in the building last Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and again on Monday, resulted from holding officers from the 7 to 3 shift over and bringing in the 3 to 11 staff early. No external personnel were involved. The cost attendant to that action will be absorbed through savings effected in our security budget in the course of the year.

We took that action at the request of CUNY central, as did every CUNY college. The request was made in response to a number of non-specific web notices concerning college occupations.  We complied for two reasons: first, to insure the peace of our community in uncertain circumstances; and second — and more important — to guarantee that should the need for additional security staff arise, they would be members of our community, not people whom we do not know and who do not know us.

There was no intent to intimidate students, staff, or faculty; the dispersal of officers throughout the building, rather than grouping a larger than usual number of security staff at the entrance to The Graduate Center or elsewhere in the building was meant to avoid that very prospect.  I deeply regret any perception to the contrary.

Graduate Center peace officers have been trained in first amendment rights as well as the laws of arrest, search, seizure, and the lawful use of force. They have been authorized by New York State law to make arrests for violation of NYS penal code; they may use reasonable force to protect themselves and others. They are not authorized to conduct surveillance of students, staff, or faculty. This point is self-evident to me, but I make it in deference to concerns raised about such activity at other colleges.

There are no plans whatsoever for a sustained increase in security. Should occasional need arise, additional officers would be drawn from our current staff.

Security staff regularly check on all events in the building to insure compliance with NYC fire codes and to gather attendance statistics for the Office of Special Events.  They do not report on the content of those events.

Although we have only eight uniformed peace officers, our practice is to respond to Graduate Center protest activity with Graduate Center personnel.  NYPD is responsible for protecting public officials attending events at The Graduate Center and for policing the sidewalks around our building.  Only in an emergency would they be called into The Graduate Center.

*******

All of the above is nuts and bolts. Here’s what matters, my friends.  We are a university, a community of scholars. The vital exchange of ideas is the heart of our enterprise. That’s one of the two pillars that sustain a university and underwrite its very being. The other is respect, the protection of the rights of all to pursue their work and to conduct their lives.  Free speech and civility are mutually sustaining. Each is meaningless without the other.  Defending both — absolutely — is the challenge we face. Thus far, we have, together, succeeded.  Our security staff, under the direction of John Flaherty, has been — in my opinion — flawless in supporting peaceful protest and free assembly. They deserve our thanks. Similarly, faculty, students, and staff who have participated in the variety of activities associated with the Occupy movement have been both forceful in their expression and respectful in their exchange. I’ve been reminded again and again that The Graduate Center is a remarkable place and that I am very privileged to be a member of this community.

With respect and deep regard,

Bill

12:00pm The CUNY Graduate Center’s Manissa McCleave Maharawal has a piece in AlterNet with the inside scoop on the student movement.  A quick snippet:

“We are calling on our faculty to support us. We are calling on our union to support us. We are calling on students to reject the increasing privatization of what should be a public good and join us. We are rejecting the securitization of our universities, of our education, we are rejecting the commodification of our universities, of our education. We are rejecting a model that attempts to convince us that a consumer model of education, where you pay for what you get, is the best one. And in doing all this we are, again, fundamentally challenging the model of society that we are supposed to be content in. We are demanding more, we are demanding a society where education is a right, where it is free, where everyone has access to it.

“And we have learned, once again, that this is a real challenge to the state, to the powers that be, to those who want to maintain education for the elite and for only those who can afford it.  Why else would we be surrounded by cop cars when we have meeting of the People’s University in Washington Square Park? Why else would students and faculty around the country be pepper sprayed and beaten when they demand a greater voice over decisions made in these institutions, when they demand affordability and accessibility? Why else would a public meeting be in a heavily securitized building, why else would the President of Baruch cancel classes in the last weeks before finals just so that a Board meeting can occur un-interrupted? We are being met with force because we are a threat, because education as a right for everyone is a threat because we are asking for more than we have been taught to expect, because we want to stretch our imaginations about what is possible by doing so.”

11:00am From Dissent, information on an event this evening looking at OWS’s “Phase Two,” at Columbia University:

“On the two-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, the 99 percent poured into the streets for a massive day of protest against glaring inequalities of wealth and political power. Following nationally coordinated police raids on protest camps, occupiers face new choices about the direction of OWS.  What next? On Monday, November 28, we will discuss how social movements with diverse tactics, needs, and goals grow and gain power in the face of repression.

“The conversation will feature Frances Fox Piven, an activist and scholar of social movements at The Graduate Center, City University of New York; Liza Featherstone, journalist and author of Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers’ Rights at Wal-Mart; Nikil Saval, associate editor of n+1 and labor activist; Michael Hirsch, labor journalist and editorial board member of New Politics; and Dorian Warren, a fellow at the Roosevelt institute and professor of political science at Columbia University.

“The location is 550 W. 120th Street, Room 501, Corner of 120th and Broadway.”

10:30am NY1 has brief coverage of the protests scheduled for later this afternoon here.

10:00am Jadaliyya has run a strong statement on increased police presence on CUNY campuses penned by faculty member Anthony Alessandrini.   It concludes with a number of demands:

“So: first (and I speak here only for myself, although I suspect I am far from alone in these demands), I call for the resignation of any and all officials, whether at Baruch College or elsewhere in the CUNY system, who were responsible for ordering campus security to use violence to disperse nonviolent student protesters.

“Second, I endorse the call, first written and circulated by CUNY students, for the immediate resignation of the Chancellor of the City University of New York, Matthew Goldstein, who, in the words of the student petition, ‘sat idly by through the full three and a half hours of the CUNY Board of Trustees meeting at Baruch College, on November 21, 2011, while in the same building students, faculty, and staff of his university engaging in peaceful protest were met with a violent police response and numerous arrests.’ This petition states the case clearly and succinctly, and I simply endorse it and call upon readers to sign it, and to follow it with individual phone calls and emails to Chancellor Goldstein.

“Third, I extend this call for resignation to include the politically appointed members of the Board of Trustees, who similarly sat idly by while nonviolent student protesters faced violence from campus police. Allow me, in concluding, to address the Board directly: In calling for your resignation, all I am really doing is echoing the words and example of those students who, locked out of your sham ‘public’ hearing, declared that they would simply hold their own hearing. Being literally pushed out of their own school was just the latest example of the way that an unaccountable, unelected, and irresponsible Board of Trustees has attempted to deny students any control over or input into their own education. It’s their school; you are the ones who now have to go.

“As Robert Hass put it, regarding students who have been protesting at Berkeley:

“’Whose university?’ the students had chanted. Well, it is theirs, and it ought to be everyone else’s in California. It also belongs to the future, and to the dead who paid taxes to build one of the greatest systems of public education in the world.

“This is certainly true of CUNY, another of the world’s great public education systems. It belongs to the students, the teachers, and all the other workers who make up this university. It belongs to everyone who lives in this city, everyone who has lived here and helped to build it, and everyone who will live here in the future and will become this university. It belongs to everyone except for the ones who have seized it, the ones who now must step aside. You are the occupiers, not us.

“CUNY will be a democratic, open, inclusive, and free university, with or without you. You can resign and join us, or resign and move aside. There is, I would insist, room for you among us; there is nothing written in stone that insists that we must be antagonists. There are honorable precedents here; after all, it was not so long ago that CUNY’s then-Chancellor, Joseph S. Murphy, vigorously defended the policy of open admissions, declaring: ‘We have to give an opportunity to all our people to go as far as they as they possibly can in terms of getting an education and moving ahead or we will have a highly stratified, rigid class system and we won’t have democracy.’ Even though you have chosen to police your side of this divide between us through the use of violence, there is still room for you. Again, there is an honorable precedent: City College President Buell Gallagher, who in November 1968 called in the police to end a nonviolent student sit-in, a few months later resigned in protest rather than implement budget cuts that would have effectively ended programs like the Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge (SEEK) program intended to expand opportunities for poorer students, particularly students of color, to attend CUNY. Gallagher’s words then resonate clearly today, and you have the chance to follow his example: ‘I am now asked by officers of government to stand in the door and keep students out. I shall not accede, I will not do it.’

“So there is room for you among us. But first you must resign from your unaccountable positions, and join us in a truly democratic process; otherwise, you simply must go. As millions of people, from Tunisia to Egypt to everywhere, have been telling their brutal and unaccountable leaders: game over.

“Your time is up. Our time has begun, and we are the City University of New York.”

9:30am Here’s a brief video ad for today’s protest at Baruch posted at YouTube.

Share on Facebook

A full day of action across CUNY campuses culminated in an ugly incident at Baruch College on Monday November 23.  It began with a series of student walkouts from classrooms throughout the city between lunchtime and the late afternoon, at which point protesters converged on Madison Square Park where they met other contingents of students before heading as a group of Baruch’s Murray Hill campus to protest the Board of Trustees meeting being held that evening to receive public feedback on, among other things, future tuition hikes for CUNY students.

College security ordered the protesters to clear the area when the meeting was convened at 5:00pm. When they refused, and attempted to move forward into the lobby, police pushed back using their billyclubs as battering rams, pushing students to the ground as protesters outside on the street pounded on the school’s glass walls and chanted “Shame! Shame!” As The Advocate goes to press, it is still not clear if any students were hit with clubs. What is clear, however, is that police used excessive force against a crowd of nonviolent student protesters in a public space.

Conor Tomas Reed, one of five students arrested on Monday, offered some details of what went down. “During the billyclub melee, a guard unzipped my backpack and emptied its contents onto the floor, including a notebook with my students’ grades and a CUNY library book. As I shielded myself and others, I was grabbed by several guards and thrown to the ground, pinned down with my shirt ripped and glasses broken, and had zip-ties placed around my wrists so tightly that I couldn’t feel my hands. Half an hour later, after I had been relocated to a room on the fourteenth floor (coincidentally, about a hundred feet from the Board hearing) with over a dozen other detainees, were my ties loosened. Many other detained CUNY students similarly experienced this tight cuffing and rough handling, and were otherwise in tremendous pain at the whim of a frighteningly disorganized and cocky security force.”

“All five of us were CUNY students of color (four men and one woman), with me also in the peculiar position of being charged with trespassing on the campus where I teach. One CUNY security officer threatened the young woman in custody—after she told him not to touch her while we were being led outside Baruch, the officer said, ‘I can do whatever I want to you…’ Alleged charges…switched around as we were brought to the NYPD’s 7th Precinct. We were told at different times that we were being held for assaulting public safety officers, trespassing, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and for one of us, attempted grand larceny (trying to ‘steal’ a billy club that was twice pummeled into the student’s ribs). I’ve now been personally charged with trespassing and resisting arrest, and would love any immediate advice on how to secure my teaching position at Baruch under these charges…”

Not surprisingly, CUNY’s chief spin doctor, Michael Arena, was quick with the fingers in punching out an official statement that basically takes the truth, bends it over, and gives it a quick swift kick in the ass.  “It is clearly evident that from beginning to end, the University’s public safety officers acted with extraordinary professionalism and with great restraint to ensure the safety of the public…The protesters created a public safety hazard. CUNY public safety on three occasions warned the protesters they would be removed if they continued to block flow and access to the lobby.” Of course, what Arena fails to mentions—probably because he was too busy putting out the raging fire consuming his pants—the easiest way to prevent the blockage of “flow” would have been to not to erect barricades and prevent people from moving into and out of the building. But Arena has never been one to allow things like details and facts get in his way while pumping out official bullshit.

The response to these events was swift and clear. Within hours, CUNY faculty released a powerful statement deploring the inappropriate use of coercion against peaceful protest on CUNY campuses and insisting that administrators “at both the CUNY-wide level and at individual campuses not call upon any outside police forces, including the New York City Police Department, or any other city, state, or federal law enforcement agencies, in order to disperse students who are engaged in nonviolent protests.” A student-issued statement was also released echoing these concerns, while a petition began circulating shortly thereafter calling for the resignation of Chancellor Matthew Goldstein.

Follow-up actions are also being taken on Monday November 28, again at Baruch College, as the Board of Trustees meets to vote on further tuition increases and a host of other issues that adversely affect students.  Organizers have announced that interested students meet at Madison Square Park (at 23^rd Street) at 3:00 for a rally. From there, students will march to Baruch.

Share on Facebook

Adjunct Healthcare under Attack—PSC Members fight back

The start of the new academic year could mark the beginning of an adjunct healthcare bloodbath if the rising cost of insurance, CUNY’s “meh” attitude, and the city’s blind eye to the welfare of adjuncts aren’t successfully confronted. For the time being, the PSC has been successfully been pushing back against the potential loss of health care for more than 1,700 CUNY adjuncts, but there is still plenty of work ahead

At its heart, the threat to adjunct health care is simple. At the very moment that the CUNY system develops an increasing dependency on adjunct labor, it has scaled back its fiscal commitments to part-time laborers, most glaringly in the case of healthcare coverage.  At current, CUNY only contributes about 20 percent of the total cost of adjunct health care through contributions to the PSC Welfare Fund, a cost which has jumped dramatically in recent years. As the basic health insurance premium has more than doubled in the last eight years—from $3,461 per member in 2003 to an incredible $8,061 in the current year—the amount that CUNY contributes has actually decreased almost $1,000, from $2,583 in 2003 to $1,675 in 2011.

The attempt to force CUNY to take a greater share of responsibility in devising a solution will be an uphill battle, however. While university brass have recently indicated a willingness to work with the union to achieve a structural solution to the problem of rising healthcare costs and the startling increases in the part-time labor pool, its actions have not been as encouraging. In the past decade, PSC reps have asked CUNY to work with them on a compromise solution that will shift some of the fiscal responsibility from the Welfare Fund to the university system and away from the individual laborers whom CUNY has come to rely upon.

CUNY, however, says that in fact it has not underfunded adjunct health insurance but instead has lived up to its obligations as outlined by past agreements with the union. As Pamela Silverblatt, The Vice Chancellor for Labor Affairs argues, “the union has raised the issue of health benefits for adjuncts in prior rounds of collective bargaining, and it has consistently agreed to settle its collective bargaining agreements at the specified funding levels. Despite the fact that the costs have escalated—by the Welfare Fund’s estimates adjunct health insurance will cost about $14 million in the upcoming year—the PSC has over many years and several rounds of bargaining agreed to the specified contributions to the Welfare Fund, and the University has consistently made the mutually agreed-upon payments.”

The Union, for its part, argues that Silverblatt’s response misrepresents the real issue, when she claims that CUNY has not underfunded adjunct health insurance.

“While CUNY has met its contractual funding obligation to the Welfare Fund, that is not the issue. The real issue is that CUNY, as the employer, has consistently resisted its responsibility to provide adequate, ongoing funding for adjunct health insurance for its eligible adjunct employees. Adjunct health insurance costs will grow to $14 million this year; yet CUNY will provide only $2.8 million of this cost. The union’s position is that we should work together to solve the real problem, and we urge the University to join us in this effort.”

Thus, CUNY adjuncts find themselves once again in the unenviable position of being stuck between two organizations, neither of which seems fully-committed to protecting their interests. It is imperative, therefore, that adjuncts put pressure on the PSC not only to defend the welfare fund, but to also push for meaningful advances in the extension of part-time employee protections and benefits, including permanent and stable health insurance for all adjuncts, significant wage increases, and real job security. What pressure organized adjuncts have placed on the union leadership has paid off.

On September 26, hundreds of adjuncts and other, vocal and supportive members of the PSC hit the pavement out in front of the Board of Trustees headquarters to protest the dismal state of health coverage for part-time labor. The protest was another spirited reminder that adjuncts and their supporters won’t take the deteriorating conditions of their professional, and therefore their personal, lives sitting down.

Those gathered received a small treat for their labors and willingness to come out and stand united behind part-time claims for equal treatment.  Barbara Bowen, president of the PSC, announced to the crowd (and, in fact, made the crowd repeat the announcement in unison) that Chancellor Matthew Goldstein had assured her that the board had requested that Albany provide full and permanent healthcare coverage for all adjuncts in the CUNY system.

While it has taken huge amounts of effort to get the Board to simply make a request of Governor Andrew Cuomo which in all likelihood will be laughed out of Albany, if we look at the numbers, the idea of full and permanent healthcare for part-timers isn’t so nuts. Said one HEO at the protest, “New York City has a budget of $66 billion and the state has a budget of $132 billion. $14 million for adjunct insurance is chump change in the bigger scope of things.” Asked why he was coming out for adjunct rights, he expressed solidarity, as well as a touch of healthy, self-interested pragmatism. “This is an assault on labor, and we feel that if they are coming for the adjuncts in the morning they will come for [the rest of us] at night.”

In Solidarity: LIU Faculty Hit the Streets to Protest Austerity

As CUNY campuses begin to organize for another academic year under the pressures of fiscal crisis, other local faculty unions are embroiled in their own fight against the administrative squeeze on labor.  On September 7, hundreds of faculty and staff at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University (LIU), as well as a healthy showing of PSC representatives, took to the streets to protest a ten-year wage freeze and dwindling benefit packages.

The protests came a day after negotiations between LIU and the faculty union, the Long Island University Faculty Federation—an affiliate of the AFT/NYSUT—broke down after the administration’s latest crappy offer was rejected by union representatives.  Reportedly, the university offered its part- and full-time staff a five-year deal where the wage freeze would remain intact for the first three years, followed by a paltry 2 percent raise in each the final two years.

The strike, which lasted for roughly a week, shut down 95 percent of the college’s classes, effectively bringing university life to a halt.  In the end, administrators returned to the table with a slightly better offer that was accepted by the striking workers. The new plan calls for a freeze in the first year of the new contract, a 1 percent base pay raise in the second, a 1.5 percent increase during the third, and then a 2 percent increase in the final two years of the deal. In addition, faculty members  were promised additional payments in the final four years of the contract, between half a percent and 2 percent if the university tuition revenues increase by more than 3 percent.

The Clarion reports other gains as well.  “The contract has some significant other gains—including the first ever paid office hour for LIU’s adjunct faculty: one paid office hour for those who teach more than nine contact hours per semester.”  On top of this, LIU has promised to make matching contributions to adjunct pensions for the first time ever. The union scored another significant victory by forcing a cap on the number of non-tenure track appointments to the university, which are no longer allowed to exceed more than 15 percent of the total full-time faculty lines.

File Under “Sorry, What?!?”: Anonymous Email Gets Department Chair Fired

An anonymous email sent to Medgar Evers College President William Pollard alleging inappropriate sexual relations between a faculty member and students led to the knee-jerk firing of Zulema Blair, chair of the school’s public administration department.  The unsigned email, sent from a Yahoo! account belonging to “DisgruntledSue” cuts right to the chase, accusing Blair of having sex with students, having a student’s baby, and being a member of the “elite Medgar Staff Slut List…You can’t turn a whore into a housewife,” the email concludes, “but you can definitely turn one into a Dean.”

Apparently Pollard was convinced by this reasoning. Two weeks after the email was sent, Pollard revoked the college’s tenure-track offer to Blair and axed her shortly thereafter. CUNY refused to comment on the situation, and would not answer inquiries as to whether an official investigation had been launched to determine the validity, or lack thereof, of the claims leveled in the anonymous message.

For her part, Blair is irate. “This e-mail is slander. It’s horrific, and I want whoever sent this out to be punished,” Blair told the New York Post. “This is character assassination. This does not speak to any work or any of my accomplishments at Medgar Evers College.” Indeed, New York State Senator Eric Adams recently honored Blair with public recognition of her contributions to academia and society more broadly. “Her academic activities spill out into the community, where she chairs the Black Brooklyn Empowerment Coalition, an organization committed to the political, economic, and social empowerment of Brooklyn residents of African descent,” Adams recently wrote. “Her role within this organization has motivated her to work collaboratively with other area leaders to empower members of the Central Brooklyn community via voter registration drives, political campaigns, education of formerly incarcerated individuals with respect to their voting rights, and more.”

The situation has not been resolved as the GC Advocate goes to press.  Meanwhile, Blair’s attorneys have filed suit to force Yahoo! To disclose the identity of the person registered as “DisgruntledSue,” an action the email provider has thus far refused. It doesn’t take a genius, or even an academic labor activist, to draw some fairly obvious conclusions about what may likely be in play.  According to Blair’s lawyer, the context is clear. “The obvious conclusion according to the papers that were filed is that the e-mail was a motivating factor not to grant her tenure.” Thus, the identity of the sender could offer a critical clue in understanding whether this is really about Blair’s supposed relationships with students, or whether a much pettier and cutthroat motivation may lurking behind the accusations, a motivation that has nothing to do with keeping students safe.

Brooklyn College Faculty Condemn NYPD Spying on CUNY Campuses

By now you’ve likely heard that the New York Police Department has been making a regular habit of spying on—you guessed it!—Muslim students across various CUNY colleges and beyond in recent months.  The story was first broken by veteran police investigative reporter Leonard Levitt at the start of September. According to Levitt, “The New York City Police Department has been spying on hundreds of Muslim mosques, schools, businesses, student groups, non-governmental organizations and individuals [targeting] virtually every level of Muslim life in New York City, according to a trove of pages of Intelligence Division documents.”

Of particular note to the CUNY community, Levitt revealed that “The NYPD has also been monitoring Muslim student associations at seven local colleges: City, Baruch, Hunter, Queens, LaGuardia, St. John’s and Brooklyn. The department calls the two student groups at Brooklyn and Baruch colleges “of concern” and has sent undercover detectives to spy on them, the documents reveal.” On top of that, a “lecturer” at Brooklyn College was identified as a “person of interest,” one of forty-two targeted around the city.

In response, faculty at Brooklyn drafted and passed a resolution condemning the NYPD actions, arguing that the snooping operation violated students and faculty rights and academic freedom more broadly. “The use of undercover police agents and the cultivation of police informers on campus has a chilling effect on the intellectual freedom necessary for a vibrant academic community,” the resolution stated.

The Faculty Council passed the resolution unanimously on September 13 after learning that undercover police officers were attending classes and meetings of campus organizations while pretending to be students. Alex Vitale, a professor of sociology at Brooklyn and author of the resolution told the Associated Press that “That’s what’s so troubling here: this was a giant fishing expedition,” an accusation the NYPD denies. “That seemed to be really beyond the pale of acceptable behavior, especially on a college campus,” Said Vitale. And it also may be against the law.  As it turns out, the spying was part of a CIA-sponsored endeavor to collect domestic intelligence on possible threats to national security, efforts that very well may violate laws that bar the agency from spying in the United States.

Share on Facebook

Tony Kushner

Tony Kushner’s latest play, The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism With a Guide to the Scriptures opened this month in New York to critical acclaim. But praise for Kushner, whom many consider the greatest living American playwright, was drowned out by outrage at the CUNY Board of Trustees’ decision to deny him an honorary degree from John Jay College.  On May 2, the board met to rubberstamp the entire group of notables slated to receive honorary degrees from the various CUNY campuses.  Before the vote was taken, trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld—no stranger to controversy—voiced his objection to Kushner’s nomination based on what he considered the playwright’s unacceptable political views as regards Israel.  The Board of Trustees ultimately removed Kushner’s name from consideration.

In response, thousands of students, faculty, and others from around the country mounted a campaign in Kushner’s defense.  The angry chorus of voices demanding that Kushner be restored to the list of honored nominees ultimately forced the CUNY’s hand. Benno Schmidt, the chairman of the board, called an emergency meeting for May 9, where the executive committee of trustees voted unanimously to overturn their previous decision and grant Kushner the award. The GC Advocate spoke with Kushner just hours after the emergency meeting to discuss the momentous reversal, the politics of free thought and expression in higher education, and the playwright’s close connections to the CUNY community.

To begin with, can you give us a sense of your immediate reaction to today’s events? Were you happy with the Board of Trustees’ decision to reverse their earlier vote, and grant you the honorary degree from John Jay?

Yes, absolutely. I am happy they reversed the decision that they made last week.  I recognize it was exclusively the result of the enormous protests mounted by the faculty and students of CUNY and of people all over, and I am very, very grateful to everyone who protested. I realize that it has a lot to do with things that are bigger than me. But I think the protests held the board to account, and really made them change their decision and I think that it is appropriate that they did that.

You originally said that you wouldn’t accept the degree even if the board reversed course. Is this still true? And if so, do you plan on speaking at the commencement ceremony?

I‘ve been contacted by several people on the faculty of John Jay, the president of John Jay and Karen Kaplowitz, president of the faculty senate, who have all asked me to accept if I am offered the degree, or I guess I should say accept for the second time, since I had already accepted the first time, and I intend to do that, yes.  I am really looking forward to being at the commencement ceremony on June 3, and celebrating everyone who is graduating.  My understanding is that we are supposed to deliver a speech at commencement.  Certainly Mr. Wiesenfeld was under this impression, and as we know he’s always accurate, so I am assuming that I will.

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld made very clear today that he has no intention whatsoever of resigning his seat on the Board of Trustees. What do you think about this? Would you like to see him removed?

My feeling is that his behavior both during that meeting and in the many interviews he has given since represents a misuse of his position as a trustee of the City University of New York. Whether or not a level of misuse that mandates his stepping down or being removed from the board of trustees, the mechanics of removal is not really for me to say.  That’s a decision for the CUNY community to make. I don’t believe his behavior is in any way appropriate and actually I think it had very little to do with any legitimate business of CUNY and had only to do with his own personal and political agenda. I don’t think that’s what a trustee should be about.  I am eager to see what happens, and I guess now that I am an honorary graduate of the John Jay School of Criminal Justice I am part of that community, and will be able to participate in those discussions.

Stanley Fish argued in the New York Times this week that the politics of honorary degree candidates should be considered by boards of trustees in deciding whether to grant the awards. Do you agree?

That’s a really complicated question.  Do I think that any political opinion is acceptable? No. I believe that there is such a thing as hate speech, I believe that there is a kind of articulation of ideas that can lead to appalling crimes. I think that we have to be very careful in parsing that kind of speech because it a very complicated business. In other instances it is sort of clear. I am not an absolutist in this regard. But I believe that in the university, freedom of thought and expression is paramount and that the trustees and the administrations, the faculties, and the students themselves at the different colleges should all be vigorous in preventing any kind of atmosphere that seems to preclude by a threat the expression of the free exchange of ideas.

I didn’t read Mr. Fish’s column. But when someone is smeared the way I was by Mr. Wiesenfeld, I do know that the board has certain responsibilities. My name was in that room entirely because I had been selected as an honorary degree candidate.  I know that Fish says it’s the right of the board to consider any person’s politics in voting on honorary degree candidacies. So there is that question. But the second question has to do with that word, “consider.” I would have had a lot less trouble with what happened to me had anyone at the board said, “Wait a minute, did you bring supporting evidence? If you are going to do this, why didn’t you print out a complete interview this guy has given, or an essay that he has written that shows us what a terrible person he is? Why are you coming here with a bunch of scattered quotes.” I think then that it would have been a whole other issue, and it would have reflected a much better light on the board if someone had just said, “I don’t think this is the appropriate way to level an accusation of this kind,”  if they had said “Mr. Wiesenfeld, if you’re not coming better prepared, you can’t really be serious.” In fact, I think he wasn’t. If you listen to the podcast of the original meeting, he doesn’t seem to have intended to do anything more than register a complaint.

Your new play, The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide to Capitalism and Socialism With a Key to the Scriptures opened in the midst of all this controversy surrounding the trustees’ original decision to deny you an honorary degree. I’m wondering, is it easier in today’s America to be a socialist than it is to be a critic of Israel? If so, why do you think this is?

Well, I would not characterize myself as a critic of Israel. That isn’t my job. I don’t feel like I am any more critical of the state of Israel than I am of many other countries including my own.  I think every responsible adult has a responsibility to hold to account their governments to pay attention to what’s going on.  I think what’s happened here is an interesting thing.  The expectation of Mr. Wiesenfeld is that when he says “This guy is anti-Israel” that the entire world will rear up in horror and run in the other direction.  And that didn’t happen this time, because people who really care about Israel, and I include myself in that number, realize it is enormously important now to start to build a policy towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East based on reality, as to what has actually happened, based on history and not on right-wing fantasy. That’s the hope for that region, and really for the world.

It’s always been tough about this primarily because of the long and horrendous history of oppression and suffering of the Jewish people. As a result, I think we have very good reason to be anxious about public debate about Israel, and yet that anxiety, no matter how understandable or grounded in history as it is, shouldn’t stand in the way of saying out loud the things we believe are true.

Finally, can you talk about your evolving feelings concerning CUNY? Has your view on the university changed through all this?

Well, it’s only gotten better, and it was already incredibly high to begin with, which is why I agreed to accept the degree in the first place. I gave a speech last year at John Jay and I was just dazzled by the students. I’ve talked to students at Queens College, at the Graduate Center, at City College. I have aunts and uncles that went to City College in the 1930s. I have always believed that this is an incredible institution of higher learning and a paradigm for what a public, urban university ought to be. The way the students and faculty responded to this whole thing has been incredibly impressive, incredibly courageous and vigorous, and I think this speaks beautifully of the university. And so, I am really proud of the affiliation.

Share on Facebook

Wel­come to the Aca­d­e­mic Free­dom at CUNY blog. We’ve been cov­er­ing the recent sit­u­a­tion of polit­i­cal purg­ing at Brook­lyn Col­lege and any related news since Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 28. Most recent updates will appear at the top with a EST stamp.

Day 6

10:00am L Magazine has been covering the scandal at Brooklyn College since its start. Their most recent piece (which includes a call for Gould’s resignation!) can be accessed here, as well as their story on whether the college is held captive by political interests which can be found here.

9:20am Huffington Post ran a story on Kristofer Petersen-Overton’s reappointment at Brooklyn College.  It can be accessed here.

9:00am The let­ters con­tinue to flood the admin­is­tra­tive inboxes at Brook­lyn Col­lege, and the GC Advo­cate in sup­port of aca­d­e­mic free­dom at CUNY. The qual­ity and focus of all the let­ters, from stu­dents, alumni, aca­d­e­mics and con­cerned cit­i­zens has been truly stun­ning, inspi­ra­tional, pow­er­ful, and as evi­denced by Brook­lyn College’s deci­sion to reverse its ear­lier actions, effective.

A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the events that pre­ceded tonight’s vic­tory. We’ll be run­ning all of the ones we have received that have not yet been made avail­able as a pub­lic record and tes­ta­ment to the orga­nized efforts on the part of those who stand up in the face of polit­i­cal bul­ly­ing to defend the bedrock of aca­d­e­mic free­dom upon which higher edu­ca­tion in the United States is built.

A note of appreciation on Brooklyn College’s decision to reverse their earlier action to fire Kristofer Petersen-Overton from Robert Vitalis, Professor of Political Sceince at the University of Pennsylvania:

Dear President Gould:

I am writing to applaud your decision to allow the political science department to employ Kristofer Petersen-Overton to teach his contracted MA course on Middle East politics. As someone who has taught this subject since 1987, most recently at Penn since 1999 where I also directed the university’s US Education Department-funded (Title VI) Middle East Center until 2006, I have followed this case about as closely as I have followed unfolding events in Egypt. The connection is not so distant and indirect as one might think. In both places there are important norms and values on the line.

It appears that your administration ultimately recognized, as was clear to me and I assume to my colleagues in the political science department at Brooklyn College, that Petersen-Overton’s syllabus reflected disciplinary conventions in all respects. It is in fact impossible to tell his course design apart from those taught in virtually all research universities. A key difference is that my colleagues across the country don’t typically have our syllabi investigated by politicians with an axe to grind, nor are our administrations likely to bend to such blatant efforts at disrupting the education of advanced students in political science or any other discipline.

With deep appreciation,

Robert Vitalis

Share on Facebook

Wel­come to the Aca­d­e­mic Free­dom at CUNY blog. We’ve been cov­er­ing the recent sit­u­a­tion of polit­i­cal purg­ing at Brook­lyn Col­lege and any related news since Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 28. Most recent updates will appear at the top with a EST stamp.

Day 5

10:45pm The let­ters con­tinue to flood the admin­is­tra­tive inboxes at Brook­lyn Col­lege, and the GC Advo­cate in sup­port of aca­d­e­mic free­dom at CUNY. The qual­ity and focus of all the let­ters, from stu­dents, alumni, aca­d­e­mics and con­cerned cit­i­zens has been truly stun­ning, inspi­ra­tional, pow­er­ful, and as evi­denced by Brook­lyn College’s deci­sion to reverse its ear­lier actions, effective.

A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the events that pre­ceded tonight’s vic­tory. We’ll be run­ning all of the ones we have received that have not yet been made avail­able as a pub­lic record and tes­ta­ment to the orga­nized efforts on the part of those who stand up in the face of polit­i­cal bul­ly­ing to defend the bedrock of aca­d­e­mic free­dom upon which higher edu­ca­tion in the United States is built.

From Dr. Philippa Strum, Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

Philippa Strum

10:00pm The let­ters con­tinue to flood the admin­is­tra­tive inboxes at Brook­lyn Col­lege, and the GC Advo­cate in sup­port of aca­d­e­mic free­dom at CUNY. The qual­ity and focus of all the let­ters, from stu­dents, alumni, aca­d­e­mics and con­cerned cit­i­zens has been truly stun­ning, inspi­ra­tional, pow­er­ful, and as evi­denced by Brook­lyn College’s deci­sion to reverse its ear­lier actions, effective.

A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the events that pre­ceded tonight’s vic­tory. We’ll be run­ning all of the ones we have received that have not yet been made avail­able as a pub­lic record and tes­ta­ment to the orga­nized efforts on the part of those who stand up in the face of polit­i­cal bul­ly­ing to defend the bedrock of aca­d­e­mic free­dom upon which higher edu­ca­tion in the United States is built.

From the Committee for the Open Discussion of Zionism:

Dear President Gould:

The Committee for the Open Discussion of Zionism (CODZ) applauds Brooklyn College’s decision to reverse its removal of Kristofer Petersen-Overton from his assignment due to pressure from a single individual, Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a former supporter of Meir Kahane’s JDL. We note that unfortunately Hikind is not the first elected official to act to suppress freedom of speech and academic integrity in U.S. colleges on behalf of the State of Israel.

We are a group of lawyers, professors, physicians, writers and others who came together in 2007 to counter our society’s pervasive suppression of criticism of Israel, often in a manner that reminds us of McCarthyism.

It is clear from Petersen-Overton’s syllabus that he had no intention of singling out Israel for attack, while Hikind clearly has an agenda that is driven by Zionist ideology rather than academic integrity.

The Provost’s actions betrayed the standards of free thought and expression upon which a flourishing academy must be grounded. Increasingly, the American people, including a growing number of Jews, are rejecting the injustice of such actions. We are grateful that you have acted in the best interest of academic integrity and against bullying by a fear-minded ideologue by reversing the Provost’s decision and reinstating Petersen-Overton. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Abdeen Jabara
Attorney and Board Member, Center for Constitutional Rights*

Carl Schieren
M.I.A., formerly with the American University in Cairo

Michael Smith, Esq.
Attorney

Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens / Green Party, and
Chair, WBAI (99.5 FM) Local Station Board*

Len Weinglass
Attorney

Alice Shields
former faculty, New York University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology

Barbara Harvey
Attorney

Nina Felshin
former faculty and curator, Wesleyan University

Howard Brandstein
Executive Director, Sixth Street Community Center, NYC*

Jonathan House, M.D.
Faculty, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Department of Psychiatry
Former Secretary, American Psychoanalytic Association

Dennis James
Attorney

Barbara Grossman
Attorney

Joel Kovel, MD

Brian Drolet
Director, Deep Dish TV

John Moran
emeritus [retired] Dept. of Philosophy, Manhattan College and
former adjunct at Hunter College

Thomas Hillgardner
Attorney

Bertell Ollman
Prof. of Politics, New York University

Dave Lippman
Musical journalist

9:30pm We were once again experience major technical difficulties this evening, as the blog was temporarily taken offline by our server for reasons that are still unclear.  But no matter: we are back!

Share on Facebook

At 6:00pm this evening, Brooklyn College will officially announce that it has decided to reverse its earlier decision to fire Kristofer Petersen-Overton from his class on Middle East Politics and rehire him immediately and unconditionally.

The Advocate thanks everyone who contributed their voices to the defense of academic freedom at CUNY this past week.  Your hard work and energies helped defeat political pressures that sought to compromise the institional integrity of Brooklyn College and the City University of New York. 

Updates to follow as they become available!

Share on Facebook

Wel­come to the Aca­d­e­mic Free­dom at CUNY blog. We’ve been cov­er­ing the recent sit­u­a­tion of polit­i­cal purg­ing at Brook­lyn Col­lege and any related news since Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 28. Most recent updates will appear at the top with a EST stamp.

Day 4

11:30pm     The letters continue to flood the administrative inboxes at Brooklyn College, and the GC Advocate in support of academic freedom at CUNY.  The quality and focus of all the letters, from students, alumni, academics and concerned citizens has been truly stunning, inspirational, powerful, and as evidenced by Brooklyn College’s decision to reverse its earlier actions, effective. 

A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the events that preceded tonight’s victory.  We’ll be running all of the ones we have received that have not yet been made available as a public record and testament to the organized efforts on the part of those who stand up in the face of political bullying to defend the bedrock of academic freedom upon which higher education in the United States is built.

From Leila Fawaz, Issam M. Fares Professor of Lebanese and Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Founding Director, Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at Tufts University:

Dear President Gould and Dean Tramontano,

I am writing to you as a faculty who has great regard for your university, and as a friend and colleague in Middle East studies of Selma Botman, former administrator at CUNY.

I was distressed to hear about the way Kristofer Peterson-Overton was treated, following the charge of New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind. I hope that you will reinstate Kristofer Petersen-Overton.  A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have noted that this brand of discrimination has no place at Brook­lyn Col­lege. The foundations of the principles of academic freedom are essential to our educational system, and good leadership is to insure that they be respected. I  hope to hear about your efforts in sup­port of Kristofer Petersen-Overton and the rights of all fac­ulty in the CUNY system.

Sincerely,

Leila Fawaz

11:15pm     For those that didn’t catch it earlier, Salon has coverage of today’s events, including the official statement from Brooklyn College on their surprise decision to reverse their earlier action of firing Kristofer Petersen-Overton. You can access it here.

11:00pm     Dov Hikind, the State Assemblyman who initially pressured Brooklyn College to fire Kristofer Petersen-Overton issued a response to the reversal of that decision this evening.  It can be accessed here.  Predictably, Hikind continues to base his public position on the twin pillars of innuendo and an utter disregard for facts. 

10:45pm     The letters continue to flood the administrative inboxes at Brooklyn College, and the GC Advocate, in support of academic freedom at CUNY.  The quality and focus of all the letters, from students, alumni, academics and concerned citizens has been truly stunning, inspirational, powerful, and as evidenced by Brooklyn College’s decision to reverse its earlier actions, effective. 

A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the events that preceded tonight’s victory.  We’ll be running all of the ones we have received that have not yet been made available as a public record and testament to the organized efforts on the part of those who stand up in the face of political bullying to defend the bedrock of academic freedom upon which higher education in the United States is built.

From Jill Lepore, David Woods Kemper ’41 Professor of American History at Harvard University and staff writer for the New Yorker:

Dear President Gould and Dean Tramontano,

Sincerely,

Jill Lepore

10:30pm    The letters continue to flood the administrative inboxes at Brooklyn College, and the GC Advocate in support of academic freedom at CUNY.  The quality and focus of all the letters, from students, alumni, academics and concerned citizens has been truly stunning, inspirational, powerful, and as evidenced by Brooklyn College’s decision to reverse its earlier actions, effective. 

A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the events that preceded tonight’s victory.  We’ll be running all of the ones we have received that have not yet been made available as a public record and testament to the organized efforts on the part of those who stand up in the face of political bullying to defend the bedrock of academic freedom upon which higher education in the United States is built.

From Thomas Dumm, William H. Hastie ’25 Professor of Political Ethics in the department of Political Science at Amherst College:

Dear President Gould:

It has come to my attention that an adjunct professor of political science at CUNY has been fired under what can only be called suspicious circumstances. The cover reason for the firing is that he is not qualified to teach a graduate seminar, given that he is not yet a Ph.D. But the department of political science had hired the man, and surely was aware of his qualifications. Even were there ongoing concerns, to fire him a week before his seminar was to begin is simply unfair.

The suspicion arises, given the contact of a politician protesting the course in question, of a direct political interference in a matter that ought to protected by the clear tenets of academic freedom. It is disturbing to see such a development occur at one of our great public universities. Especially given the current political climate in the United States, it seems craven to buckle to political pressure such as this. Please, I ask you to reconsider this decision.

Sincerely yours, 

Thomas Dumm 

5:15pm    BREAKING:  Early reports indicate that Brooklyn College has decided to reverse its initial decision to fire Kristofer Petersen-Overton and reinstate him to his Middle East Politics class immediately and unconditionally.  The college will make an announcement at 6:00pm EST.  More to come as the story develops!!!

2:45pm    A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the recent turn of events.

From Jackson Lears, Board of Governors Professor of History at Rutgers University:

Dear President Gould,

I am writing to express my deep concern about Brooklyn College’s decision to fire Kristofer Petersen-Overton, in response to pressure from a New York State Assemblyman.  This was clearly a departmental matter. Allowing politicians to shape what goes on in the classroom poses a direct threat to faculty governance and academic freedom.  I urge you to reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Jackson Lears

1:05pm    BREAKING: The Department of Political Science at Brooklyn College voted unanimously today to recommend that Kristofer Petersen-Overton be hired to teach Politics of the Middle East (Political Science 7713) during the spring semester of 2011.  The Political Science Appointments Committee then voted unanimously to officially hire Mr. Petersen-Overton.  As in all cases, the department will continue to provide excellent instruction to our students and full support to our entire teaching staff.

12:45pm    Kristofer Petersen-Overton’s appearance this morning on Democracy Now! can be heard online here.  Jump to 9:38 for the start of the segment.

10:45am    A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the recent turn of events.

From Joan Wallach Scott, Harold F. Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University:

Dear President Gould and Provost Tramontano,

I write to express my dismay at your decision to fire Kristofer Peterson-Overton from his teaching position at Brooklyn College.  When I served on the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee of the American Association of University Professors, we had a distressing number of cases of outside pressure from what can only be called lobbyists for the current Israeli regime, who demanded the firing of instructors they deemed unsuitable.  Their reasons were often cloaked in arguments similar to Dov Hikind’s–that they were not “objective”; that they were not qualified; that they were anti-Semitic (the confusion of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel is widespread among these political activists).  These were all faculty who had been vetted already for their qualifications and found suitable.  I assume that Mr. Peterson-Overton was not hired blindly, without consideration for his abilities to teach the material he was teaching.  And I am sure that it was his views and not his credentials that Mr. Hikind didn’t like. 

The academy has traditionally been a place where critical views are protected by academic freedom.  In the humanities and social sciences “objectivity” is not a relevant standard.  It is interpretation that is presented, debated, and discussed in classes and in published scholarship.  Academic freedom means the protection of critical views, the right of a qualified teacher to teach what he deems appropriate educational material.  The preemptive firing of Mr. Peterson-Overton is a capitulation to outsiders who use political pressure and threats of bad publicity to deny academic freedom to university teachers with whose views they disagree.  There is a long history of such intervention in the academy, always to the detriment of the values we ought to be upholding and to the practices that have long distinguished higher education in America.  In the name of academic freedom and of the survival of universities as centers of unfettered learning, I urge you to reverse your decision and put Mr. Peterson-Overton back in the classroom where he belongs.

Sincerely,

Joan W. Scott

8:00am    A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the recent turn of events.

From John L. Esposito, University Professor and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University:

Dear President Gould and Provost Tramontano:

As an academic raised in New York with family and friends who have attended CUNY and a former colleague, Selma Botman, who was an administrator at your greta university, I wa ssurprised and saddened to learn of othe university’s decision to prevent Kristofer Peterson-Overton from teaching his course and the charge of New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind. Academic freedom is the foundation of our educational system and critical to the integrity of what we do. I very much hope that you will reconsider the university’s decision.

John L. Esposito

12:25am    A num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have sent let­ters to Brook­lyn Col­lege Pres­i­dent Karen Lee Gould and Provost William Tra­mon­tano express­ing their dis­plea­sure with the recent turn of events.

From Laura Tanenbaum, Assistant Professor of English at LaGuardia Community College:

Dear President Gould and Provost Tramontano:

I am writing to express my deep concern over the firing of Professor Kristofer Peterson-Overton following complaints by a member of New York’s State Assembly. As a faculty member at LaGuardia Community College and a proud member of the CUNY community, I find this threat to academic freedom particularly troubling. In order to preserve an environment of free intellectual inquiry, it is essential that hiring decisions be made by scholars and teachers, not by the whims of politicians.

Given that graduate students without PhDs have frequently taught masters courses at CUNY, and given the timing of your decision, the claim that Professor Peterson-Overton was let go due to a lack of qualifications lacks credibility. In addition, this case sense a chilling message to the many adjunct faculty who depend on semester by semester appointments to make their living. It is essential that these faculty members, no less than those with full-time appointments and tenure, be able to use their professional judgment while pursuing scholarship and designing courses, without concern for the interference of politicians more concerned with misleading soundbites than meaningful discussion and debate.

I urge to reconsider this decision and reinstate Professor Peterson-Overton. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Laura Tanenbaum

12:05am     Good morning!  Wel­come to Day 4 of the Advo­cate’s Aca­d­e­mic Free­dom at CUNY Blog. You can view Sunday’’s updates here.

Share on Facebook

The Advo­cate has drafted a let­ter that can be sent to the chair of the English depart­ment at Brook­lyn Col­lege in defense of Kristofer Petersen-Overton. Please take a moment and email Pro­fes­sor Ellen Tremper, demand­ing that she sup­port Petersen-Overton and aca­d­e­mic free­dom at CUNY this com­ing week as Brook­lyn College’s var­i­ous depart­ments hold emer­gency meet­ings to decide how to proceed. Specifically, it is imper­a­tive that Petersen-Overton be hired to teach the course as orig­i­nally agreed. She can be con­tacted via email at etremper@brooklyn.cuny.edu. ***

Dear Pro­fes­sor Tremper,

I am writ­ing to encour­age you to demon­strate lead­er­ship this com­ing week when the var­i­ous depart­ments of Brook­lyn Col­lege meet to dis­cuss the vio­la­tion of aca­d­e­mic free­dom being per­pe­trated by the admin­is­tra­tion in the case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton.

As you know, Mr. Petersen-Overton was dis­missed by Provost William Tra­mon­tano at the urg­ing of State Assem­bly­man Dov Hikind. As a num­ber of promi­nent aca­d­e­mics and pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als from around the world have noted, this brand of neo-McCarthyism has no place at Brook­lyn Col­lege and must not be tolerated.

I ask that you lead your depart­ment in stand­ing up to this polit­i­cal bul­ly­ing and help ensure that the integrity of the col­lege — built in no small mea­sure upon the foun­da­tions of the prin­ci­ple of aca­d­e­mic free­dom — remains intact. Specifically, it is imper­a­tive that Mr. Petersen-Overton be rein­stated to teach the course on Mid­dle East Pol­i­tics as orig­i­nally agreed.

I’ll be keep­ing informed of the events as they unfold at Brook­lyn Col­lege, and look for­ward to hear­ing about your efforts in sup­port of Kristofer Petersen-Overton and the rights of all fac­ulty in the CUNY system.

Yours,

Share on Facebook