by Reid Fitzsimons

I’m pretty sure I’m not a “Gun Nut,” unless progressive lexicologists have recently redefined it to include anyone supportive of the second amendment to any degree. I was certainly not a member of the NRA when, in 2004, I heard a speech by Wayne Lapierre, a major player in the NRA. I assumed it would be similar to Arlo Guthrie’s lyrics in Alice’s Restaurant, when he was talking to the draft board psychiatrist and repeatedly declaring “I want to kill!” Disappointingly, however, it was a low-keyed and well-reasoned talk. Several years ago I did join the NRA and, though my membership has lapsed, the motivating reason was more philosophical/sympathetic than practical (no desire for a hat, t shirt, pocket knife, etc).

In June 2013 Christopher Swindell, a journalism professor at Marshall University in Huntington, W.V., posted a somewhat fanciful op-ed in the Charleston Gazette which included an assertion that “The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad,” and several other similar pearls. Having been fairly confident the NRA didn’t “advocate armed rebellion” I felt it appropriate to join the NRA; what the heck, if the conservative Heritage Foundation suggested summary executions of ACLU members I might be motivated to sign up with the ACLU.

Increasingly it seems that people who in some manner hold the title “Professor,” like Swindall, say the silliest things. I use “seems” because many of these stories are reported in a sensational manner, but are often verified by insincere apologies, angry or weak justifications by the professor activists and/or their employers, or deleting the social media posting. A few examples:

“A victim’s testimony is legally sufficient evidence by itself to convict someone of sexual assault," "no other evidence is required," declared (former) University of Georgia - Athens adjunct law professor and CNN legal analyst Page Pate.

Felix Coe, a professor of biology (University of Connecticut), had posted signs on the door to his office directing students to “REMOVE SHOES BEFORE ENTERING” and “KNOCK FIRST, THEN REQUEST ENTRY Say: Bismillah (in the name of Allah).” “I am a Muslim,” Coe explained to a student. “You don’t come into my office with dirty shoes; that’s a curse.”

Professor Lance "Lj" Russum at Polk State College has (allegedly) failed a humanities student after she refused to concede that Jesus is a “myth” or that Christianity oppresses women during a series of mandatory assignments at the Florida college.

“Antifa” activist Professor Michael Isaacson (John Jay College, known for its Criminal Justice courses) observed “…it’s a privilege to teach future dead cops.” Later, the now ex-professor characterized police mortality stats as “pig death stats.”

Georgetown University Distinguished Associate Professor Christine Fair shared her thoughts on Republican males on the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Look at thus [sic] chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement, all of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes."

Randa Jarrar, a tenured (“I will never be fired”) English professor at Fresno State offered her own unique eulogy upon the death of Barbara Bush: “Either you are against these pieces of [excrement] and their genocidal ways or you’re part of the problem. That’s actually how simple this is. I’m happy the witch is dead. Can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way a million and a half Iraqis have. Byyyeeeeeeee.”

I have a long-standing relationship with an excellent and serious scholar in the throes of completing his dissertation. I forwarded him a link to an article in The Atlantic that had been forwarded to me: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

The subject at hand was the ease that some real but iconoclastic academics experienced in having intentionally absurd articles published in ostensibly scholarly journals, largely by using progressive-oriented titles and jargon. Here are two sample titles: “Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation,” and “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon (Do dogs suffer oppression based upon perceived gender?).”

My scholar friend responded with the following:

“I did notice this (the Atlantic article), however I want to highlight the following excerpt from the article:

’There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines.’

I know from personal experience having published in and reviewed for historical journals that we as a discipline maintain rigorous standards. What's frustrating to me is when people in the media (especially right wing media) treat these stories as if they broadly apply to all disciplines outside of the hard sciences, when in fact 90% of the crazy stuff emanates exclusively from the "studies" departments and certain sociology departments. History as a field isn't part of this problem. I hope people can realize this.”

And my response to him:

I’m sure you well know I both understand and agree with difference between true academia versus “studies” academia, but I think it’s becoming a significant problem, not unlike overtly political “science” people (Bill Nye, for example), who denigrate science by using it for obvious political purposes. Let me make a few points-

1) We can probably stipulate that the majority of academia could correctly be described as progressive leftist, perhaps even adding the adjective “vast.” This is across the board- professors of all levels, administrators, and students. This becomes self-replicating and leads to an insular and exclusivist mindset.

2) There was a tradition that true academics and scholars, by definition and assumption, viewed whatever topic or issue objectively, intellectually, with a full historic perspective and, most importantly, unemotionally. This is what held them in high esteem.

3) Partly through the unfortunate means of mass, social media, a portion of the academic world has shown themselves to act purely on emotion and even hatefully, devoid of reasonable perspective and thoughtfulness, and at times using their credentials to enhance their emotional exuberance. Many of these utterances are at the same level as stereotypical ignorant white supremacists.

4) The “right wing” media certainly exploits this (though I don’t consider The Atlantic “right wing”). They use the term “professor” loosely, everyone from a 20-something TA with a “man bun” (a new phrase for me) to tenured professors, and probably most people won’t bother to differentiate between the actual credentials or the department involved (eg lesbian and gay studies versus true history). While this can certainly be annoying and suggest the incidence is greater than it is, it does have a basis. When the regular leftist media jumps on a conservative “family values” politician caught with a prostitute, a similar dynamic is in play- including a misleading suggestion that it can be widely extrapolated. It does not mean they are wrong to report it.

5) Here is a significant problem- when “caught” or exposed, the initial reaction is to predictably circle the wagons, with the same tired justifications of “academic freedom,” “free speech,” “trying to start a discussion,” stimulating “critical thinking,” and the like. Fellow professors and administrators almost uniformly parrot these rationalizations in an initial defense, unless of course the offending party was a conservative or said something contrary to progressive dogma- when this is the case the offender is skewered with claims of bigotry, Nazism, etc, and accused of making the campus unwelcoming and unsafe: in other words, a significant and hypocritical double standard.

6) If enough pressure is applied there will be the inevitable vacuous apology, removal of the offensive post from social media, and various administrative players may make some make some kind of appeasing gesture. In the recent case of the “Distinguished Professor” of Security Studies (not sure what that means) at Georgetown, who said all white males on the Senate Judiciary Committee who supported Kavanaugh should be killed then castrated, she was, with relative haste, given a 1-2 years all expenses paid sabbatical.

7) Now here is a bit of paradox- there is and should be a difference between what is said acting as a professor and acting privately. A question can be asked, however, if a professor makes obscene or outrageous statements on a personal basis but through public means (eg social media), can this be extrapolated to have bearing on his or her academic temperament? In other words, if there is a standard associated with academic status should it also be applied to private lives to some extent? Note I’m differentiating between two types of private- truly personal/private versus intentionally making public statements but not in the capacity of a professor.

Whether right or not, the prestige and credibility of academia and scholarship overall is being challenged by unthoughtful, immature, and even poorly educated professionals who somehow find their way into college administration or to the title “Professor.” Perhaps there is no unifying solution, but a start would be to not hire people on superficial bases such as “diversity;” reduce or limit the nebulous and non-rigorous “studies” programs and similarly disallow advanced degrees in such programs; and to change the standard administrative response from “they have the right to free personal speech,” etc to a censorious “their behavior is inconsistent with the expectations of a mature and thoughtful professional, but it did not occur in association with their positions at the college and therefore we cannot officially admonish or punish him or her.” Let’s drop the knee-jerk but misguided support of these nutty professors.