[A-List] A new Dark Ages at Virginia Tech

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxx>]

Comment on the story below: My father used to have two plaques on his wall;
one said "Freedom Ain't Free" and the other, a quote from Otto von Bismark,
said "For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected
will never know." As someone who flew 94 low-level bombing missions in B-25s
(so low they didn't carry parachutes) in China and Burma against Japanese
fascist forces, he knew, like all veterans, especially those who have
directly faced armed enemies bent on their elimination, and paradoxically
surrendering for themselves, as members of the military, the very same
Constitutional rights they were supposedly fighting to protect for others,
those rights are precious and must be fought for, as the oath all members of
the military take says: "against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC."

Every case of fascism, past and present, reveals that fascism does not just
fall out of the sky one day. There are certain preconditions and foundations
that are progressively built prior to the full assumption of State power by
fascists. In virtually all cases, past and present, fascists run--through
democratic processes they seek to destroy--on platforms such as: national
pride, national security, redress of previous grievances,
anti-homosexuality, family values, anti-immigrant, anti-crime,
anti-designated minorities, anti-terrorism, anti-unionism,
anti-communism/socialism/liberalism, national chauvinism and jingoism,
pseudo-populism (while embracing monopoly capitalist oligarchies),
pro-veterans, pro-military, anti-abortion, designated State religion and
allegiance of religious authorities to the State, expansion of national
living space, national sovereignty over international law and selective--if
any--obedience to international law, etc etc.

And in every case of fascism, past and present, chaos and terrorist threats
(often manufactured by the fascists themselves; e.g. Reichstag Fire by Nazis
or see "The Quiet American" about U.S. in Vietnam in 1952) are used to
induce people to willingly surrender their basic civil and constitutional
rights and/or to isolate, marginalize, incarcerate or exterminate those who
refuse to do so--all under the banner of illusory security and protection by
the State. Fascism comes to power, and is aided and abetted by cowardice,
opportunism, bigotry, rivalries and ignorance on the part of large sections
of the mass population; it operates like the proverbial frog in the pan (put
the frog in a hot pan and it immediately jumps out; put the frog in cold
water and gradually heat the pan, and the frog will stay in the pan and fry
to death without moving).

Now in the case below, what would give the authorities at Virginia Tech the
green light and expanded hubris--beyond that which they probably already
had--to engage in what a very conservative U.S. Supreme Court ruled is
fundamentally unconstitutional by private entities and rare even among
public entities--prior restraint against the expression of some but not
other ideas, information or speakers? Of course there are many reasons. 

First of all, look at where typical Regents and Trustees come from and/or
how they are selected. In many cases, not all for sure, but even when they
are "elected", often they come from the business world, have no real
experience in education, are using their appointments for
meager-resume-enhancement and more often than not are political
appointments--using these important positions as instruments of politcal
patronage. Since they typically have no real experience in education, what
kinds of administrators do you think they are likely to hire? Will they be
able to differentiate substance from superficiality if they typically lack
substance themselves (it takes substance to recognize substance and it takes
competence to recognize competence)? And where do the typical high-level
administrators come from? Many, certainly not all, have management degrees,
CPA-type degrees, degrees in "Ed Leadership" and /or "College
Administration" and lack any real experience with the pedagogy, substance
and delivery of "education." Some have some time in the classroom and have
failed "upward", or have sought more money and perks, or have sought
expanded power and control over others. They routinely network with the
Trustees/Regents, hire others like themselves, through incestuous
(metaphorically speaking only) "executive placement services", have little
contact with the actual delivery of education or faculty and staff, and they
typically try to minimize negative press/exposure of problems while
maximizing exposure of/overstating successes usually attributed to
themselves. Go down to Baird and here are all these pictures of past
presidents, like some kind of royalty, some of them outright failures who
have caused considerable damage to this institution, passed on to other
institutions at levels even further beyond their "Peter-Principle" levels,
and of course, no photos of the "grunts" (faculty, staff, other
administrators) who must carry out the real work of this institution--and
actually "operationalize" the policies of those past presidents rarely fully
held accountable for their screw-ups but given exaggerated credit for any
supposed successes.

So when free speech becomes inconvenient for them, and having access to
indemnification against potential litigation with public funds, having no
concept of or respect for the real purposes of education (to open minds,
explore possibilities, impart real knowledge and skills and how to apply
them etc), and often having control-freak/megalomaniacal/narcissistic
tendencies, often their tendency is to summarily attempt to suppress that
which they cannot control or co-opt and leave it to others to defend them
and/or clean up the messes they typically leave. I'm sure that is what is
behind what these Regents and Administrators--and their sycophants among the
compliant faculty and staff--are attempting to do.

Freedom ain't free and those unwilling to fight for it do not deserve it for
themselves. And those unwilling to fight against full and free expressions
of ideas and perspectives--and yes personal sentiments that are
Constitutionally--protected opinion--do not deserve to be called "educators"
and such institutions that allow this are not worthy of being called
"educational institutions."

Jim Craven



Chronicle of Higher Education
Thursday, March 13, 2003

Virginia Tech Bans Speakers With Extreme Views and Relaxes 
Antidiscrimination Clause
By MEGAN ROONEY

The governing board of Virginia Tech voted on Monday to bar advocates of 
extreme political views from speaking on the campus. Under the new 
policy, student groups must seek the president's approval if they wish 
to invite speakers who support or take part in activities that could be 
construed as "domestic violence or terrorism."

At the same meeting, the Board of Visitors voted to change the 
university's antidiscrimination clause so that it no longer prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Those decisions were made at the same quarterly meeting on Monday at 
which the governing board effectively ended the use of affirmative 
action in admissions, hiring, and financial aid (The Chronicle, March 12).

"That meeting was an unbelievable step backward," said Ed Sewell, who, 
as president of the Faculty Senate at Virginia Tech, is a nonvoting 
member of the Board of Visitors. "I have been reading a book about 
Germany in the 1930s, and I almost feel like I'm experiencing déjà vu."

Neither the resolution concerning political extremists nor the 
resolution about sexual orientation was listed on the agenda that was 
made available to board members before the meeting.

The resolution concerning political speakers on the campus follows a 
February speech given by a member of Earth First, an environmental group 
that advocates such tactics as preventing logging by sitting in trees or 
chaining oneself to a logging site. According to Lawrence G. Hincker, a 
spokesman for the university, that speech raised the ire of a group of 
professors from the department of forestry. Furthermore, the member of 
the Board of Visitors who introduced the resolution, Mitchell O. Carr, 
is president of the Augusta Lumber Co., based in Waynesboro, Va., and is 
a former director of the National Hardwood Lumber Association.

Mr. Carr did not return telephone calls for comment, and Charles W. 
Steger, the university's president, also was not available.

The resolution reads in part: "Be it resolved, no person, persons, or 
organizations will be allowed to meet on campus or in any facility owned 
or leased by the university, if it can be determined that such persons 
or organizations advocate or have participated in illegal acts of 
domestic violence and terrorism."

While the resolution does not define domestic violence and terrorism, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Web Site includes a spectrum of 
political groups in its description of domestic terrorism, including 
white-supremacy organizations and socialist organizations like the 
Workers' World Party and Carnival Against Capitalism. It also cites the 
Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, two groups whose 
representatives have spoken at Virginia Tech during the past two years.

The university is currently reviewing the resolution with the office of 
the state attorney general to ensure its legality, particularly 
regarding the Constitutional guarantees of free speech, free assembly, 
due process, and equal protection.

In an editorial decrying the resolution, the student newspaper, 
Collegiate Times, describes the measure's language as "irrefutably 
ambiguous," and says it "could be applied to many speakers and 
organizations that have visited Tech's campus in recent years."

The board also removed sexual orientation from the list of factors -- 
including race, sex, and national origin -- that the university will not 
use to discriminate against students, faculty members, and applicants. 
Mr. Hincker said the board made the change to conform Virginia Tech's 
rules with federal and state laws, which do not include gay and lesbian 
people as a protected class of citizens.

On Tuesday, as academic departments met to discuss the pivotal changes 
enacted by the Board of Visitors, one professor described the campus 
mood as "a brewing storm."

"We're still trying to figure out exactly what happened," the professor 
said. "We're sort of astounded."