April 14, 2003


The Most Hated Professor in America (Chronicle of Higher Education, 4/18/2003)
Chronicle: One organizer of the teach-in called what you said "idiotic."
de Genova: To defensively denounce what I said as "idiotic" merely contributes to the pro-war campaign of vilification. There are people with a very vested interest in exploiting this issue and manipulating it for their own ends, and attacks against me are therefore attacks against the entire antiwar movement.
Chronicle: The comment you made linking patriotism and white supremacy has also caused controversy. Can you expand a bit on that?
de Genova: It's an oversimplification ... to say that I am simply calling anyone who is a patriot of the United States a white supremacist. But I did trace a historical relationship between U.S. invasions and conquests and colonization to the history of white supremacy and racism in the U.S.
Chronicle: If you had it to do over again, would you make the same remarks?
de Genova: Had I known that there was a devious yellow journalist from a tabloid newspaper among the audience, I certainly would have selected my words somewhat more carefully. But I would not have changed the message.

Nicholas de Genova is unrepentant. Indeed, he even accuses Eric Foner, the radical professor who organized the teach-in and has been quoted as uncertain which is "more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House," of joining a pro-war campaign of vilification. Nice to see that leftists haven't stopped turning on one another.
Posted by Paul Jaminet at April 14, 2003 10:53 PM

Mr. de Genova is a silly man and certainly not a threat to anyone but the young minds he comes into contact with. The idea, however, that taxpayers fund his stupidity and paranoia in any way is the very definition of tyranny.

The feds have no business in any research process that is non-defense related. Devising a system of credits to encourage taxpayers to fund research would as well be open to all kinds of abuse.

Leave states and individuals alone to decide what and what not to fund. Take any non-defense items off the federal budget and reduce federal taxes proportionally.

Do you really think that the Rober Byrds of the world should have any say in directing funds for such research?

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at April 15, 2003 2:12 PM

No, that's why my proposal would take the power away from Robert Byrd and give it to U.S. taxpayers.

You libertarian proposal to get the government out of academia entirely has much to recommend it, except that it has no chance of getting through the political process. A restructuring might, and would achieve most of the advantages of laissez-faire in terms of incentives to academia.

Posted by: pj at April 15, 2003 3:32 PM

I am not a "libertarian", but a liberal in the classical sense. I am a federalist who believes that the best government is the most accountable government. The use of tax-credits at the federal level opens the door for the Byrds,Rangels,Pelosis and the rest of the social engineers in Washington to continue with their destructive experiments.

Fundemental and real reform is the solution, not more of the same "reform" where the balance of power remains the same.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at April 15, 2003 5:39 PM

AUTHOR: Tom C., Stamford, Ct.
DATE: 04/15/2003 05:40:00 PM
AUTHOR: Tom C., Stamford, Ct.
DATE: 4/15/2003 05:40:00 PM

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at April 15, 2003 5:40 PM