In a comment to this post below, Garrick Williams, a student at Michigan, points to an article in the Michigan Daily about a real shocker from philosophy Prof. Carl Cohen, one of the true unsung heroes of civil rights in this country (whom I wrote about here).
Prof. Cohen is about to do something so unexpected, so defiant of the dominant academic consensus, even so shocking, that all of Ann Arbor seems to have its knickers in a twist: he’s about to introduce some diversity into the curriculum by teaching a five week, one unit course in which he will be forthright and clear about his criticisms of affirmative action as practiced at Michigan and elsewhere. This is so rare that the Michigan Daily found it newsworthy: “New class criticizes ‘U’ admissions: Outspoken affirmative action critic Carl Cohen to teach class.”
Not surprisingly, this rare, almost unique, little spark of intellectual diversity on campus is widely regarded as a veritable conflagration of — you guessed it — “bias.” Obviously waving the red flag of his apostasy in front of the bullish uniformity of dominant opinion, Prof. Cohen impishly “stated in the course description that the class will not provide a balanced discussion of the issue.”
Cohen v. Coleman?
I’d pay to see it. It be like the Dallas Cowboys v. Buffalo Bills contest (the first one), but worse. Sometimes you like a close Superbowl, but when your team is playing, you also enjoy the most lopsided blowout possible. I suppose that’s why we’ll never see it.
No shame. For over two years now, I have read about the chilling effect that conservative championed demands for balanced views will have on our universities. Now the same people that decry the concept of balance in the classroom are demanding it here and now. The real irony, if it can be called that, is that they know they can get away with it and not be lampooned later when they switch back to the ‘chicken little’ position that passes for debate about encouraging debate.
On a more serious note, its ironic to see the left complain about “balance” when only a couple years ago it rushed to defense of a professor whose course was entitled “How to be gay?”. Of course, he had a right to teach the course (within the bounds that he was also subject to the criticism he drew).
I wonder if Mr. Lee wants to force the many U-M sponsored courses that are biased for preferences to be “more balanced?”
Stenvig, a member of BAMN, wants “debate” as long as the debate doesn’t include an opposition, let alone the most formiddable I know.
And having known Carl personally since 1996, I can safely say he is the most eloquent advocate of equality in the State of Michigan at this moment. I’d say in the world, but I haven’t heard them all.
As a former 10 year resident of Ann Arbor I can testify that the only reason such a dissenter is allowed on campus at the UM is to satisfy the same human curiosity that carnival freak shows used to serve. Students are encouraged to stop by after coffee to poke him with a stick. To actually let him speak? Perhaps on a bill with a “talking” dog. What the dog “says” would be taken more seriously. Ann Arbor is the freak show, but they live on quite happily, crushing all forms of dissent with an iron boot.
“I don
It’s funny how all these people just KNOW that there will be no debate in the classroom.
Actually, they have a valid reason for that belief. That is the way that all of their other courses that are taught by the Leftist professors are run.
Miss Stenvig shows us exactly why this course is necessary: “I can
Richard writes:
>>>Actually, they have a valid reason for that belief. That is the way that all of their other courses that are taught by the Leftist professors are run.”
According to the “Outrage!” article, this is Professor Cohen:
>>>”I taught a course in those days on Marxism,” Cohen recalls, “and I would talk about Marx in a very enthusiastic way. His critique of capitalism is powerful, and often very wise.” No one at U-M ever tried to shut him up, but the Red Squad continued to keep files on suspected “subversives” for many years.”
And here:
>>>During the Vietnam War, as an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) activist, he often championed individual acts of civil disobedience, such as sit-ins or resisting the draft. In 1971, he published a well-received book titled Civil Disobedience.”
And here:
>>>A former Democratic activist and a long-time supporter of the NAACP, Cohen says that in the 1950s “some of the strongest advocates for civil rights were Communists, but that didn
So what if he is a “lefty”… if he is, it would seem to indicate that not all opponents of affirmative action are racist right-wing neoconservatives (etc.) out to keep the black man down. Which is, in itself, a powerful critique of the way the U has been presenting the affirmative action debate.
What is also interesting, Cobra, is that, at least according to your quotes, Cohen was well received for his previous actions. This seems to prove the point that his opponents’ are only concerned about bias and political activism in the classroom when it doesn’t align with their own bias and political activism.
In general, I would tend to agree that classes should be taught from an objective perspective insofar as possible, but I think Cohen has a point that, in this case, the University is itself biased and debate-stifling in its presentation of affirmative action (we get at least 1 credit worth of indoctrination on why AA is wonderful every time Mary Sue Coleman gives a speech). So maybe Cohen can provide a much needed second side to the debate.
Garrick writes:
>>>What is also interesting, Cobra, is that, at least according to your quotes, Cohen was well received for his previous actions.”
Come on, Garrick. Well received? Making Marxist arguments against capitalism? Anti-war protests? Membership to the NAACP? If NOT for Cohen’s dogmatic attacks on Affirmative Action my bet is that he would be tarred and feathered on this blog as much as any other liberal professor or administrator.
>>>So what if he is a “lefty”… if he is, it would seem to indicate that not all opponents of affirmative action are racist right-wing neoconservatives (etc.) out to keep the black man down.”
Are you conceding that there ARE opponents of Affirmative Action with that attitude?
–Cobra
Straw man alert.
Cobra,
Come on, Garrick. Well received? Making Marxist arguments against capitalism? Anti-war protests? Membership to the NAACP? If NOT for Cohen’s dogmatic attacks on Affirmative Action my bet is that he would be tarred and feathered on this blog as much as any other liberal professor or administrator.
One of your quotes does say that his 1971 Civil Disobedience was “well-received.” I imagine that’s what Garrick is referring to.
But the broader point is that it’s relatively easy to be an antiwar, critical-of-capitalist-economics professor with a following on campus, whereas criticizing affirmative action is liable to get you into political hot water with your colleagues and your students.
Michelle writes:
>>>But the broader point is that it’s relatively easy to be an antiwar, critical-of-capitalist-economics professor with a following on campus, whereas criticizing affirmative action is liable to get you into political hot water with your colleagues and your students.”
I never argued that it wasn’t to college students. However, the point I made was that I found a certain irony in the fact that liberals, Democrats, NAACP members and ACLU members aren’t very popular on this blog,(they’re attacked all the time) yet Professor Cohen is all of those things alongside of happily teaching Marxism with communist sympathies. That fact that the conservatives on this board will look past all of those hot button issues to cannonize a guy just because he’s against Affirmative Action is testimony to just how MUCH power the subject of race has in America.
–Cobra
>>> That fact that the conservatives on this board will look past all of those hot button issues to cannonize a guy just because he’s against Affirmative Action is testimony to just how MUCH power the subject of race has in America.
It is probably a testimony to whatever you want it to be a testimony to.
Affirmative Action is probably one of the most obvious and blatant forms of race-based discrimination by government that exist today.
So, I would rephrase your sentence as follows:
>>> That fact that the conservatives on this board will look past all of those hot button issues to canonize a guy just because he’s against Affirmative Action is testimony to just how MUCH power the subject of AA has in America.
Cobra,
Sorry — I responded to this and then managed to lose the response while trying to send it.
[T]he point I made was that I found a certain irony in the fact that liberals, Democrats, NAACP members and ACLU members aren’t very popular on this blog,(they’re attacked all the time) yet Professor Cohen is all of those things alongside of happily teaching Marxism with communist sympathies. That fact that the conservatives on this board will look past all of those hot button issues to canonize a guy just because he’s against Affirmative Action is testimony to just how MUCH power the subject of race has in America.
Well, in the first place, no one has “canonized” Cohen. Some people here have praised this action of his; that isn’t the same by any means as considering everything the man has ever done sacrosanct.
The thing that strikes me about cases like this is that you can be as Leftist as you please on most questions, but if you answer certain ones wrong you are rapidly in the doghouse. Just look at Nat Henthoff, who is one of the most eloquent defenders of the First Amendment we’ve ever had — except that he has the temerity to think that free speech includes the right to protest abortion. Or Alan Sokal, the physicist who went to Nicaragua to teach science for the Sandinistas, but also made a Leftist journal look extremely silly by sending them a piece of transparent gibberish that they blithely published. I can imagine people admiring some of these people’s work and not others; can’t you? (Personally, I admire almost everything both of them have done that I know about, but then I have rather odd politics.)
I can see people admiring Hentoff’s advocacy against censorship in school libraries who would not be enthusiastic about his attacks on RICO prosecutions of abortion protesters, and vice versa. In the same way, I can see people admiring Cohen’s economic views, or his views on civil disobedience, but not his views on affirmative action, and — again — vice versa.
I hope you aren’t requiring us all to praise only people whose positions are wholly congruent with our own, because frankly I haven’t found one yet, and doing nothing but dissing people all day for disagreeing with me on this or that would be pretty glum recreation.
Just FYI, the “Henthoff” there is a typo; the man’s name is “Hentoff.” Embarrassing.
Michelle, it is a common error – a google search shows 5900 such occurrences.
Hentoff, of course, opposes racial preference, as well. He is a true defender of the First Amendment in that he will take the side of either a person on the right or left when a censor from either extreme decides to attempt to use the government to quell speech. Hentoff is a truly great writer and great American – whether I agree with him on everything or not.
And yes, Cobra’s entire line of argument here, betrays itself as a suggestion that all people must be totally congruent on issues. Ironically, this is a very anti-diverse perspective indeed.
As to Cohen’s “support” for Marxism, I think the quote that Cohen teaching in the 70s agreed with SOME of the critiques of capitalism that Marx taught, not that Cohen bought the whole line of Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Communism. It also says nothing about whether Cohen would agree with critiques of Communism. There is no evidence Cohen was a “Communist,” essentially. I think I can safely say there are many conservatives who can see flaws in capitalism – even as they believe in the general paradigm.
Cobra,
As for someone like you who likes to qoute Scripture,isn’t it that one of the main tenets of Salvation history is the concept of redemption and absolution? Meaning we are sorry for our past errors and ask forgiveness for it? Now Cohen might have seen the light that race preferences are indeed wrong. I know of Nat henroff’s views, he is indeed a strong proponent of the First Amendment just like Michael Myers ( a black guy who leads the New York Civil Liberties Union ( not the ACLU)). Both of them however do not support race preferences. How about me Cobra, I do support the First Amendment but oppose abortion and race preferences………
Michelle writes:
>>>I hope you aren’t requiring us all to praise only people whose positions are wholly congruent with our own, because frankly I haven’t found one yet, and doing nothing but dissing people all day for disagreeing with me on this or that would be pretty glum recreation.”
It’s one thing to “praise” a person about a certain position they hold, but still not agree with his general philosophy. I “praised” Trent Lott for stating to Ed Gordon on BET that he supports Affirmative Action. Now for me to reach the SAME level of exaultation rendered by some posters here for Cohen, I would have to further describe Trent Lott thusly:
>>>…one of the true UNSUNG HEROES of CIVIL RIGHTS in this country..”
…No one familiar with [subject] and his work can IMAGINE that he is CAPABLE of actual bias…”
–J.Rosenberg
>>And having known [subject] personally since 1996, I can safely say he is the MOST ELOQUENT ADVOCATE OF EQUALITY in the State of Michigan at this moment. I’d say in the WORLD, but I haven’t heard them all…”
–C. Zarko
People are surely entitled to their own opinions. Lord knows I’m full of opinions. I can understand WHY conservatives would “praise” somebody for agreeing with them on one topic, but what besides dropping dime on his employers about admissions, and hating Affirmative Action merits the above quoted, Ghandi-level idolatry for an ultra-left winged college professor? Especially on THIS blog?
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>And yes, Cobra’s entire line of argument here, betrays itself as a suggestion that all people must be totally congruent on issues. Ironically, this is a very anti-diverse perspective indeed.”
Not at all, Chetly. I am on the record here as agreeing with EVEN YOU from time to time. I’ve even offered you PRAISE for your honesty in response to some of my questions. That being said, it’s evident that we can have diversity of thought, and still agree on some issues.
I’ve often quoted Pro-Affirmative Action professors, scholars and officials here. I don’t usually raise their status to cult of personality levels.
–Cobra
You mean like Al Sharpton:
“God bless Al Sharpton for speaking truth to power. Sharpton’s mistake was believing a 15 year old girl who told him she was abducted and raped, and received absolutely none of the privileges and protections placed upon WHITE ALLEGED VICTIMS. If a white girl today claimed she was abducted and raped, she would receive the “darling of the media” status…or doesn’t the name Elizabeth Smart ring a bell? Oh, let’s gloss over the inconsistancies of the Smart story, because she’s white, and incapable of any chicanery.
But I expect this from anti-affirmative action types. Preach on, Reverend Al. You speak for me, and all other conscious minorities who recognize their enemies in the white conservative, “bring back the good ol’ days when blacks kept their mouths shut” movement.
Cobra
Cobra,
You have at times pointed out where you believed I’m right, when you thought it benefitted you. There was nothing necessarily wrong with that, in our collective and divergent opinions, but in light of your criticism now of us for using Cohen’s work in the same way, you were guilty of the same thing you accuse us now of.
As to my “Ghandi-like” elevation of Carl, I wouldn’t say I went that far, but even so, what does his being allegedly “leftist” and this forum being allegedly “conservative,” have to do with each other?
Leo, your scripture reference is interesting. Although I don’t think scriptures are a good basis for public policy when used in isolation, the advice Christ gave about forgiveness being healing to both the forgivee and forgiver is practical advice that even secular psychiatrists would usually endorse. Of course, in this case, “forgiving” isn’t even a good analogy since the “punishment” (antonym of forgiveness) is targeted against those who didn’t commit the offense or benefit from it (for example Asian Americans, nearly in toto, and socio-economically disadvantaged or immigrant European Americans, have no nexus to prior discrimination). There is a separate but inter-related secular principle of looking forward to the future as opposed to backward to the past – this is not to say we should ignore the past, but we can’t live in it either. The “historical discrimination” argument is a backward looking rationale for continuing preferences – it embeds pessimism into people, rather than self-confidence. Historical discrimination is a pessimistic view of human nature – that individuals can’t change, and government must impose values (the latter is most dangerous because it presumes some people, those in government, have a lock on which values are appropriate). Ending all preferences is an optimistic, forward-looking philosophy. People change slowly however, and when government attempts to impose top-down change, rather than allowing people to participate in a wider network of decentralized learning, the risks and consequences are significant. At least the “diversity” rationale is forward-looking (it had to be to pass Constitutional muster), but almost everyone agrees it is just a cover for the historical justification (and morally, if minorities had no socioeconomic disparity and only minority cultural choices lead to lower elite university enrollment, diversity could not be sustained as a moral rationale).
In the context of modern reality and the entire history of humanity, when groups of people don’t “stop counting” the perceived sins of the past, the results are mutual destruction. The Balkans, Arab-Israeli conflict, The Sudan, the French-German conflict from 1871-1945, etc., etc. The only way to break the cycle of tribal politics is for government to treat all individuals without regard to race or origin. Let’s begin it now!
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>You have at times pointed out where you believed I’m right, when you thought it benefitted you. There was nothing necessarily wrong with that, in our collective and divergent opinions, but in light of your criticism now of us for using Cohen’s work in the same way, you were guilty of the same thing you accuse us now of.”
I’m simply pointing out irony, Chetly. The fact that a Marx-teaching, anti-war agitating ACLU/NAACP member with alleged communist sympathies is being held in such high acclaim on an essentially conservative weblog is fascinating to me. If this weblog and it’s posters ONLY dealt with “Discrimination” and didn’t take frequent delight in bashing OTHER liberal college professors and administrators, I would perhaps better understand this strange affinity for Professor Cohen.
Chetly also writes:
>>Ending all preferences is an optimistic, forward-looking philosophy. People change slowly however, and when government attempts to impose top-down change, rather than allowing people to participate in a wider network of decentralized learning, the risks and consequences are significant.”
Once again, we’re not talking about “ending all preferences.” You’re agenda is to end GOVERNMENT preferences based upon race and gender. You said yourself in this paragraph, that “people change slowly.” How slow, Chetly?
Among a group wandering through the desert, the guy with the full, two gallon canteen is in a fine position to say to the others, “Be patient, an oasis may be closer than you think.”
Mikem, in his pulling up one of my past posts where I praise Al Sharpton for defending what he believed to be a 15 year old rape victim, is attempting to equivocate my statements with that of others regarding Cohen. It fails because I don’t place any unwarranted titles of heroism upon Sharpton. I simply posited that I supported him being a voice for those folks that editors and television producers don’t seem to find “marketable” enough to report stories on.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Mikem, in his pulling up one of my past posts where I praise Al Sharpton for defending what he believed to be a 15 year old rape victim, is attempting to equivocate my statements with that of others regarding Cohen. It fails because I don’t place any unwarranted titles of heroism upon Sharpton.
Only “God bless,” and “preach on.”
I simply posited that I supported him being a voice for those folks that editors and television producers don’t seem to find “marketable” enough to report stories on.
Well, you know what, Cobra? I’ve never even heard of Elizabeth Smart, but I bet most of the country had heard of Tawana Brawley long before her rape was exposed as a fraud. I sure had, and I’m on the other side of the continent.
Michelle writes:
>>>Well, you know what, Cobra? I’ve never even heard of Elizabeth Smart, but I bet most of the country had heard of Tawana Brawley long before her rape was exposed as a fraud. I sure had, and I’m on the other side of the continent.
Elizabeth Smart was the blond Mormon teenager allegedly kidnapped from her home and forced into marriage by a dissheveled polygamist. There were also questions about her account abount the months with this individual, including the fact that she denied even being Elizabeth Smart when confronted by authorities. It dominated the cable news and tabloid market for months on end.
“God bless” and “Preach on” seem appropriate terminology for the REVEREND Al Sharpton, don’t you think?
–Cobra
Cobra, I am sorry to have paid so little attention to the “cable news and tabloid market.” Perhaps it was only all the other news outlets that spent all that time on Brawley — again, before she was exposed as a fraud, back when she was merely a black teenager allegedly raped by a gang of white racist cops, which (according to you) is a story so stultifyingly dull as not to be worthy of national coverage. Could’ve fooled me.
Ah hell, Cobra. I was just citing some of your hateful racist rhetoric along with your adulation of the clownish Sharpton.
Watch out for those “anti-affirmative action types”, Cobra. You know, those “enemies in the white conservative, ‘bring back the good ol’ days when blacks kept their mouths shut’ movement.
Michelle writes:
>>>Perhaps it was only all the other news outlets that spent all that time on Brawley
Are you actually blaming the media for Sharpton’s shameless politicizing of her false charges?
With all the anti-white hatred that her false charges inflamed, don’t you think it was only fair that her guilt be publicized as well to dampen them?
Why not get down to the basics and charge her black neighbors who witnessed against her for ruining her life. (Actually, she made good money on the college lecture circuit, impressing the easily impressed.)
Cobra,
Your tactics of trying to paint Cohen as a Communist are truly deplorable. Although there is evidence that he presented the philosophy of Marx (adding balance to the classroom), you have no evidence that he is an adherent to the belief system. The only evidence you have is that he presents multiple viewpoints in his classroom – I guess he’s more into diversity than you or U-Mich. Cobra, you are a despicable person. If my suspicions are correct, Dr. Cohen’s belief system is far more intricate than you are capable of imagining, let alone comprehending. I’m sure he’s not easily categorized – as most reasoning people aren’t. Oh, wait, you support the easy categorization of people….
Cobra,
I don’t actually know who released Tawana Brawley’s name to the press. I agree that it would have been extremely inappropriate for the police to do so. I am inclined to suspect that the person who made her name public was the Rev. Al Sharpton, but I ought not to say so until I can verify it, which I haven’t got the time to do until tomorrow, if then.
Chetly,
I’m just alluding to the article presented by the blog creator about Professor Cohen.
>>>Fresh out of graduate school, 24-year-old Carl Cohen started teaching philosophy at U-M in the fall of 1955, a time when the country was timidly edging its way out of the McCarthy era. Before long, the “Red Squad” of the Michigan State Police was keeping a file on the young professor.
“I taught a course in those days on Marxism,” Cohen recalls, “and I would talk about Marx in a very enthusiastic way. His critique of capitalism is powerful, and often very wise.” No one at U-M ever tried to shut him up, but the Red Squad continued to keep files on suspected “subversives” for many years.
The Squad dissolved itself in the mid 1970s, later making its files public. Cohen “had the satisfaction of picking up this file that had been maintained by the Michigan State Police
It’s deplorable because you are using it as a rhetorical device to attack him personally. Its an issue that has no relevance to race preferences or the subjects of the forum, and your dwelling on it reflects your ethics. And if the Michigan State Police never arrested him or referred him to Congress, then even the anti-Communist authoritarians (note, I’m against Communism, but also against censorship against Communists that don’t violate the law, nor do I think it necessarily reflects upon the entire Michigan St. Police) couldn’t prove what you are are trying to imply now. Simply stated, Cobra, your acting like an ***
Oh, I disagree Chetly. I never “attacked” Cohen about his enthusiastic teachings of Marx, or the suspicion of his allegedly “subversive” status. I simply found it “shocking” that he would be celebrated here on a conservative blog for apparently ONE issue stance.
How is restating the record outlined in the article PROVIDED by the blog host an “attack” by ME? Because Cohen was monitored and put on file by the Michigan State Police? Again, that’s public record, and that was done by the Michigan State Police. That’s who you and should have a problem with, not me.
Of course this has to do with the blog post, because the apparent ONLY reason you and other bloggers beknight Cohen is because he is against Affirmative Action. That’s not illegal, of course, but I’d just wish you’d be HONEST about it.
–Cobra