Comments on: Godwin this.

By: Colin Danby

Colin Danby — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:28:18 +0000

Thanks for the references, Engels!

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:00:30 +0000

It is somewhat ironic that the penalty suffered by Heidegger (a research-only contract, no teaching) is the kind of arrangements many of todays academic stars dream of. But then there wasn’t an RAE in Germany, 1945.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:44:56 +0000

@29: postdated her violent criminal activities

Yeah, according to this, she was convicted for

resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer during the Days of Rage protests against the trial of the Chicago Eight

I think the analogy with the Vietnam War is quite appropriate, but which side there was guilty of “violent criminal activities”? Seems to me this is one of those “another simple answer to a simple question” occasions, Atrios-style.

And in the Heidegger analogy, Dohrn is probably an equivalent of anti-fascist resistance fighter.

By: Dan Simon

Dan Simon — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:15:09 +0000

Rather than using the Dohrn case as a cudgel against Crooked Timber commenters, we can use it more profitably (as Eric presumably intended with the Heidegger case) to illuminate current issues. The simple fact is that Dohrn’s appointment and tenure (assuming she’s tenured) at Northwestern University School of Law postdated her violent criminal activities, and (as far as I know) went entirely unremarked in both the legal academic community, and the academic community at large. It’s therefore reasonable to ask whether Dohrn’s example is more pertinent than Heidegger’s to the Woo case.

A number of factors suggest strongly that it is. To begin with, Indiana in 2000 is a lot more like California in 2008, academically speaking, than is Germany in 1945—even putting aside the rather obvious sui generis aspects of the latter time and place. Philosophy is not the law, as has been pointed out. And the directly academic elements of Heidegger’s offenses—in particular, participating in a politicized faculty purge, in cooperation with a totalitarian government—have no equivalent in either of the American instances.

So—does anyone want to explain why such a large segment of the academic community seems to draw an analogy to Heidegger rather than Dohrn, when thinking about John Woo?

By: engels

engels — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:06:50 +0000

Also

By: engels

engels — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:54:20 +0000

But will you condemn Michael Bellesiles?

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:39:54 +0000

@25, Colin, it appears that he simply recommends to ban the guy from teaching, that’s all. The rest is bullshit, sugarcoating the pill.

By: Colin Danby

Colin Danby — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:11:25 +0000

It’s a pity more folks won’t take Eric at his word, though, that this is an interesting and painful case and not a transparent parable.

Can I take up one matter of substance from the post? There’s a good argument that Heidegger should have been imprisoned for past collaboration. What is not a good argument, though, is Jaspers’ bit about his “damaging effect on students,” which shifts ground away from past deeds to speculation about future influence. The “mode of thinking … subsequent published work” bit is also a little chilling, no?

By: Colin Danby

Colin Danby — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:05:30 +0000

To save us all time going forward, is there a name for arguments of the form:

Before you can denounce misdeed x by person/entity y, you must:

1. Enumerate all known misdeeds of character similar to x by persons/entities similar to y.

2. Rank those misdeeds in order of seriousness.

3. Starting from the top, denounce each with appropriate vehemence.

4. Come to misdeed x by person/entity y only when it is reached in its proper order.

5. Failure to follow this procedure is evidence of hypocrisy.

By: Order of Magnitude

Order of Magnitude — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:22:31 +0000

hidari, before you shoo people away, maybe you should check Susan Jacoby’s piece in the LA Times Talking to ourselves.

By: Hidari

Hidari — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:29:52 +0000

Are we allowed to allude to the fact that Martin Heidegger, according to some people, is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century and that Yoo would appear to be a moderately dreary Bushite nonentity? Might this have any bearing on their respective futures (so to speak) in the academy?

Incidentally, virgil xenophon, there’s a blog called Harry’s Place you should check out. They LOVE people like you over there.

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:06:07 +0000

…an enemy of our entire social/governmental construct…

Sounds like a really disgusting individual who not only should be banned from teaching, but publishing too. Shouldn’t be allowed to walk the streets, far as I’m concerned. Yesss Sir.

By: Hattie

Hattie — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:56:54 +0000

Interesting. I wish I had known about the Heiddegger case when I was a young ignoramus living in Freiburg in the early 70’s. Now the trail is getting cold for a lot of this stuff.
I think it does have some bearing on the Yoo case. I grew up in Berkeley, and the history of that place and that school are something I know a lot about. Whenever Berkeley is in the news you know the boys on the right are up to no good.

By: Bruce Baugh

Bruce Baugh — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:03:28 +0000

An investigation of the sort described in the post would be nice, as opposed to concluding that we shouldn’t in any formal capacity look or discuss it.

By: virgil xenophon

virgil xenophon — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:50:39 +0000

I would never claim that many of Yoo’s critics do
not have many logical and well-reasoned arguments to make; as to whether they ultimately carry the day is yet another matter. And yes, some people here and elsewhere for have made principled defenses of Yoo on procedural grounds alone even where they are on the side opposite. I guess the nub of the matter as far as I’m concerned is (for those who emphasize this aspect of the matter) the
lack of outrage over someone such as Bernardine (yes, a mental slip, I was just off a blog where
that spelling was used. I am of an age [64] to well remember her activities[and correct name] in “real-time” and not just from the history texts.)
and the almost total concentration on Yoo.

Now, as theo alludes(re: Greenspan) I am fairly certain that part of the concern over Yoo as opposed to Dohrn is the supposedly wider range (real and potential, present and future) of the “error of his ways.” Fair enough. But am I reading too much into arguments advanced here and allowing my own philosophical slant on things to color my reading of the discussion? Perhaps so, but I would feel a lot better if Dohrn’s status had at least been raised in the time-honored “compare and contrast” mode of undergraduate exam inquiry if
only to provide a sense of perspective. Especially as her legal status and the historical facts concerning what she did are firmly established. And yet, apparently, she is AOK with the faculty at Northwestern. If Northwestern feels the “by-gones be by-gones” mode is hunky dory can/should Berkley (or those who comment either here or over at “Balkinization”) be MORE judgmental over far more nebulous legal/ethical actions?