Comments on: University of Rhode Island Issues New Statement on Erik Loomis

By: mds

mds — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:46:39 +0000

But I wonder what could lie behind an apparent assumption that the administration’s actions should be ruled by the vehemence of letter-writers

Yeah, at least with Juan Cole, the threats were made by deep-pocketed Yale donors. Perhaps a similar fear of financial repercussions from the Rhode Island electorate had an effect, and the letter-writing was taken as indicative of such potential repercussions, rather than as a purely mendacious smear job coordinated on the internet by morally-bankrupt wingnut whackaloons.**

**This statement attacking those pustulent members of the conservative intellectual cesspool who aided and abetted in catapaulting all this horseshit should not be taken as representing the views of Crooked Timber or its bloggers. Any follow-up may be addressed to my solicitor, Dev Null.

By: demz taters

demz taters — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:30:37 +0000

@27: Wrong. The Red Sox predate the Internet.

By: Harold

Harold — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:12:01 +0000

Heads of executed traitors were stuck on pikes outside the Tower of London, I seem to remember. Or on London Bridge. Actually, decapitation was a punishment reserved for the upper classes, commoners were hung, garroted, and/or drawn and quartered.

By: bjk

bjk — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:44:20 +0000

“Professor Loomis was not literally calling for the decapitation of the head of the NRA.”

“Literally,” he was.

By: Christopher Young

Christopher Young — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:17:43 +0000

Still weasels, but slightly nervous weasels.

I would hypothesise that this effusion, and the previous one, were written by lawyers and signed by Dooley under advice that LaPierre had an action against RIU if they were unlucky with the jury. I doubt if we will ever know what Dooley’s actual view is; most likely he doesn’t have one.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:39:51 +0000

This is a conditional and limited victory, one that (as Corey suggests) requires a dose of context to be seen for what it is. Long-term victory comes if Dr. Loomis’s eventual tenure application isn’t affected by this event, and without knowing anything about his department, I’m cautiously optimistic.

By: Freddie

Freddie — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:38:45 +0000

This is a conditional and limited victory, one that (as Corey suggests) requires a dose of

By: engels

engels — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 02:09:50 +0000

URI students need to start ending their exam scripts with ‘these are just my answers and no implication is intended that President Dooley would give the same ones’ and there needs to be a special protocol for when URI faculty or students are debating an issue and advance contradictory views, to make it clear to all concerned that the University is not contradicting itself.

By: engels

engels — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:59:54 +0000

Tom: you’re right, but a university is supposed to be a special kind of institution in this regard. (See Jacob Levy’s and James Wimberley’s comments.)

As it’s Christmas though I’ll agree with Harry that the glass is half full: congrats to Corey Robin et al.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:16:32 +0000

It’ s odd that the URI administration should think that anybody cares a fig what its opinions are on gun control, the fiscal cliff, the Kyoto protocol, or any other current issue of public policy. In fact universities, unlike their members, have pretty limited interests that justify having official opinions at all. Defending an expansive interpretation of the free speech rights of their students and employees – excluding the usual employment restrictions – is one.

By: Jacob Schiff

Jacob Schiff — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:25:42 +0000

I think one key sentence missing here is something like this: “While his remarks may have been intemperate and inflammatory, we acknowledge that Professor Loomis was not literally calling for the decapitation of the head of the NRA.”

This would be at least a tacit admission that they caved to the crazies.

By: Corey Robin

Corey Robin — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:15:43 +0000

#46: The Providence Journal ran this AP story this morning:

President David Dooley’s comments issued Sunday came after a statement last week in which Dooley distanced the university from history professor Erik Loomis’s comments.

Loomis posted the comment online after the shooting in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults.

Dooley’s initial statement drew criticism from URI’s faculty union and from professors around the country, who called on Dooley to stand up for academic freedom and freedom of speech.

In Sunday’s statement, Dooley writes that the university believes Loomis’s remarks are intemperate and inflammatory, but also constitutionally protected.”>

Here’s the link: http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/12/uri-president-issues-new-statement-supporting-prof-who-tweeted-about-nra.html

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:55:08 +0000

Anyone have a read on what the AAUP and the faculty senate is going to do now?

Another thing to watch is how the Providence Journal (which has been very pro Dooley) plays this

By: tomslee

tomslee — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 03:46:24 +0000

Good job those who took up this issue: clearly a victory.

engels #25: I thought working for a university was supposed to be a bit different from working for Apple.

Yes, but even those of us who work in private industry have the right to say things without it being assumed that we speak for our employer.

And the “first amendment” thing would tick me off if it wasn’t Christmas time: the university should be providing stronger guarantees than that; there are non-US-specific principles at work here.

By: Corey Robin

Corey Robin — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 03:23:52 +0000

I think letters like what Lambert Strether suggests at #43 would be very good. I think one could be even more blunt on that issue.