Horizon

Does it make any difference that Fairleigh Dickinson is a private institution?

I don't know about this context, but from what I've gathered in a couple years of reading the Volokhs, private universities don't have to go to the same lengths to protect free speech rights as state schools do.

"Du jour" indeed. Seems not a week goes by without some kind of flap, usually over history professors.

I don't know if I really see a problem here. It saves a lot of trouble pretending that free speech is an absolute right, but of course they are not and shouldn't be. Should a history professor who condones genocide and subscribes to an ideology of the superiority of one race over all others be sacked? Yes, and forthwith, I say; don't care if he missed a few classes.

Where all this gets complicated and controversial for my money is not whether this should ever happen, but how you fix the boundary between what society considers acceptable and unacceptable. But a Nazi teaching history is to my mind way on the wrong side of that line.

But that's just me, ol' "Jackboot" Hogue.

In law, it does appear to make a difference that Fairleigh Dickinson is a private institution. Yes, Pluss's absences from class five or six times does appear to be an official cop-out. It isn't only that Pluss is a public anti-Semite. Can an institution continue to protect a faculty member who refers to his students in public as "niggers"?

Should a history professor who condones genocide and subscribes to an ideology of the superiority of one race over all others be sacked? Yes, and forthwith, I say; don't care if he missed a few classes.

I think the question is: should a history professor who believes all these things but nonetheless keeps his beliefs strictly outside the classroom be sacked? Pluss has clearly burned his boats by his appalling comments about Farleigh Dickinson, but what if he'd exercised more restraint, and had better timekeeping to boot?

The argument might go that no-one with such extreme views could be trusted in a classroom setting. Fair enough. But how about a professor who was, say, an unreconstructed Maoist?

I'm not sure I believe a historian who embraces Nazi racial theory can teach, let's say, a history of race relations in the United States and keep his beliefs outside the classroom. Unless, of course, he really is Superman.

Another approach might have him, at the beginning of the class, explain to the class exactly what his beliefs are and that those beliefs will not color his presentation of the material. Then have him explain to the class it his expectation that they will audit him on this count. Normally, we wouldn't expect an instructor to explain his political leanings. But why not?

I think the question is: should a history professor who believes all these things but nonetheless keeps his beliefs strictly outside the classroom be sacked?

How can someone who believes that white people are superior and that jews are the root of all evil possibly keep his beliefs strictly outside of the classroom? And who's going to volunteer to test this theory out? Would you be willing to take a class from a professor who would just as soon see you and everyone like you dead?

Normally, we wouldn't expect an instructor to explain his political leanings. But why not?

The least we can do is take a page from Horowitz and hire some "unreconstructed Maoists" to ensure ideological diversity.

How can someone who believes that white people are superior and that jews are the root of all evil possibly keep his beliefs strictly outside of the classroom?

Well, Pluss does seem to have done quite a good job of exactly that. Certainly, and despite a good deal of prodding, no former student has (to my knowledge) come forth to suggest the opposite. From personal experience I would suggest that it really wouldn't be all that hard. All you have to do is Stick To The Book.

Well, Pluss does seem to have done quite a good job of exactly that.

Good for him. Next time a Nazi applies for a teaching job perhaps they should give them a try-out probationary period and see whether he sticks to the book. I fail to see the use of debating this hypothetical question, which hinges not only on the possibility that the professor's professional conduct would be above reproach, but also on no one knowing that he is a Nazi, which I think students would have a right to know.

I fail to see the use of debating this hypothetical question, which hinges not only on the possibility that the professor's professional conduct would be above reproach, but also on no one knowing that he is a Nazi

Thing is, it appears that this isn't a hypothetical scenario - this was actually the situation that existed at Farleigh Dickinson until (it seems) Pluss was dumb enough to get himself sacked for the unrelated sin of poor attendance, at which point all the revelations came out. Up to that point, no-one seems to have had a clue about his ideological leanings. So it's not some abstract set-up that couldn't possibly happen in real life - it's already happened. Perhaps it's still happening today.

Up to that point, no-one seems to have had a clue about his ideological leanings. So it's not some abstract set-up that couldn't possibly happen in real life - it's already happened. Perhaps it's still happening today.

Well let me ask you this. Assuming Pluss had perfect attendance and in every other way was a model (or at least uncontroversial, by-the-book) professor, who everyone knew was a Nazi, should he be retained? Should Jewish and "non-white" students be encouraged to take his course? Or would it be best to put some kind of disclaimer at the end of his course descriptions stating that, although his record has been impeccable so far, he considers students of certain persuations to be subhuman? Or if it weren't generally known, should the administration just keep it under wraps because what's the harm anyway? I guess I just don't see what point you're driving at.

Well let me ask you this. Assuming Pluss had perfect attendance and in every other way was a model (or at least uncontroversial, by-the-book) professor, who everyone knew was a Nazi, should he be retained?

Frankly, I wouldn't blame any chairman for deciding 'no'. But let's be honest: the decision would be as much for political as for academic reasons - the quite natural desire to avoid a 'scene'. I do not think that the right for Nazis to teach Western Civ is one of society's more pressing social complaints. Nonetheless, there is something about this case that troubles me a little, and I think it ought to trouble other people. What we are essentially saying is that someone like Pluss ought to be judged for not for what he does or what he says in the classroom, but for what he might be thinking. That his beliefs place him so beyond the pale that any position for him in public life is intolerable regardless of how he otherwise conducts himself. This is close enough to the kind of judgment that HUAC was making in 1950 to make me uneasy. I don't pretend that I'm going to lose much sleep over it, and especially over the case of Pluss specifically. But I can't tidy this away as neatly as I'd like.

The point that's troubling Alan is why does liberal intellectual society treat a Nazi as beyond the pale but happily accommodates communist/Maoist types.

I think the usual answer is that the class enemies of your average communist/Maoist have a choice - no one has to be capitalist exploiter, a stinking landlord, or evan a kulak; one can always sell up donate the money to the poor and become poor oneself; however the usual targets of your average Nazi has no such choice, Jews, Blacks, and Gypsies can't stop being Jews, Blacks and Gypsies no matter how hard they might try.

And for that reason communists are tolerated (by liberal intellectual society, if not by the HUAC) while Nazi's aren't. Does that tidy up the paradox for you Alan?

Does that tidy up the paradox for you Alan?

Not really, but thanks all the same ...;-)

Incidentally, I don't think the division you describe is historically true. IIRC many of Stalin's victims were purged for the crime of having "bourgeois ancestors", and I imagine the same was true of the PRC in its more hysterical moments.

There's also not much volition behind "suspicion of espionage", either.

Alan wrote:
Incidentally, I don't think the division you describe is historically true. IIRC many of Stalin's victims were purged for the crime of having "bourgeois ancestors", and I imagine the same was true of the PRC in its more hysterical moments.

Agreed, but intellectually that can be explained away as a departure from the true path. I am not condoning this view myself but I think it partly explains why the extreme left attracts less condemnation than the extreme right.

I think it partly explains why the extreme left attracts less condemnation than the extreme right.

It's also easier to condemn an enemy when he's soundly defeated.

What we are essentially saying is that someone like Pluss ought to be judged for not for what he does or what he says in the classroom, but for what he might be thinking.

Yes, that bothered me at first as well, but I don't think that's quite right. No one spied on Pluss as he did the goose-step in his backyard, no one got suspicious when he assigned essays from a german soldier's point of view and just seemed, well, just a little too enthusiastic about it....

What happened was Pluss went out and became the "Information Officer" of the American Nazi Party. It was an action on his part and its meaning is really crystal clear, is it not? Is that not a declaration of sorts, whatever else the guy might say later after he's lost his job?

no one got suspicious when he assigned essays from a german soldier's point of view

Should they have done? As I said in the original post, this struck me as very unconvincing evidence of Pluss' malign intentions, and if it's the best example that former students can come up with then I'm inclined to give the former adjunct the benefit of the doubt.

What happened was Pluss went out and became the "Information Officer" of the American Nazi Party. It was an action on his part and its meaning is really crystal clear, is it not? Is that not a declaration of sorts, whatever else the guy might say later after he's lost his job?

Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but so long as the guy didn't introduce the subject into the classroom then I cling to the liberal view that what he did (legally) in his private time was his own business.

Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but so long as the guy didn't introduce the subject into the classroom then I cling to the liberal view that what he did (legally) in his private time was his own business.

Fair enough. In my opinion, desiring the eradication of a race puts someone well beyond such protections. I'm not saying there aren't complications to this line, but I do think that some cases are clear and obvious and this looks like one of them to me.