« Abu Ghraib 101 at BMCC? Read all about it. | Main | Another Strike at Academic Freedom »
January 4, 2005
The Making of a Poster Child
By
Oneida J. Meranto
Associate Professor of Political Science
Director of Native American Studies Program
My rise to becoming the poster child of liberal-leaning professors was done in a very nocuous way and one for which I can take very little actual credit. The title was bestowed upon me first then the “supporting evidence� was manufactured. Three complaining students and their reactionary friends in powerful places began brainstorming as to how they could create such an abusive indoctrinating monster of a professor and thus give support for the passage of David Horowitz’ Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR). After receiving the title I was propelled into the local and national limelight in receipt of numerous death threats and hate email. This event changed my life in ways I could never have imagined. But not in ways reactionary Right would have hoped. In this article I provide progressive faculty with ideas on how faculty can withstand the vicious attacks of the reactionary core and its efforts to corporatize and privatize our schools.
My rise to national attention came about very quickly. One student who failed to follow classroom decorum who I consequently threatened to drop from my class, and who also wrote for the school paper decided retaliation was the best road to take. Even though he was not dropped from the class but was fully accommodated with an independent study, he wrote a 750-worded article asking for my termination and stating that, “Meranto would make a good poster child for liberal-leaning professors.� He filed a grievance stating I had acted unprofessional by threatening to drop him and I should be fired. Soon thereafter, the president of College Republicans jumped on the band-wagon and stated “yea Meranto was politically biased in my Latin American class too she showed a movie about the School of the Americas. I’m an ex-marine and I am offended by that.� He then filed his own grievance. Then, almost 10 months later, another student seeking his own notoriety stated I offended his conservative sensibilities too by stating conservatives can’t think critically. I supposedly did this within the first 50 minutes of the first day of fall semester. He dropped the class the next day and filed his own grievance but not before running to Senator Andrews and the papers. Soon thereafter he was hired as a driver for the Bush motorcade. All of these students were close friends of political operatives: One was an intern for the second-most powerful (no more) politician in Colorado, Republican Senator Andrews, one was an intern for our local reactionary talk-show host wanna-be Rush, and all were members of a third-rate conservative think-tank, Independence Institute. More importantly, the political climate that created this witch-hunt and the newly Republican appointed Board of Trustees made it all the more unlikely that the College Administration would intercede and stop the retaliation that soon followed.
Step back one year:
In the fall of 2003, a major controversy erupted on our campus. Conservative muckraker David Horowitz, a self-proclaimed red diaper baby visited our campus and launched a diatribe against liberal professors. Horowitz’ main message was that Democrats outnumber Republicans on campuses by 10 to 1. This therefore demonstrates an absence of Republicans on college campuses and a conspiracy to keep them out. Furthermore, liberal professors are using the pulpit as a soapbox to indoctrinate students to liberal politics. It is therefore quite obvious according to the methodology used by Horowitz that a state-wide initiative is needed to protect conservative students from a hot-bed of leftist academics.
Less than six weeks after Horowitz’ visit I had one grievance against me and another one in the works. Both of the students questioned my ideology and both stated that they “feared� ideological repression even though neither of them could substantiate this claim. In the middle of December just at the beginning of Christmas break Senator Andrews called a hearing at the Capitol as part of what he called a “fact-finding� mission to determine if legislation is needed to enforce academic diversity in Colorado. Local journalists described this hearing as a kangaroo court where Andrews used public resources to support one-sided diatribes against those who don’t agree with him. Senate Minority Leader Joan Fitz-Gerald said, “These proceedings do a disservice to the legislature by fostering a witch hunt of faculty who have no opportunity to defend themselves.� Needless to say I was not invited.
The student interning for Andrews was the only student to openly “out� a professor at this hearing. In his testimony, he stated that he had been forced to drop my class because he feared he wouldn’t be graded fairly. What is significant in all of the complaints heard that day was that students “felt� they might be judged incorrectly based on their political identity, their religion, or something as frivolous as what they wear and wanted protection in the form of a state-wide initiative called the Academic Bill of Rights.
Don’t forget that the three students who eventually filed grievances against me failed to attend class and complete their assignments and were fully accommodated with independent studies or drops. Rather than accept their responsibilities for their failure to do their work they wrapped themselves in lies and the “protected class clause� and basked in the limelight that followed their outcry. Upon what were they basing their allegations? It didn’t matter. They felt this way and they had powerful political friends in Colorado and I was the designated poster-child and that was that. They had their ducks in a row and the bill would be passed because they now had three cases, albeit one professor, in the state of Colorado that demonstrated exactly what Horowitz said: liberal professors intimidate and offend Conservative students.
Following Senator Andrews “special� hearing the attack became much more personalized and viciously focused on me. Since I was the only professor identified at this hearing and because I was not invited to defend myself, the press contacted me. At the hearing the student stated that he was forced to drop my class because I was ideologically oppressing him (the ex-marine). At 10 o’clock at night a journalist covering the hearing called me to verify what he had said. Without my FERPA handbook next to my bedside I replied that he had dropped the course because he was failing not because I was oppressing him. After my response was printed anti-Mexican immigration Representative Tancredo jumped on the band-wagon and responded in full force stating that by me discussing a student’s performance I had violated FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. And so the “liberal� media proceeded to write about these grievances for the next ten months and so did Horowitz e-magazine.
In the spring, the semester was beginning and I felt as if I was slowly being reigned in for the slaughter. In fact, one article in our school newspaper made a similar analogy, suggesting the tactics of the College Republicans resembled a Salem witch-hunt. Still with the help of their adjunct faculty advisor Kelly Weist, and the Independence Institute, the college republicans were adamant about keeping the focus on me and keeping the debate alive until ABOR their sacred legislation was put into stone.
In early January Horowitz decided to adorn the front of his e-magazine with my brown face. Moreover, the picture they selected was one of me sitting in my office with a photograph of Che Guevarra in the background. Suddenly the types of emails I started receiving were distinctively different. Instead of sticking to the rhetoric of liberal professors indoctrinating students, references were now being made to my race, my gender, my sexual orientation and what they perceived to be my political ideas. My lawyer, Trip Mackintosh (who I refer to as St. Trip) from the prestigious law offices of Holland & Hart pointed out that this email correspondence contained clear and unequivocal death threats and that the college administration needed to be aware of them. Following are some of the threats I received: “Hispanics, they should be cooked, and mixed into the Taco Bell menu. They should all be killed�; “Shoot this commie bitch, blow her fuckin’brains out. . .lets see who has the stomach for a blood bath�; “RADFEMS SHOULD BE SHOT DEAD LIKE RABID DOGS;� and oh so many more. Furthermore, and of no importance to the College Administration was that one of the students who filed a grievance had signed onto the chat line at the same time some of these physical threats were made against me. The FBI was alerted and is investigating.
In light of this hostile and threatening environment and the lack of any comprehensive response from Metro Administration, Trip requested that the investigation being conducted against me in response to the student grievances be delayed. In a letter to the school lawyer, Trip also requested that I be provided close-in parking, that all of my classes be in the same building as my office, that campus police provide security, a change in my email address in hopes of reducing the likelihood of the continued harassment, and that the administration make a strong and very public pronouncement against harassment and intimidation that condemns violent threats of which I received. All of the demands including a request that the two lawyers meet were refused.
Shocked with the school lawyer’s response, Trip responded in the following manner: “To refuse to do the minimum, i.e., state the obvious that threats of violence or intimidation are wrong (when you have evidence of same aimed at a student or faculty member) is indefensible. The only excuse Metro has for its inaction is that the current political climate is so charged that it could inflame matters. By that observation, Metro has proven the legitimacy of our request.�
In light of the correspondence between the two lawyers it became quite clear that the situation had become elevated to a more intense level. Moreover, the school’s response to our set of demands indicated they had no concern for my safety. There was little doubt in all of our minds that I was being caught up in the fray of the debate and that I had become the identified sacrificial lamb for which Republicans were seeking. Making statements in support of your employees and condemning death threats seems a reasonable posture for any president of a college to take, stated my lawyer.
Seven months later:
During the last few months of spring semester ABOR failed to pass and the investigation was nearing an end. Finally, in his notification of disciplinary action the President stated that he “could not find that any action I took, or any statement I made in my capacity as a College faculty member was motivated by a desire to punish students for their views on any public or academic issue or for their political affiliations.� Indeed, he stated that there is substantial evidence that “substantially refutes any such allegation or inference.� All three of the student’s allegations were not substantiated by any of the students interviewed. Furthermore the audio tapes of my class lectures I so wisely made did not substantiate the complaint of the last grievance. While I may believe conservative can’t think critically, I am smart enough not to say it even though experts like Seymour Lipset states this in his text, American Exceptionalism.
There you have it. I would have thought that wearing the crown of liberal leaning professors for over a year would have been enough. But, that is not the case. On Christmas Eve 2004 I discovered that one of these students who graduated last May has returned to campus just to take one more class from me and have one more shot at me. He is the students that gave me the title and also the one who can be linked to the death threats. I am in the process of dealing with this latest incident. Our union which we just created will be addressing this matter as well.
Tactics:
All of us feel the pressure from a polarized nation and world, and without stopping to ask questions or analyze the unbearable situations it is easy to become the puppets of reactionaries and of individual puppeteers like Horowitz. If your politics are less than progressive and if you have isolated yourself from campus and community politics the road is more difficult to traverse. The Academic Bill of Rights was created to protect conservative students from ideological oppression while promoting intellectual diversity, or so it stated. But my case demonstrates how political operatives who while calling for ideological diversity really demonstrate how much they despise ideological and cultural diversity, and in the end are bent on destroying it. If this was not the case why would they attack me a Native American woman, the first female political scientist in our department and the creator and director of the Native American Studies Program? I have chosen to interpret it as because I am vulnerable, visible, and valuable. Vulnerable, because I am of a protected class; visible because I work with students, student clubs and with community and campus politics; and valuable, obviously because I encourage my students to acquire critical thinking and writing skills and often ask questions their conservative education may not have prepared them to answer or questions they have never heard framed in such a unique way. These three students cried with faked moral superiority and indignation at a view that is not their own and a view their fuehrer told them to reject. We should all agree with my college president’s declaration that “watchdogs� for “political bias� inhibits the rich dialog that needs to take place in classroom and in essence destroys expressive freedom. If expressive freedom can be destroyed in institutions of higher education, it can be destroyed anywhere.�
But what can a professor do to protect themselves from such aggression? Following are some personal pointers. First, do not react the way most of our professors reacted. When Horowitz raised concern with what political scientists had taped on their office doors or what pictures or photos adorned their offices everyone and I mean every one of my colleagues stripped their doors and removed any pictures and photos that may have suggested they were liberal. Our conservative professors did not feel the need to remove their pictures of Rush, George or Ronnie mind you, just liberal professors. My reaction to this was to put more of the same up. If students “felt� uncomfortable or intimidated as Horowitz stated they did, so be it. I firmly believe in order for people to learn they must leave their comfort zone. Consequently, any material on my door that conservative students did not like they tore off. This didn’t matter I continued to replace these pictures and material. Also insiders like our adjunct faculty and advisor for the College Republicans Kelly Weist was caught copying a photo (on a department machine) of me with the word racist on it. They were soon dispersed on campus. Second, when conservative students complained about the texts and films I used which by all accounts are very moderate not radical, I upped the ante and began using more radical texts. For example, I later included the text, The Banana Republicans with my mainstream American politics text. True to form the three conservatives complained. Remember they asked for balance and they got it. I just didn’t go in the direction they wanted me to go. Third, progressives should generate support with progressive students because as noted above most faculty will not support other faculty for fear of being attacked themselves and because they are not tenured and/or not progressive. I have been an advocate of progressive students for the last 13 years. This was not the first time I was attacked by conservative students. My students debated these non-academic students and shut them down in 1995, in 1998 and again this last year. Without student support and support of faculty and no union I might add, a professor can more or less say goodbye. Fourth, I created a course entitled the Politics of Higher Education. Through this course it is hoped we can make sense, analyze and write about what our campus just went through. We are also considering making a video. I highly recommend the main text I am using for this class written by Henry and Susan Giroux, Take Back Higher Education. Every professor should read this text. Fifth, I contacted one of our more progressive senators and suggested he sponsor a bill that would not allow conservative students to be defined as a protected class as Horowitz’ legislation does. We may have some success with this bill, particularly since ABOR did not pass in our Republican Senate last year and because for the first time since Kennedy’s election Democrats are in power. But, again remember these are moderates not progressives. Finally, I would encourage progressives to pray to what ever God or Gods you desire and to contemplate what your role should be in higher education. We should be asking ourselves questions similar to those made in Giroux’s text: How does our work encourage or undermine the civic capacities of those we attempt to educate; what is our role in “creating new discourses, pedagogical practices, and collective strategies that will offer student hope and the tools necessary to revive the culture of politics as an ethical response to the demise of democratic public life;� and how can I demonstrate that the crisis in higher education “must be understood as part of the wider crisis of politics, power, and culture.�
The End?
I state with strong conviction that had it not been for my students and my lawyer I might continue to be here but my emotions and sensibilities would be severely frayed. My student supporters held rallies, protests, debates, and convened on the capital in hopes of convincing legislators that ABOR was a bill where conservative students manufactured incidents to justify it. At the same time Horowitz’ little army was reading his pamphlet called “The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight to Win.� In his pamphlet, Horowitz asserts that conservatives should purposely mislead the public into believing something other than the truth in order to win. Republicans need to make false statements and gain support unethically if need be. Students welcomed his challenge largely because his message gave them a reason to complain about professors with whom they disagree. In many cases the students who agreed with Horowitz may not have been right-winged at all but rather angry about their grades, tuition hikes, affirmative action policies, liberals in general and willingly accepted the idea endemic in society that interpreted anyone critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq as unpatriotic. Their actions suggest nothing short of duplicity, but there was hardly anything we could do about it except expose their hypocrisy.
But I believe most of what I experienced came about as a result of me being complacent while the right was being vigilant and being energized by pundits. I had drifted from my purpose and had become too comfortable. Everything I have done in my life has been a struggle why did I think the struggle was over. By accident or otherwise, I found myself at the center of a political controversy that resulted in congressional hearings, press coverage, and attention from national groups with particular agendas. I have once again arrived and I am actively working to dismantle the chilling effect left by the destruction of the far-right, but I cannot do it alone. I encourage every progressive faculty to support other progressives. We must understand that more than any other time in our history the reactionary-Right is well organized, well financed and ruthless in its behavior.
Posted by sparks at January 4, 2005 6:48 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.progressiveteachers.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/17
Comments
Posted by: John L at January 11, 2005 11:02 PM