Monthly Archives: January 2006

More on Poutre vs Schiavo

Haleigh Poutre, the brain-damaged child abuse victim in Massachusetts, has been transferred from intensive care to a rehab center after showing significant signs of improvement.

Meanwhile, my column on Haleigh Poutre vs. Terri Schiavo is now up at the Boston Globe.

Here’s the full text.

THE CASE of Haleigh Poutre, the battered child at the center of a legal and medical dispute in Massachusetts, is so horrific as to evoke medieval tableaux of hell. This 11-year-old girl was failed by all the adults in her life, from her biological and adoptive families to the social workers and medical professionals. Haleigh, who seems to be emerging from her four-month-long coma and has been moved from intensive care to a rehab center, would have been dead today if the stepfather charged in her near-fatal beating had not fought (most likely for self-interested reasons) to keep her alive.

This tragedy should have been a national outrage. Yet it has gotten only scant attention. Syndicated columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin blames this on a ”post-Schiavo syndrome”: After last year’s pitched battle over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive in a vegetative state, most people shudder at the thought of a repeat. Malkin may well be right — but if so, the blame rests with the right-to-life advocates who made Schiavo their cause célèbre.

To put it simply: Haleigh Poutre is no Terri Schiavo. Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, and had undergone a barrage of tests showing that she had no higher brain functioning and no consciousness — a fact on which all unbiased medical experts agreed. (Her case had also undergone repeated court review.) Haleigh had been in a vegetative state since Sept. 11. After the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that she could be taken off life support, the girl began to show improvement.

Dr. Nancy Childs, a renowned brain injury specialist in Austin, Texas, told The Boston Globe that 16 percent of brain-injured adults recover after three months of unconsciousness. Neurologists also say that children, with their still-growing and more elastic brains, have a better prospect for recovery from brain injuries than adults.

Yet, shockingly, the state Department of Social Services had first sought to terminate Haleigh’s life support only three weeks after her hospitalization, after doctors declared her to be virtually brain-dead. Because her records are sealed, we don’t know what tests were done to reach this conclusion. It certainly looks like the DSS showed unseemly haste in wanting life support discontinued.

This is the same DSS which had previously overlooked repeated signs that Haleigh was being severely abused. Adoptive mother Holli Strickland, who later committed suicide after being charged with assaulting Haleigh, had managed to convince the social workers that the girl’s numerous physical injuries were self-inflicted. (If the child was so emotionally disturbed that she was constantly harming herself, shouldn’t she have been placed into treatment?)

Some caution that the high cost of caring for comatose patients may become a financial incentive to end life support. Did such considerations influence the decision-making at the DSS? All of this warrants investigation. But, contrary to the overheated claims of right-to-life advocates, the officials and doctors are not death-happy ghouls: They were quick to order new tests after Haleigh’s biological mother reported that she saw some signs of improvement.

All of us — journalists, politicians, concerned citizens — must make sure that Haleigh gets every chance at life she can have. I would suggest, however, that the vocal champions of Terri Schiavo’s ”right to live” stay away from this case. After the falsehoods and the hysteria they propagated about Schiavo, their involvement here could only do harm.

The ”save Terri” brigade turned a tragedy into a macabre circus. Politicians such as Representative Tom Delay, a Texas Republican, and pundits such as Fox News’s Sean Hannity embraced patently absurd claims that Schiavo was able to communicate and even talk. They made wildly misleading claims about the medical credentials of ”experts” who said Schiavo could be conscious. They asserted that Schiavo’s coma may have been caused by abuse from her husband, Michael.

With their cries of ”medical terrorism” and their comparisons to Nazi Germany, these so-called champions of life created an atmosphere in which some of their supporters made death threats not only to Michael Schiavo but to judges and legislators who had been on the ”wrong” side of the dispute.

This kind of support is the last thing Haleigh Poutre needs. Haleigh’s cause should be championed — by those who have the moral authority and the credibility to speak about it. This case raises many disturbing issues, from the efficacy of child protection to care for comatose patients. It deserves to be in the spotlight; it does not deserve to be turned into Terri Schiavo II.

A few days ago, Malkin responded to my earlier blogpost on the subject.

Says Malkin:

Young concedes the case deserves public attention, but then castigates those of us who are using our little keyboards to give Haleigh just that.

So, no, sorry, I won’t shut up. And I don’t plan on watching silently as we head toward Hollandization.

But, of course, I didn’t castigate those who are “using their little keyboards” to give Haleigh public attention. I said that those who have squandred their credibility and moral authority by either lying or uncritically repeating lies about the Schiavo case ought to stay away from this one. I say this for the same reason that, for instance, if there was a black teenage girl came forward with a credible complaint of being raped by white policemen, I don’t think it would be particularly helpful for Al Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley fame, to appoint himself her champion.

I also believe that it doesn’t particularly help Haleigh to have her tragedy exploited to score points against right-to-die advocates.

Thankfully, Haleigh is now getting not only public attention but help. All we can do is hope and (if we believe in prayer) pray that this terrible story may have a happy ending.


Filed under Uncategorized

Political beliefs and change

Blogging is scarce at the moment because of a pressing deadline.

However, in case you don’t read neo-neocon, I definitely suggest checking out her recent posts on “change” — evolution, sometimes radical, in views on political issues. A mind is a difficult thing to change is the latest in the author’s continuing story of her own political journey. There are also several recent posts on other changers, including Guardian writer Jonathan Freedland. All these are admittedly changes from “left” to “right,” at least on foreign policy issues. But I think they’re quite fascinating, particularly in view of that recent study about how resistant people are to facts that contradict their strongly held views.


Filed under Uncategorized

Richard Posner on warrantless surveillance

Judge Richard Posner, an esteemed jurist and author, defends the NSA warrantless wiretaps program in The New Republic (registration required).

If I understand the judge correctly, he says that the program may well be illegal if it violages FISA, but that the important issue is whether it is effective and necessary.

Writes Posner:

Lawyers who are busily debating legality without first trying to assess the consequences of the program have put the cart before the horse. Law in the United States is not a Platonic abstraction but a flexible tool of social policy. In analyzing all but the simplest legal questions, one is well advised to begin by asking what social policies are at stake. Suppose the NSA program is vital to the nation’s defense, and its impingements on civil liberties are slight. That would not prove the program’s legality, because not every good thing is legal; law and policy are not perfectly aligned. But a conviction that the program had great merit would shape and hone the legal inquiry. We would search harder for grounds to affirm its legality, and, if our search were to fail, at least we would know how to change the law–or how to change the program to make it comply with the law–without destroying its effectiveness. Similarly, if the program’s contribution to national security were negligible–as we learn, also from the Times, that some FBI personnel are indiscreetly whispering–and it is undermining our civil liberties, this would push the legal analysis in the opposite direction.


The next terrorist attack (if there is one) will likely be mounted, as the last one was, from within the United States but orchestrated by leaders safely ensconced abroad. So suppose the NSA learns the phone number of a suspected terrorist in a foreign country. If the NSA just wants to listen to his calls to others abroad, FISAdoesn’t require a warrant. But it does if either (a) one party to the call is in the United States and the interception takes place here or (b) the party on the U.S. side of the conversation is a “U.S person”–primarily either a citizen or a permanent resident. If both parties are in the United States, no warrant can be issued; interception is prohibited. The problem with FISA is that, in order to get a warrant, the government must have grounds to believe the “U.S. person” it wishes to monitor is a foreign spy or a terrorist. Even if a person is here on a student or tourist visa, or on no visa, the government can’t get a warrant to find out whether he is a terrorist; it must already have a reason to believe he is one.

As far as an outsider can tell, the NSA program is designed to fill these gaps by conducting warrantless interceptions of communications in which one party is in the United States (whether or not he is a “U.S. person”) and the other party is abroad and suspected of being a terrorist. But there may be more to the program. Once a phone number in the United States was discovered to have been called by a terrorist suspect abroad, the NSA would probably want to conduct a computer search of all international calls to and from that local number for suspicious patterns or content. A computer search does not invade privacy or violate FISA, because a computer program is not a sentient being. But, if the program picked out a conversation that seemed likely to have intelligence value and an intelligence officer wanted to scrutinize it, he would come up against FISA’s limitations. One can imagine an even broader surveillance program, in which all electronic communications were scanned by computers for suspicious messages that would then be scrutinized by an intelligence officer, but, again, he would be operating outside the framework created by FISA.

FISA’s limitations are borrowed from law enforcement. When crimes are committed, there are usually suspects, and electronic surveillance can be used to nail them. In counterterrorist intelligence, you don’t know whom to suspect–you need surveillance to find out. The recent leaks from within the FBI, expressing skepticism about the NSA program, reflect the FBI’s continuing inability to internalize intelligence values. Criminal investigations are narrowly focused and usually fruitful. Intelligence is a search for the needle in the haystack. FBI agents don’t like being asked to chase down clues gleaned from the NSA’s interceptions, because 99 out of 100 (maybe even a higher percentage) turn out to lead nowhere. The agents think there are better uses of their time. Maybe so. But maybe we simply don’t have enough intelligence officers working on domestic threats.


What seems clear is that FISA does not provide an adequate framework for counterterrorist intelligence. The statute was enacted in 1978, when apocalyptic terrorists scrambling to obtain weapons of mass destruction were not on the horizon. From a national security standpoint, the statute might as well have been enacted in 1878 to regulate the interception of telegrams. In the words of General Michael Hayden, director of NSA on September 11 and now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, the NSA program is designed to “detect and prevent,” whereas FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy power.”

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Hayden, on his own initiative, expanded electronic surveillance by NSA without seeking FISA warrants. The United States had been invaded. There was fear of follow-up attacks by terrorists who might already be in the country. Hayden’s initiative was within his military authority. But, if a provision of Fthat allows electronic surveillance without a warrant for up to 15 days following a declaration of war is taken literally (and I am not opining on whether it should or shouldn’t be; I am not offering any legal opinions), Hayden was supposed to wait at least until September 14 to begin warrantless surveillance. That was the date on which Congress promulgated the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which the administration considers a declaration of war against Al Qaeda. Yet the need for such surveillance was at its most acute on September 11. And, if a war is raging inside the United States on the sixteenth day after an invasion begins and it is a matter of military necessity to continue warrantless interceptions of enemy communications with people in the United States, would anyone think the 15-day rule prohibitive?

We must not ignore the costs to liberty and privacy of intercepting phone calls and other electronic communications. No one wants strangers eavesdropping on his personal conversations. And wiretapping programs have been abused in the past. But, since the principal fear most people have of eavesdropping is what the government might do with the information, maybe we can have our cake and eat it, too: Permit surveillance intended to detect and prevent terrorist activity but flatly forbid the use of information gleaned by such surveillance for any purpose other than to protect national security. So, if the government discovered, in the course of surveillance, that an American was not a terrorist but was evading income tax, it could not use the discovery to prosecute him for tax evasion or sue him for back taxes. No such rule currently exists. But such a rule (if honored) would make more sense than requiring warrants for electronic surveillance.

Once you grant the legitimacy of surveillance aimed at detection rather than at gathering evidence of guilt, requiring a warrant to conduct it would be like requiring a warrant to ask people questions or to install surveillance cameras on city streets. Warrants are for situations where the police should not be allowed to do something (like search one’s home) without particularized grounds for believing that there is illegal activity going on. That is too high a standard for surveillance designed to learn rather than to prove.

Posner makes some good points, particularly about the dubiousness of the FBI’s complaints about leads that go nowhere. But as some of the commenters on the TNR site pointed out, his argument begs the question: if the law is so inadquate to current needs, then why not actually change the law? I really don’t buy the idea that this would somehow tip the terrorists off to what we’re doing (Al Qaeda operatives would have to be pretty dumb to think they at least may be under surveillance, and I suspect they don’t have much confidence in American intelligence agencies’ strict abidance by the law).

Secondly — and knowledgeable people are welcome to correct me on this — I’m not at all sure that intelligence works the way Posner thinks it does: i.e., that it’s a random search for a needle in the haystack rather than the pursuit of some actual leads (e.g. observed behavior that leads to suspicion). Posner seems to be offering a prescription for extremely vast and comprehensive surveillance for the purpose of preventing terrorist acts — basically the electronic equivalent of living under the constant gaze of surveillance cameras not only in the streets but in our homes. I’m also not sure that the only fear people have is surveillance data being legally used against them. There is also the risk of such data being misused by unscrupulous NSA employees, for instance, or even being used for voyeurism. In his October 7, 2001 New York Times magazine article, “A Watchful State,” about the use of surveillance cameras in public places in England, Jeffrey Rosen reports that bored operators in the surveillance program routinely amuse themselves by spying on amorous couples in parked cars.

I do think that Posner raises some legitimate issues about the unique problems posed by terrorism in combination with modern technology. One common argument that I don’t find persuasive is that if current rules were enough to get us through the Cold War when our adversary was an armed-to-the-teeth nuclear superpower, they’re enough to get us through the War on Terror. But there is, in fact, a unique danger in facing a stateless, amorphous opponent undeterred (unlike the Soviet Union) by the threat of retaliation, and with bases in multiple countries including right here in the U.S. Our enemy today is much more flexible than during the Cold War, and it stands to reason that our response needs to be more flexible, too.

At the same time, surely I cannot be the only person troubled by Posner’s proclamation that U.S. law is “not a Platonic abstraction but a flexible tool of social policy.” If a liberal were to make such a statement in justifying (for instance) a broader application of the Commerce Clause to promote various social causes, conservatives would howl in outrage. Of course the law is not a Platonic abstraction, but make it too flexible, and you will end up with something like an old Russian proverb translateable roughly as, “The law is like a pole: whichever way you twist it, that’s where it will go.” In America, we are supposed to live under the rule of law, not merely of social policy.


Filed under Uncategorized

Partisanship and (un)reason

This just in: partisan loyalty shuts down your brain.

Via Ron Bailey at Hit & Run:

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

(In other news: dogs are adept at barking.)

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that’s contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects’ brains were monitored while they pondered.

“We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning,” said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. “What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts.”

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

(They needed a study for that?)

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

“The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,” Westen said.

Presented with the results of the study, Republicans vehemently insisted that its findings applied mainly to Democrats, while the Democrats maintained the reverse.

Just kidding.


Filed under Uncategorized

We don’t need no stinkin’ Fourth Amendment

The following gem comes from John Gibson on Fox News yesterday:

Democrats need a plan to combat the new attack coming their way from Karl Rove, the man leading the president’s offensive this week, on the once upon a time secret wiretapping program. I’ve been saying the same thing for weeks and weeks, often to counter some argument about the Constitution my friend, the judge, makes.

Americans get it. We were reminded last week that Usama still wants to kill us in the country we live in, and we understand that he claims to have people already in our country plotting our demise. So when you say, as Bush is saying, if Al Qaeda is calling someone in America, we want to know what they’re saying on that call, Americans say, “Yes, we sure do want to know.”

If Democrats are going to argue against that position by saying, “You’re not obeying the 1978 FISA law, which requires a warrant every time you listen to an Al Qaeda call,” they’ve lost the argument before it even begins.

Now, that doesn’t mean the Dems won’t try to make that argument and, by pure repetition, hope it wins, but it won’t. The polls show it won’t.

People may not like the Iraq war, but they get it that the Al Qaeda phone call thing and the current president was named — and if the current president was named Gore, or Clinton, or Kerry, the American people would make any one of them do the same thing.

The rule goes like this: Nobody should die because politicians want a judge to dot every i and cross every t.

Now, Judge Napolitano is off sick today. And somewhere, he is screaming or clucking his tongue or just shaking his head. It may not fit the parameters of the parchment, but it doesn’t mean we don’t care about the Constitution or the protections it provides us.

But we also — we all know that we’re not calling Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda isn’t calling us. So if Al Qaeda is calling my neighbor, tap him! Find out what’s going on between my neighbor and some terrorist overseas.

If the Dems can’t beat that argument with something short and to the point — “It’s the Constitution, stupid,” “Where is the Fourth Amendment?” something a whole lot better than either of those — then the Dems just plain lose this argument.

So: appealing to the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment is a silly argument no one cares about. But that doesn’t mean we don’t care about the Constitution.

Got that?

By the way, once again, the controversy is about phone calls made from the United States to foreign countries — not from foreign countries to the United States, and most certainly not Al Qaeda communications outside the U.S.

Once again, there is zero evidence that proper legal procedure would have made it any more difficult to collect legitimate intelligence-gathering in these cases. In fact, at least according to this New York Times article (click here if you cannot access the previous link), FBI officials say that the NSA surveillance program generally “led to dead ends or innocent Americans” and “diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.”

And no, it isn’t just about your hypothetical Al Qaeda-loving neighbor. It’s also about people like Christopher Hitchens, a staunch supporter of the War of Terror and the war in Iraq, and Larry Diamond, a democracy specialist at the Hoover Institution and a former adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

And if John Gibson can beat all that with, “But it’s to save us from the terrorists!”, then we’re in trouble.

Update: For anyone asking, “Where’s the harm in this program if no one is being hauled into court because of possibly illegal surveillance?”, read Larry Diamond’s statement.


Filed under Uncategorized

The company we keep?

From a press release by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2006 — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force today denounced the United States’ vote against two gay rights organizations’ applications to join the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The United States joined the repressive, anti-gay regimes of Iran, Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon and others in voting against even granting a hearing to the application of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the Danish Association of Gays and Lesbians (Landsforeningen for Bosser og Lesbiske — LBL). Instead, the two groups’ applications were summarily dismissed without a hearing.

“It is an absolute outrage that the United States has chosen to align itself with tyrants — all in a sickening effort to smother the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “Apparently Iran, which President Bush has deemed part of the ‘Axis of Evil,’ is a suitable partner when it comes to discriminating against gay people.”

The governments of Iran and Zimbabwe are among the most repressive anti-gay regimes in the world. President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has long scapegoated and persecuted gay men and lesbians. The recently-elected president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has overseen an anti-gay campaign in recent months, in which many young people accused of homosexual acts have been executed. Also leading the charge against the application of the two gay groups was Egypt, which has persecuted gay men in recent years.

Today’s vote to summarily dismiss the applications of ILGA and LBL was as follows, according to ILGA: Yes: Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, United States of America, Zimbabwe No: Chile, France, Germany, Peru, Romania; Abstention: Colombia, India, Turkey Not present: Ivory Coast.

I’m not a big fan of the U.N., and I seriously doubt that having two gay rights groups on the U.N. Economic and Social Council would have done much to change the actual lives of gay men and women for the better. Still, as a symbolic gesture, this vote and our alliance with the likes of Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe is, to put it mildly, not a proud moment for America.

More: A poster in the comments pointed out that ILGA originally lost its consultative status with ECOSOC in 1994 (after gaining it in 1993) because its membership roster had included the infamous North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and two other groups that advocate sex between adults and minors. By the time its consultative status at the U.N. had been terminated, ILGA had already expelled NAMBLA and the other two pro-pedophilia groups from its ranks by a vote of 214-30. (More on the subject here.) ILGA’s attempts to regain consultative status at the UN have been blocked because opponents believe that it has not presented suffiicient proof that it has severed all ties to pro-pedophilia groups. This is mainly because ILGA has refused to present a full list of its member organizations to UN officials, arguing that such a list could expose member groups to persecution in some countries.

Since the mid-1990s, ILGA’s Constitution includes an endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly condemns the sexual exploitation of minors (defined as anyone under 18).

I think the original association between ILGA and NAMBLA does point to a disturbing aspect of the gay rights movement, at least in the past: a tendency among some activists to view groups like NAMBLA as being questionable but basically “on the same side,” and to be sympathetic to all forms of sexually unconventional behavior. ButI also believe it’s an aspect the movement has almost entirely outgrown in the last decade, and particularly with the new emphasis on marriage rights as a goal.

Leaving aside that larger issue, is ILGA’s past association with NAMBLA a legitimate reason to deny it consultative status with ECOSOC? It seems to me this association has been repudiated enough to move past this issue, and at very least to consider the organization for membership. (The vote joined by the U.S. was to summarily reject its application without consideration.) Furthermore, no reasons are given as to why the application of the Danish gay and lesbian assocation was rejected as well.

Meanwhile, responding to my post, Joe’s Dartblog notes that ECOSOC is a useless organization whose record “is a series of 1989-era websites, full of sound, fury, and resolutions signifying absolutely nothing,” and whose rejection of the two gay groups will mean absolutely nothing to the lives of actual gays and lesbians around the world. I basically said the same thing. But once again, the symbolism of joining with Iran, Zimbabwe, Cuba and China to reject two gay rights groups is very, very bad.


Filed under Uncategorized

Yes, Virginia, there is left-wing bias in the classroom

In response to my post about right and wrong ways to fight left-wing political correctness on college campuses, in which I took David Horowitz to task for peddling what turned out to be an unsubstantiated anecdote about a Fall 2004 classroom airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 at Penn State, Robert Shibley of FIRE writes:

I don’t know about Penn State, but we did learn that at the Rhode Island College School of Social Work, they were definitely showing Fahrenheit 9/11 in class in fall 2004. Here’s an e-mail from a professor acknowledging that from our case: (the full case is at and is, frankly, a real scandal). Actually, the professor admits that several professors were showing the movie to their graduate and undergraduate social work classes. He also goes on to say that social work is basically only open to liberals, which is the crux of what our case there is about (FIRE believes that there should not be a political litmus test for the study of any subject at a public university).

Read the linked pages. This is indeed an outrageous (and fully documented) story, and the Fahrenheit 9/11 showing is only the tip of the iceberg.

On October 14, 2004, student Bill Felkner emailed professor James Ryczek to note that Fahreneit 9/11 had been shown in several classes at the school and asking if there was any possibility of airing the anti-Michael Moore film, Fahrenhype 9/11, for balance.

Ryczek’s reply, dated October 15:

Actually no school money was used for the showing of the film, per se. Dan Weisman (BSW Program Faculty) bought the film on his own and offered to organize and show the film at the times he arranged, although he and some other BSW faculty are showing it in class. The announcements were made in MSW classes just to let students know that they can go if they wish.

I don’t believe there would be an objection to showing the other film if you or someone else were to organize it…the space here is definitely a community space to be used by members of the community (especially students).

But, there may be a broader issue here that I’d be happy to discuss more with you (based on your comment about having a problem with the school, if it did promote and sponsor the film).

As I have mentioned in class, and I assume you’ve heard in other classes, Social Work is a value-based profession that clearly articulates a socio-political ideology about how the world works and how the world should be. In fact NASW, the professional organization, puts out position papers on just about everything in the realm of public discourse and debate. We also have a PAC specifically organized to promote certain candidates with whom we share the same political agenda and outlook…and as you may have guessed, is working actively to defeat Bush. So, as a social worker, I don’t find it at all unusual that a film like 9/11 might officially be sponsored by the school, and that the alternate view film might not be sponsored. In short, by and large as a profession we do take sides…and indeed in this school, we have a mission devoted to the value of social and economic justice.

Now that being said, I don’t think anyone here would want to quash alternative views. Again, as I have said in class…I want us to have an open discussion and debate about issues. In fact, questioning is an extremely important social work skill, and I know that I am doing a great deal of questioning with students about how they have traditionally thought about certain issues ….and that is challenging for both me and the student.

Yet, if a student finds that they are consistently and regularly experiencing opposite views from what is being taught and espoused in the curriculum, or the professional “norms” that keep coming up in class and in field, then their fit with the profession will not get any more comfortable, and in fact will most likely become increasingly uncomfortable.

… So, I think anyone who consistently holds antithetical views to those that are espoused by the profession might ask themselves whether social work is the profession for them…or similarly, if one finds the views in the curriculum at RIC SSW antithetical to those they hold closely, then this particular school might not be a good fit for them.

Never mind that the issues addressed in Fahrenheit 9/11 have very little to do with any of the issues and values relevant to social work. Unless, of course, one believes that any attacks on Bush are relevant to the issues and values relevant to social work.

Later, the school told Felkner that he was required to publicly advocate for liberal policies if he wanted to pursue his degree.

Social work may be a more “values-specific” field than most, though I’m sure there are many social workers who would disagree with Ryczek’s blanket statement that politically liberal values are inherent to the profession. But in fact, similar claims about the inherent “fit” of politically liberal values to the field have been made about the academy in general (on the grounds that free inquiry, dissent, and a rejection of various orthodoxies are inherently “liberal” values).

The problem is there, and it needs to be fought with facts.

Professors holding left-of-center views — which is the principal crime imputed to them by those conservative UCLA alumni whose now-rescinded “cash for class notes” offer recently made such a stir — is not a problem. (Though I do think that a serious ideological imbalance in any field, particularly in the humanities, is a bad thing for the academy: diversity of ideas is its lifeblood.) Professors pushing their beliefs on students and punishing or marginalizing dissenters, on the other hand, is something that should not be tolerated. And there is far too much indoctrination and intellectual intolerance in the academy, particularly in certain fields (be it social work or women’s studies and ethnic studies) where many professors sincerely believe that a particular ideology is the foundation of the field itself.


Filed under Uncategorized