NOTE: Past issues
                           of Observations are now available on line at www.proclaimingliberty.us DSC
Observations©
By Donald S. Conkey
 
Date:  April 14, 2011 - # 1115 - Title: Are ‘public uproars’ good for the community? (751)
 
The  answer to this question depends, I suppose, on the issue causing a  public uproar. History reminds
                           us that ‘public uproars’ have been around  for a long time. Some have led to peaceful change while others have
                           led  to wars and blood baths for millions of people. 
Public  uproars are a part of governing. America’s Revolutionary and Civil Wars
                           were public uproars. The Tea Party movement is a public uproar. Locally  Kennesaw State University (KSU) caused a public uproar
                           as they  attempted to hire a Provost whose positive views of Marxism and negative  views of America did not blend well with
                           fellow professors or the local  community.
             This KSU issue was brought to the attention of the
                           surrounding  community by a Marietta Daily Journal (MDJ) reporter who, when tipped  off by an insider, dug deeper into the
                           background of the candidate –  causing the intended candidate to withdraw his name after the content of  his earlier
                           (1998) writings on Marxism were made public by the MDJ. 
             Then once the community was made
                           aware of this candidate’s writings  about Marxism and America a ‘public uproar’ followed. Editorials,  op/eds,
                           and letters to the editor followed. One letter called the MDJ  coverage “disgraceful.” Another letter called it
                           a needed “public  uproar.” Likely this issue would have been short lived were it not for  the talk given by Dr.
                           Hugh Hudson, Chair of the History Department at  Georgia State University, at KSU (again covered by MDJ reporter Jon  Gillooly)
                           where Hudson admitted to being a part of the sixties “radical  left” movement before declaring “The challenges
                           today (to academic  freedom) are primary from the right, they’re primary efforts by  conservatives to determine the
                           limits of political discourse (in  universities) and to set a particular agenda.” 
             He continued: 
                           “The notion advanced is that an instructor should  impartially engage all potentially relevant points of view. That
                           is  fantasy; universities do not profess to teach the whole truth. Instead  they engage in the quest for truth. Consequently
                           professors must be free  to examine and test all facts and ideas including ones that students  and other faculty and members
                           of the community might find unpleasant,  distasteful and even erroneous.” These words raised red flags and caused  me
                           to wonder if Dr. Hudson had gained a position of prominence where he  could now advance the utopian ideals of the “radical
                           left” he had  embraced in the sixties era of turmoil and public uproars.  
             Was Hudson
                           advocating socialism too? It sounds like it! And if he was  what form of socialism was he advocating? Dr. Mark Skousen, author
                           of  The Making of Modern-day Economics, names three forms of socialism:  ‘Utopian, Revolutionary, and Fascist.”
                           And history has shown that each  form has been tried and has failed miserably: Utopian socialism, due to  laziness, debt or
                           fraud; Revolutionary socialism, (Russian Communism),  because it destroyed private property and personal liberty; and Fascist
                           socialism, the form introduced by American progressives, because of  “bureaucratic over-regulation and control of industry
                           and the means of  production, distribution and exchange: the form advocated by the Fabian  Society and the British Labor Party
                           – both ‘radical left’ organizations”  – a fact socialist advocates refuse to acknowledge or
                           admit. How can  anyone exclude the Bible if they are truly “questing for truth? 
             Hudson
                           also made it clear he doesn’t want anyone challenging his  ‘tenured’ professorship. Someone needs to remind
                           Hudson that ‘tenure’ is  an earned privilege, not a right. I know how tenure got started – but  many in
                           the community believe too many ‘tenured professors’ are abusing  this privilege – especially when they mock
                           the very foundation of the  community’s faith – their Bible, and reject and mock it in their “quest  for
                           truth” as a legitimate document to challenge their students  intellectual development. Where else are they going to
                           learn about  “God’s Economic Plan for Mankind’s Peace and Prosperity? – a plan the  Apostle James
                           called “the perfect law of liberty.” (James 1:25) Now I  challenge Hudson, and other professors of similar ideologies
                           to include  the Bible in their “quest of truth.” 
            Yes
                            Dr. Hudson, the ‘right’ does have a problem with tenure – a practice  assuring life time employment –
                           with little or no oversight. Tenure is  not a God given right and can be, like all man created privileges,  changed by elected
                           officials. This is what Hudson was warning his fellow  professors about.  Yet not one word was said about academic  responsibility.
                           
And  this is why there is growing opposition to academic freedom without  academic responsibility, and why
                           ‘public uproars’ can be good for the  community.