New York University’s Continuing Centers of Left-wing Propaganda
Below I reproduce the schedule for a forthcoming conference to be held at a venue called the “Frederic Ewen Academic Freedom Center” which is part of New York University. With its leftist Cold War Center, which I have written about previously, and its conference on Alger Hiss, (about which I have also commented) NYU appears to welcome the distinction of being the American university most dedicated to resurrection of the Communist fellow traveler’s view of the world. I guess one center dedicated to this task is not enough—so the more the merrier, for NYU.
The Center is appropriately named after Ewen, whose Wikipedia entry, a neutral précis that sets forth the bare facts of how and why he was forced out of Brooklyn College in the McCarthy era, makes it quite clear that if you read behind the lines, Ewen was either a Party member of a devoted fellow traveler of the Stalinists. Now Ewen not only has a lecture series named after him at Brooklyn College, but NYU has a center established in his honor.
Now look at the names on the roster below. First, the keynote is of course by Ellen Schrecker, the historian most known to many of us for continuing apologies on behalf of Soviet espionage by American Communists. (To her supporters, she is the historian who chronicles the Right’s assault of academic freedom in the 50’s.) The education panel has Martin Duberman on it—the author of the definitive biography of Paul Robeson, and who readers of the book will quickly discover a firm support of Robeson’s Stalinism as well as a critique of the persecution he suffered at home for his views, without any nuance in his appraisal of the singer’s politics.
Most egregious is the panel on Vietnam. It features H. Bruce Franklin, a professor of English who has written a few books on Vietnam, but is also known for his now fortunately out of print tome, The Essential Stalin, (1972) in which he writes : “I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and butcher who jailed and killed millions…..But, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe.” To them, Franklin wrote, Stalin is “one of the great heroes of modern history, a man who personally helped win their [the people of China,Vietnam, Korea and Albania] win their liberation.” His bio in the book describes Franklin as “a revolutionary who was also a professor of English.”
Perhaps Franklin will elaborate on how Stalin carried out the struggle for civil liberties during the so-called second Red Scare, by urging his American comrades to make the revolution in the “belly of the beast,” as they used to say. Or perhaps he will explain how Comrade Stalin’s orchestration of the killing of millions of “class enemies” did not involve any violation of civil liberties.
His fellow panelist Moss Roberts is yet another long-time left-wing scholar of Asian and Chinese politics and history, who has not changed his views one iota in thirty years.
Now here is the announcement for the event:
*NYU’s Frederic Ewen Academic Freedom Center Presents*
*”Academic Freedom in the 1960s,” *
*April 1 from 12-6:00pm *
*at NYU’s Glucksman Ireland House*
*One Washington Mews, between Washington Square North and East 8th Street***
**Join New York University’s Frederic Ewen Academic Freedom Center to examine the key fronts in the present battles over higher ed, and their historical parallels in previous eras. The conference will examine successive, well-funded ideological assaults on academic freedom by
outside pressure groups aimed at undermining the legitimacy of scholarly study during the 1960s.
For more information and to RSVP, please contact Zuzanna Kobryzynski at zk3@nyu.edu.
*Conference Program Schedule:**
**12:15-1:00pm – Keynote Address*
* Ellen Schrecker, Professor, Yeshiva University, author of the Lost Soul of Higher Education
*1:00-1:15pm — Break*
*1:15-3:15pm – Civil Rights Panel*
* Joy Williamson-Lott, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Washington
* Martin Duberman, Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus at Lehman College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York
* Stephen Aby, Education and Sociology Librarian and Bibliographer, Professor of Bibliography, University of Akron
*3:30-3:45pm — Break*
*3:30-5:30pm – Vietnam War Panel*
* H. Bruce Franklin, John Cotton Dana Professor of English and American Studies,**Rutgers University-Newark
* Moss Roberts, Professor, East Asian Studies Department, NYU
* Dick Ohmann, Benjamin Waite Professor of English, Emeritus, Wesleyan University
The sponsors do not even hide their ideological agenda. Consider the language of the announcement: They will examine “key fronts in the present battles;” – they will protest “well-funded ideological assaults on academic freedom,” etc.
Undoubtedly speaker after speaker will pile on David Horowitz and his valiant campaign in defense of academic freedom, discussed so well here in the current Weekly Standard by Peter Wood, head of The National Association of Scholars. He has had some victories, but mostly, vicious and unfair attacks. Horowitz has been willing to debate one of his most vociferous critics, the AAUP’s Cary Nelson, a self-proclaimed Marxist. At least Nelson stepped up to the plate, and did not shy away from a confrontation. This says more about him than it does about the Ewen Center people. They are so committed to civil liberties that they evidently believe no one with an opposing view is to be heard.
This conference marks yet another salvo in NYU’s apparent campaign to establish itself as the primary institution of higher education to feature centers devoted to leftist reappraisals of the recent past.
How sad it is that this institution, that once had on its faculty the late Sidney Hook, the preeminent fighter against totalitarianism of the Right and the Left, one of the founding fathers of liberal and left-wing anticommunism. I ended a previous column on NYU with the following, and I repeat it here, since nothing has changed in the past year:
All those people who are appearing there have the right to their point of view, and to espouse their views on programs and panels they create. But a great university should have the obligation to allow the public, especially in advertised programs open to everyone, to hear contending points of view on controversial issues, rather than to run one-sided partisan events that are passed off as scholarly contributions. Or does NYU really want to have the reputation of vindicating the charges made by some conservatives like David Horowitz, who has argued that radical faculty have “turned America’s classrooms into indoctrination centers for their political cause”?
The late Sidney Hook, the great NYU Professsor of Philosophy, wrote a letter in 1949 complaining about an academic conference that had as its aim what Hook called “the goal of furthering Soviet foreign policy.” Hook was furious, because, as he put it, while the conference included “more than ninety well known-fellow-travelers of the Communist Party line,” he noted that one had to “insist that the point of view I have expressed in my paper be presented at the Conference and that a place be made for me on the program.” Hook did not get such a place. Were he still alive, he would no doubt be dismayed that his own University is now partaking of the same kind of practice he dedicated his life to fight. He might wonder whether NYU is pleased with itself for sponsoring these closed-door seances of the old left.
——————————————————-






“Martin Duberman…—the author of the definitive biography of Paul Robeson, and who readers of the book will quickly discover a firm support of Robeson’s Stalinism as well as a critique of the persecution he suffered at home for his views, without any nuance in his appraisal of the singer’s politics.”
In fact, Duberman makes clear the discrepancies between Robeson’s views about the USSR and the historical facts. However he does show sympathy and understanding for why Robeson – a fighter for civil rights long before the Civil Rights Movement, mugged by the reality of the racism he encountered in the US – went off the deep end politically.
Ron Radosh has criticized unapologetic Stalinists, but the Stalinoids need publicity too. The entire field of U.S. history is permeated by “Cold War revisionism” that criticizes the U.S. for overreacting to a chimerical Soviet military threat after the war. One even sees it in the writing on slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, where “white skin privilege” is a world wide disgrace, and where Soviet anti-American propaganda has infiltrated the best universities. I wrote about it here: http://clarespark.com/2011/01/25/american-slavery-vs-nazi-genocide/. See especially the quotation from Volkogonov’s The Psychological War (1986).
I’ll be there. I actually look forward to these events because – other then the 4 foot tall crazy old lady with red star earrings who proudly proclaims her “solidarity” missions to Gaza – it is a pleasant venue if you are polite (and able to numb your sense of truth enough to sit still during monologues)
From an email I wrote about an incident that happened during the Rosenberg event Allen and I were at
“I found it [Donald Trumbo's Communist Party number, which I found by mistake in Human Events while looking for something else] while preparing for an interview I have on Amerasia with Ellen Schrecker, who I have respect for for giving a lot of ground (if apologetically) on her original work after the truth came out in the 90s. At the Rosenbergs event I attended, when Miriam Schnier was confronted (first by me, then by Allen Hornblum) about her need to radically change her original thesis, Ellan rose to her defense and said that changing your thesis when new information is available is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty, and she then made the entire room jump when she said as an example something to the effect of “Elizabeth Bentley was a drunk and a deadbeat but she was a drunk and a deadbeat who told the truth”.”
I do research in that library and some of the top people there tell me they used to be your friends and associates back in the day – something they have mixed feeling about, to say the least.. heh
[Note: Don't worry, I don't agree with these guys - I personally happen to enjoy their company as acquaintances]
Radosh and Horowitz deserve the Purple heart for their unflinching service in the cause of Academic Freedom. When the thought control and censorship of the universities has run its course, the next in line who question rationality will pay their price.
Oh, yes, Stalinists having a conference to support academic freedom. “Orwellian” is an overused word but it seems entirely appropriate here.
Radosh’s tiresome repetition seems to have no end. Often he is totally misleading. A blatant example is his attack on Martin Duberman whom he claims gave firm support to Paul Robesons Stalinism. Readers will hardly find that in the biography. What they will find is an understanding of the perspective of a victim iof the prejudices iof the mainstream society and Robeson’s repudiation of American racism and escapist love affair with the Soviet Union. Somehow it seems eminently fair that one might apply a different standard to judge Robeson given his tragic history.Black reviews such as Rampersad, Nell Painter, Nathan Huggins have clearly seen what many white reviewers have not: that the red=baiting of Robeson then and even now is a convenient way of not dealing with the totality of his “message” and more important his militant resistance to racism
The argument that NYU’s H. Bruce Franklin makes (“I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and butcher who jailed and killed millions . . . But, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe.”) to praise Stalin applies to Hitler. Millions of Muslims today to hate Jews just as Hitler taught his youth. The same pattern of one-sided forums is a regular occurrence on Boston’s PBS station where the daughter of 60 Minutes icon (Andy Rooney), Emily Rooney presents what she calls “debate” with only one side represented. Logic is not a strong point with liberals or propagandists.
The NYU connection to Alger Hiss and to the intended spread of doubt concerning Hiss’s guilt is nurtured by Tony Hiss, Alger’s son, who is/has been on the NYU faculty. Here is a link to an NYU site on Hiss which credits Tony for his participation:
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/aboutus.html
Also on NYU faculty is the mother of Lori Berenson (Professor Rhoda Berenson),who actively lobbies for her daughter’s release from a Peruvian prison where she continues to serve her sentence for aiding and abetting terrorists there.
You have to understand what’s happening now at NYU in the context of the school’s frantic effort to make itself into an ersatz Ivy-League institution. The university is spending like a drunken sailor on leave, putting up huge buildings, hiring prestigious names for the faculty, establishing new programs, seeking foreign students, and even opening up colonial outposts in Dubai and Shanghai. They’re doing all this under the fraudulent banner of “globalism,” which is the current buzzword for left-liberal multiculturalism. So quite naturally the school is attempting to be more leftist, which is an absolute requirement for any academic institution in the US that aspires to be top-drawer. The Alger Hiss conference was a typical symptom. Another is the fact that Rhoda Berenson (mother of convicted terrorist Lori Berenson) is on the faculty in NYU’s Liberal Studies program. And by the way: it’s not “red-baiting” to point out that someone is a Red. It’s merely the identification and diagnosis of a disease.