Just a little over two years ago, Green Mountain Daily did reporting & commentary on the Second Vermont Republic and its ties to white supremacist groups. At that time, Odum posted this piece, which specifically mentioned Robert Griffin, his writing for the SVR and his bigotry. Here’s an excerpt of Griffin’s piece from Vermont Commons, as quoted in the Odum piece:
…I think it is fair to say that the victors in the competition to insert their perspective into school programs have been the egalitarians, collectivists, multiculturalists, feminists, gays, environmentalists, internationalists, secularists, and Holocaust promoters.
Imagine my surprise, however, when I saw this piece on the Rutland Herald’s web site, by Dan Barlow:
For more than 30 years, Robert S. Griffin has taught education courses at the University of Vermont.
But when he is not in the classroom, Griffin is a prolific writer on the topic of white pride – and his books and essays are extremely popular among the white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements in the United States.
I’m actually very curious about this, because, as the school’s communication director notes:
Enrique Corredera, the director of UVM’s communications office, said Griffin has worked at the school since 1974 and confirmed that he is both a tenured professor and still employed there – although he was not sure how actively he teaches classes these days.
Corredera said school officials are aware of Griffin’ writings on race and white pride, but said unless his words “cross a line” into clear derogatory attacks or encourage violence – it is protected under the school’s dedication to academic freedom and free speech.
He’s right– if Griffin’s a good teacher who doesn’t allow his bigotry to influence how he teaches his courses, he has every right to remain a teacher, just as we have every right to comment on his racism and nationalism without fear of reprisal in our own work.
But I’m trying to figure out the context of this piece. Was it published now because of the rise in right-wing violence? There’s nothing about Griffin that’s referenced in the piece that should put him in the news for any other reason.
Is the media finally figuring out that we need to know more about the right wing extremist groups that exist around us?
So let’s take a moment and tie this into other local groups.
We’ve recently been discussing the Vermont Tea Party groups. Until very recently, the web site included a homophobic reference to Barney Frank as “the banking queen.” They appear to have figured out that homophobia that blatant is bad PR, so it’s been removed. What hasn’t been removed is an endorsement of an interview with Alan Keyes:
In the interview, Keyes says about Obama, “we’re either going to stop him, or the United States is going to cease to exist.” He refers to Obama as an “abomination.” Keyes, like some other right-wing extremists, is a “birther:”
The California secretary of state should refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until President-elect Barack Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office, alleges a California court petition filed on behalf of former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others.
The legal action today is just the latest is a series of challenges, some of which have gone as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, over the issue of Obama’s status as a “natural-born citizen,” a requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.
Once again, Keyes has every right to his opinion, but there is something about the ratcheting up of this rhetoric which comes across to me not like mere freedom of speech, but an urge towards violent overthrow of the government.
The tea parties also seem to take aim at Democrats, not bothering to cite their sources. This quote, for example, appears on the VTteaparty site:
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” 1944
Norman Thomas
This was sent out via e-mail among right-wingers, but to the best of my knowledge, no one’s ever cited the original source for it. No one’s been able to provide anything but the quote itself, but I’m sure that won’t stop them from claiming it’s true.
I’m posting all this not because I think that all the teabaggers support this extremism. I’m posting it because I think that anyone who wants to be involved with this anti-tax movement needs to know exactly what they’re involving themselves with, and that people who willingly tie themselves in with extremist groups are taking the risk of participating in something beyond just advocacy for their own issues. People have the right to their views, opinions and perspectives on any issue. While NAMBLA members have the right to advocate for sex between adults and children, they do not have the right to actually do the act of molesting a child.
While right-wing extremists have the right to claim that Obama must be stopped, their options of specifically how to stop him are a little more limited. So when their websites say such things as…
As Congress and the White House Administration pursue their agenda at an unprecedented pace, the
the Tea Party Patriot Movement is awakening the “Sleeping Giant” as a response to this threat to our Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. This silent majority of patriotic Americans, will be silent no more, and will not rest untill the sovereignty of We the People is safe from the reaches of despotism…”with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor”…
I wonder if they’re trying to recode the Declaration of Independence to mean overthrowing the current government. Because as patriotic and valuable as that document is, it was basically a declaration of violent war. In the context of claiming that Obama is not a natural born citizen, in the context of the statement “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle,” in context of the phrase “Americans Taking Care Of Their Own…”
I guess I have to wonder what these groups really are.
I agree with the theory that UVM and other institutions should give high priority to free speech and all of that, but a couple of caveats must be noted.
First, when a high-profile institution has someone in a high-profile position, s/he helps shape the public image of the institution. UVM has enabled Griffin to do his work, and is associated with Griffin’s work (on and off campus), for better or worse.
Also, since UVM is a public institution accepting state funds, one could raise the question of whether taxpayers should be underwriting Griffin.
And finally, do we know for sure that Griffin’s private views have not affected his teaching? Perhaps the most troubling paragraph in Barlow’s story:
Okay, what the hell exactly is Griffin teaching his students about “the status of European heritage, or white Americans”? Has anyone at UVM looked into this? If not, why not?
Speaking to his fan club. The link has been scrubbed. It’s still in cache, but has a Trojan embedded into it to try and hack the computers of whoever might be visiting. I can’t reliably load it up from here, but I encourage somebody with a Mac or more confidence in computer security to stop by and save some screen shots. This is intense stuff:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=…
But it’s worth mentioning here that UVM has an important historic connection to intolerance. Henry F Perkins was Chairman of Zoology at UVM, and the President of the American Eugenics Society between 1931 and 1934. During his tenure at UVM and well beyond, the University was famously supportive of the movement to sterilize minorities and persons with mental illnesses, in order to “strengthen” the gene pool. As appalling as this was, it is very much downplayed in UVM’s own account of the project: http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/
I was very surprised just now when I looked it up on Google to get my facts straight, and discovered just how sanguine the UVM account comes across.
There was a tremendous outcry when openly racist and anti-Semite Leonard Jeffries was the chair of the Black Studies department at CCNY back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, and he was removed from that position, but he retains his position as a tenured professor. The cases seem to be similar in that the criticism they received was primarily for their outside writings and activities than on anything they have done in their teaching roles.
If it could be shown that Griffin is using his academic position to spread his racist beliefs I think the argument to discharge him would be much stronger. As it is, I agree with Julie that the danger to academic freedom, as demonstrated by UVM’s firing of leftist professors in the 1950’s, is too great to support firing someone simply because of his political beliefs.
I admit a lot of personal frustration on this matter. I have reached out to a lot of supposedly anti-racism or multicultural organizations or individuals in this state about these sorts of connections, only to be greeted with a collective “gosh… thats awful…we’ll have to get back to you on that.” It’s revolting.
And that largely includes the press. Now, months (years?) later we get a shocking(!) news piece. Now, I’m glad Barlow wrote this, but I also know he reads this site, and its something he and the rest of the press corps has let sit there.
And even this piece is ridiculously inadequate. He lets this statement sit out there:
When, as I reprinted above, this guy has said as recently as December of 2007 (see comment thread with Julie above):
This is not a call to violence? Did Barlow just hit his deadline and leave it sitting there?
Or to emphasize another part of the same quote:
When, again, at this site, we quoted him from Issue 2 of the Vermont Commons using the brazenly anti-semitic term “Holocaust promoters” which would tend to brand him as a holocaust denier:
(Now I’m gonna say something positive about VC here: at least Griffin seems to have crossed their line, in retrospect at any rate. Griffin’s piece is not archived on their site with other articles from that issue, and they haven’t apparently asked him back for repeat appearances, as far as I can tell. That’s progress, I suppose.)
But back to the main point, why the hell did Barlow let this statement from UVM stand unchallenged?!?!?
What is it about blogs in this state and the media? In the rest of the country, there is new media-legacy media synergy going on all the time. In Vermont on the other hand, putting it in a blog seems to put any information in the same category as bigfoot sightings as far as the so-called “mainstream” media is concerned. I am just SO sick of it, as a matter of principle, and – again – for having to watch the old-school editorial chiefs cut off their noses to spite their faces by actively avoiding relevant matters just to turn their noses up at all of us.
Yuck.
People like Griffin are important to have around to demonstrate to everyone just how bankrupt and crazy they and their ideas are.
Don’t get rid of him. Shine a light on him.
Its important to have an understanding of how these people “think”. That’s why I read the Turner Diaries – – “know thine enemy”.
I don’t want him censored.
PJ
Enrique Corredera said: “…he is both a tenured professor and still employed there – although he was not sure how actively he teaches classes these days.”
You can see what he teaches, and how often at this link: https://www.uvm.edu/academics/…
It looks like he is teaching full time in the Foundations of Education part of the College of Education. Most of his courses are not heavily subscribed, but that may or may not be typical for courses offered in this area. It is surprising to me that the UVM spokesperson didn’t bother to find out that he is teaching full time, and is scheduled to do so for the coming fall semester, as well.
…of the willingness for this group to believe a lie when it suits them, via Crooks and Liars, discussing a story in which a woman pretended to have saved her (nonexistent) baby through prayer instead of having an abortion:
WCAX online tip toes it’s way into the news with this understated gem
http://www.wcax.com/Global/sto…
in that right wing-nuts almost always carry a message of targeted hate, dangerously coupled with second amendment delusions. Those of us on the left are generally so concerned with protecting the remainder of the bill of rights that we are essentially hamstrung by our consciences. I’m not smart enough to suggest a solution; but realistically, we must recognize this fault in the equation.
about this subject and the man. But all I could think of
was the crisis surrounding Ward Churchill at the Univ of Colorado and his dismissal.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sa…
Churchill spoke uncomfortable truths. What about Griffin? I’m not saying at all he speaks the truth, but rather his truth.
This is a very tough issue.
When I think of what is the right thing to do with someone like Griffen I think back to the wonderful world of Joe McCarthy and his crusade against communists or “fellow travelers”.
You always have to think of the flip side when considering the right thing to do about someone whose ideology you disagree with.
So, I’m against doing anything against Griffen. Let others see the bankruptcy of his ideas.
That’s enough. Anything more and you are just playing into the hands of those that would like to make him into some kind of icon.
PJ
Perhaps what we should advocate in this situation is for UVM to hold a forum on the dangers of right-wing (or any) extremism in the US. It would be great to get Morris Dees from the Southern Poverty Law Center up to speak.
Just a thought.
PJ
Terri Gross had as a guest today Chip Berlet, who has written and posted some pretty clear stuff about how pundits using apocalyptic language share responsibility for the spate of recent murders.
He’s the coauthor of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. He is also the editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash.
Listening to him parse some of the twists in so-called reasoning was mind-torqueing.
He didn’t totally spare the Left, identifying 9/11 Truthers as conspiracy theorists of the Left, and giving some in that movement credit for trying to quash the more anti-Semitic elements.
What caught my ear was when he said that people keep waiting for “the government” to do something about these people. Why wait for the government to do it, he asked. We, all of us, should be calling this kind of extremism what it is, by name – racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Arabophobia, xenophobia – and making clear that this kind of language may be legal under free speech, but it is not socially acceptable.
NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. – George Orwell