DeGenova Speaks!
Previously, I commented on the controversial speech given by Columbia professor Nicholas DeGenova. Now, the Chronicle of Higher Education is running an interview with the professor. (Hat tip: InstaPundit) This interview has resolved much of the uncertainty surrounding his previous speech: Not only does Mr. DeGenova hold political views that are so far left that they are not on the recognized political spectrum, he also appears to have lost touch with reality. Consider this segment:
Q. Your comment about wishing for “a million Mogadishus” has attracted the most attention. I read your letter in the “Columbia Daily Spectator,” which gave some more context, but I have to confess I don’t see how the context changes the meaning of that statement.
A. I was referring to what Mogadishu symbolizes politically. The U.S. invasion of Somalia was humiliated in an excruciating way by the Somali people. And Mogadishu was the premier symbol of that. What I was really emphasizing in the larger context of my comments was the question of Vietnam and that historical lesson. … What I was intent to emphasize was that the importance of Vietnam is that it was a defeat for the U.S. war machine and a victory for the cause of human self-determination.
Mr. DeGenova has an interesting definition of “a defeat for the U.S.” Yes, America lost 18 soldiers in Mogadishu. However, during the course of that battle, the Americans managed to inflict upwards of 500 casualties on the Somalis. Mr. DeGenova’s definition of an American defeat appears to be a battle in which the United States inflicts massively disproportionate casualties, decides that it’s had enough of this humanitarian-nation-building business, and eventually goes home. The end result of all of this, of course, is that Somalia is still ruled by local warlords and few Americans are chomping at the bit to change that. If that’s a victory against the United States, I would hate to see a defeat.
(Likewise, Mr. DeGenova’s example of Vietnam. Certainly, it was a defeat for the United States. However, I am interested to know how this was a victory for “human self-determination,” especially if the humans in question are the South Vietnamese.)
The other interesting point raised by this interview is the fact that Mr. DeGenova does not have tenure. Given that Columbia hasn’t dismissed this man outright, this does raise the question: What do we need tenure for anymore? It doesn’t appear to be required for the protection of academic freedom, as even untenured professors can voice views that are not only politically controversial but woefully out of touch with reality with relative impunity. If Mr. DeGenova keeps his job after this, I’d be interested to see what a tenured professor could get away with.
Had I known that there was a devious yellow journalist from a tabloid newspaper among the audience, I certainly would have selected my words somewhat more carefully. - Nicholas DeGenova