Yes to goats, no to George Washington

An Arizona community college profesor may lose his job for e-mailing George Washington’s Thanksgiving proclamation to fellow instructors, with a link to the web site where he found it. FIRE reports:

The Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) has placed a professor on forced administrative leave and has recommended that he be terminated for e-mailing a Thanksgiving message to his colleagues last November. On the day before Thanksgiving, Professor Walter Kehowski sent out the text of George Washington’s “Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789” and a link to the webpage where he’d found it — on Pat Buchanan’s web log. After several recipients complained of being offended by the e-mail, MCCCD found Kehowski guilty of violating the district’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policy and technology usage standards. Kehowski then contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

The professor used the “announcements” listserv.

Within weeks, five MCCCD employees filed harassment charges against Kehowski, claiming his message was “hostile” and “derogatory” because it contained a link to Buchanan’s website, where the conservative Buchanan had also posted his criticisms of immigration policies.

MCCCD’s Initial Assessment found on January 3, 2007 that Kehowski was guilty of violating MCCCD’s EEO policy and policies limiting e-mail usage to messages that “support education, research, scholarly communication, administration, and other MCCCD business.” These policies also prohibit “[m]ailings to large numbers of people that contain unwanted solicitations or information.” However, MCCCD employees commonly use the “announcements” listserv to send out unsolicited information. Recent e-mails sent over this very listserv include an advertisement for purchasing goats for orphans in Uganda, quotes about Women’s History Month, and a reminder about the health benefits of eating bananas.

FIRE points out that harassment is supposed to be severe enough to create a hostile environment. If instructors can’t handle a link to Pat Buchanan — let’s assume they weren’t objecting to George Washington — then they must be delicate souls indeed.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. If universities are going to start firing people based on links in e-mails, one wonders how many levels of indirection will apply. If a professor links to Instapundit, which in turn links to some other blog, which further links to Pat Buchanan’s web site, then is the prof still in danger of losing his job?

  2. Thomas says:

    I keep waiting for more information… there must be more backstory… no institution or its leadership could be so stupid as to use an e-mail with a link as sufficient reason to terminate someone. You would almost think they got in Santa’s lap last Christmas and asked him to bring them an unlawful termination lawsuit for 2007?

  3. And that’s why I don’t like this blog software – no edit function.

  4. Aha! That’s certainly it. He committed a far greater sin than linking to Pat Buchanan: He was sarcastic about The Diversity Office! That will get you fired every time.

  5. You have to admit, he did almost dare the diversity office to challenge him.

    Personally, I would be pissed if someone sent me this email… its the typical bs that deludes my inbox everyday.

    He shouldn’t be fired, but should be reprimanded. I also think the college needs to get tighter control on all email sent to “all”.

  6. Independent George says:

    I’m with Rory on this; he could legitimately be reprimanded for spamming (though that would necessarily raise the issue of selective enforcement if others had been getting away with it). But to get in trouble for linking to the source… Sweet merciful crap, how is trying to get someone fired for including a hyperlink any less ‘hostile’ or ‘derogatory’ than the supposedly offending material?

  7. >You have to admit, he did almost dare the diversity office to challenge him.

    How? I’m missing something here. First of all, it was a LINK, no one is forced to follow a link. Secondly, that page has nothing to say about immigrants or anything like that. If you want to be offended by Buchanan’s politics, you would have to follow additional links. If you merely find Buchanan himself offensive, then why follow a link to his site?

    I guess the major news networks were guilty of something or other when they covered Buchanan running for president, right? After all, they no doubt put his URL up on the screen or at the foot of a story now and then.

    I’ll tell you what really offended everyone: that proclamation makes direct and hurtful reference to God and, as we all know, that’s completely offensive (even abusive) in any academic context. He might as well have floated a turd in the punchbowl at the office party.

    He might deserve a note from his dean telling him to quit putting personal messages on the “announce” listserv, but that’s about it. Even that’s probably over-reaching, since the “annouce” listserv is probably used for wedding and birth announcements and pointers to papers people have published and so on – personal stuff, in other words.

  8. ” let’s assume they weren’t objecting to George Washington”

    I think you may be assuming too much. After all it does start out: “WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour;”

    It also refers to “mankind”.

    Such a politically incorrect message is objectinable in its own right, no?

  9. If free speech exists in this situation (and it’s maybe a gray area), then he has the freedom to e-mail that out. Free speech also protects speech some people may not like.

    That said: the university can pretty much make what rules it wants, and as long as it lets people know about them and enforces them uniformly, people don’t have too much of a cause to protest. There are some things on my campus I’d get reprimanded for if I did them. You just decide whether following the rules and having the job, or not, and taking your chances are more worth it to you.

    Still, it makes me wonder if they weren’t maybe looking for a convenient way to get rid of this guy. I’ve known some awfully offensive people in academia, but because they brought in big grants, or were good teachers, or were well-known researchers, people kind of overlooked their offenses.

    I don’t know. On my campus’ “announcement” email, I regularly get messages encouraging me to donate money for “baby gifts” or “bridal shower gifts” for people I’ve never met, who work in positions that earn considerably more money than I do. I could find that offensive if I wanted to, I suppose. Instead, I just treat the messages as spam and delete them.

  10. wayne martin says:

    When a situation gets to formal discipline, there generally more to the story than gets into the news. The following adds a little more color to the matter:

    —-
    H t t p://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_1_21/ai_114008854

    The second episode involved an inflammatory email that was circulated districtwide by a math professor denouncing a student-organized Dia de la Raza celebration as a separatist action. Glendale Community College professor Walter Kehowski’s missive complained about “diversity double-talk” and extolled “the superiority of Western civilization.” It also contained links to Internet sites that espoused White separatist notions.

    The antagonism spilled over into a December board meeting, when Latino students and professors were joined by influential community members to press the board to renew Gardea’s contract and set limits on Kchowski’s electronic communication.

    In an interview in late January, Kehowski said that he moved controversial links to the bottom of his home page, but not at Glasper’s suggestion. In early February, the articles in question had been placed on a separate page, with a link, “The Intelligence Page–my ‘Non Spin Zone’ Caution: controversial subjects discussed openly.”

    —-
    h t t p://www.maricopa.edu/gvbd/minutes/2004mins/02-24-04.htm

    Armando Lozano, GCC Student, came forward to speak regarding electronic communications. He mentioned that last December issues regarding diversity and multiculturalism had surfaced and specifically referenced the e-mails from GCC Professor Walter Kehowski and Dia de la Raza. These e-mails were linked to his Glendale Community College account and contained negative comments pertaining to diversity and multiculturalism. Mr. Lozano stated that he recognized that the public is entitled to their own opinion, just as everyone in the United States is, but not on the public’s dime. Resolution of this issue is important to him and other students and he requested that computing resource standards be revised to prevent this from happening in the future.
    —–
    H t t p://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106818,00.html

    What Part of ‘Shall Make No Law …’ Do They Not Understand?

    Lawmakers in Arizona want to pass a law forbidding college professors from spreading comments that are deemed “inflammatory” or “offensive” toward minorities via campus computers, reports the Arizona Republic.
    Democratic state Rep. Steve Gallardo said he believes intellectual liberty is important, but that hate isn’t protected under the U.S. Constitution. He wants professors that don’t toe the multi-culti line to be dismissed.

    Gallardo is irked that Glendale Community College math professor Walter Kehowski had the nerve to call some Latino students racist following a Dia de la Raza celebration in October. Following the event, he sent out a campus-wide e-mail saying that ethnic groups should be assimilated into society and that activists are using ethnic pride as an excuse for separatism.
    —-

  11. Sigivald says:

    ricki: Not quite. Free speech does not mean he gets to use the university’s network to mass-mail people something irrelevant to the purpose of his mail account.

    Proving an ideological motive for taking more action than when other people advertised goats will be difficult, given that the latter doubtless produced far fewer complaints.

    “We acted in this case because people complained, and we have better things to do than police the mailing list when nobody cares” would suffice as a defense against prohibited content-based action (and is almost certainly true, at least for the latter clause).

    wayne: It’s a pity that first article doesn’t include links or detailed descriptions. I’d love to know exactly what those “white separatist notions” were and how they figured on the sites he linked to. Were they sarcastic comparisons in comments? Were they on other pages on the same site? Or was he linking to actual white supremacists?

    Given the description and lack of details, I suspect the former more than the latter; given the source it seems unlikely that such dirt would be minimised if it existed. But since there are no links, we can’t check for ourselves…

  12. Miller Smith says:

    The law is very very clear: You may not discriminate on the content of people’s speech in official communications or email or classrooms if you allow ANY other content to be expressed.

    I am allowed to criticize multiculturalism and “diversity” on the server and in emails to others as the opposite content is allowed by the bosses. The moment the “wall is made available” I can post what I want. It is ILLEGAL of forbid content if you “opened the wall” to content.

    Example: At my high school the principal allowed posters from International A.N.S.W.E.R. that was very very anti-war. I posted my pro-war posters beside them. The anti-war people complained to the principal. The principal-not being and idiot-told them that it was illegal for him to commit VEIWPOINT DISCRIMINATION and they would have to respond with their posters.

    I have read the entire content of this professor’s communications as published over the years. The university “opened the wall” and cannot restrict anyone’s opinions or content. He has the perfect case to bring against the university.

  13. wayne martin says:

    > At my high school the principal allowed posters
    > from International A.N.S.W.E.R.

    That’s a shame. A.N.S.W.E.R. has links that go directly to North Korea. Someone should take the time to educate your Principal about this organization, its backers, its leaders and its goals. He might be less inclined to allow them access to the school facilities in the future.

  14. Miller Smith says:

    No, no, no, Wayne! The point is that you DON’T shut down speech! You allow the entire spectrum. Only then do we get all the information we need to make the decisions we need to make.

    When the ANSWER posters went up I did not want to pull them down or have the authorities remove them. I am an American and I don’t do that. That is NOT the American way. Americans respond with their own speech and make sure everyone sees the offending posters.

    I destroyed their credibility when my posters made the point that the controlling director of ANSWER was Saddam Hussein’s lawyer of record. The kids who were putting up the ANSWER posters didn’t know that. They (and their staff sponsor) were terribly embarrassed. They no longer post that crap on the walls AND they don’t have the excuse that they were suppressed ‘by the man’ so they couldn’t even be martyrs.

    That is the American way.

  15. Miller Smith: Hear hear!

    The antidote to free speech that you *don’t* like is more free speech that you *do* like. you handled that well.

  16. wayne martin says:

    > The point is that you DON’T shut down speech!
    > You allow the entire spectrum.
    > That is the American way.

    At some level, I agree with you. However, other than yourself, how many other teachers in your school would have opposed the A.N.S.W.E.R people if you hadn’t?

    The idea of “free speech” that found its way into the First Amendment did not consider the impact of a well-organized and funded propaganda effort by foreign governments to interfere with US governmental policy and domestic life.

    In the case of pubic schools, it does not seem all that wise to open the doors to every destructive force in the world. Let’s not forget that US high school and college students routinely fail history tests at a 75% rate. Even with the WEB available to provide almost instantaneous rebuttal to any message that isn’t true—it takes a certain amount of motivation to do the research and to map the information found to the problem at hand. Clearly kids 12-18 are not necessarily able to oppose these sorts of messages by themselves. We’ve seen that with the groups that have run the US Military off campus at a number of US universities and colleges.

    Don’t forget that Hitler took over Germany, and then almost all of Europe – staring with a small band of supporters, a dream and access to the public square.

  17. Walter E. Wallis says:

    “…and enforces them uniformly…”
    There’s the rub. I am amused that someone from La Raza would call a critic racist.

  18. >You have to admit, he did almost dare the diversity office to challenge him.

    >How? I’m missing something here. First of all, it was a LINK, no one is forced to follow a link.

    I was speaking about his disclaimer on the bottom of the email.

    “[I apologize if I preempted The Diversity Office in posting this]”

    Basically, work email should be used for work… period.

  19. Walter E. Wallis says:

    “Basically, work email should be used for work… period.”
    What was the acceptable practice? Why do I suspect that an E-mail about Bushitler would go unchallenged?

  20. The idea of “free speech” that found its way into the First Amendment did not consider the impact of a well-organized and funded propaganda effort by foreign governments to interfere with US governmental policy and domestic life.

    I doubt that “a well-organized and funded propaganda effort” wasn’t considered if not exactly in those terms. Swaying public opinion through the use of mass media was what allowed the Protestant Reformation to succeed where other reform movements aimed at the Catholic church didn’t. I’m sure the lesson wasn’t lost on many people, founding fathers included, and subsequent manipulations of mass media have kept the lesson very much alive.

    The limitations on freedom of speech are fairly clear and make sense which is why they’re being twisted to serve the interests of various political groups. If shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is one sensible limit on freedom of speech, carrying with it the potential for injury and death, then speech that causes less obvious but no less real injury must be limited as well, or so the rationale goes.

    That approach to limiting the speech of those with whom you disagree is a tacit admission that in a free marketplace of ideas, yours won’t sell so limitations have to be placed on the competition.

    Where all this freedom of speech in public schools talk hits the shoals is that part of the purpose of public education is to limit speech to one side of the story, to indoctrinate. Traditionally that indoctrination supports king and country but it’s a political football. Everyone with an idealogical ax to grind will want that access to the kids and control of the information the kids will receive.

    That’s not going to change either. The opportunity to bend young minds to your cause, to bend the sapling so as to bend the tree, is just to luscious an opportunity to forgo. The best you can hope for is that it’s people who espouse your point of view are in charge. That’s a pretty lousy “best”.

  21. wayne martin says:

    > I doubt that “a well-organized and funded propaganda effort”
    > wasn’t considered if not exactly in those terms.

    Perhaps. The Founders were very intelligent, and very well-educated for their time.

    I doubt that they fully anticipated the intensity of propaganda that was to emanate from the Soviet Union, however. First Lenin, then Stalin and then those leaders who followed, created a world-wide propaganda machine that targeted the media, and educational institutions as weak points in a country’s intellectual infrastructure. For instance, a NYT columnist by the name of Walter Durante came under the spell of communist propaganda agents and used the NYT to spin favorable “press” for these people:


    From Chronicles of Wasted Time: Number 2 The Infernal Grove page 265.
    The most notable among them was The New York Times’ Walter Durante … who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for deceitfully propagandistic dispatches from Russia which routinely denied or minimized horrors he knew to have taken place. Muggeridge was later to write that “Durante was the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in 50 years of journalism.” Yet Durante and the British Communist Claud Cockburn helped to shape Franklin Roosevelt’s impression of [Stalin’s] Soviet Russia as “progressive.” He recognized the Soviet Union diplomatically and sent “the corrupt and gullible Joseph Davies” as ambassador to Moscow in 1936 “with instructions to win Stalin’s friendship at all cost.”

    During the Vietnam War era, there was no one questioning the authenticity of the Anti-war movement in the Press. There media always spun the protests as “student”-organized and led. After the war, a few writers did look into possible KGB influence. It took more than a decade for those loose ends to unravel .


    h t t p://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp
    February 26, 2004, 8:28 a.m.

    Kerry’s Soviet Rhetoric
    The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.

    By Ion Mihai Pacepa

    ..

    As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, “our most significant success.”

    The KGB organized a vitriolic conference in Stockholm to condemn America’s aggression, on March 8, 1965, as the first American troops arrived in south Vietnam. On Andropov’s orders, one of the KGB’s paid agents, Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the KGB-financed World Peace Council, created the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam as a permanent international organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war. It was staffed by Soviet-bloc undercover intelligence officers and received about $15 million annually from the Communist Party’s international department — on top of the WPC’s $50 million a year, all delivered in laundered cash dollars. Both groups had Soviet-style secretariats to manage their general activities, Soviet-style working committees to conduct their day-to-day operations, and Soviet-style bureaucratic paperwork. The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations’ propaganda sheets.

    The KGB campaign to assault the U.S. and Europe by means of disinformation was more than just a few Cold War dirty tricks. The whole foreign policy of the Soviet-bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world Communism.
    ….
    —-

    It’s very difficult for the average person to make sense out of current events, particularly during a period of national crisis when the government is busy trying to protect the nation. Suggesting that the Founding Fathers anticipated a Soviet-style propaganda machine is a bit of a stretch. But more to the point is whether we should open the doors to the public schools to the KGB, or the espionage agencies of tomorrow’s enemies, in the name of “Free Speech”. How does a high school teacher compete in the “marketplace” with trained KGB/Intelligence agents?

  22. “The idea of “free speech” that found its way into the First Amendment did not consider the impact of a well-organized and funded propaganda effort by foreign governments to interfere with US governmental policy and domestic life.”

    The founding fathers understood propaganda campaigns quite well – the American Revolution was started and kept going by quite sophisticated propaganda efforts. Minor taxes were described as horrendous impositions. When British soldiers defended themselves against rioters, it was given a scary name (the Boston Massacre) and trumpeted across the colonies. When British troops marched from Boston to search for illegal guns, someone persuaded a few men of the Lexington militia to suicidally stand with muskets shouldered, out in the open in line across the town square, and nervous British troops gave the propagandists another massacre. The troops went on to Concord, searched for and destroyed the weapons they were after, and marched home – but their losses due to snipers along the return march became a British defeat in the propaganda. Tarleton’s efforts to suppress guerillas in the southern colonies became a whole string of horrendous war crimes to the propagandists, with Tarleton compared to Attilla the Hun. When Indians realized that the British Army was no longer protecting the frontier and killed a few settlers, these deaths were multiplied by a hundred and blamed on the British. George Washington could hire a German general to help a French volunteer train his troops, but German mercenaries in the British ranks became a monstrous use of foreign troops to oppress the colonists…

    OK, much of that was with tongue in cheek – but I haven’t strayed far from the facts. E.g., at Lexington, Sam Adams, who was high in the circles of those propagandizing for revolution, did have a talk with the captain of the militia before they made their suicidal stand – and if the Brits had been as disciplined as they were supposed to be, they probably could have kept their muskets over their shoulders and shouldered their way through without a fight at all. I doubt the propaganda substantially deceived anyone, but it did help stiffen resolve, encourage people to consider an unprecedented break with the mother country, and keep going through the hardships of a long war. And the men who’d written, published, and spread the propaganda quite certainly meant to protect exactly that sort of activity when they wrote the first amendment.

    I admit that they did underestimate the sneakiness of Communist false-flag operations such as Durante. But the limited success these did enjoy was came about only because no one was working hard enough to counter it. The propagandists of the American Revolution always founded their work in facts; Commie propagandists often had to resort to flat-out lies, and anyone who bothered to check on them could easily catch them in their lies.

  23. wayne martin says:

    > The founding fathers understood propaganda campaigns
    > quite well – the American Revolution was started and kept
    > going by quite sophisticated propaganda efforts.

    > And the men who’d written, published, and spread the
    > propaganda quite certainly meant to protect exactly that
    > sort of activity when they wrote the first amendment.

    Agreed that they understood their use of propaganda, but it’s not clear that they fully supported the right of the Crown (or any enemy) to run a counter-propaganda effort during time of war inside the boundaries of the US.

    > anyone who bothered to check on them
    > could easily catch them in their lies.

    This is not necessarily true. During the time that Durante was spinning for Stalin, there was an “Iron Curtain” that existed in Russia which kept “outsiders” out. Durante, because of this association with the NYT, became a “trusted source”—which we now know to be a position he abused. The same was true in China after Mao’s Revolution.

    The same was true in Hussein’s Iran. CNN executive Eason Jordan admitted just before (or after) his exit from the network that CNN would spin stories for Hussein so that Hussein would allow CNN to keep its Baghdad office open.

    Given the performance of networks like CNN, it’s not clear what is true and what is not true from their reporting.

    —-
    For history Buffs–the links below point to a few pages of the Virginia Gazette, which was publishing from Williamsburg during the time of the Revolution:
    —-
    The Virginia Gazette:
    h t t p://www.pastportal.com/browse/vg/

    The Virginia Gazette/07.12.1776:
    h t t p://www.pastportal.com/cwdl_new/VA_Gazet/Images/P/1776/0147hi.jpg

    June 04, 1778:
    h t t p://www.pastportal.com/cwdl_new/VA_Gazet/Images/P/1778/0034hi.jpg

    March 15, 1776:
    h t t p://www.pastportal.com/cwdl_new/VA_Gazet/Images/P/1776/0055hi.jpg

    August 01, 1781:
    h t t p://www.pastportal.com/cwdl_new/VA_Gazet/Images/R/1771/0065hi.jpg

    I’ve only picked a few random pages for presentation of the mindset of the newspapers at the time. From the few papers I’ve looked thru (I’ve also viewed a microfilm in the Stanford Library), the war wasn’t the hottest topic in the papers of the time.

    (Blanks inserted in “http” strings in order to get around this Blog software.)

  24. A good part of the raison d’etre for public education is to make sure that ideologically impure lessons aren’t taught and that ideologically pure lessons are taught. A pretty good case can be made for the inappropriateness of a public education system in a democracy since the institution is by its nature anti-democratic. But I digress.

    I don’t think there could have been any other by the Maricopa County Community College District administration and faculty. First, suppressing the message of those with whom you disagree is just good, common sense. Second, what else do the people involved know?

    They may live in a democracy but they hardly get or have reason to exercise their rights and obligations as a citizen while they’re in the public education system. The implicit lesson of the public education system then, the system that compels you to go places and do things which do not necessarily meet with your approval, is that might makes right.

    That’s a lesson that appeals to everyone who has some power, to everyone who hopes to have some power and that’s the lesson that’s delivered every day a kid’s in public school. Why would you expect the good folks at MCCC to disregard that important lesson? It’s what they grew up with, it makes all sorts of good sense – remember, disagreement is evidence of insanity, stupidity or evil – so getting them to give up this particular perquisite of power is going to be tough, maybe impossible.

    It’s very difficult for the average person to make sense out of current events, particularly during a period of national crisis when the government is busy trying to protect the nation.

    Trouble is, average persons is about what the Founding Fathers had to work with and I don’t think that’s changed to any great degree. That means you have to have the same faith in the average person – that would be you, and me – seeing through the efforts of the propagandist given a reasonable amount of time, as the Founding Fathers obviously did. On the evidence, I’d say that faith was not misplaced.

  25. wayne martin says:

    > Trouble is, average persons is about what the Founding
    > Fathers had to work with and I don’t think that’s changed
    > to any great degree.

    At the time, there was no popular vote on whether to “revolt” or not. There were a goodly number of people in the colonies that didn’t buy what the Founding Fathers were selling—propaganda or no. There were never very many men in the Continental Army, although there did seem to be a goodly number of people in the State Militias.

    > On the evidence, I’d say that faith was not misplaced.

    Hmmm .. I’m not convinced.

    I watched Walter Cronkite convince the American People that the US was losing in Vietnam, night after night .. and over a couple of years, with help of the KGB (operating independently) .. he played a huge part in the undermining of the support for the War.

    When the Communists took over, and the re-education camps were in full operations—where was Walter? Or when Pol Pot was exterminating twenty-five percent of Cambodia—where was Walter? Or the American people for that matter?

    The following snippet is from a recent Rasmussen poll:
    —-
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

    Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure

    Now where do you think that over 50% of those calling them Democrats are convinced, or aren’t certain, that President Bush had something to do with 9/11?

    > I don’t think there could have been any other by the
    > Maricopa County Community College District
    > administration and faculty.

    Hopefully you are being sarcastic here. But we should loop this thread back to Maicopa CCC. List servers like the one that is involved in this matter should be for business only. There are lots of “free speech” outlets on the Net, and around Campus for people, like Walter Kehowski. It’s clear from reading the postings on Kehowski that he has alienated the Hispanics on campus and that the school is trying to get rid of him on some pretext or another. This disciplinary action is not just about the Thanksgiving email.