A failure of scholarship and journalism

A former colleague of mine, who is of the conservative bent, wrote a newspaper column that took up political lying and refuted the contention that universities are bastions of liberal indoctrination.  However, that was clearly not his intention.  But his column was a model of the kind of conservative propaganda that has become common in this age of Trump.  It is slovenly in its handling of facts, which would be severely criticized if the column were to be held to the standards of a professional paper.

During my many years as a professor, partisan politics was never an issue on the campuses at which I studied and worked.  Professors have political beliefs and preferences, and might on occasion let them be known, but were careful not to let them encroach on their professional duties.  They have the freedom to speak their minds in public, but did so in a way that was careful to observe their role as scholars.  For college faculty members in South Dakota, that standard is stated in the Board of Regents Policy Manual and in the collective bargaining contract with faculty:

The concept of freedom is accompanied by an equally demanding concept of responsibility. The faculty unit members are members of a learned profession. When they speak or write as citizens, they must be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As learned people and as educators, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should indicate that they are speaking only for themselves.

I did not encounter political indoctrination by professors until after I retired.  It occurred on the campus I retired from, where a coterie of "conservative" ideologues had formed and, while contending that universities were dominated by liberals, expounded their right-wing dogma.  Some students who were friends of one of my children, who attended the university for a while, told me that their cohorts were wary of this coterie, not because of their political views, but because they were presenting academic subject matter in a slanted way that made the students question the reliability of the  information they were given.

[Disclosure:  When I moved to South Dakota, I was a registered Republican, although I had never voted a straight GOP ballot.  Gov. Bill Janklow converted me to register as a Democrat.  I could not believe the things he got away with, but especially his intimidation of the press.  As someone who taught journalism, I was  perturbed at his intimidation of the press and  some of the things he said and did without full reporting and challenge by the press.]

I hold quite a different political view from my columnist colleague, but my issue with his column on political lying is with his slovenly handling of the facts.  If this column were to be presented for presentation to an organization of other historians, it would never get past the screening committee.  His column ignores the rule to "at all times be accurate, [and] exercise appropriate restraint."  The newspaper editors are also at fault because the column does not withstand a basic fact check.  

The first problem is that rather than explicitly state that his views do not represent or reflect the position of the university where he works, he pointedly states that his viewpoint is something he presents as exemplary material in his classes. He makes his identification with the university a basis for the authority he attempts to assert.  He begins with the statement that "the never-ceasing mantra of the left was that [President George W.] Bush was a liar." Then he proceeds with this paragraph:

It was curious to see pundits that had given master prevaricator Bill Clinton a pass decide all of a sudden that presidential mendacity was a big deal after all. It was curious also that the most-cited example of a Bush lie was the 43rd president’s insistence that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” — an idea almost the entirety of the Washington establishment (both Democratic and Republican) had at one time accepted as a gospel.

The problems are:

1. Bill Clinton's mendacity did not get a pass nor was truthfulness a concern only with Bush.  Clinton got impeached for lying, although not removed from office.
2. The matter of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction was investigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency whose head, Hans Blix, said it found no evidence of atomic development in Iraq.  However, Blix said that the Iraq regime had not been co-operative and suggested that the agency be allowed to inspect further and keep Iraq under international surveillance for weapon development.  George W. Bush rejected that proposal and decided to go to war.
3. The "entirety" of the Washington establishment did not accept the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which was the pretext for the war on Iraq.  After much debate in the U.S. House, 133 members voted against war and in the Senate 23 voted against going to war.

Then, there is this troubling paragraph:

Like an aggrieved spouse, Bush’s more unhappy critics compiled long lists of accusations. My favorite (and the one I sometimes use in my U.S. history class) catalogues more than 300 Bush lies and scandals. Included on the list: the appointment of conservative judges, the reining in of environmental and other regulatory agencies and the No Child Left Behind Act.

1.  Here is where the professor admits that he introduces his personal bias into class as a lesson.
2. He does not specify the source for 300 Bush lies that he derisively mentions. It is most likely David Corn's “The Lies Of George W. Bush: Mastering The Politics Of Deception” (Crown Publishers, October 2003).
3. He lists some acts  by the Bush administration which many people opposed as if they are lies: judge appointments, nullifying some environmental regulations, and the No Child Left Behind Act.  He is not accurately representing the sources by confusing actions taken with accusations of lies.

And there is this paragraph:

Much of the push for the impeachment of President Donald Trump is similar. On the surface, we’ve got Trump’s alleged use of international connections for his own personal, political and financial advantage. But when Bill and Hillary Clinton are given a pass for the Clinton Foundation graft machine (remember Bill’s $500,000 Moscow speech?), it’s hard to believe genuine concern over corrupt foreign dealings is what’s driving Trump’s opponents.

 The problems here arise from the tendency for Trump supporters to try the "What about the Clintons?" comparisons to the misdeeds  and scandals of Trump.  

1. Although the point of the column is the accusations of lying against Bush, the columnist evades the biggest issue of lies facing the country right now.  Trump lies so much that the press coverage of him routinely points out things he says that have no basis in fact.  In August, the Washington Post fact checker said he had surpassed the 12,000 mark for untruths he has told since he took office. Politifact also keeps a running tally of Trump's false statements.  Both fact checkers provide the sources for correct information.  
2. Bill Clinton's Moscow speech in 2010 for $500,000 has riled the right-wing.  Between 2001 and 2012, Clinton made $104 million in speaking fees, some for more than a half million.  You can see the list and the amounts here.  Clinton's engagements were properly cleared with the U.S. government and have been investigated.  The fees largely go to the Clinton Foundation and are put to charitable use.
3. Calling the Clinton Foundation a "graft machine" is an unproven accusation.  Graft in the political sense is a bribe to gain some kind of illicit advantage.  The Foundation has never been found to be engaged in graft. Trump's foundation, however, was closed down by the State of New York for its nefarious activities.
4. With the nation so suffused with lies coming out of Trump's White House, it is absurd to bring up the subject of political lies without acknowledging Trump's habitual falsehoods.

There are other points in the column that are the echolalia of Trump.  When Adam Schiff, summarized Trump's telephone call with the new president of Ukraine Zelensky in sarcastic and parodic terms, Trump was too illiterate to discern it as ridicule and termed it a malicious misrepresentation of what he said.  The professor repeated Trump's ignorant, possibly purposeful, mischaracterization of Schiff's critical lampoon.  As the saying goes, “Sarcasm – the ability to insult idiots without them realizing it.” 

The issue here is not that a professor spoke out as a citizen, but that he allowed his partisan passions to overrule the critical skills that professors and journalists are expected to apply to information they pass on to others.  The result was a failure to observe the mandate to be accurate, restrained, and respectful.  It is a failure that tarnishes the profession and his institution.  And the newspaper that published it.

. 

1.