Columbia University’s website has a biographical sketch for the new assistant professor, Kathy Boudin. It mentions that Boudin “has been an educator and counselor with experience in program development since 1964”, that she “has focused her work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and criminal justice issues” and that she “has been a consultant for Vermont Corrections, the Women’s Prison Association, and Family Justice.” It does not mention that she was a member of the Weather Underground terrorist organization, that she was present when the group built pipe bombs intended for murdering soldiers and civilians, or that she participated in the murder of three people.
I’m entirely in favor of rehabilitating criminals, even those who commit serious crimes. However, it seems somewhat objectionable to award someone like Boudin a position at a high-profile, influential institution. It’s difficult to imagine any major university hiring Michael Fortier or John Allen Muhammad. Even Ted Kacziynski had to get his college teaching in before he started killing people.
So like Czarcasm says, basically you’re imposing a glass ceiling on ex-cons. Boudin was 38 when she did what she did. Not young and stupid, but that was in 1981. I have a hard time thinking she should never be allowed to do anything again…I see she might be a bad example, but she did a great deal of good while in prison and seems to be genuinely reformed.
I do not feel right that she is teaching. She was not only a terrorist but engaged in this activity when she should have known better. I wouldn’t have a problem with her continuing her research while employed by this institution, but there is no reason for her to be in a position where she can influence the minds of socially concerned young men and women.
Essentially, teaching is a position of trust. Often it is a task performed with little to no oversight. Although it is perfectly legal for her to have obtained her adjunct teaching position it seems like her judgement must be suspect, and should not be trusted in such a position. I see hiring her as more of a statement than a consideration of practicalities. There must be thousands of people able to teach in this role. The field she is in is brimming with graduate degrees with nowhere to work. She just isn’t that special.
On the other hand, in research, any findings she writes about can be verified and ingested by those who are literate enough to judge her methodology and conclusions. There is always oversight because of her interactions with other and the products of her work are available for public consumption.
Like ITR Champion I find it extremely suspect that nothing is mentioned of her criminal activity while the biography lists credentials since 1964. It’s spineless.
Do Universities tend to have “character” requirements for teachers? I can see this both ways: teaching is a position of trust. And yet, when the felon has served the full sentence and complied with all release conditions, haven’t they “paid their debt?” Applying additional conditions of this sort seems to go beyond due process.
Maybe it should be a free market issue? Would you want to take a class from her? I think I wouldn’t. Boycotts make me nervous, but isn’t this the proper place for one?
According to their own statements (and indeed their actions), the WU did not target people at all, neither soldiers nor civilians. In fact, they themselves called in to alert authorities that there was a bomb present and sent letters explaining their reasons for each particular bombing. No persons were killed as a result of any bombs that the group planted and detonated, although 3 of their own members were killed by a nail bomb that exploded during construction in Greenwich Village.
Columbia is a private school and should be allowed to do whatever they want. Let their donors and prospective students make the market decision (donations, applications, or classroom enrollment).
In the end, I think it should be left up to the free market, but hiring her is a bad decision.
Universities, in my experience teaching, do not necessarily have character requirements for affiliate teaching. It’s more about experience and if you can keep your students ratings up. You typically get another member of the faculty coming to your class once a semester to evaluate you and that is it.
It’s really the biography that gets to me. It’s such horseshit to discuss your activities since 1964 while not mentioning the terrorism and prison time.
I can’t even think why a university would need to have a terrorist on staff. And what department would a terrorist be placed in? Maintenance? Physical Plant? Groundskeeping?
Maybe they should just contract on an as-needed basis from a temp agency.
She’s an adjunct assistant professor. Adjunct means they hire you to teach a class or 2 (usually for peanuts). She’s not a regular member of the faculty.
Color me surprised that WU had any presence in the 1980s. They seem like a relic of the “60s.” The right frothed at the mouth over Ayers; I can’t say that they were wrong to oppose his job, but then it became about Obama. I say, they’re free to hire her, but they should also be aware that it might not be the most prudent PR decision.
Yeah, adjunct professor usually means this is a second job for them. They don’t have job protection like tenure, and unlike assistant professors they aren’t eligible to try for it in several years. Benefits may be limited or nonexistent.
Oh, my dear, sweet, naïve ITR Champion, get ready for your What’s the Matter with Kansas moment.
The reason why Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin and my former boss in PR are able to enjoy such a rehabilitation is because they were born rich and well connected and went to prestigious schools were they furthered entrenched in the American aristocracy.
Bill Ayers’s dad was the CEO of Com Edison. Dohrn grew up “upper middle class” and went on to the U of C. Boudin’s father was a celebrated lefty lawyer. My boss’s father was a rich factory owner in Chicago. Behold your socialists.
It has nothing to do with politics. For similar reasons, the Watergate villains were able to do a quick stint in Club Fed and then get millions of dollars (Chuck Colson), become a Presbyterian minister (Jeb Magruder), or become a rich California real estate developer (Bob Haldeman).
Do you see why your pitiable schmucks like Fortier (poor hayseed, no college, enlisted man) or John Allen Muhammend (poor orphan, no college, enlisted man) will never enjoy the rapprochement that rich liberals and conservatives alike can take for granted?
They don’t go beyond due process; having served one’s jail term doesn’t mean one’s debt is paid and their record expunged. Even completing probation doesn’t do that. You are required by law to admit having been a convicted felon on every job application that asks for the rest of your life, and the potential employer is free to consider this in deciding to hire you or not. As a felon you have lost the right to bear arms for the rest of your life. You can be denied the right to vote for the rest of your life (it varies state to state) and this has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
So in response to statements by others that this is imposing a glass ceiling on felons, that’s missing the point. There is already a glass ceiling for felons.
I wouldn’t hire a former WU member and I wouldn’t contribute to a school that did. It doesn’t matter to me that their bombs never killed anyone but WU members, the potential to kill people not intended is just too great.