Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review July 2, 2001 / 11 Sivan, 5761

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Big(oted) man on campus -- THE consensus in the matter of Joseph Ellis -- that his sins cannot go unpunished -- seems fair.

The fictions Ellis told and retold about himself were not just little white fabrications. They were a kind of theft. Ellis cloaked himself in valor and acclaim he had no right to, valor and acclaim for which other men paid. He invented a combat record in Vietnam and a civil rights history in Mississippi; he claimed he'd been an antiwar protester at Yale and a football hero in high school. None of it was true.

Coming from almost anyone, such lies would be deplorable. Coming from a from a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian whose first loyalty is supposed to be to the truth, they are scandalous. Last week, Mount Holyoke College, Ellis's employer, launched a formal inquiry; it has already announced that he will no longer teach his course on the Vietnam War and American culture. To many, that doesn't go far enough.

"A scholar's right to privacy does not include the right to deceive his students and the public," wrote the Los Angeles Times. "Ellis should go." The Chicago Tribune asked how any college "could justify retaining a faculty member guilty of such grievous violations of the truth." On the Globe's op-ed page, historian David Garrow, a Pulitzer winner himself, demanded that Ellis be "barred from ever again teaching history."

But if we can all agree that Ellis shouldn't have told these lies and should pay a penalty for having done so, can we also agree that they aren't the worst lies he could have told? He deceived his students and others about his reesume, but there is no suggestion that his scholarship has been anything but scrupulous. His Pulitzer Prize was honestly earned; his books are not tainted; the American history he taught in his classroom appears to have been exemplary. No matter, we seem to be saying. When it comes to the truth, colleges and universities must not cut corners. A professor who lies cannot be tolerated -- even if his lies are irrelevant to his academic work and do no lasting harm to his students.

What then shall we say about a professor whose falsity goes to the heart of his academic output and whose influence on his students is insidious?

What shall we say, to take the example of a notorious liar at another esteemed Massachusetts college, about Tony Martin?

Martin is a professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College. A few years ago, he was at the center of media storm when he began requiring students in his course on African American history to read the Nation of Islam's poisonous anti-Semitic screed, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Published in 1991, the book charges that Jews, as the "key operatives" in the African slave trade, bear "monumental culpability in ... the black holocaust."

No reputable scholar regards The Secret Relationship as anything other than a gross perversion of history; Harvard's renowned Henry Louis Gates Jr. described it as "one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled." In the words of Selwyn Cudjoe, the Caribbean scholar who chairs Martin's own Africana Studies Department at Wellesley, it is "patently and scurrilously anti-Semitic."

Martin assigned the book not to expose the demagoguery of the Nation of Islam or to teach his students how to sift truth from falsehood. He assigned it because he wanted them to believe that Jews were indeed responsible for slavery. Martin, it turned out, was an anti-Semite himself and was using his classroom to implant his bigotry in his students. He confirmed his hostility in the fall of 1993, when he published The Jewish Onslaught, a book so hate-filled that a majority of Wellesley's faculty signed a statement repudiating it "for its racial and ethnic stereotyping and for its anti-Semitism."

Now if Ellis deserves to be punished -- perhaps even fired -- because of the yarns he told about his own record, surely Martin, who fills his students' heads with some of the most toxic lies imaginable, has no business on a college campus.

Yet Martin has faced only the mildest of sanctions. He was denied a merit raise; the history faculty stopped giving inter-department credit for his courses -- and that was it. Wellesley's president publicly criticized Martin's book, but explicitly promised not to interfere with his teaching. His course was not cancelled; indeed, he teaches it to this day.

As an American, Martin enjoys freedom of speech. As an instructor, he has academic freedom. But free speech is no defense to libel. Why should academic freedom protect a professor who teaches pernicious lies?

It is true that Ellis admits that he lied, while Martin swears his canards are sound. But it is also true that Ellis's fibs were harmless, while Martin's are vile and malignant. If the lies of one are an intolerable outrage, how can those of the other be anything less? Is it only confessed liars who must be made an example of, while unrepentant ones are indulged? Just what is the lesson of the Ellis affair, anyway?

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2001, Boston Globe