David J. Leonard

 

Notice of this cartoon was sent to the student newspaper, The Daily Evergreen, which, as predicted, did not respond.  It was also sent to David J. Leonard, who as predicted did not respond.  It was sent to Leonard's immediate colleagues (see list below), as well as the President of Washington State University Elson S. Floyd, who as predicted did not respond.  Only an adjunct instructor ended up responding, though via email, and not really regarding the issue evoked in the cartoon. 

 

Vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy, is evidently NOT prized at Washington State University.

 

.....................................................................

 

To David Leonard, Chair, Department of Critical Culture, Gender, and Race [Indoctrination] Studies, Washington State University at Pullman: 

Your racist, stereotyping comments attracted my attention and provoked me to sketch a cartoon on you.  See http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2013/02/david-j-leonard.html.  Hopefully, though doubtfully, it might foment at WSU a little vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy.  You and your colleagues and students are encouraged to comment on the blog.  Comments are NEVER moderated (i.e., censored).  The editors of The Daily Evergreen have been encouraged to publish the cartoon, though if you and your colleagues have been successful with their regard, they will likely not be responding.  Courage is, after all, not a prime quality in academe.

...................................

Sent to President Elson S. Floyd, Lisa Guerrero, Mary Bloodsworth-Lugo, Kimberly Christen, Luz María Gordillo, Linda Heidenreich, Richard King , Carmen R. Lugo-Lugo, Judy Meuth, Rory J. Ong, Marian Sciachitano, Nishant Shahani, John Streamas, Pamela Thoma, Stephen Bischoff, Shannon Gleason, Xuan Nguyen, Marc Robinson , David Warner, Maggie Reed, Jeanette Weaskus, Tiffany Christian, Rebecca Fowler, Lizeth Gutierrez, Joseph Herrera, Michael Johnson, Shawn Lamebull, Liz McNeill, Jorge Moraga, Callie Palmer , Franci Taylor, Joy Taylor

Lucy Loomis

Democracy in INaction
The following is a fairly simple and most reasonable proposal, yet not one library director (Lucy Loomis et al) or library trustee (Dan Santos, Ted Lowry et al), nor Town Manager Thomas K. Lynch, Town Attorney Ruth Weil, or local newspaper (Cape Cod Times editor Paul Pronovost et al) deigned to respond.  My next step will be to drive into town to determine if a citizen without political/commercial clout can in fact present a proposal. 
...............................................................

Proposal to Mandate Democratic Procedure and Public Accountability

For Any Library Seeking Public Funding in the Town of Barnstable

 

Background
My tax dollars help support institutions that reject both democratic procedure and public accountability.  This is simply not acceptable.  Sturgis Library, which permanently banned me last June without warning or due process, serves as an egregious example.  The President of the Library Trustees, Ted Lowry, refused to even respond to my request for due process.  My “offense” comprised simple written criticism of the library’s own written policy, especially regarding censorship and openness to all points of view.  When I asked director Lucy Loomis why she made the decision to ban me, she said:  “You’ve been critical of me, you don’t like it here, so now you can’t come here anymore.”  Several days later, the police officer, who’d taken Loomis’ phone call, informed that Loomis had said, I’d made her “feel uncomfortable” and “said inappropriate things.”  The officer noted Loomis did not provide any further information or details.  Nothing is written about any of this in the police report, not even the precise duration of the trespass order.   Sturgis has refused to provide any written documentation regarding the trespass order. 

The Proposal

1. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall not punish patrons, who simply and peacefully criticize a library—staff, policies, events, etc.   Such libraries should encourage criticism, not crush it.   

2.  Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall not be permitted to dismiss peaceful criticism as “harassment,” a term clearly and legally defined.  Instead, they should follow that legal definition. 

3. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable must provide a written warning to a patron, prior to punishment, noting the precise “offense” and precise punishment if said “offense” continues.   In fact, a list of punishable “offenses” should be posted on the bulletin boards of each publicly-funded library.    

4. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable must not only offer, but also clearly define, procedure for due process in a written document, so that punished library patrons have the opportunity to question and challenge the “offense” and penalty before an independent committee. 

5. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall hire library directors with the expectation they possess sufficient spine to be able to deal with criticism in a fully democratic manner, as opposed to in an authoritarian one.  

6.  Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall make their records available to the public.

7. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable that choose to ignore the above points will be excluded from further public funding, though given the opportunity to rectify errors in the framework of due-process procedure.

Update
Citizen Russell Streur noted regarding Sturgis’ trespass order:  “I am outraged.  And I want to know how this can happen in the United States of America.  I filed the enclosed Public Access Records request to find out, citing 950 CMR 32.  I received the enclosed denial, claiming the library was not subject to the Regulation as it was not a Government Entity.” 

Streur then appealed the denial, to the Supervisor of Public Records, Office of the State Secretary, “on the grounds of 950 CMR 32.03, which defines a Governmental Entity as ‘any authority established by the General Court to serve a public purpose.’” 

Streur notes “The argument that the Sturgis Library is not subject to the Regulation is specious.  It is obvious that a town library serves a public purpose.  The authority of the Town of Barnstable devolves upon an entity to which it contacts to serve a public purpose.  The library cannot claim the rights of the public purpose and at the same time hide behind the skirts of its organizational structure to evade the responsibilities of the public purpose it undertakes.” 

Streur also notes:   “My purpose in filing this request is to discover the truth of this thing, how an individual can be permanently banned from a public library for no reason, with no hearing, and with no recourse; and how the individuals who have protested this action also end up without a voice in the matter.” 
Shawn A. Williams, Supervisor of Public Records, replied on January 4, 2013, “I have directed a member of my staff, Attorney Donald White, to review the matter.” 

Loomis’ arbitrary decision and the silence of her colleagues have served to reduce democracy in the publicly-funded libraries of the Town of Barnstable.  Why should taxpayer money be used to fund institutions that seem scornful of democracy and individual liberties?   Quite simply, it should not be used to do so!   

Joseph Epstein

Below is the brief correspondance I had with Epstein.  Note how predictable Epstein is.  Give him a compliment, and he is gracious.  But dare criticize him, and he enrages.  "Epstein has a cult following as a sharp-tongued literary critic and stylist," notes Michael Johnson in his hagiographical review.  Well, someone with a sharp tongue ought to have a little backbone, especially in case of a fall from the ole high horse.  People seem to gravitate to fakes and charlatans.  Look at how many have gravitated to Obama.

Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"George Slone"
Subject:	Great essay!
To:	j-epstein@northwestern.edu

Dear Joe,

That was a great essay you wrote on Honorary Degrees!  Thanks much for it.  It was bold, honest, and quite dissident. 

From:	"joseph epstein"
Subject:	Re: Great essay!
Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:10:07 -0500
To:	"George Slone"

Top of Fo

 

Dear Mr. Slone

Many thanks for these kind and generous words. 

Best wishes, Joseph Epsten 

Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"George Slone"
Subject:	Re: Great essay!
To:	"joseph epstein"

The fellow actually responded!  Ah, well, that's because I sent a compliment.  I'm an informal fellow, so I meant no disrespect whatsoever by calling you "Joe."  That said, I've just read yet another of your essays.  It is unusual, to say the least, for an academic to write negatively on academe.  So, kudos again.  Maya Angelou, how interesting!  She's a trustee at Bennett College where I used to teach.  BTW, I am an ardent and outspoken critic of academe.  It is academe that sparked my creating a literary journal.  Below is one of my many academic poems based on factual occurrence.  Now, you need to write an essay on the academic poem!  I liked the one you wrote on the academic novel... very much!  No need at all to comment or reply.  I want nothing whatsoever from you.  I shall be quoting you! 

Submission to the Pulitzer Prize Committee for Poetry
Thematic:  Higher Education

University Office Corridor

Ah, another minor dispute in the

corridor
—my little pleasure for the day—

the Spanish professor bitching

with the department coordinator,

wanting to know why red pens

were not purchased with the new

department budget monies

I’d just received my paltry pile:

a brand new grade book
—the Coord hates my using

the registrar’s print-out rosters—,

a pile of outdated floppies,

and some black magic markers,

the erasable kind employed

to write up a storm on the board

in a last-ditch effort to mesmerize

“I DON’T NEED THESE BLACK

DISKS EITHER!

I TOLD YOU I NEEDED RED

PENS!”

“ But Dr. Abella, they only cost ten

for 99 cents! 

You know the Dean would never

approve of such a small purchase!”

From:	"joseph epstein"
Subject:	Re: Great essay!
Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:28:24 -0500
To:	"George Slone"

Top

Briefly to set the record straight: I stopped teaching five years ago. I have no advanced degrees; I began teaching in my middle-thirties. I had some good students, and took my teaching responsibilities seriously, but always thought of myself as primarily a writer and only secondarily a teacher. I never had tenure during my thirty years at Northwestern; nor did I want it.  I have never had any great regard for academics, at least not on the humanities and social science side, and in recent decades I have come to view most of them as essentially comic characters, lunatics of one bad idea or another, puffed up by their own unearned self-esteem. 

Your poem brought on a smile of recognition. 

JE

Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"George Slone"
Subject:	Re: Great essay!
To:	"joseph epstein"

Top of Form

Well, I’ve been in and out of the game for about 20 years now (6 years at two French universities, 4 years at two southern HBCUs, 5 at a northern state college, 3 at a northern private college, 4 months on two US navy destroyers)… and must agree with you entirely.  Brilliant observations:  “The spirit of capitalism, for all that might be said on its behalf, wreaks havoc when applied to culture and education.” “Universities attract people who are good at school. Being good at school takes a real enough but very small talent.”  Thank you for stating them!  I’ve just ordered your cardboard book from the public library.  
 

BTW, I used to try to get published in the American Scholar, but have given up.  It seems the journal prefers highbrow tonality to straightforward critique.  Your writing tends to be replete with quips, while mine devoid of them.  But one must remain flexible in mind.  Hell, how can I restrict myself to those who only write like me?  

The literary milieu, which tends to be intricately entwined with the academic milieu, tends to be as tragicomical as the academic milieu.  You might get a “charge” out of a censorship incident regarding the Academy of American Poets (National Poetry Month sponsors).  See www.theamericandissident.org/AcademyAmericanPoets.htm.

You might also get a “charge” from some of the responses I’ve received over the years from academics and literati.  They form part of a long essay I published (see www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm).  You’ll note that I’m also a cartoonist. 

These things said, please do not feel obligated to respond.  Your essays made my morning!

Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"George Slone"
Subject:	Your book
To:	j-epstein@northwestern.edu

JE:

Waded through your book (i.e., cardboard).  It would have been much more interesting if you had published an honest critique on Poetry magazine and the Poetry Foundation, which refuses, by the way, to list The American Dissident on its site next to other poetry journals.  (BTW, the Academy of American Poets censored me permanently from participating in its forums.)  “Heterodoxy is one of the things serious poetry is, or at least ought to be, about,” you state.  Well, shouldn’t it also be one of the things serious essay writing is? 

Writing that actually bites the hand that feeds (e.g., risks something on the part of the writer) is and will be the most powerful writing.  Compare, for example, your essay “Thank you, No” [published in Poetry] to Sinclair Lewis’ “Letter to the Pulitzer Prize Committee.”  Compare Mandelstam’s “Staline” or Villon’s “Estoit-il lors temps de moy taire?” or Saro Wiwa’s “The True Prison” or Levi’s “Se questo e un uomo” with any poems written by our American poets frequently pushed in Poetry magazine.  

Essays failing to risk anything tend to become a dime a high-brow dozen in American letters, the kind Poetry and New Yorker will eagerly publish because of name recognition and high-brow tonality.  Naming names is great for quality control.  You did that RE Bloom, and I commend you for it.  You could have also done that with Poetry mag.  Rather than sit comfortably at Northwestern now that you're retired why not hammer away at that place.  Surely, it must be intrinsically corrupt.  Or are you hoping for a graduation ceremony gig?  What does emeritus tend to mean, if not didn't make waves, didn't go against the academic grain, and never rocked the Northwestern boat? 

From:	"joseph epstein"
Subject:	Re: Your book
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:07:32 -0500
To:	"George Slone"

Dear Mr Slone, 

   I regret that you wrote this e-mail, based on such minimal knowledge of me and my writing. I hope some day that you will, too. 

Joseph Epstein

Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:	"George Slone"
Subject:	Emeritus or poet laureate, what difference, especially in the Humanities?
To:	"joseph epstein"

Dear Joseph Epstein, Emeritus Instructor, Northwestern University: 
Please be assured I was not trying to make you feel bad or otherwise insult you per se, but rather simply trying to point out a gross inconsistency vis-a-vis the poet laureate and emeritus designations.  When I wrote to mention I enjoyed your article, that was truth.  

“As a man who has published a single poem, my own position is that I would like to be asked to be poet laureate of the United States so that I could refuse it, for this seems to me a job that would bring much greater glory to turn down than to take up,” you rightly state.

Why, however, should the same not be equally stated regarding the emeritus designation?  Imagine if you had stood up and rejected it… like Sinclair Lewis had rejected the Pulitzer?  Now, that would have made news.  Are you aware of any professors who have ever rejected it?  I’m not. 

“I think it fair to say that one of the first qualifications of an American poet laureate is that he not in any way be dangerous,” you rightly state again. 

Well, all I did was affirm that the first qualification of an emeritus is normally that he not in any way be dangerous either… at least not to the institution employing him.  In fact, he might also be tempted to turn a blind eye or even lie for that institution.  Yes, I know several emeriti who have done that with my regard.  Of course, I’m not at all implying that you would do that. 

Over the years, I’ve observed those employed or otherwise fed by the academic/literay, established-order milieu committing similar inconsistencies and breaches in logic. Quite frankly, I think I caught you in a gross contradiction, one that your indignant response sparked me to perceive.  In other words, I hadn’t even thought about it prior to your last email.  It probably merits a cartoon. 

Finally, I have noted your full indifference regarding my comment that the Academy of American Poets censored me and banned me from participating in its online forums.  That indifference I have also commonly observed over the years by those of the academic/literay established-order milieu.