A Forum for Vigorous Debate, Cornerstone of Democracy

***********************************************************************************************************************************
A FORUM FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND VIGOROUS DEBATE, CORNERSTONES OF DEMOCRACY
[For the journal--guidelines, focus, etc.--go to www.theamericandissident.org. If you have questions, please contact me at todslone@hotmail.com. Comments are NOT moderated (i.e., CENSORED)!]
Encouraged censorship and self-censorship seem to have become popular in America today. Those who censor others, not just self, tend to favor the term "moderate," as opposed to "censor" and "moderation" to "censorship." But that doesn't change what they do. They still act as Little Caesars or Big Brother protectors of the thin-skinned. Democracy, however, demands a tough populace, not so easily offended. On this blog, and to buck the trend of censorship, banning, and ostracizing, comments are NEVER "moderated." Rarely (almost NEVER) do the targets of these blog entries respond in an effort to defend themselves with cogent counter-argumentation. This blog is testimony to how little academics, poets, critics, newspaper editors, cartoonists, political hacks, cultural council apparatchiks, librarians et al appreciate VIGOROUS DEBATE, cornerstone of democracy. Clearly, far too many of them could likely prosper just fine in places like communist China and Cuba or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Russia, not to mention Sweden, England, and Austria.
ISSUE #47 PUBLISHED MAY 2024. NOW SEEKING SUBMISSIONS FOR ISSUE #48.

More P. Maudit cartoons (and essays) at Global Free Press: http://www.globalfreepress.org
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Salem State. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Salem State. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Robert Pinsky


For Justice, Equity, and Freedom of Expression in Massachusetts


[Essay sent to Massachusetts Cultural Council, Concord Cultural Council, Massachusetts Poetry Festival, Massachusetts Attorney General, Boston Herald, Boston Globe, Concord Poetry Center, University of Massachusetts, Lesley University, Salem State College, and Others (see below for email addresses)]

As a citizen of our purported “democracy,” I write to inform of various grievances, mostly occurring in the State of Massachusetts over the past 15 years. This initiative was sparked by one of those grievances with regards the taxpayer-funded Massachusetts Poetry Festival, sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, which simply refuses to respond to my queries sent last November, this May, and again on the first of June as to how The American Dissident, a 501 c3 nonprofit journal of literature, democracy, and dissidence, might become a “Poetry Partner” and be listed on its webpage next to, amongst others, Cave Canem, Bagel Bards, Wild Apples, Concord Poetry Center, and Citizen’s Bank, which by the way is my bank. Its Director of the Massachusetts Poetry Outreach Project, Chloe Garcia-Roberts, will not respond. My list of grievances include the following and mostly pertain to the State of Massachusetts:

1. The ACLU of Massachusetts refused to help me and the state press refused to report on my tenure battle at Fitchburg State College in 1996, where corruption included highly whimsical faculty evaluations, nepotism, and my eviction mid-semester from my office w/o due process. Unlike Florida and other states, no Freedom of Information legislation exists in Massachusetts. The transcripts of my arbitration hearing are thus kept secret. Why do journalists and others accept this sad status quo of lack of transparency? For actual documents, including a rather humorous page I managed to grab from the arbitration transcript, consult www.theamericandissident.org/FitchburgStateCollege.htm.

2. The state police arrested and incarcerated me in a Concord jail cell in 1999 for protesting the absence of free speech at Walden Pond State Reservation. The refusal of the local and state media to report on the incident was deplorable. Moreover, the state park continues to refuse to permit me to stock flyers critical of it and other state matters at its kiosks, despite the following:

“Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939), it has been settled in the law that public parks—since they are held in trust for the public and have traditionally been used for assembly, communication, and public discussion—are ‘traditional’ public forums. […] Once a place has been designated a public forum, the government’s power to limit speech there is extremely narrow. Viewpoint discrimination is never permissible. Content discrimination (discrimination based on the subject matter of the speech, whatever the point of view taken on it) is acceptable only if the government can show the following:

1) There is a compelling state interest for the exclusion.
2) The regulation making the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that state interest
3) The regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for the communication.
Speech has been broadly defined as an expression that includes, but is not limited to, what you wear, read, say, paint, perform, believe, protest, or even silently resist. ‘Speech activities’ include leafleting, picketing, symbolic acts, wearing armbands, demonstrations, speeches, forums, concerts, motion pictures, stage performances, remaining silent, and so on." (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)

For details and documents regarding my arrest and incarceration, consult http://www.theamericandissident.org/WaldenPondStateReservation.htm.

3. The publicly-funded Concord Poetry Center ostracized me as a local dissident poet. Director Joan Houlihan sums up its twisted mentality: “The idea of your teaching a workshop or delivering a lecture on the art of literary protest or poetry protest, or simply protest (Concord is where it all started!) occurred to me even before you mentioned it, so, yes, it’s something I will consider as we progress (this is only our first event). However, I must say I don’t favor having you teach at the center if you protest the reading.” Evidently, I chose to protest and was thus never offered a workshop to teach. For details on my protests at the CPC, consult http://www.theamericandissident.org/ConcordPoetryCenter.htm.

4. The publicly-funded Academy of American Poets censored (i.e., removed) my comments and banned me from participating in its online forums in 2006. The AAP is connected with the publicly-funded Massachusetts Poetry Festival and sponsors National Poetry Month, which is propagated in the nation’s public schools and colleges. For details, censored comments, and AAP chancellor remarks, see http://www.theamericandissident.org/AcademyAmericanPoets.htm.

5. The Massachusetts Cultural Council refuses to accord public-grant monies to The American Dissident because the journal has an annual budget inferior to the Council’s arbitrarily imposed $10,000 annual budget minimum for grant applicants. It thus funds journals like Agni, which is connected to Boston University, which has an endowment of over one-billion dollars. For my attempts to breach the proverbial brick wall, consult my correspondence with Council apparatchiks, including Council coordinator Charles Coe, who is also a founding director of the Massachusetts Poetry Festival, at http://www.theamericandissident.org/CharlesCoe.htm.

6. The Concord Cultural Council adopted a regulation in 2009 prohibiting funding to any project it arbitrarily deemed to be of a “political nature. This regulation was clearly adopted to prevent The American Dissident from receiving public funding. Indeed and in futility, I’ve been applying as a publisher and poet in Concord for such funding over the past decade. The Concord Cultural Council, Massachusetts Cultural Council, and state Attorney General Martha Coakley refused to address my grievance with this regard. For details, see http://www.theamericandissident.org/CCC.htm.

7. Director Karen Wulf of PEN New England (“defending freedom of expression”) refuses to respond to any of my grievances regarding impediments to my freedom of expression in New England. It is likely that Joan Houlihan (see above) and PEN director Karen Wulf, both comfortably installed at Lesley University, are friends. It is likely that Charles Coe is also a friend.

8. Professor Fred Marchant, director of Suffolk University’s Poetry Center, refuses to respond to my requests that it consider, for the sake of students, including The American Dissident. Marchant is a friend of Houlihan. For a cartoon depicting the rampant cliquishness of the poetry milieu in Massachusetts, see http://www.theamericandissident.org/SuffolkUniversityPoetryCenter.html.

9. The Watertown Free Public Library issued me a no-trespass order without due process for my attempting to interest its reference librarian, Ardis Francoeur, in subscribing to The American Dissident. Again, State Attorney General Coakley and the press refused to respond regarding my grievance.

10. Word censorship is now automatically effected by The Boston Globe on its website. Globe journalists favor that censorship. I was censored by them. For a cartoon I drew regarding that indifference, featuring Jeff Jacoby and Editor David Beard, see http://www.nationalfreepress.org/cartoonists-mainmenu-250/g-tod-slone-mainmenu-406.

11. Some 200 Massachusetts college English professors were contacted regarding my attempts to interest them in radically altering the academic culture of sycophancy, turning a blind eye, careerism, PC, prevarication, and apathy to censorship. Only four responded. Professor Ruth Jennison wrote: "Please remove me from your list." Professor William Nelles briefly argued: “you loser.” Professor J T Skerrett, Jr. was a little more voluble: “Do you really think that insulting and reviling the faculty is the way to persuade us to read your publication?” As for Professor Jack Conway, read his lengthy diatribe (with student support) here: http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2008/11/unspoken-mantra-of-u-mass-english.html. Yes, how dare anyone think, let alone state, that all is not rosy in academe in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts poet-professor, leftist luminary Martin Espada refuses to respond to any of the criticism I’ve sent his way. After all, silence, not democracy’s cornerstone, vigorous debate, is always the most effective response for those in power positions, no matter how little.

12. As testimony to the ambient ideological requisites for teaching in Massachusetts, cite North Shore Community College, to which I’d applied unsuccessfully for a job as an English instructor: “Appreciation of multiculturalism required.” Well, I brought that to the attention of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which then wrote the college, resulting in the college’s removal of that unconstitutional requisite. Sadly, however, the concept still remains firmly implanted in the brains of the administrators and faculty who enacted it.

As a footnote, the response of Paul Lappin, director of the Parker Lecture Series (University of Massachusetts at Lowell), to my query is quite interesting and revealing in its refreshing honesty. I’d asked whether or not the PLS was closed to dissident voices as lecturers and only open to those who would please the comfy bourgeois mindset. Lappin responded: “comfy bourgeois” [only].

Finally, my staging of various solo protests critical of state-sponsored poets and poetry events at the Concord Poetry Center, Concord Free Public Library, Robert Creeley Prize in Acton, and elsewhere confirm the indifference of poets, teachers and professors to questions of free speech and vigorous debate. My numerous critical letters to the editor of student newspapers at colleges employing me over the years confirm professorial indifference to matters of corruption, free speech, and vigorous debate For examples of these letters, consult http://www.theamericandissident.org/ElmiraCollege.htm and http://www.theamericandissident.org/GramblingStateUniversity.htm. Unfortunately, during my five years at Fitchburg State College in Massachusetts, the student newspaper refused to publish anything I submitted of a critical nature. It is truly appalling to observe how little so many well-educated persons really care about censorship and democracy.

Will any of the individuals and organizations contacted stand up to help me open Massachusetts to equality of opportunity and freedom of expression, including and especially regarding dissident points of view? How did it ever get so bad, where literature operates like politics and anything but truth and courage becomes manifest? Money? Is that how? Democracy is in peril in Massachusetts. It is in peril when persons in publicly-funded positions remain unresponsive to citizen grievances, preferring instead to ostracize such citizens.

It is my experience that NONE of the individuals and organizations contacted will respond and stand up apart from the literary herd where the feed is quite plentiful. We’re talking here not about the myth of the proverbial starving poet, but rather about the fattened academic poet. It is astonishing how very bourgeois literature has become today. Take a look at the Lesley University Creative Writing faculty page, where most of the instructors simply link to their publishers. You’d be hard-pressed to find personal email addresses for the instructors, who proudly equate themselves with their published books… and sadly not much else. In America, it’s all about gaining a recognizable name a la Simic, Pinsky, Gluck, or whomever. And once you’ve reached that stage of intellectual sellout, then you’re all set monetarily and with invitations and prizes galore. It is sickening that our students are not being taught to question and challenge that troubling status quo. Can this sad sell, sell, sell of names be stopped? Probably not. It’s become an integral part of America. Our students are being taught to blindly admire the famous and strive to become one of them. Buck that trend and expect severe ostracizing.

What can you, the individuals and organizations contacted, do as citizens? Well, for starters, you could write the freedom-disdaining organizations mentioned in this missive and tell them that you’ve been made aware that some of they censor, treat with inequity, break the law, scorn vigorous debate, do not tolerate criticism, demand ideological adherence, etc., and that you do not favor those things. In fact, you could also request to have your organization removed from the Massachusetts Poetry Festival “Poetry Partner” list. Pipedream? But of course!
..................................

letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com, mfreidson@metro-boston.com, jacoby@globe.com, beard@globe.com, mfeeney@globe.com, jackson@globe.com, ago@state.ma.us, fjmarchant@aol.com, mina.wright@art.state.ma.us, dan.blask@art.state.ma.us, voltairepress@live.com, paullappin@hotmail.com, chloe@masspoetry.org, Paul_Marion@uml.edu, bootstrapproductions@gmail.com, info@bostonbookfest.org, writers@capecodwriterscenter.org, wendycobb@ccpoets.org, alisonmeyers@ccpoets.org, camillerankine@ccpoets.org, editors@wildapples.org, joan@concordpoetry.org, connect@echoditto.com, favpoem@bu.edu, mollywatt@comcast.net, jenise@alum.mit.edu, info@fordhallforum.org, info@frostfound.org, sonya@grubstreet.org, whitney@grubstreet.org, chris@grubstreet.org, doug_holder@post.harvard.edu, m@mwest.com, Admin@PoetryJam.org, Charles.coe@art.state.ma.us, ibbetsonpress@msn.com, pen-ne@lesley.edu, Bertin@ncac.org, mespada@english.umass.edu, rpinsky@bu.edu, joan@concordpoetry.org, cpc@concordpoetry.org, fwright@brandeis.edu, jvanderv@lesley.edu, scramer@lesley.edu, alison@blueflowerarts.com, info@tsellis.com, delliott@conknet.com, sugoodman@aol.com, Michael.lowenthal.90@alum.dartmouth.org, lychack@gmail.com, lorraine.allison@salemstate.edu, dorothy.anderson@salemstate.edu, mary.balestraci@salemstate.edu, Elizabeth.bates@salemstate.edu,
Paul.beauvais@salemstate.edu, marc.bootsebenfield@salemstate.edu, h.branscomb@salemstate.edu, susanna.brougham@salemstate.edu, patricia.buchanan@salemstate.edu, maura.bullock@salemstate.edu, nicole.buscemi@salemstate.edu, susan.butterworth@salemstate.edu,

Wednesday, October 5, 2022

Kevin Carey, Anne Pluto, Lloyd Schwartz, Daniel Tobin

The following is the front cover for the next issue of The American Dissident due to be published later this month (October, 2022).  Below it, appears the email sent to the 4 prof/poets depicted on the front cover and invited by Sturgis Library to read.  I, a poet/editor, was NOT permitted to attend the reading.  Not one of the prof/poets deigned to respond.  In essence, not one of them gives a damn about vigorous debate and freedom of expression, the two prime cornerstones of a thriving democracy.  They do incarnate the sad state of America today...

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


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

To Prof Poets Kevin Carey (Salem State University), Anne Pluto (Lesley University), Lloyd Schwartz (University of Massachusetts), and Daniel Tobin (Emerson College):  

Are you perchance aware that I, as a dissident poet and editor, was not permitted to attend your reading at Sturgis Library, my very neighborhood library?  If not, now you are fully aware!  From my decades-long experience with poets and academics, however, I doubt very much that any of you will stand up for freedom of speech and actually write a letter decrying library director Lucy Loomis’ autocratic decision to permanently ban me in 2012 for the crime of having disseminated written criticism of her egregious hypocrisy, regarding the library’s (and the American Library Association’s) collection development statement, in particular, “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view."  Read the letter from the State Secretary of Records of Massachusetts demanding Loomis open her records to public scrutiny, so that I might at least examine what she wrote about me... nine months after the banning.  

Evidently, my point of view and the points of view of all the poets I’ve published since the 2012 banning are NOT permitted at Sturgis Library, one of the oldest in the country.  Loomis refused a free subscription offer!  Likely, I am very, very different from each of you because, as a poet, essayist, cartoonist, and editor, I tend to speak truth openly, especially regarding the multitude of well-fed academic/literary (and librarian!) establishment cogs serving to undermine freedom of speech and vigorous debate, democracy’s very cornerstones.  From the inevitable resultant dross (e.g., pathetic apathy and/or ad hominem), I create!  Would the Cultural Center of Cape Cod open its doors to my critical aquarelles?  Of course not!  PROHIBITED! 

Currently, I am contemplating an idea using the four of you for the front cover of the next issue, #44, of The American Dissident.  As a highly unusual literary editor, I not only brook harsh criticism (unlike Loomis and most others in power positions), but encourage it especially regarding the journal and me... and publish the harshest received in each and every issue.  Is there another literary journal that does that… in the name of democracy, as opposed to groupthink wokidiocy?  Well, I have yet to find one!  

So, I encourage you to respond.  And yes, I too was once a professor, but, for me, speaking truth openly always took precedence over climbing the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil ladder to tenure.  Attached is my Curriculum Mortae for your perusal.  Now, would Salem State University, Lesley University, Emerson College, and University of Massachusetts ever consider hiring someone like me?  Certainly not!  As a side note, how not to LOL regarding Schwartz’ "Pulitzer Prize for Criticism."  Yes, anything but criticism of the dubious Pulitzer and all the other hands feeding him!  Be curious!  Check out the links in this email!   

Why are the bulk of poets and poet organizations so incapable of dealing with criticism?  Why is Loomis so incapable?  Why does she feel compelled to ban criticism of her?  Never have I made any threats!  I have no criminal record!   It has reached the point where criticism (with the exception of samizdat) simply does not exist with her and their (the poets’) regard.  

As another side note, shame on Edie Vonnegut for using his family name to become a library trustee censor.  For him, I attach the cartoon I sketched in 2014, depicting what his relative Kurt had said about Sturgis Library, where once he too served as a trustee.  

One day, in the brave new world of the Loomis’s, someone like me will be cuffed, arrested, and incarcerated for simply disseminating an email like this one… and thanks to those like you... and, of course, in the name of democracy.

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident


Monday, October 28, 2019

Rebecca Hains


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

The Racism Derangement Syndrome... and the Consequent Real Princess Problem*
Every week (or rather almost every day), virtue-signaling New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and many other media outlets publish unoriginal black-good—white-bad stereotype op-eds.  I have yet to read a black-bad—white-good op-ed in those papers... or better yet a journalist-bad/critic- of-journalist-good op-ed.  And of course those papers will not publish a counter op-ed like this one.  And yes, in vain, l have tried over and again to pierce their ideological brick wall.  
Rebecca Hains is on the PC-bandwagon at Salem State University as professor of media and communication, as well as faculty fellow for diversity... or perhaps rather as a faculty gal for vacuity.  Her Washington Post article, “Dear fellow white people: Here’s what to do when you’re called racist,” is predictable, unoriginal PC-blather.  Do white taxpayers really need a white academic to tell them what to do in order to be in lock-step?  Moreover, we’re all racist to a certain extent.  After all, it is actually human to perceive differences and judge.  Those like Hains, who somehow think they are not racist (anti-white is a form of racism!), are simply deniers of that fact. 
Now, an article on black racism in the name of real diversity would have taken a little courage on Hains’ part, as faculty fellow of diversity, and necessitated a rather large step out of the pc-safe box of academic groupthink.  In any case, unsurprisingly/unoriginally, Hains begins her op-ed with an anti-Trump statement:  “Trump supporters say they’re ‘tired of being called racists.’”  Well, I’m not a Trump supporter, but I’m also not inflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome.  When I was teaching at Bennett College and Grambling State University, I was called a racist because I drew critical cartoons of blacks.  Yet, in general, I sketched more cartoons critical of whites.  But those two institutions were HBCUs (historically black colleges and universities).  Also, that accusation did not get me “tired.”  It simply gave me more grist for my writing and cartooning.  What I am “tired” of is the tedious Racism Derangement Syndrome inflicting so many ideologues like Hains.  But again that provides me with a supply of grist, something my creativity needs to chew on.  
“Making racist remarks while claiming not to be racist seems paradoxical,” notes Hains, while citing a few Trumper incidents, including an alleged statement by a woman regarding Dem. Rep. Ilhan Omar:  “I don’t want her stinkin’ Muslim crap in my country.”  Well, quite frankly I don’t either (e.g., severe restrictions on free speech, egregious anti-semitism, misogyny, and Sharia law).  If that makes me a racist, who gives a damn?  But, Mme Professor since when is Muslim a race?  Hmm.
  And are there really no racists on the Democrat-Party side?  How can one write an objective article when chained to such political bias?  Not possible!  The very title of Hains’ article is racist, putting all whites on the Trump side into the racist-stereotype box.  Well, in a febrile effort to be balanced, Hains does mention blackface Democrat governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, but he is one of the “good allies of people of color.”
Hains provides those “tired” whites Dear Abby-like advice in the form of AA steps.  Step 1 focuses not on whether or not what you said was truth, but rather “How it was received by those around you (as reflecting a racist bias)” and “How you respond to those who identified racism in your words or actions.”  In other words, kill truth if it might be perceived as racist.  And for racism specialists like Hains, somehow not being perceived as a racist is the most important thing in the universe.  
“What can I do about bias?” constitutes step #2.  Engage in serious reeducation programs is the answer, of course, though not quite put that way.  Hains suggests MTV’s online bias cleanse program.  Now, I wonder if she’s tried it to help cleanse her white bad/black good and other pc-biases.  If so, it evidently was not a very effective program.  Step 3 suggests staying calm and asking for clarification:  “Take a deep breath and pause after being called racist. You will probably feel attacked and defensive. Check those emotions and avoid argument.”  And yet if we are encouraged to eliminate argumentation by academics, what’s the point of higher education?  Groupthink!  And what if in fact the accusation of racism is without foundation, as it often seems to be today?  According to Hains’ formula:  avoid cogent counter-argumentation and simply accept the accusation with “calm and ask for clarification.”  
Step 4 suggests “Don’t interrupt or justify yourself; you’re not on trial. Your goal in this exchange is to listen and learn.”  Why not instead justify yourself with facts and reason, rather than opening wide and trying your best to swallow some white-racist/black-not-racist crap formulated by overpaid, fully-indoctrinated, pc-professors?  Again, facts and reason are of prime importance, as opposed to trying to fit in, being a good team-player, and thinking like the “educated” groupthink mob.  Yet I certainly can agree with Hains that it is good to listen to the other side.  But the other side needs also to be open to that, though usually with racism accusations it is far from being open to that.  
The final step, five, is to express gratitude for being offered an explanation.  Yet what if the explanation is nothing short of hollow nonsense?  The real problem Hains fails to address, regarding racism, is the use of racist accusations to terminate debate, to dismiss uncomfortable facts, to denigrate reason, and to kill the messenger…  Now, how did a reason-devoid op-ed get published in the great Washington Post?  Need I answer that question?
…………………………
*Hains’ book is titled The Princess Problem:  Guiding Our Girls through the Princess Obsessed Years.