To learn about more censored people and topics, click the CENSORED tab at the top of this page.
UPDATE: Through Professor Miller, the author of the article attacking him asked that it be removed from this page for copyright reasons. It was titled, "The Professor of Paranoia."
Updated May 14:
The following preface by Professor Mark Crispin Miller replies to an article that attacked him in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Miller's reply was censored by Facebook. More about Miller following the article.
By: Mark Crispin Miller
This hit-piece (below) on myself—"The Professor of Paranoia"—has just come out in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It comes as nosurprise to me, since it was clear throughout my conversationswith Mark Dery that, despite his friendly overtures to me some months ago (we knew each other once upon a time, as he reports), he's utterly repelled by what I'm doing, both as a professor and apublic intellectual, and was seeking ammunition.
I'll probably put all the raw material for Dery's hatchet-job up on my website, and share it with you: the two Zoom videos of my conversations with the author, and our extensive email correspondence. This will enable one to see what details Dery chose to string together, and—more importantly—what he left out, in order to create his caricature of a once-fine mind now spouting "right-wing bunkum."
(In that way it's somewhat like a New York Times hit-piece on RFK, Jr., published in the Style section years ago, when Bobby was writing on election theft; only Dery's piece is less respectful.) Right now I'll note what struck me most about the author's attitude toward my many heresies: his total ignorance of all the controversial issues that we touched on, or talked about at length—the moon landing, Sandy Hook and Parkland, Andrew Wakefield and Vaxxed, COVID-19 and the "vaccines," the Great Reset, etc.—and what seemed to be a certain pride in that ignorance, as if only nut-jobs and "deplorables" would even bother studying such things at all, as doing so would mean departing from what he kept on reverently invoking as "the consensus."
It was like talking to the New York Times itself, the Gray Lady over Dery's body (which, despite his animosity, I sincerely hopekeeps functioning as usual, as he and his are "fully vaccinated"; faith in those "vaccines," he told me, rather frighteningly, is "carved in stone"). any case, we carry on, despite this kind of thing—which is to be expected when you go against the grain. (I'm honored that Dery seesmy online work as comparable to the "calamity-howling" of my friend Naomi Wolf, who also has been excommunicated by the Times and,therefore, types like him.)
The following is from The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
Mark Crispin Miller is a tenured professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communications at New York University and has been on the faculty there for more than 20 years. He has been a vocal commentator on — and critic of — a broad range of topics, from NYU’s plans to redevelop the Village to the American political system. Professor Miller has long been outspoken. Now, he finds himself under investigation for his controversial course content and protected extramural expression on his personal blog.
Contrary to the faculty members’ assertion in their letter, Miller’s teaching and extramural expression are squarely protected by his right to academic freedom.
This semester, Miller taught a section of his NYU propaganda course. In September, a class session focused on campaigns promoting mask-wearing as a means of limiting the spread of the novel coronavirus. After a student took issue with some of Miller’s in-class statements and the sources he cited, she took to Twitter calling for him to be fired. Miller’s department chair, Rodney Benson, replied to the student’s posts and indicated that the department had made her concerns a priority.
On Oct. 6, Miller responded on his personal blog, outlining the material he shared in his course, noting the criticism he received, and expressing concerns — which FIRE shares — about the threat to academic freedom posed by investigations into course content. He also shared a petition asking NYU to affirm his right to academic freedom, which has garnered more than 17,000 signatures.
Then, on Oct. 21, several faculty members of the media department penned a letter to Dean Jack H. Knott and Provost Katherine Fleming calling on them “to publicly support the NYU community and undertake an expedited review . . . of Professor Miller’s intimidation tactics, abuses of authority, aggressions and microaggressions, and explicit hate speech, none of which are excused by academic freedom and the First Amendment protections.” However, the letter itself contained no specific allegations of policy violations, focusing instead on “the way in which [Miller] engages discussion around controversial views and non-evidence based arguments”; his petition, which they characterize as an “email campaign against the department”; and others’ negative responses to the student’s criticism of Miller’s course.
On Oct. 29, Dean Knott launched an investigation into Miller based on the letter.
While faculty members are free to express criticism of their fellow faculty, administrators must not investigate faculty without credible allegations of policy violations. These investigations lead to uncertainty about what kinds of activity and expression may subject faculty to discipline, creating an impermissible chilling effect on teaching and expression. Further, while the media faculty members’ criticism is likely protected expression, it’s unwise for faculty to align themselves with administrators against another faculty member’s academic freedom at a time when calls for faculty to be terminated are coming from all angles.
Contrary to the faculty members’ assertion in their letter, Miller’s teaching and extramural expression are squarely protected by his right to academic freedom, and he cannot be held responsible for the behavior of unknown third parties online.
NYU makes strong promises to its faculty that they enjoy academic freedom — including the freedom to teach. These are laudable promises that protect Miller and all NYU faculty. On Nov. 13, FIRE wrote to NYU to call the university’s attention to this promise, as well as to its legal obligations to adhere to promises it makes to students and faculty, and to ask the university to end its investigation into Miller immediately. NYU failed to respond by our Nov. 20 deadline, and the investigation into Miller remains ongoing.
NYU’s commitment to academic freedom encompasses a broad range of course content that serves “a legitimate pedagogical purpose.” Miller’s discussion of mask efficacy and COVID-19 — and reference to additional sources students could consult — is both timely and pedagogically relevant to his course on propaganda. And Miller’s students, who are adults, are free to come to their own conclusions based on the material presented in class, their own views, and additional sources. This kind of student engagement with class material and different viewpoints, not an investigation by administrators, is the appropriate response to what Miller’s colleagues allege to be the presentation of “non-evidence based arguments” in class.
Further, Miller’s blog defending himself does not amount to unprotected expression. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court indicated in McAdams v. Marquette University — a case remarkably similar to Miller’s, in which a faculty member sued his employer after he was disciplined for a blog post criticizing a student — extramural expression such as a personal blog post rarely ever falls outside the protections of academic freedom.
FIRE asks NYU again — this time publicly — to end its investigation into Miller’s protected expression immediately and uphold its promises that faculty maintain their academic freedom rights.
Read FIRE's letter to NYU at the link below.