The following is a news analysis.
It used to be that many college professors were often encouraged to be free-thinkers, and to encourage their students to think critically about information-- whether it comes from the political left, right, neither, or from corporate interests.
We know that the dialogue and mood on many campuses have changed radically to a point where some of these professors, who were once widely-lauded, become controversialized and attacked by the interests who want to control the dissemination of information.
Such is the case with New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller who was teaching, aptly, a propaganda class.
Miller has increasingly become a target of propagandists for his teachings that often veer from the popular government, media, and academic narratives; and prompt students to think outside the establishment box. Miller also teaches students to recognize propaganda techniques and tactics as they use their critical thinking skills to research and decide issues.
When Covid-19 broke out, Miller took the stance of many independent scientists, questioning some of the motives of government and public health officials, as well as their often-vacillating stances on Covid-19.
In September of 2020, one of Miller's students complained to the university and on Twitter that Miller had done something in class no obedient official should do: questioned the use and effectiveness of masks, among other measures.
Some in the news dutifully picked up on and amplified the complaint to controversialize Miller. He soon became subject of a university investigation that, at times, had the hallmarks of a witch hunt, with some of his colleagues joining the call for him to be fired for having dared to go off the prevailing narrative. He has suffered health problems, dealt with the college proposing to change his assignment (and even do away with his popular propaganda course), and had to seek legal counsel.
After more than a year of process, Miller says he has finally just been notified that the university's "review" of his "conduct" is complete and that there will be no action taken against him.
Below is the letter Miller wrote to summarize this latest action:
On Wednesday afternoon (12/8), I was informed by Jack Knott, Dean of NYU's Steinhardt School, that his office's "review" of my "conduct," carried out at the insistence of my department colleagues last October, finds that my teaching has not violated any of NYU's policies, and, therefore, that the university will take no further action in my "case" (as there isn't one).
This is, of course, good news; so it may be churlish of me to observe that, since they came to that conclusion in the spring, they might have let me know before this week.
In any case, this decision is a great relief, for two reasons.
First, I no longer have to worry that I might be harried any further by the university (over this matter, anyway); and, second, through this formal exculpation, NYU has, tacitly, disavowed my colleagues' slanderous petition to the dean back in October, 2020, demanding that he order that "review"—because, they argued, my "conduct" in the classroom had violated NYU policy. It was so egregious, they asserted, that it ought to nullify my academic freedom, so that I might be duly punished (i.e., fired): for my routine "hate speech," "attacks on students and others in our community," "aggressions and microaggressions," and other crimes that I have not committed, ever, at NYU or anywhere else.
It is because of those wild lies, and my colleagues' refusal to retract them (or even to reply to me about them), that I am suing them for libel. While we await the judge to rule on their motion to dismiss (filed back in February), I am encouraged that the university appears not to support their drive against me; and I continue to look forward to my vindication, as a victory for academic freedom and free speech.
MCM [Mark Crispin Miller]
Alanna Hartzok says
Good news indeed! And happy to hear you are suing your colleagues for libel. Is your propaganda course online?
"He had done something no obedient official should do..." there's so much unpacking to do with this statement we won't need santa
Sue their pants off, then on, then off again....
Who remembers "Far From the Madding Crowd" when the sheepdog herded the sheep over the cliff? Same thing now. Having grown up in the Vietnam era when we questioned everything the government said, it's a bit shocking--and frightening--to see today's young people, having been brainwashed, unable to think for themselves and question authority. The only authority they rally against are those who don't toe the government line...at least the socialist government we have now.
Tony Gratrex says
It's on today Suze BBC Two @ 18:35
Re : “. . . frightening—to see today’s young people . . ., unable to think . . .,” you warn.
Well, now the young’s corruption by academe gets really, really freaky :
Judith L. Osterman says
I think this might be a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Judith L. Osterman says
In other words, satire.
Judith L. Osterman says
I think that this may be a reductio ad absurdum argument; in other words, satire.
Riki Tiki Tavi says
The more people who come to understand propaganda and its state function-- the more chance we will have to thwart the tyranny underway. How ironic that a professor who teaches students to critically discern the manner in which narratives are created, by whom and for what purposes--is dragged through a legal process in order to defend his right (and society's right) to question propaganda.
I'd like to say that this is good news--and yet, in a psychologically-functional paradigm this silly exercise wouldn't have been necessary. The emergence of the youthful "Social Justice Warrior" syndrome is indicative of mass formation psychosis. When did critical thinking become a 'thought-crime?'
Marc Authier says
This Covidian Cult fanatics have to be hunted down. They are as dangerous and as murderous as the Nazi MDs and the Nazi nurses in the 30s. They are a threat to democracy and humanity like Hitler and his gang were. This student should indeed be hunted down.
In a just society, those who bear false witness against another would suffer the punishment they hoped would be inflicted upon their accused.
This is being done to many people who they disagree with. Every time this is done, one has to hire attorneys to defend oneself at a great cost. If they cannot get you one way, they will bankrupt you until you yell "Uncle." This should not happen in a free society, but we aren't free any more due to these modern-day Nazis!
So very relieved that Mark Crispin Miller has been cleared. Thank you for alerting your readers to his excellent work and the case. I hope he sues as well!
I second that!
Eva Dickman says
I have been interested in this story since I first heard about it. I'm so glad the university reviewed the case and dismissed it. The colleagues who falsely and malignantly accused Prof. Miller of wrong doing and recommended that the university strip his tenure and dismiss him deserve to be sued for libel. I am proud of the professor's courage in the face of his detractors which sets a great example for his students, for the integrity of other professors, and for us all.
Judith L. Osterman says
They probably didn't tell you last Spring because they were hoping that the pressure would force you to resign. That they've finally informed you, now, may be a sign that the tide is turning!