Peter N. Kirstein

 

…Keep the transformative demands and the dream of a less violent, hegemonic and nationalistic America alive.

kirstein@sxu.edu

Liberation Gazette: Welcome Professor Peter N. Kirstein to Liberation Gazette. This is the second anniversary of your blog. What is your assessment of this enterprise at the end of its second year?

PNK: Well it has been a hectic year. Non-stop activity and much more time consuming than I had imagined. Its focus has somewhat shifted from external affairs and war to academic freedom, which was perhaps inevitable given my affiliation with Illinois-A.A.U.P. and soon to be Vice President, and becoming a contact for sources in some highly publicised academic freedom cases. I do look forward to emphasising peace issues but the blog’s motto at the top describes its raison d’etre and as long as I remain consistent with that, I will feel fulfilled.

LG: Of course some of the academic freedom cases, as you put it, dealt with peace in that both DePaul University Professors Norman G. Finkelstein and University of Colorado former Professor Ward Churchill wrote quite a bit about war and genocide. Professor, do you ever get the “blog burnout blues?”

PNK: Yes you are right about the admixture of war and academic freedom. All I said was my preference would be to focus independently on the war and American imperialism. I am doing that in other venues such as research but it is hardly absent in my posts. With regard to burn out, I don’t know if I would say that but it is a lot of work and it seems to be less voluntary and more driven by deadlines and things like that. There is kinda a blog race to get it out there but since I have experienced a significant increase of visitors and links to my blog, I am playing that game less. There have been some issues concerning academic freedom that were dropped in my lap and I became more of a reporter than an analyst. I prefer to ruminate merely and articulate views but at times I was having the extra burden of verifying sources and making sure I was being properly quoted and cited. For this blog to remain extant, it MUST, repeat MUST be accurate which will sustain the advocacy component. If folks sense that the blog is not trustworthy as a source of information–aside from my opinions–it might be, shall we say, on a short half-life.

LG: You use a nuclear-radiation term. Interesting. Why do you blog, for the publicity?

PNK: Not in a Andy Warhol sense. I believe in an engaged citizenry and in a robust civil society. I care about my world and I need to have an outlet to express never ending emotional and almost frenzied feelings about America and its conduct. This is a cathartic release when I write and I have NEVER written so much as I have these past two years and it has a collateral effect in sharpening papers and a variety of research projects I am involved in.

LG: Your posts are rather lengthy. Many blogs use shorter items. Why is that?

PNK: Yeah I know. Of course some are documents such as in the Dr. Finkelstein case that were rather comprehensive and I sometimes used press releases from CriticalThinking with regard to the Ward Churchill matter. But yes I do like to engage in commentary and since no one has to read any of it, much less all of it, I need to do it because it serves as an outlet for a passionate intensity that never ebbs, only flows.

LG: Let’s talk a little more about you if you don’t mind,

PNK: Do I have a choice?

LG: No seriously. Have you been criticised or questioned by any official of your university for what you place on your blog?

PNK: No.

LG: Have you been given any indication that what you are doing is not appropriate or is a distraction for St Xavier’s?

PNK: No.

LG: Well you see yourself as an academic freedom advocate; so has there been any effort on the part of your university to reign you in or harness your speech on your blog?

PNK: You can keep asking this in a myriad of ways but the answer remains the same. “No.” Look I am expressing opinions and I believe they are informed. I have a clear if somewhat ironic disclaimer that is clearly accessible on my blog. I think as I said before I am accurate. I think the blog stands for many of the things that are contained in my university’s mission statement but I do not speak for the mission but for myself which I think is allowed under the mission. (Laughs) I learned four years ago that in this world, if you let others define you and speak for you, the persona will not be yours. I am my own person! My freedom and sense of liberation is total. I am totally beyond any fear of job loss or other types of sanctions. My work is too important to be hindered by perceptions of third-party disapproval. I have also answered these questions enough, and would like to move on.

LG: Well not just yet. You were suspended by your university four years ago for shall we say a “robust e-mail” on war and peace and what you felt about the military. Aren’t you a little bit concerned about your job and about the possible penalties you could incur from being so opinionated on your blog?

PNK: First let me say administrations change. New presidents and provosts are hired. An institutional culture can adapt. I believe what I do is the height of professional responsibility and reflects well on the mission of an academician. I can’t let fear control me or I lose everything I have. I would like to believe I am not tolerated but respected and admired for what I stand for. However, why don’t we change the subject. I think I have been very forthcoming and have reiterated that no third party has discussed this blog with me and that is that.

LG: Are you a communist and do you believe in God?

PNK: Is this the inquisition? Are you the House Un-American Activities Committee? I do embrace many elements of classical communism or Marxism, of course. I have said that many times. Not the Soviet command-economy model. Not the state-capitalist autocracies that emerged after 1917 in Russia and China, but the Marxian concept of a classless society, the equalisation of conditions and the transformation of profit into social responsibility. I think communism is a very sophisticated intellectual and social enterprise that contains notable elements of justice, respect for all humans and emphasises that individualism must have its limits and that equality should be more pronounced: health care should be socialized; education should be state-supported through college; day care should be available for working women for example.

LG: What about your belief in God, you did not answer that?

PNK: Well that is a little personal. I don’t discuss religion that much. You have to pick and choose which third rails to touch and I am not big on that topic. But you will persist I know. I do not understand very well the concept of a Supreme Being and have not been able to fully comprehend its meaning. It makes it hard for me to believe in something that I don’t fully understand recognising that absolute knowledge is not a prerequisite for embracing a concept.

LG: So are you an atheist who rejects religion and the notion of a God?

PNK: Religion is not something for me to reject in a societal sense. People have the right to express religious beliefs. I have been with Catholic universities since the day I got out of college and know the terrain quite well as it were. Religious commitment helped end slavery and drive the civil rights movement. It was the force behind the establishment, no pun intended, of many of our great universities. It is, however, sometimes reactionary and a barrier for human progress. It can be used as a racist, sexist, homophobic instrument of repression. In America, religion can be retrogressive and harmful to societal progress but I am not stereotyping all religions or stigmatising the faithful. For me, at this stage, organized religion, even my nominal affiliation with the Unitarian-Universalist church, is something I do not devote a lot of time to. I also repeat: the African-American clergy were the prime movers in ending apartheid in the United States: perhaps the single greatest achievement since the end of slavery in American history.

LG: It seems then you do not believe in God and that you are really an atheist.

PNK: Well, you use your terms and I will describe my views with more nuance. Atheism is an announcement!! Religious skepticism is reflection. I prefer the latter and rarely delve into public advocacy for or against religion. I believe in religious toleration both in terms of freedom of and from religion. The latter is the greater challenge in America today I believe.

LG: Do you hate America and would you prefer to live elsewhere?

PNK: Oh my goodness. I have been asked this so many times that I am bored by it. I would prefer to live in a country that is less violent, less selfish, less militaristic, less…

LG: Religious?

PNK: Oh stop!, militaristic, and that had universal health care and was not hopelessly backward and xenophobic. There are many nations that I would prefer to live in. Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Norway, Luxembourg. Of course I am established here, speak the language and am personally comfortable with a decent salary, health care and pension plan. Yet so many are not in my position and instead of “cut and run,” I will stay and continue to speak out to improve America. Instead of you asking dissenters to leave…

LG: I did not say that!

PNK …they should be commended for not leaving and trying to make this violent, imperial nation more globally responsible and less preoccupied with “national security” and “vital strategic interests.” The world hates America, boos our athletes all over the world and I can understand why. I do not love a nation that commits war crimes, that pardons felons because of status and class such as the criminal Scooter Libby, that drops A-bombs, that retains slavery for centuries, and then Jim Crow for ANOTHER century after that, that oppresses homosexuals and denies them marriage, and worships handguns at the same time it says to respect police who are frequently its victims. It is too much for anyone to demand that I exhibit a blind patriotic attachment to a nation such as this.

LG: I hear you professor. We are getting near the end of this interview and let me ask you this please?

PNK: Sure.

LG: Did you find sorrow in the 9/11 attacks? Were you horrified? Where were you and what was your initial response? I would rather you not answer the question than provide a less than precise response.

PNK: Just ask the questions ma’am. I don’t need preconditions and I am being very forthright with you and don’t need prompting. I hate interviews that are Barbara Walters’s type but you are doing your job and I know I am doing mine.

LG: Sorry.

PNK: Anyway I was driving to get my car inspected as required in the state of Illinois. I was driving out of the car-vehicle inspection place when I saw a man stick his fist out of his car window and shout “it’s war.” I was listening to Brahms and did not have the radio on. I did not know if he meant me or what. I turned on the radio and was listening to the early moments. I got to a Best Buy and bought Dylan’s new album, Love and Theft, that was released that day, September 11, 2001. Later that night I played “Mississippi” and there was this verse: “Sky full of fire, pain pourin’ down.” I was with a girlfriend at the time who still teaches at my university and we were just amazed. We just sat there with our mouths open. I felt the attacks were not a Pearl Harbor but resulted from previous unresolved conflicts over the occupation of Palestine by Israel; the horrific baby-killing sanctions imposed upon Iraq; the stationing of American forces in Saudi Arabia and the general unwillingness of America to reach out to the Muslim world. I felt they were tragic and empathised with the casualties falling with those towers and crashing in those planes. Yet I also thought such suffering happens frequently as the result of American military intervention. So I was saddened but not angry and felt it was a spectacular event in an ongoing war. Unfortunately the US construed it as an opening act in a war and has failed to address its underlying causes.

LG: Finally, you are a professor. Do you like teaching?

PNK: Oh, the last question, you give me a softball!! (Laughs) I love teaching. It has always been one of the most rewarding activities of my life. It’s a lot of work but it is priority number one. It comes first, other professional activities wait in queue. I strive to remain up to date on the literature. I feel a buzz everytime I enter a classroom and am never bored. I love the students and they have been more than good to me. They have stood by me through thick and thin and have rewarded me with awards and great and thoughtful comments. They know I put a lot into my classes and that I take my work very seriously. I am still learning how to teach but as long as I am able to teach, I will. I can’t imagine what I would do with myself if I could not teach!!

LG: Thank you Dr Kirstein. It has been very provocative and GOD BLESS AMERICA!

This “interview” did not occur but was adopted as a rhetorical device to reflect on two-years of online commentary.

I have received for months and have seen in the so-called blogosphere inquiries as to how I acquired certain information on the Finkelstein-Larudee academic freedom-tenure cases. The source that enabled me to first reveal the difficulties that Dr Norman Finkelstein was encountering in his bid for promotion and tenure, the now infamous Suchar Memorandum, was, to the best of my knowledge, not associated with DePaul University and has never had a relationship, standing or identification with the Chicago university. Also I have said repeatedly I have not had any contact with any of the principals of this case. That could change but that is the situation up to this point.

There has been some reflection on the role that a non-DePaul University academician should play in another institution’s personnel process. Ironically, that is what galvanised my interest due to the hurtful and rather bullying attempts of Professor Alan Dershowitz to silence his most formidable and talented critic. Yet there is a distinction between one who tries to destroy another academician’s career through a public media blitz, and one who reports on it to attempt, however unsuccessfully, to protect the academic freedom of another colleague. The academy is not just a name; it is an obligation to look out for one another. If one person, or in the case of DePaul, two extremely gifted and talented professors are forced to suffer grave academic setbacks due to political persecution or even defending the right of a colleague to publish and to advocate positions of national and international concern, then it is our responsibility it seems to me to not turn our backs in silence but to engage ourselves with honour, accuracy and conviction.

I know what controversy is. I am in David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, as is Professor Finkelstein, and was suspended for a strident anti-war e-mail to an Air Force Academy cadet in 2002. Professors are not perfect; we all, regardless of ideology, make mistakes but the penalty should not increase if they are construed as patriotically incorrect. Sometimes we embarrass or cause universities to reel in the limelight of controversy. Yet I am convinced that universities are best served if they censor speech or fire or otherwise sanction the non-conformist or the dissenter for only the most emergent and extraordinary circumstances. Universities can live with freedom; their administrations can live with freedom; their alumni and donors can live with freedom; their students and faculty must be seen as the principal partners in an academic environment in which only freedom, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, can sustain, nourish and protect. The DePaul University academic freedom crisis is not just one university’s battle for justice and a struggle to ensure compliance with A.A.U.P. requirements of due process and academic freedom. It is a battle to maintain the independence of the professorate in higher education and to avert a stifling and chilling conformity that would cast a lethal pall over our writings, our classrooms and our capacity to grow as teachers and scholars.

Dr Norman Finkelstein is an assistant professor of political science at DePaul University. He is applying for tenure and promotion in rank to associate professor and I was the first to report that the professor was encountering some obstacles. The following was my dogged but unsuccessful two-week effort in receiving a correction from the New York Times for crediting The Chronicle of Higher Education and not myself as the original source of the controversy. I suppose modesty would have thwarted such an effort yet as a card-carrying member of the blogosphere, I thought it exciting to compete with the “broadsheets” for appropriate attribution since my editorial staff and newsroom consists of one person.

1) On Thursday April 12, 2007 I was checking hits on my blog and noted one arrived from CollegeFreedom.org. I went to that blog and saw that it cited a New York Times article on the Finkelstein tenure controversy. It also noted that the Times story had incorrectly cited the Chronicle of Higher Education as its source.

2) I then went to the website of the New York Times to seek redress from this error with a correction. I encountered this announcement from the Times “Contact Us” link:

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.

3) I sent an e-mail. I called the number, left a message and my cell phone number.

4) A few hours later I receive a call from the New York Times Conrad Mulcahy. I explained the situation and he asked me to e-mail him. I told him I had e-mailed nytnews@nytimes.com. He said, despite his own newspaper’s contrary published statement, that that e-mail URL does not address corrections. Note under 2) it clearly states this was the e-mail source for a “correction.” Nevertheless, he gave me his direct e-mail and told me to send another e-mail describing the situation:

5) I sent Mr Mulcahy this e-mail:

From: Kirstein, Peter N.
Sent: Thu 4/12/2007 4:08 PM
To: mulcahy@nytimes.com
Subject: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Dear Conrad:

I am asking that Patricia Cohen’s article of April 12, 2007 on the Finkelstein tenure case be corrected. I was the original source and not The Chronicle for the Finkelstein tenure issue.

This is the NYTimes Story:

This was my initial revelation on April 1:

This link confirms my breaking the story: The Chronicle did not appear until April 2.

Kindly correct the story and cite me as the one who broke it on my blog.

Professor Peter N. Kirstein

6) I received this e-mail response from Mr Mulcahy of The New York Times.

From: Conrad Mulcahy [mulcahy@nytimes.com]
Sent: Thu 4/12/2007 4:19 PM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.
Subject: Re: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Dr. Kirstein,

thank you for sending this email with your proposed correction. As you can see, I’ve received it and it looks like there were no problems with the transmission.

I will forward it to my boss, the corrections editor immediately and I expect that he will pursue it straightaway.

Again – thanks for collecting all of the info for us and I hope this will be resolved quickly.

Best,

Conrad Mulcahy

7) I acknowledged his e-mail:

From: Kirstein, Peter N.
Sent: Thu 4/12/2007 4:20 PM
To: Conrad Mulcahy
Subject: RE: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Thank you Mr Mulcahy. I guess I should have said the blog’s name was Peter N. Kirstein but that is readily available from the links. I appreciate this very much sir and I will look eagerly for its implementation. Peter

8) On Friday April 13, 2007, I noted there had not been a correction and I sent this additional e-mail to Mr Mulcahy:

From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Fri 4/13/2007 6:49 AM
To: Conrad Mulcahy
Subject: RE: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Hello Mr Mulcahy:

I wanted to know if the New York Times was going to make this correction. I did not see it in today’s online edition. I know sometimes there is a delay of several days but since some corrections referred to the prior day, I thought I would ask. I would be happy to supply even more documentation that the Peter N Kirstein blog and not the Chronicle of Higher Education broke the Finkelstein story.

Thank you very much,

Peter N. Kirstein

9) The New York Times makes several corrections on Saturday April 14, 2007 in this error-plagued story but nothing on erroneously crediting The Chronicle of Higher Education as the provenance of this story. I did not receive a response from either Conrad Mulcahy or his editor who presumably was in charge of this deliberation. Yet some reply would have been appropriate from the Corrections editor or a staffer.

10) I returned to the New York Times website and found this announcement on their Corrections page:

Readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper’s journalistic integrity may reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652. I sent another e-mail to the Times:

[Some links were edited.]
From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Sat 4/14/2007 7:44 AM
To: public@nytimes.com
Subject: FW: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Dear Mr Byron Calame:

I notified the New York Times that they had made an error in an April 12, 2007 article by Patricia Cohen on the Finkelstein, Dershowitz case.

The error was in the second paragraph where the Chronicle of Higher Education was cited as the original source of the story. They were not. I was the first to break the story on my blog, Peter N. Kirstein. This appeared on April 1, 2007. In fact my blog alone broke story after story on this and was the first to publish major documents of the controversy. While I did not mention Dershowitz in my initial blog, that controversy has been known for years and since the story was about the tenure battle, I hope to convince you that I was indeed the one who broke that story.

The Chronicle web story did not appear until April 2, 2007. Please note that the word “circulating” is a link to my article which appeared the day before.

Also History News Network, a major online source for historians, noted my breaking this important story in their “Historians in the News Category.”

Another blog noted the error in the Times article as well on Thursday, April 12, 2007.

I called a toll free number and a Conrad Mulcahy returned it. We spoke about this issue and he suggested that I e-mail him a brief summary.

When I saw on Saturday, April 14, 2007 that corrections were made to the article, which contained numerous errors, but not the one dealing with the original source of the story, I was disappointed and shocked.

“An article in The Arts on Thursday about a dispute in which Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, is trying to block Norman Finkelstein, a political science professor, from gaining tenure at DePaul University in Chicago included an incorrect reference to DePaul that Mr. Finkelstein attributed to a dean there who opposes tenure for him. While DePaul is a Roman Catholic university, it is not Jesuit, and Mr. Finkelstein acknowledges that the dean, Charles Suchar, did not say that it is. The article also misstated Mr. Suchar’s middle initial. It is S, not E. (Go to Article)”

Mr Mulcahy indicated he would send this to his corrections editor. I e-mailed him and left him a message inquiring why my correction did not appear in Friday’s paper. Today, Saturday, corrections did appear but not mine. I did not receive a call or an e-mail explaining this and so I am appealing to you to rectify and correct this error. Kindly see the e-mail exchange below between Mr Conrad Mulcahy and myself.

I am a tenured full professor of history at Saint Xavier University. I also published a letter on Abu Ghraib with the Times.

My blog has been noted and linked by The Washington Post in the past and I do hope you will assist me in having my blog cited as the source for the Finkelstein tenure controversy. I noted you have a direct number but I thought I would initiate this process by e-mail. I would be happy to speak to you as well. I hope that I have provided clear and convincing evidence that I was the original source of this story and should have been credited appropriately.

Sincerely,

Peter N. Kirstein, Ph.D.
Saint Xavier University
Chicago, Ill.

11) I did not receive a response. On Wednesday April 18, 2007 I sent a follow up e-mail to the public editor:

From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Wed 4/18/2007 2:09 PM
To: public@nytimes.com
Subject: FW: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Dear Mr Calame:

I am wondering if you have had an opportunity to examine my complaint about a lack of fairness with regard to attribution of a major story on the Norm Finkelstein tenure case.

I broke the story on April 1. The Chronicle, which was working on the story independently, which I have acknowledged, did not report the story until April 2. Since there can be no dispute of the evidence, could you as a matter of courtesy inform me why the New York Times has not corrected this obvious error?

By the way, while I realise it is unrelated, I linked the improper article that I had published for the Times.

Dr Peter N. Kirstein
Professor of History
Vice President Elect, American Association of University Professors (Illinois Conference)

12) I received shortly this response from the New York Times.

From: Public/NYT/NYTIMES [public@nytimes.com] Sent: Wed 4/18/2007 2:25 PM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.
Subject: Re: FW: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Dear Prof. Kirstein,

On Monday I sent your message to the corrections editor, who said that the newsroom is looking into the matter. If no correction has appeared by Monday, Aptil 23, and you haven’t received any explanation from the newsroom, please let me know.

Just so you know, this office generally acts as a sort of appeals process when it comes to corrections. Because of that, we generally wait until the newsroom makes a final decision about a possible correction before making any judgment.

Thanks for following up.

Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Note: The public editor’s opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times.

13) I sent this acknowledgement:

From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Wed 4/18/2007 2:45 PM
To: Public/NYT/NYTIMES
Subject: RE: FW: Correction: Patricia Cohen: Reporter on the Finkelstein Dershowitz Matter

Dear Joe Plambeck:

Thank you for your kind response. I will follow your instructions and appreciate the kind attention and dedication to fairness of the world’s finest newspaper.

Peter

14) When there were no corrections by April 23, 2007, I sent this e-mail to the Public Editor’s Joe Plambeck:

Dear Mr Plambeck:

You asked me to inform you if there had not been a Correction by Monday, April 23, 2007. For reasons that continue to baffle me, I have not seen a Correction of the Patricia Cohen article’s second-paragraph attribution of the Chronicle as the initial source of the Norman G. Finkelstein tenure case. Other corrections were made in this article but not the one concerning original source.

I have demonstrated with documentation that I broke this story on April 1, 2007.

I have demonstrated with documentation that the Chronicle first reported the story on their web edition on April 2, 2007.

I have demonstrated with documentation that the Chronicle linked MY article on the word “circulating.”

I have demonstrated that their other link to a blog with the word “are” also linked my article as the source. That source, Collegefreedom, stated it “heard” of the story from my blog and linked it on the word, “reports.”

I have demonstrated with documentation that the History News Network explored this question, and specifically stated I beat the Chronicle on this story.

I hope this merits for your readers a correction and that it will appear in your paper.

I appreciate your allowing me to pursue this matter.

Thank you and sincerely,

Peter N. Kirstein, Ph.D.
Professor of History
Saint Xavier University
Vice-President Elect, American Association of University Professors, (Illinois Conference)

15) I then received this “explanation” from Sam Sifton, Culture editor of the New York Times.

From: Sam Sifton [sifton@nytimes.com] Sent: Mon 4/23/2007 12:04 PM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.
Cc: senioreditor@nytimes.com
Subject: your letter

Dear Professor Kirstein,

You’ve asked for a correction on our article about the Finkelstein tenure fight, because we wrote that the Chronicle of Higher Education first reported the story when, in fact, you wrote about it on your blog before the CHE did. That appears to be true. However, we apply a somewhat different standard to a news report than to a person’s writing on a personal Weblog. The Times had absolutely no idea that you had written about the case and in any event had no way of knowing that you had. As a result, we see no reason to “correct” the article. I am sure that seems unfair to you. I am happy to discuss it further if you like. [My emphasis]

Sincerely,

Sam Sifton
Culture Editor
The New York Times

16) I then wrote this response to Mr Sifton.

From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Mon 4/23/2007 2:52 PM
To: Sam Sifton
Cc: senioreditor@nytimes.com
Subject: RE: your letter

Dear Mr Sifton:

Thank you for your response. I do not understand your statement that since you had no way of knowing I had broken this story that you are not responsible for accurate reporting. Presumably the Times makes corrections if an error was made out of ignorance. So the fact that you claim you did not know I broke the story is even MORE reason to consider a correction.

Nevertheless, you saw the Chronicle web-story, not broadsheet, which linked my blog as the original source. I think given the importance of the Internet, that your failure to appropriately credit me for breaking the biggest story of my career in academia, is without justification. Simply put, the Chronicle first covered the story as a web article. You stated that since my breaking this story was on a Blog it does not merit appropriate attribution as opposed to a broadsheet. Are you saying that blogs, which are frequently quoted and used by the New York Times, are not even to be given credit versus ANOTHER web-based article such as the Chronicle’s.

Since you concede now that I broke the story, it seems you are moving the goal posts by stating, “Well yes you broke the story, but it was on a blog. Blogs are not worthy of attribution. But since the Chronicle broke it on their website and even cited your blog, they get the credit and you don’t.” This strikes me as unfair and frankly derisive of the hard work that bloggers do to provide timely and relevant information.

I assume you have seen all the documentation that I have laboriously and carefully provided both the corrections editor and the public editor.

I ask you to reconsider your decision and to give me the credit that I and other, but not all bloggers, deserve. Credit as in this instance for timely reporting, incisive analysis and a contribution to the public’s right to know.

Sincerely,

Peter N. Kirstein

17) When I did not receive a response from Mr Sifton, I appealed again to Joe Plambeck from the Public Editor’s office.

From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Wed 4/25/2007 7:19 AM
To: public@nytimes.com
Subject: FW: your letter

Dear Mr Joe Plambeck:

I received an e-mail explanation from Sam Sifton concerning my complaint about the incorrect attribution of the Chronicle as the source for the Finkelstein-tenure controversy. His explanation is at the bottom and my response to him is directly below this. While he said he would be “happy to discuss” this in more detail with me, he did not respond to my concerns about his rationale for refusing to credit me as the source of the story. My understanding from your e-mail is that you are in a sense an “appellate court.” I would like to briefly appeal to your sense of fairness here.

Mr Sifton has acknowledged that I broke the story. I consider that a major concession on the part of the New York Times. I finally have received that in writing. Yet he states there are two reason he opposes a correction. One, the New York Times did not know I was the source. Second, even if they had, a “personal Weblog” would not merit attribution. I have two comments on this.

1) The fact that the New York Times did not know is immaterial. Of course I would presume when Patricia Cohen read the Chronicle online article, she must have seen the links including the one to my blog. Whether she did or not, I do not think a correction should be disallowed because your paper did not know in advance of its error. A correction is intended to set the record straight. That is the issue here it seems to me.

2) I find it quite curious that blogs, that are heavily used by the New York Times, would all of a sudden be relegated to a status unworthy of serious reporting. Mr Sifton has stated that I did not merit a correction, even while conceding I was the one who broke this important story, since it appeared on a “personal Weblog.” I must say my blog is not a daily diary of personal accounts but is a rather well-known and highly respected blog. Both the Chronicle and InsiderHigherEd.com used the blog to write their first stories on this matter.

Finally, I would like to know, who has the final word on this matter? If you do, kindly inform me of your decision. I appreciate the opportunity to pursue this matter and I hope I can get clarity on this situation and justice as well.

Sincerely,

Peter N. Kirstein

18) I received this final verdict from the Public Editor of the New York Times, Byron Calame:

From: Public/NYT/NYTIMES [mailto:public@nytimes.com]
Sent: Thu 4/26/2007 6:13 PM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.
Subject: re: your letter

Dear Mr. Kirstein:

I have reviewed your concerns and e-mails.

I read Patricia Cohen’s story as stating that The Chronicle of Higher Education first reported that Alan Dershowitz was trying to derail Norman G. Finklestein’s tenure bid by e-mailing dossiers to DePaul University faculty. I don’t read the second paragraph of Ms. Cohen’s story as stating that the Chronicle of Higher Education was the first to simply report that there was a tenure fight.

A Chronicle of Higher Education article publicly available on April 5 reported that Mr. Dershowitz had sent the dossiers to members of the DePaul faculty. The searches I have made of your blog do not turn up any descriptions posted prior to April 5 of Mr. Dershowitz sending dossiers to DePaul faculty members.

Thus, I don’t believe that a correction is warranted.

Sincerely,
Byron Calame
Public Editor
The New York Times

Note: The public editor’s opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times.

19) My response to the decision of the New York Times not to issue a correction giving The Chronicle of Higher Education credit for a story I believe I clearly beat them:

From: Kirstein, Peter N. Sent: Thu 4/26/2007 6:30 PM
To: Public/NYT/NYTIMES
Subject: RE: your letter

Dear Mr Calame:

Thank you for your response. I think many sources construed her claim as more broadly focused on the tenure controversy. I am sorry that I could not convince you of this and that I did not prevail in this matter. I think it reflects well on the New York Times, however, that in its effort to be accurate, it devoted considerable time in examining this question. I got an unexpected lesson in moving in and around the bureaucracy of your paper that included a variety of senior editors.

Sincerely,

Peter N. Kirstein
Professor of History

I post fairly frequently in rough groups of ten hits from the far reaches of the U.S. military establishment. It is nice to know that there is an interest among military personnel in my comments. Whenever I receive authentic, provocative comments via e-mail from members of the armed forces, I publish them with all due respect to their security concerns. It is important to maintain dialogue.

Army 516th Signal Brigade, Ft Shafter, Hawaii
Director of Automation Services, Ft Belvoir
DISA Information Systems Center, Arlington, Va.
DOIM, Fort Gordon, GA
HHC, 1st Signal Brigade
Randolph Air Force Base, Texas
USAISC-FT McPherson, Ga.
USAMITC : 2710 Howitzer Street Ft Sam Houston
377 COMMUNICATION SQUADRON Kirtland AFB NM
99th Communications Squadron, Nellis A.F.B. Nevada
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss.
21CS/SCUS Peterson AFB, Colorado
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis

See also:

See also:

White Phosphorus terror weapon used at Falluja, Iraq days after Mr Bush “safely” reelected in 2004. Photo is non-specific on location and deployment of weapon of mass destruction.

1) Air Mobility Command Comp/Systems Squadron, Scott AFB, Illinois
2) Directorate of Automation Services, Ft Belvoir, Virginia
3) HQ, 5th Signal Command
4) McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey
5) Naval Computer and Telecommunications Center, Naples, Italy
6) Randolph Air Force Base, Texas
7) 1112th Signal Battalion, Ft Bragg
8 ) SUPSHIP A.I.S. CENTER Norfolk Naval Shipyard
9) Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
10) US Army Signal Center and Ft Gordon
11) U. S. Naval Oceanography Command Center, Guam
12) United States Southern Command

See previous military complex visitors

True confessions. I receive a significant number of “visitors” from the national-security establishment to put it delicately. This includes of course the military. Each day numerous components of the far-flung U.S. military empire access my blog–even on Sundays and holidays. The items below are ten recent hits. I have been thinking about compiling a master list (mistress list) and present them in groups of ten.

I have thought about an interesting assignment for my political science and history classes. Since finite funds of the government are being criminally wasted and consumed by this military behemoth, it would be interesting to research what each of these units represent. Overtime, after visiting their websites and exploring a component’s mission, they would be able at least superficially to penetrate the labyrinthine maze of this extensive military complex. General Eisenhower said the same thing in his farewell address as president in 1961.

The military, due to decades of imperialism and global hegemonic mania, is the world’s largest, duplicative and most impenetrable bureaucracy. No one knows what the other services are doing; no one can arrest the in-fighting or the armed services’ greed for more useless, destabilising, evil weapons and senseless fleets. There are about ten different air forces in the military and some have identical missions and overlapping hardware. There are sixteen or so SEPARATE intelligence agencies that even the Director of National Intelligence can’t or even worse does not wish to supervise or monitor.

Ten separate military units that visited blog:

1) Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska
2) D.D.N. Coordinator, Ft Lewis, Washington?? What is D.D.N. Digital Divide Network or Daily Defence Network. Anyone know? kirstein@sxu.edu
3) Army National Guard Bureau, Virginia
4) Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
5) Naval Communications Training Center, Pensacola, Florida
6) Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Washington
7) Navy Network Information Center, Pensacola
8 ) DoD Network Information Center, Columbus, Ohio
9) Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, Texas
10) United States Military Academy, West Point

Blogs have counterise and every time someone visits a blog, they leave an I.P. or Internet Provider. An example below is one that appeared after a West Point person visited my blog. I received this Hit only hours after I mentioned in a talk I gave that a graduate of the U.S.M.A. had refused combat when in-country during the Vietnam genocide in 1965:

“Richard Steinke graduated from the United States Military Academy in June 1965 and refused a combat mission while in country. He said, “The Vietnamese war is not worth a single American life.” His punishment was court-martial and separation from the army.” My source for this by the way was Howard Zinn, The Twentieth Century.

OrgName: United States Military Academy
OrgID: USMA
Address: Building 2101
City: West Point
StateProv: NY
PostalCode: 10996
Country: US

NetRange: 129.29.0.0 – 129.29.255.255
CIDR: 129.29.0.0/16
NetName: USMANET
NetHandle: NET-129-29-0-0-1
Parent: NET-129-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS01.ARMY.MIL
NameServer: NS02.ARMY.MIL
NameServer: NS03.ARMY.MIL
Comment:
RegDate: 1987-07-21
Updated: 2006-02-02

OrgTechHandle: GKW-ARIN
OrgTechName: Woodbridge, George K
OrgTechPhone: +1-846-938-3923
OrgTechEmail: GEORGE.K.WOODBRIDGE@us.army.mil

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-01-31 19:10

One can access a link to his new blog at my Blogroll on the right. The Iranian president is outspoken, refreshing and unwilling to accede to diktat by the American-British-Israeli alliance.

I agree that Iran is entitled to nuclear power and energy and hope that a denuclearised Middle East will lead to a dampening of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the removal of these weapons from Israel.

I think Iran's support of Hezbollah is inevitable in that Israel, its main adversary, is supported by the U.S. I think if the U.S. wanted to constrain Iranian influence in the region it should adopt a peaceful diplomatic approach through constructive engagement, and not one of mass murder and blind support of Israeli butchery of civilians. Also with the illegal invasion of Iraq, I think the U.S. has no business in critiquing other nation states geostrategic ambitions in the region. Nations will balance against the troika of U.S., U.K. and Israel.

 Iranian President Ahmadinejad

I think President Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel and the Holocaust have been mixed. He is correct that the establishment of Israel was not without grave and horrendous disruption of the Palestinians living in the area and that they have suffered for a crime, World War II killings, that they did not participate in. He is correct that questioning the Holocaust is a crime in many states, David Irving in prison in Austria for example, and is courageous in subjecting that tragic event to revisionism. Historians cannot exclude seminal events from inquiry.

He is correct in stating that Israel lost the current war with Hezbollah but, like Mr Bush who claims Israel was victorious, should be more reflective on the horrors that the I.D.F. perpetrated against civilians and look beyond victory toward the animalistic, brutal, sadistic nature of conflict.

President Ahmadinejad is not correct in calling for elimination of Israel but in the Middle East, that type of rhetoric is not unusual. Well, how about the U.S. when Mr Bush called Iran a component of the "Axis of Evil." Leaders in the U.S., Israel and Iran are equally culpable of belligerent rhetoric and should adopt a more professional and civil tone so that innocents are not swept up perpetually in the anvil of war and racism.

One year ago today I initiated the blog with this post although it was updated.

I have been asked if members of the administration are aware of my blog and if they have communicated any reaction to it.

I do not have an opinion concerning who is cognizant about the blog's existence. It is on a university server; it receives a rather heavy volume of hits and has completed its first year. One may draw their own conclusions. I do not preoccupy myself with who reads it but I will continue to articulate views that are consistent with my mission and my life. The university administration has not attempted in any manner to censor, edit or engage in any substantive control of my blog postings and commentary. Only Dr Richard Yanikoski, president emeritus, commented on my blog in two e-mail in 2005 and 2006. At the time of his critical communication, he was not in the administration at Saint Xavier University and at the appropriate time I may publish my e-mail exchange with him. I did refer to it and quoted excerpts at a conference at the University of Texas in February 2006.

I have received no reaction to the blog from any CURRENT administrator. I have attempted to maintain a decorum of speech (see below), a level of expertise and a commitment to my views and values in a manner that is forceful, intense and informative. I have also, although I detest it when administrators use the absence thereof as a means of censoring speech, subsequently added a disclaimer to my first blog, that while ironic in tone, is comprehensive. No one can claim that another’s voice is represented other than my own. That is one of the reasons the appellation of the blog is not a nom de guerre or some abstract, recondite reference. I know of no other faculty member at my institution that has a disclaimer on their blog but it was not requested and was placed voluntarily.

I have been asked frequently whether my being named one of David Horowitz's 101 Most Dangerous Academics, which I covered extensively on this blog, created a reaction among university officials and whether there was any communication to me about this inclusion.

I have no idea if it caused a reaction among the administration. There was no reaction that was expressed to me about the book. Many faculty and students did and I was pleased to discuss it with them. I even brought it up in several courses. Several colleagues who were named by David Horowitz that I have communicated with also experienced no official reaction from their universities. Some told me they did but it was supportive. None told me they have suffered adverse consequences from their administration. That does not preclude the absence of oppression but in my case I have received no official reaction related to Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. As many know I debated Mr Horowitz last March on campus on the Iraq War which was supported in many ways by the administration.

I have been asked if having the blog on a university server makes me more vulnerable to censorship or control than if it were housed on a private or commercial server.

Theoretically I suppose that would be the case and other activist professors frequently do that, but once again, I have encountered no reaction to the blog. A colleague of mine has a server in his office in the English department and was kind enough to create this blog and house it there.

I have been asked if I think the blog is conducive to public dialogue and reflects well on a faculty member at my university. Related to this, I have been asked if blogging is an effective form of communication.

I definitely think it contributes to the public dialogue or I would not do it. I think faculty members at my university or any other should be encouraged to share and engage publics outside their classes on the issues of the day. I do feel it has value in terms of education, self-expression and reaching a broader audience. Yet I don’t do this for publicity; I don’t promote my blog like many do. I infrequently ask bloggers to link it and I am extremely selective about which blogs are on my blogroll. Sometimes I feel burdened by it and would like to post less frequently. So there might be adjustments down the road.

Some have noted that I rarely talk about myself. Others claim I do it too often.

Blogs are web diaries but I am not into that mode of expression. I keep non-academic personal stuff off the blog. I do include professional activities that are relevant to the blog’s mission. I don’t think folks are too interested in biography and personal things but are interested in my politics and commentary. So that is what this is all about.

I have been asked whether there is anything I have placed on my blog that I am ashamed of or embarrassed by and whether I have had second thoughts about what I write. I have been asked whether I engage in self-censorship out of fear of being sanctioned by the university or creating a new firestorm emanating from my views.

I am never ashamed. I am never embarrassed. I concede I might revise or remove an item, for example, if I believe it needs modification or excision. I have done that maybe five or six times but never as the result of third-party intervention. I am never afraid; I am rarely hesitant; firestorms tend to follow me and if I sought "shelter from the storm," I might as well remove the blog. Sanctions are the least of my worries which is what freedom means in part: Inner strength evolving from prior institutional censorship to demand autonomy and academic freedom.

I have been asked when using harsh rhetoric, whether it obfuscates reason and detracts from the "academic" orientation of the blog.

It may. I acknowledge that but I endeavor generally to buttress impassioned rhetoric with knowledge and analysis, so it does not descend into ranting and raving without intellectual foundation. Again I write the blog and people can choose whether to consult it or not. I don't do this to please an audience, but to communicate views that I think are worthwhile. It is a form of free expression and while I am hopeful folks read it and learn from it, I don't lose sleep over individualised or group reaction to it. I crossed the Rubicon on suspension day, Veterans Day, 2002 and I have never looked back. I would gladly sacrifice my career before I compromised my inner ethics and principles and folks who know me do not doubt this assertion.

I have been asked if the blog advances the educational mission of the university St Xavier U where I am a tenured full professor although sometimes it does not feel like it.

When one is controversial, I suppose one gets that question. How can I answer that without being self-serving? I am asked that a lot and am frank here. I take seriously my activities and I will let others judge their impact. If advocating peace and justice, academic freedom, and human rights is consistent with a university's mission, then the answer is easily accessible.

For some reason I get this question or a variant of it all the time. If I were a student thinking of attending St Xavier University and were to read my blog, would I want to attend?

I really think it is a dumb question. Sorry but it is. How would I know? My courses for fall 2006, as all semesters, are closed and some even have waitlists. The university is experiencing a spike in enrollment so all these students that are not coming here because I am antiwar and labeled "dangerous" must be a number smaller than those of decency and honour who occupy senior national-security positions in the United States government.

"…freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth."

This is my first blog. It won’t be the last! I hope this weblog will present effective counterargumentation and observations about the American Empire and the failed dream of its founders. This blog will present radical visions and different perspectives fueled by a desire for peace and justice.

I added this to “First Blog” in December, 2005:

While I think disclaimers are gratuitous and even self-deprecating, I offer this disclaimer without any third-party request. The comments expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent, although it would be nice if they did, the ideological weltanschauung or views of:

The administration of Saint Xavier University

The staff of Saint Xavier University                                

The vendors of Saint Xavier University

The alumni of Saint Xavier University

The board of trustees of Saint Xavier University

The professors emeriti of Saint Xavier University

The donors–if not part of an above category–of Saint Xavier University              

Visitors at Saint Xavier University

E-mail senders, not included in above categories, to servers at Saint Xavier University

The administrator of this server.

The faculty of Saint Xavier University

Also, this blog does not represent the views of neighbors of SXU who bicycle, jog, walk dogs or themselves on their daily constitution at St Xavier University, in the City of Chicago, in the County of Cook, in the State of Illinois, in the United States of America, on the North American continent, in the Western Hemisphere of the planet Earth. 

rev. July 3, 2006