All posts by Dr. ESP

FIRE on Campus

Culture, Economics

This morning, Joe Scarborough invoked similar protests against the Vietnam War in 1968 to warn participants in pro-Palestinian activities on college campuses that such behavior is counterproductive to their cause.  He rightfully pointed out that chaos on college campuses and in the streets of Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention contributed to Richard Nixon’s election and prolonged the war for five more years.  What he did not say was, “Students who participated in that movement were RIGHT!”  The war, based on a questionable premise and which propped up a corrupt government in South Vietnam, was a blemish on America’s standing in the international community and robbed America of the potential of tens of thousands young U.S. citizens who died or were physically and mentally disabled.

The students to whom Scarborough referred were a very small percentage of those who sought an end to the war.  And as I wrote about my own experience at the University of Virginia during the Vietnam era, some of the more radical members of the movement tried to lower the temperature when they personally witnessed the consequences when rabble-rousers hijacked the cause.  That is why so many of us find the campus protests so conflicting.  We believe Hamas is a clear and present danger to Israel which is justified in eliminating that threat.  We mourn for both victims of the Hamas terrorist attack and innocent Palestinians who suffer from the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza’s population centers.  We share the protesters’ concern about the aspirations and dignity of Palestinians.  Yet we agree that harassment of Jewish students and calls for the destruction of Israel are totally unacceptable and understand the Israel/Hamas conflict has empowered some individuals to go public with their long-standing antisemitism.

I have no doubt the presidents of universities which are now being highlighted by the media are similarly conflicted.  They have probably made mistakes and could have done things differently.  I will get to that.  But equally important, they have been given mixed messages.  Perhaps the best example is the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) whose mission statement reads, “FIRE defends and promotes the value of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture.” One way FIRE does this is rankings based on the extent to which a university adopts and implements a statement of principles originally drafted at the University of Chicago.  Of the 248 institutions included in the rankings, Harvard is #248, the University of Pennsylvania is #247 and MIT is #132.  For 10 years, FIRE chastised the administrations of these schools for supposedly suppressing free speech. 

[NOTE:  The rankings do not include the following institutions:  Hillsdale College, Liberty, Pepperdine, Brigham Young, Baylor and Saint Louis University.  What do they have in common?  All are private and have a religious affiliation.  FIRE explains their exemption as follows:

The following schools have policies that clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to freedom of speech. These colleges were excluded from the rankings and were scored relative to one another.

I guess free speech and expression are critical unless your God tells you they are not.]

Speaking of religious exemptions, one of FIRE’s celebrated causes involved student protests at Stanford University to a speech by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the U.S. Fifth District Court of Appeals.  For the record, Duncan opposed same-sex marriage, was instrumental in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores which allows corporations to exclude birth control from their health insurance plans on religious grounds and upheld Texas’ abortion ban.  All this in spite of his response to a question by Illinois senator Dick Durbin during his confirmation hearing, “Where do we draw the line with your right as an individual as opposed to my right to assert religious liberty?”  Duncan’s response?  “It’s a balance, it’s got to be a balance,” and used the Hobby Lobby case as an example, calling it a “close call because women would be deprived of contraception.” 

His rulings since confirmation have seldom acknowledged that balance.  So Stanford students yelled questions at him and booed his responses.  To which the distinguished judge said to one questioner, “You are an appalling idiot, you’re an appalling idiot.”  Were the questions and booing not free expression and Duncan’s response not an attempt to suppress that free expression?  I use this example to agree that (to use Judge Duncan’s words) there must be a balance between First Amendment rights and disruptive or threatening behavior.  However, wherever you stand on the issue, it cannot be selective.  To quote Jedi master Yoda, “Do or do not.  There is no try.”

There is one other pressure university administrations face every day.  For lack of a better term, call it “helicopter parents.”  I know from experience.  In 2005, two other Miami University faculty and I taught a summer program at our European campus.  When a student did something that we determined could result in harm to other students, we put him on the next plane home.  The next day I received a call from his father who wanted me to justify our action.  Fortunately, there is the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which forbids a faculty member from talking with parents without the student’s permission.  I told the father, “If your son will sign the FERPA form which gives me permission to discuss the matter with you, I will gladly tell you everything he did and why we sent him home.”  I never heard from the parent again.

That is not always the case.  At my alma mater the University of Virginia, parents of Jewish students have called for president Jim Ryan’s resignation for not sufficiently addressing the safety of Jewish students on campus.  Their grievance includes an instance where a Jewish student accused a Palestinian protester of threatening her.  The alleged perpetrator denied such behavior and filed an honor code violation accusing the Jewish student of lying.  A hearing was scheduled by the Honor Committee.  UVA has one of the most stringent honor codes at any university.  It is based on a simple proposition.  “A Virginia student will not lie, cheat or steal.”  How stringent is it?  During my time in Charlottesville a student was expelled for calling in a bomb scare.  He was expelled for LYING about the presence of a bomb.

Before the hearing took place, the Jewish parents organized to hire a lawyer to seek Ryan’s firing without realizing the Palestinian protester put himself/herself (I do not know the gender) in jeopardy by filing the honor code violation.  If the panel finds there was a threat, as reported by the Jewish student, the accuser rather than the defendant could be found guilty of lying and subject to suspension or expulsion.  I understand the Jewish parents’ concern but both students have a right to “their day in court” without parents on either side trying to delegitimize the process.

As I wrote following the infamous hearing before the House Education Committee, this is a lost opportunity for universities to do what they do best.  TEACH.  Not ideologies, partisanship or even facts.  TEACH students how to learn.  And there is a model to do that, the case method based on Socratic dialogue.  Its academic origins were rounds at medical schools.  Diagnose the patient and recommend treatment.  Medical students were encouraged to question each other and defend their own conclusions.  Soon after, case method became the standard at law schools.  And eventually migrated to business schools.

Here is how it worked in one of my entrepreneurship courses at Miami.  The case involved investment in a high risk start-up.  As a homework assignment. students analyzed the facts, choose an option and a rational for their decision.  When they walked into class, the room was divided in half.  Students who wanted to invest sat on one side, those opposing investment on the other.  I asked representatives from each side to make their case.  Then I sat back and let them verbally “duke it out.”  At the end of the discussion, I asked any student who had changed their choice to switch their seats.  Never in nine years did every student stick to their original preference, proof that fact-based debate has the power to alter and sometimes change perspectives.

Imagine a classroom where the professor presents a teaching case where the goal is peace in the Middle East.  The homework assignment is for each student to read and analyze the historical background leading up to the current situation.  Based on the facts, each student must choose a path to ending this centuries old conflict:  a two-state solution or total elimination of one of the two combatants.  Then build a fact-based case to justify their decision.  I would not be surprised to see pro-Israel and pro-Palestinians student initially intermingled on both sides of the classroom.  The discussion would be riveting.  And as I always experienced, I suspect some students would switch sides before the exercise ended.

One last thought.  The cover story on the latest issue of Forbes magazine features an exclusive report produced by staff member Emma Whitford.  “Employers Are Souring On Ivy League Grads, While These 20 ‘New Ivies’ Ascend.”  Whitford’s team interviewed HR executives from 300 of the nation’s largest corporations.  One of the employers suggested graduates of these “New Ivies” are less entitled and more productive.  This may be true but I wonder if “more productive” is not code for “they do exactly what we ask them to do.”  Having just binge-watched “The Dropout,” I could not help but wonder if Theranos would still be in business and valued at $9.0 billion, while endangering the lives of those who used its service, if Elizabeth Holmes had hired more “productive” employees from the “New Ivies” instead of Stanford graduates Erika Cheung and Tyler Schultz or British molecular biologist Ian Gibbons who received his Ph.D. at Cambridge University, the three people who blew the whistle on her scam.

POSTSCRIPT

I do appreciate the fact Forbes included both my undergraduate and graduate schools–UVA and Johns Hopkins University–among the “New Ivies,” further inflating my academic credentials.  If only they had done it while I was still in the job market.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

A Case for the Ages?

Politics

I hope you did not pack up and store your climbing paraphernalia.  Why?  No sooner had we rappelled down from our last trip to the summit of Bullshit Mountain, we need to scale it once more.  And again, our guide is none other than Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch.

To unlock the courthouse doors in the two federal cases–conspiracy to overturn a election and violation of the espionage act–special counsel Jack Smith  petitioned the Court to rule whether Donald Trump was immune from prosecution.  In the hearing that should be focused on those specifics, latest Marvel Universe villain Gorsuch sidestepped the facts enumerated in the petition and tried to broaden the scope of the case before the Justices.

JUSTICE GORSUCH:  I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the the criminal law to target political opponents on accusations about their motives.

Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel’s office, pushed back, reminding Gorsuch the petition was not about the future.  It applied only to the alleged crimes committed by Donald Trump.  He viewed Gorsuch’s approach so absurd, he prefaced his remarks by pointing out the unprecedented nature of his own argument.

MR. DREEBEN:  And I’m going to say something that I don’t normally say, which is that’s really not involved in this case.  We don’t have bad political motive in that sense.  I would…

Gorsuch in a “I can’t hear you” moment cuts him off and makes it clear he is not interested in why future uses and motive are irrelevant.  However, he does not need Dreeben’s rationale as he admits that Dreeben is correct and literally says “I don’t care,” then reverts back to his claim the case is of monumental importance.

JUSTICE GORSUCH:  I understand that.  I appreciate that, but you also appreciate that we’re writing a rule for the ages.

A rule for the ages?  A decision so important that it sidesteps the facts and laws enumerated in the petitioner’s filing.  Justice Gorsuch, if the future of the presidency rides on the outcome of this case, “a rule for the ages,” why then would the Court take ages to hear it and decide it?  Were you projecting when you said, “I am concerned about future uses of the the criminal law to target political opponents on accusations about their motives.”  Should Americans be concerned about your motives?  Or how you and your “conservative” colleagues are using the protections under criminal law to benefit a candidate for political office?

Jack Smith filed this petition in December 2023.  Do not tell us you could not have immediately granted certiorari.  The Constitution gives Congress the right to determine when the Supreme Court can invoke original jurisdiction.

ARTICLE III, Section 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (Emphasis added.)

Equally important, the Supreme Court has affirmed its own right to original jurisdiction even in cases where it has chosen not to employ it e.g. Missouri v. Holland (1920) where the Court reserved the right but declared “our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly.”  In Wyoming v. Oklahoma (1982), the Court suggested the criterion for such sparing use should be “claims that are of sufficient seriousness and dignity and resolution by the Judiciary is of substantial concern.”  Yet Gorsuch and his colleagues found what he describes as “a case for the ages” does not meet that test.

Your honor, we the people object.  According to a recent Politico poll, more that 70 percent of Americans object.  Either this case is truly “one for the ages” and needs to be resolved, to famously quote the Court, WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.  Or it is limited as Jack Smith’s team suggests and was adequately resolved by the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit.  A third path suggests some ulterior motive that is not grounded in the facts nor the law.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Little Things

Politics

Yesterday, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Americans witnessed the hypocrisy of “Constitutional originalists” from the very top of Bullshit Mountain.  The most egregious example of their own judicial philosophy, oddly, had nothing to do with the most absurd arguments put forth by Donald Trump’s attorney John Sauer’s response “it depends” to the question whether a sitting president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political opponent.  Or “conservative” justices who appear to believe there must be hearings to determine whether overturning a free and fair election could be considered an official presidential act.

While questioning Michael Dreeben, who argued the case on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith’s office, Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the following hypothetical.

So, for example, let’s say a president leads a mostly peaceful protest sit-in in front of Congress because he objects to a — a piece of legislation that’s going through.  And it, in fact, delays the proceedings in Congress.  Now, under 1512(c)(2), that might be corruptly impeding a proceeding, an official proceeding. Could — is that core and therefore immunized or whatever word, euphemism you want to use for that?

Keep in mind Gorsuch graduated from Harvard Law School, practiced law at a private firm for 10 years, was the principle deputy associate attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice and served on the 10th District Court of Appeals before his appointment in 2017 to the Supreme Court.  First of all, with such a distinguished education and experience one would think he would be more precise in his questioning of a witness or solicitor.  What the hell does “in front of Congress mean?”  If it refers to a peaceful sit-in in front of the Capitol, there is little if any chance it would delay a congressional proceeding.  More importantly, neither the president or any other citizen would have to rely on immunity because this is not crime.  If only the ghost of Joseph Welch, chief counsel for the U.S. Army during the McCarthy era had appeared and asked Gorsuch, “Have you no common sense, sir?”

Equally puzzling is Gorsuch’s supposition that legislation is considered “in front of Congress.”  It never works that way.  The only joint sessions of Congress are generally ceremonial (e.g. counting of the electoral votes).  The introduction, debate and passage of bills occurs in either the House or Senate.  To which, Welch’s specter would have asked, “Have you no sense about how the legislature works, sir?”

What the confused justice must have been referring to is something akin to the June 22, 2016 sit-in organized by the late congressman John Lewis in protest of then Speaker Paul Ryan’s refusal to bring a gun safety bill to the floor for a vote in the aftermath of the mass shooting at an Orlando, Florida nightclub.  To avoid CSPAN televising the protest, GOP speaker pro tempore Dan Webster called for a recess.  If that was Gorsuch’s intent, this self-proclaimed originalist should know that the Constitution speaks directly to this issue.

First, let’s address the issue whether Lewis and his “good troublemakers” committed a crime.  Article I, Section 5 states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour (sic), and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”  The current rule under which the House operates, in effect at the time of Lewis’ protest, allows all current and former members of the House to be on chamber floor without prior permission.  Proof of this provision was George Santos’ surprise appearance on the floor of the House during this year’s State of the Union address after having been expelled the previous December.  [NOTE:  On April 12, 2024, Representative Anthony D’Esposito (MAGA-NY) introduced a resolution that would amend House rules to “deny certain privileges” to former members who had been expelled.  According to D’Esposito, the purpose of the amendment is to “…establish new standards by which expelled frauds are barred from further staining this storied institution.”  Much less being a continuing embarrassment to his own party.]

How did the MAGA controlled House feel about sit-ins in their chamber following Trump’s election as president?  According to Wikipedia: 

On January 3, 2017, the House convened the 115th Congress and passed rules intended to prevent future sit-ins. The new rules included language against disorderly or disruptive conduct, in addition to bans against members of Congress taking pictures and video on the House floor, though an exemption for the latter occurs for events such as the State of the Union addresses. Fines are also included within the new rules, with $500 being mandated for first offenses and $2,500 for each additional offense.

All perfectly consistent with Article I, Section 6 which authorizes each chamber to make its own rules.

But the 2017 rules amendment applies only to members of the House.  Which brings us back to Gorsuch’s question about the president acting in a similar manner. To which Joe Welch’s apparition would surely materialize for a third time.  “Have you no sense of the separation of powers, sir?”  Welch would find it interesting that Gorsuch inserted the word “peaceful” into his question.  Why?  Because aiding and abetting a “violent” disruption of a congressional proceeding is no longer a hypothetical.  Which makes it all the more shocking that the MAGA justices would not immediately agree January 6, 2021 was not subject to any level of presidential immunity.

What else did Gorsuch forget?  According to his theory of originalism the Constitution only protects those rights specifically enumerated in the document with amendments and imposed on the states per the 14th Amendment.  Article II, powers of the executive, does not give the president unfettered authority to go to the floor of either chamber.  Consider the following.  Article II, Section 3 states:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.

Does a strict constructionist such as Justice Gorsuch not understand the meaning of the words “convene” and “adjourn?”  As was the case on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush could have, if Congress had not voluntarily adjourned for its own safety, ordered the House and Senate to vacate the Capitol.  Or if Congress was in the middle of one of its many, lengthy scheduled recess, he is also authorized to bring them back to Washington to address a real or even perceived emergency.  However, it does not authorize him to go to the floor and disrupt a legislative proceeding. Ironically, instead of sending an armed mob to do his bidding on January 6th, he could have simply adjourned Congress and argued he was authorized to do so based on the language in Article II, Section 3.  Despite the political implications, there may not have been grounds for a second impeachment since adjourning Congress was neither a high crime or misdemeanor.

Equally important, when he is authorized to interact with the Congress, he cannot do it on a whim, the best example being the State of the Union address.  Article II, Section 3 does not specifically require an in-person address to a joint session of Congress.  Then how does this happen?  Again, according to Wikipedia:

Because the address is made to a joint session of Congress, the House and Senate must each pass a resolution setting a date and time for the joint session. Then, a formal invitation is made by the speaker of the House to the president typically several weeks before the appointed date.

Simply put, Justice Gorsuch, the president must be invited to be in either chamber, just the same as any foreign or domestic dignitary (e.g. the Pope or General Douglas McArthur) Therefore, if as he had threatened, Trump followed the mob to the Capitol on January 6th and taken the floor of either house uninvited, he would have violated his oath to faithfully defend and protect the Constitution.  What’s more, this applies not only to the legislative branch.  Imagine if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led a sit-in in the Cabinet room to disrupt one of Trump’s meeting because she disagreed with his family separation policy on the Southern Border.  Is there any question Trump would order Bill Barr to arrest her and charge her with criminal behavior? Or if AOC had led a sit-in that disrupted arguments before this Court in the Dobbs case?

Justice Gorsuch, to go back to your hypothetical about whether a president leading a “mostly peaceful sit-in” to disrupt a legislative proceeding is a crime, the answer is simple.  HELL, YES.  Whether he should be prosecuted is a decision for members of Congress to make (through a criminal referral to the Justice Department) and the Attorney General to decide whether to indict based on the facts and the law. 

Most states require continuing legal education for members of the bar to maintain their certification.  Florida statutes specify the following:

(f) Education. The applicant must complete 50 hours of approved continuing legal education since the date of the last application for certification. Accreditation of educational hours is subject to policies established by the civil trial law certification committee or the board of legal specialization and education.

Based on the nonsense presented by Gorsuch and other members of the panel yesterday, perhaps the same standard should be applied to state and federal justices including those on the Supreme Court.  The “Introduction to Constitutional Law” course I took as an undergraduate at the University of Virginia seems like a good remedial class for Justice Gorsuch.  Of course, there would have to be a module on “conflicts of interest” for Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

PeckerGate

Media

As a lifelong cinephile, every chapter in Donald Trump’s political saga evokes an immediate, consistent response.  “I feel like I’ve seen this movie before.”  Former American Media, Inc. CEO David Pecker’s testimony in the Trump election interference trial is no different with one exception.  Pecker’s description of his agreement to support Trump’s 2016 campaign represents a déjà vu double feature.

Secrets and Lies

During coverage of the New York trial, multiple pundits harkened back to the days when they accompanied their mothers to the grocery store.  Each recalled seeing The National Enquirer while waiting to check out.  Their memories included examples of the outrageous front page headlines about women giving birth to alien babies and freaks of nature.  No one took it seriously. How then could a tabloid with so little journalistic integrity possible flip the outcome of the 2016 election?

As we know, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  And all it took was one or two verified stories to cloak the Enquirer in the credibility it had seldom enjoyed.  Case in point, the October 10, 2007 front page report that announced 2008 Democratic candidate for president John Edwards fathered a love-child with a campaign worker.   The narrative was initially viewed as just more Enquirer sensationalism.  However, once Edwards remained in the news as a potential Barack Obama vice-presidential running mate, mainstream media outlets picked up the story.

On August 8, 2008, Edwards admitted having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who had been hired to produce behind-the-scenes videos following Edwards on his quest for the presidential nomination.  On August 18, New York Times reporter David Carr gave the Enquirer, somewhat begrudgingly, its due credit.

There are some stories, especially ones that occur in the bedroom, where mainstream media outlets sometimes can’t venture—or at least they can’t find it in themselves to lead the charge. But it would be hard to argue that the body politic is not enriched by the recent revelations that Mr. Edwards is not who we thought he was, even balanced against the many stories the Enquirer gets wrong.

Then National Enquirer publisher (drum roll) David Pecker must have realized this was a turning point in his tabloid’s history.  With its new-found credibility in the political arena, the Enquirer could no longer be ignored by more reputable media outlets.  As we learned yesterday in a New York courtroom, this enabled actual fake news produced under the agreement between Pecker, Trump and Michael Cohen in June 2015 to rapidly move from the tabloid rack at the checkout line to the nightly news and cable outlets.

All the President’s Men

In 1972, they were called “dirty tricks.”  Among the first was the infamous “Canuck Letter.”  At the time, Maine Senator Edmund Muskie was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president.  The saga begins with a handwritten letter to William Loeb, editor of the Manchester Union, postmarked from Deerfield Beach, Florida and signed by a Paul Morrison.  It accused Muskie of denigrating Franco-Americans by laughing when a campaign aide referred to them by the slur “Canucks.”  Without fact checking the source, Loeb published the letter on the front page with an editorial in which he wrote, “We have always known that Sen. Muskie was a hypocrite, but we never expected to have it so clearly revealed.”

In an emotional response at a February 26, 1972 rally, Muskie states, “The letter is a lie,” and called Loeb “a mudslinging, vicious and gutless coward.”   In what was considered unacceptable in those days, Muskie was reported to have tears in his eyes, a perceived sign of weakness.  Despite efforts to dismiss his emotional outburst, Loeb continued the attack until primary election day, and even though Muskie was the victor, the damage was already done.  During the Florida primary, bumper stickers warned Democratic voters, “Vote for Muskie or he’ll cry.”

Although the author of the letter was never definitively identified, Donald Segretti a young staff member on the Committee to Re-elect the President, took responsibility and sent Muskie the following:

October 11, 1973

Dear Senator Muskie:

I wish to personally apologize to you, your family, and your staff for activities in the 1972 Presidential campaign. Such activities are wrong and have no place in the American political process.

I trust that my public statements to that effect and my guilty plea will prevent others from getting involved in such activities in the future.

Sincerely,
DONALD H. SEGRETTI

FAT CHANCE!

Postscript:  The Common Denominator

The reason this movie keeps getting played over and over again is the fact each has the same executive producer–Roger Stone.  He was the Nixon whisperer in 1968 and 1972, the Trump whisperer in 2016 and thanks to a Trump pardon will still be spreading mischief in this election cycle.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Satanic Reverses

Culture

Disclaimer:  Today’s post includes a discussion of two writers.  Myself and Salman Rushdie.  Therefore, let me remind everyone, I know Dr. ESP.  I collaborate with Dr. ESP.  Dr. ESP, you are no Salman Rushdie.

Anyone who writes historical fiction knows, by labeling it “fiction,” writers give themselves license to create situations and dialogue to which no one except the principals have first-hand knowledge.  In many cases, the non-documented passages are needed to address unanswered questions.  As I drafted In the National Interest, there were two issues for which the public record provided no definitive explanation.  What was Lee Harvey Oswald’s motive for killing John F. Kennedy?  And was Oswald’s employment at the Texas School Book Depository, weeks before the motorcade route became public, coincidence or due to manipulation?

I was reminded of this aspect of my book while watching Jon Stewart’s interview of Salman Rushdie last night on “The Daily Show.”  In his book Knife, an account of being attacked during an August 2022 lecture at the Chautauqua Institute and the aftermath, Rushdie admits he still knows nothing about his attacker Hadi Matar’s motive other than his support for the Islamic Revolution on social media.  And despite standing outside the Chautauqua prison where Matar is being held pending trial when, while writing his book, Rushdie returned to “the scene of the crime,” he chose not to confront his attacker.  Instead, he created a Socratic dialogue which included his idea of what Matar’s legal counsel might provide as a defense in his forthcoming trial.

Again, I felt a personal kinship with Rushdie as this was the same technique I used to create both sides of the moot court arguments as my protagonist Jonathan Sheppard explores the decision to release or withhold the journal he inherited.  My self pat on the back was, however, short lived as Rushdie explained his purpose in forging this imaginary conversation with this young man who “came out of the crowd” 34 years after an Irani Ayatollah ordered a fatwa against Rushdie, following the 1988 publication of The Satanic Verses, a satirical account of the alienation and eventual assimilation of Muslim immigrants in Britain.

I had used my creative process at best to tie up loose ends in my narrative, but mostly for its entertainment value.  Rushdie had used his to try and understand why someone who was not even born at the time of the fatwa would commit a crime that would likely incarcerate him for the rest of his life.  His was a far more noble endeavor, looking for some rationale for the irrational.  Which made me rethink the value of a fictional Socratic dialogue as a means of exploring options in complex situations, especially when the actual response, in hindsight, proved unproductive.

And, being the first night of Passover, my thoughts centered on the current status of the Israel/Hamas conflict and its impact on college campuses in the United States.  On the day after the terrorist attack, international sympathy, for the most part, was clearly with the Israelis despite lingering concerns about policies affecting Palestinians promoted by the Netanyahu government. 

History tells us any nation subject to a terrorist attack has options, including, but not limited to:

  • Diplomacy
  • A targeted military response.
  • An unlimited military response.
  • Focus on internal security to prevent future attacks.
  • Establishing an anti-terror alliance to universally condemn such attacks.
  • Some combination of the above.

Only one of these six options had the potential of inverting post-October 7 sentiment towards Israel from victim to villain.  Likewise, it was Muslim students, not their Jewish classmates, who felt unsafe on college campuses in the immediate days after the vicious and inhumane Hamas attack.    As was also the case for almost unanimous Congressional support for military assistance to Israel.  Again, only one choice could dramatically change those dynamics. And yet that is the one Netanyahu and his war cabinet chose.

When Jon Stewart asked Rushdie, “How are you doing,” he told his host he feels better now than he did before the attack.  And when queried if he was apprehensive about Matar’s forthcoming trial and the possibility of being called to testify, Rushdie replied he is only a fact witness and feels no need to confront his attacker.  He then referred back to standing in the “car park” (British for parking lot) outside the Chautauqua prison.  “I am a free man outside; he is locked up inside.”

I cannot help but wonder if the Israeli government had conducted a similar Socratic process before launching their version of “shock and awe” on Gaza, would they have avoided a situation where both sides are hopelessly and indefinitely “locked up inside” prisons of their own making.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP