Weather Underground Model Citizens

November 17, 2008 9:06 AM

How exactly are Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers employed by prestigious educational institutions - one of which is state funded?

I recently watched the fantastic documentary, Weather Underground , about the 70's group that actively sought the destruction of the United States government. It boggles the mind that many of the people involved in numerous bombings and armed robberies have gone on to live not only normal lives but, in the case of Dohrn, rather accomplished lives.

Now, I have no truck with their association with Obama - I could care less who sat on a board with who for education reform - but it does intrigue me greatly that Ayers could work himself up the social ladder to the point that he's getting multi-million dollar grants for project proposals.

Additionally, it says in Dohrn's Wikipedia page that she was turned down by both NY and IL in her efforts to pass the state bar due to her criminal record, yet she's a professor at Northwestern, one of the best law schools in the country. How does that square? Could one teach medicine without passing the boards?

Largely, it seems as though many of the WU fighters are either in jail or are still in hiding. Yet Rudd, Dohrn, and Ayers are all teachers and professors, which I find interesting. Do they not have to pass a background check? Does the background check not include "Did you ever seek to destroy the United States government?" Is this is a generational thing, where in the 80's, people were so happy to have the Vietnam era finished and the 70's over that they were willing to give these people a pass and let them carry on as though nothing happened?

Or is it simply a matter of nepotism and privilege, and Dohrn and Ayers benefited simply from the power and prestige of their family connections?

It doesn't seem ridiculous to imagine that if a person in today's era organized a group which bombed a large number of Federal buildings and which actively encouraged, through statements to the press and correspondence with foreign leaders, the destruction of the United States, that they would not find gainful employment after the ordeal even if they were successful in avoiding prosecution.

posted by billysumday to society & culture (40 comments total)

Do they not have to pass a background check?

There are no "background checks" to get an academic position. The idea strikes me, frankly, as a tad bizarre. You don't have to be admitted to the Bar to get a position at a law school. I'm fairly certain that law schools occasionally hire professors who are not even lawyers. And neither Dohrn nor Ayers has ever been convicted of anything. I'm just not sure why you think it's so odd that they have jobs in academia.
posted by craichead at 9:17 AM on November 17, 2008

I don't know why it happens but Susan Rosenberg used to work at my school (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) until some fraternal organizations protested enough against a "cop school" employing a "cop killer." Her contract was not resigned after that.

All the professors and students I talked to said she was a average professor, not radical at all, didn't talk about politics, etc.

Perhaps they have the proper credentials? Also, she was pardoned by Bill Clinton so maybe that has something to do with it?
posted by ginagina at 9:23 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

See, I think it's incredibly odd that they have jobs in academia, and what's more, I find it even more odd that there are a number of people who don't think it's odd.

I mean, why were Dohrn and Ayers in hiding for ten years? It's because they were being hunted by the FBI for actively pursuing the destruction of the United States government. They came out of hiding because, like many criminals on the run, they couldn't do it any longer. From my perspective, it appeared as though they figured they would eventually be prosecuted and sent to prison for a long time, and because the FBI botched the job, they were lucky to get off.

But just because the FBI messed up doesn't mean there aren't any number of historical documents and recordings in which Dohrn calls for revolution, destruction, violence, and the upheaval of the government. I just find it odd that a person like that would be, only four years after emerging from hiding, hired by a prestigious Chicago law firm and then hired in academia.

Is it a Chicago thing? Generational thing? Or is it because of the power of Ayers' family's name?
posted by billysumday at 9:25 AM on November 17, 2008

Thanks for the link to Rosenberg, ginagina. Looks like the common thread here is powerful family connections and gobs of money to throw around. I suppose that helps people get back into society's good graces. And also interesting that Rosenberg chose to become an educator, as well.
posted by billysumday at 9:27 AM on November 17, 2008

And also interesting that Rosenberg chose to become an educator, as well.

Or rather, interesting that academia seems comfortable hiring these former radicals.
posted by billysumday at 9:30 AM on November 17, 2008

I think the element you're missing is that it's possible for them (and others) to be smart, accomplished, and qualified for professorship, and to have advocated against something they don't like. What you seem to be trying to establish is a foundation of political persecution, where a persons views on society and government can be used to disqualify them for jobs. There are certainly political appointment positions that are routinely screened for policy conflicts and such, but academia is not traditionally a member of this group of organizations.

But hey, if they were innocent they wouldn't have been in hiding, right? The FBI never messes up...oh wait.
posted by rhizome at 9:35 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

rhizome, I wonder if you've seen the documentary or at the least read their Wikipedia pages? It's no secret what they did, and more amazingly, they don't deny it. They will tell you straight out that they bombed buildings and raised capital by robbing banks and so forth. The notion that they should be professors because they are smart and accomplished is naive - there have been, I'm sure, lots of smart and accomplished child molesters who have lost jobs not because they were incapable of being, you know, a good architect or something, but because they broke cultural mores and nobody wanted to work with them anymore.

Here's another way to look at it, I guess - are there other former violent criminals who bombed federal buildings and committed armed robberies who have gone on to secure professorships at prestigious law schools or sat on the board of hundred-million dollar foundations? The answer seems to be "No" so the question I have is what is different here? You suggest that politics should not play a part, but it nearly suggests that politics is playing the only part here. That or the fact that Ayers' father was so wealthy and powerful, like Rosenberg's father.
posted by billysumday at 9:43 AM on November 17, 2008

I'm not running, timsteil. Just curious.
posted by billysumday at 9:44 AM on November 17, 2008

This illustrates why it's important to work within the justice system. "Everybody knows they did it" is not enough for a conviction. By the very definition, these people are not criminals, legally, because the prosecution screwed up. That's not a failure of the justice system, it's a failure of the prosecution. It's a very good thing that you have to prove someone guilty in a court of law, and cannot use illegally-obtained evidence against them.
posted by odinsdream at 9:44 AM on November 17, 2008 [3 favorites]

odinsdream: Yes, but they have repeatedly and enthusiastically taken credit for those acts. They've admitted to them time and time again.

To rephrase (recast?) the origional question a bit: How can these people do things that are widely agreed upon violations of social mores (bank robbery, arson, vandalism), openly admit to having done those things, and still be granted privledged positions in our institutions?

I'm confused as well! Never mind the question of whether they should be allowed in these positions, I'm just suprised that they are. Is academia sympathetic to their politics? Would a right wing radical have been granted the same (apparent) clemency?
posted by phrontist at 9:54 AM on November 17, 2008

I just find it odd that a person like that would be, only four years after emerging from hiding, hired by a prestigious Chicago law firm and then hired in academia.

Contact the schools and law firms in question and ask them. Everyone here is speculating, and the question "But why should they get this treatment when [hypothetical person with similar revolutionary background] doesn't" is not really answerable.

The answer is probably something like "notoriety, family and political connections, and they are both really smart and hardworking and disciplined." Whatever strikes against them they have because of their political activities from more than 30 years ago are obviously made up for....by their political activities of more than 30 years ago. And the connected, smart, hardworking stuff.
posted by rtha at 9:54 AM on November 17, 2008

odinsdream: That's a great point and I've no doubt that that's certainly the justification of the institutions who've hired these people.

It still seems odd to me, though, that this group of people seems particularly successful. It also seems odd that even though the initial trial was botched there haven't been other efforts to prosecute them, either through civil trials or other means. I suppose that ultimately there aren't a lot of historical comparisons to be made and that these people are unique in time and temperament.

Also, it seems obvious that these people are intelligent, well-educated, ambitious, and driven, and so it's no surprise that they've gone on to achieve things in public life.
posted by billysumday at 9:55 AM on November 17, 2008

Not to put to fine a point on it...

At any time during the hiring process for these positions, were they asked about those activities? If so, did they admit to them? If they didn't, weren't the employers aware of previous admissions? The justice system is the mechanism by which the state decides how to treat someone. While their admissions my not have been admissable (ha!)legally, surely private individuals can accept them.
posted by phrontist at 9:58 AM on November 17, 2008

My ex was a student of Ayers, and said he was an excellent professor--inspiring in a life-changing way.* He sits on a number of boards and earned a Citizen of the Year award from the City of Chicago because of what he does now, not who he was back then.

Our justice system is based on reform, however unlikely it is. Ayers may have escaped justice, but it's not unbelievable that he is reformed. It certainly seems like he's given up on bombing buildings , shifted his goals (the war ended, after all) and found more effective ways of achieving them.

It's worth considering that what he fought for with the WU was something supported by a lot of people (many of whom have probably gone on to careers in education), even if they didn't agree with the WU's far-left politics and their tactics. For a lot of people, what the government was doing at the time was so heinous, the activities of the WU were small potatoes.


*Heh, he's indirectly responsible for our breakup. I should send him a thank-you card.
posted by hydrophonic at 9:58 AM on November 17, 2008

"Academic freedom" is a long-standing institution. I would assume that if both Dohrn and Ayers have lived a crime-free life for a while that an academic institution might not care that much.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 10:02 AM on November 17, 2008

"are there other former violent criminals who bombed federal buildings and committed armed robberies who have gone on to secure professorships at prestigious law schools or sat on the board of hundred-million dollar foundations? The answer seems to be "No" "

Henry Kissinger was responsible for MILLIONS of deaths in Vietnam and Cambodia, to say the least about it. He is considered a war criminal. Yet he served as chancellor of William and Mary college from 2001-2005. He's on TV all the time. He consults Bush. He has a fucking Nobel prize.

He probably doesn't fit your criteria for violent, and the courts he's been indicted in are not in the U.S., but to me, he is about a million times more dangerous than Ayers ever was.
posted by chelseagirl at 10:04 AM on November 17, 2008 [7 favorites]

Of all the places they'd try to get a job, academia seems like the most likely to me. Professors are hired by other professors in the department/college. In fact, departments are independent and often quite proud of that fact. All it would take to make a notorious hire is convince a handful of academics (kind of well-known for being liberal) at one of the many thousands of schools around the country.
posted by Durin's Bane at 10:06 AM on November 17, 2008

I can't think of any examples off-hand, but I don't think that having committed another kind of violent crime in the past would necessarily preclude one from getting a job in academia. It's just that people who commit politically-motivated crimes are more likely to be intellectuals than those who commit random armed robberies, and they're more likely to come from the kind of background that prepares one for a career in academia. It's not like academics in general represent a broad cross-section of society. Ayers and Dohrn aren't really unusual in coming from elite backgrounds.

I do think that, at least in most parts of academia, there's more tolerance for former left-wing radicals than for former right-wing radicals. But Milton Friedman was a very strong supporter of the Pinochet regime, and the econ professors who went down to Chile to work in the Pinochet regime have not been drummed out of academia, so I think that's not entirely true.

Finally, there are historical reasons that academics tend to be very wary of ideological tests. During World War I, many very distinguished scholars were purged from academia for questioning the war or defending civil liberties. In the wake of that embarrassing and damaging episode, academics moved to ensure that universities would be safe spaces for people who challenge the status quo.
posted by craichead at 10:09 AM on November 17, 2008 [3 favorites]

Given that universities have historically served as incubators of political radicalism, I find it pretty unsurprising that an ex-radical would find himself at home at a university.

It's trickier to answer the question about why people aren't terribly outraged at the Weather Underground. Personally, I think it's because the liberals who predominate in journalistic circles and history departments are embarrassed by the WU, and worry that by highlighting their offenses they could make it easier for their opponents to discredit leftist ideology -- but I hasten to add that the WU no more discredits left-wing liberalism than the Klan does right-wingers.
posted by BobbyVan at 10:13 AM on November 17, 2008

Are there other so-called radicals who hold jobs in academia? Sure... Angela Davis has a chair at UC Santa Cruz. She, like Ayers, was never convicted, in no small part because the behavior that they were involved in was much more justified then than you can really imagine through today's cultural lens -- that, and the godawful techniques that the FBI used/uses were much less tolerated by a society that was (justifiably) distrustful of the government.

And she, like Ayers, is one of the best professors in the country, partially because her moral convictions were strong enough to cause her to become a radical during a time when radicalism was the only way to effect meaningful change, in a society that desperately needed changing.

And yeah, this question smells a little funny.
posted by toxic at 10:23 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

Well billysumday, it seems you and I are alone on all of metafilter in thinking this is weird. I would suspect that if you had asked this exact question a year ago, the answers you would have received would have been different. Many have spent a lot of time justifying Obama's connections to him and I think the answers you are getting reflect that. I think Ayers' connections to Obama are tremulous at best but that doesn't mean that people don't think it needs to be justified.

I think your reference to child molesters is particularly apt...if a teacher were under investigation for child molestation, guilty or not, it's unlikely he would ever teach again.

In answer to your question, I think they come from a powerful, wealthy family and are very good at what they do. Those two things seem to negate (in many people's minds) past actions.
posted by rmtravis at 10:29 AM on November 17, 2008

Well, there are lots of folks who are amazed that Northwestern University continues to employ a Holocaust denier whose work has been prominent in the neo-Nazi movement. "Academic freedom" cuts in a few different ways, you know?
posted by scody at 10:43 AM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think the answer to the question is in the wikipedia link:

"In 1991, she was hired by Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, as an adjunct professor of law, with the title "Clinical Associate Professor of Law". Trienens said he did not get her that job, although he sat on the board of trustees of Northwestern, as did Dohrn's father-in-law, who was chairman of the board until 1986, when Trienens succeeded him in that position. Robert Bennett, dean of the law school, had hired Dohrn, according to Trienens. Because Dohrn was hired as an "adjunct", her appointment did not need to be approved by the faculty, and no vote on it was ever taken. "

posted by troy at 10:47 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

Well, denying the Holocaust seems particularly stupid for an academic, that's for sure, but having a dumb (but not criminal) idea is not the same as having a criminal past.

On the one hand, you have a chemical engineer who gets tenure at an academic institution, then releases a provocative book, raises a stink, but does not get fired. On the other hand, you have a woman who is on FBI's 10 most wanted list, turns herself in, prosecution botches the case, and THEN she is hired by the institution. The issue doesn't seem to be Dohrn's ideas but rather her actions in the 1970's.

In fact, your example seems to line up more with Ward Churchill, who said some stupid things about 9/11 but was protected at Colorado because of academic freedom.
posted by billysumday at 10:49 AM on November 17, 2008

Bernardine Dorhn once publicly praised members of the Manson Family for their method of murdering Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. "Dig it," she said, " First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!" (Why were the LaBiancas "pigs"? He owned a small chain of grocery stores, hardly a crime against humanity or an oppressor of the underprivileged.) But I guess you can't hold someone's past views against them when hiring them for a teaching position. What puzzles me is the difference between Dorhn and Patricia Hearst. Hearst's family had wealth and status, like the Dorhns and Ayerses, but their daughter served prison time for her reluctant (and non-violent) participation in a bank robbery after being kidnapped. I think that part of the difference is simply time itself....Hearst was arrested and tried while the SLA was still in the news, while Dorhn went underground and didn't turn herself in to authorities until 1980, by which time the Weather Underground and its bombings had pretty much been forgotten by the public.
posted by Oriole Adams at 10:50 AM on November 17, 2008

I watched the terrible GMA interview with Ayers the other day and couldn't help recall that during this question. If you remove actions from context, you take away the meaning. A neurosurgeon and jack the ripper both wield a scalpel, but there actions are valued very differently.

The U.S. empire dropped thousands and thousands of bombs on living breathing people in numerous countries throughout indochina for years. Napalm, antipeople bombs that were designed to shoot shrapnel into people, freefire zones where anyone, from babies to the elderly, could be killed without consequence, and agent orange to poison every living thing. Veterans of that crime hold positions all through society (though to their credit, many veterans have done a lot of peace work and tried to make amends with what many were drafted unwillingly into perpetrating); the architects, such as Kissinger, are regularly lauded in high society.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were part of a movement against that. They believed in a praxis that initially accepted violence, but that after several of their own friends were killed, eschewed violence but still believed that targeted property destruction could alter the course of the killing, perhaps leading to its end.

They were wrong: Americans have been killing and training killers from the sports stadium of Chile to the fields of Afghanistan to the cities of Iraq ever since. We bomb children everyday.
Property damage didn't stop it and Ayers and Dohrn seem to have come to that conclusion. But regardless, to remove their work from that context is to reduce them to bombers, arsonists, and criminals. And people who want to improve this country, through education, the courts, whatever, have enough sense to place historical acts in their historical context. But Good morning america, sean hannity, and the chattering classes don't. Which is why we have the new nonsense.

p.s. I've met Ayers and thought he was a great guy. As someone who spent a lot of time in academia, I'm not surprised at all that he's an academic and wouldn't be surprised if he could get automatic tenure all over the place.
posted by history is a weapon at 10:50 AM on November 17, 2008 [6 favorites]

I think your reference to child molesters is particularly apt...if a teacher were under investigation for child molestation, guilty or not, it's unlikely he would ever teach again.

This is a useful statement in a number of ways... you are aware that participating in political violence wasn't viewed by large swaths of society as being quite in child-molester taboo territory until, well, 9/11, right? These things get built up over time.
posted by furiousthought at 10:51 AM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]

Is academia sympathetic to their politics? Would a right wing radical have been granted the same (apparent) clemency?

This is such a chatfilter question, but yes, it seems to me that Oliver North and G Gordon Liddy seem to be gainfully and legally employed despite their right-wing and quite criminal pasts.

Also, what rhizome said. What would you prefer?
posted by rokusan at 10:52 AM on November 17, 2008

[billysumday, I think it's a legit question if asked in not the best fashion, but giving you the benefit of the doubt there you're still really pushing the envelope as far as moderating your own thread and it's coming off kind of poorly. I think you've clarified what you're curious about pretty thoroughly at this point, so maybe step out and let folks try to answer/address the question at this point without the constant pushback, okay?]
posted by cortex at 10:54 AM on November 17, 2008

Fair enough, cortex. I already marked a question as best answer, seems like people are rambling now, and certainly I didn't help that, but I'll go ahead and take my question off the air.
posted by billysumday at 10:57 AM on November 17, 2008

The documentary you link to looks really interesting; I wish I had time to watch the whole thing.

I find the question intriguing. Also really complicated. Basically, life is not fair, and the justice system tries to make it a tiny bit more fair than it would otherwise be, but it moves grains of sand in a world of mountains. But to convict people of blowing things up, you need specific evidence, not general evidence - you're allowed to say you would like to commit violence, or that you think violence is the right way to respond to a violent society. It's a free country.

A lot of people who belonged to the weather underground say things that sound like they are terrorists, probably the same kind of philosophy that motivates members of Al Quaeda, who probably also think of themselves (or some of them anyway) as radicals doing the right thing, destroying the evil. But if the FBI doesn't have any specific evidence on particular acts, then it doesn't matter how much general "we want to blow shit up" statement and philosophy stuff there is.

So why do certain universities hire these people? That's really up to the hiring committees of those universities. I guess they had a position open and Bill Ayers applied for it... once someone is tenured it is not usually easy to drop them, although if students and/or faculty made enough noise about not wanting him there, perhaps they'd find a way.

It does seem entirely possible that these people went on to become academics because it was a less radical way of still sort of living outside the system (not being completely tied into a consumer society lifestyle at least, and having some hope of affecting the ideas of younger people), and that they were hired without the issue of their past being a consideration.

Maybe the schools are giving a free pass to people who are connected, as you say. Or maybe as schools they just care more about who's contributing something useful now, and not the damage they may have done then, since everyone does damage, just by living and eating fast food or driving an SUV or flushing your toilet (and it's real damage, even if it's not as visceral). Let the law do its part, and the school judge whether the person is a good teacher -

They (supposedly)became terrorists because america was killing abroad, so let's not forget, we are still doing that. Something like 1million iraqis have died due to the Iraq war (compared with about 4000 americans, although wounded is probably 10x that), so while it's easy to just say "we're the good guys" and "my country right or wrong", it's also just useless. If everyone says that, we just end up with an endless war. The only way we ever move beyond this is to actually seriously consider our actions and find better ways.

Terrorists aren't evil incarnate; they're angry humans. Yes, sometimes that anger is too entrenched and built up for anything to be done but treat them like rabid dogs, but that doesn't mean we want to encourage more anger. Point being: hiring committees may feel that a)it's not their business to deal with non-convictions and b)it's better to forgive and move on then to hold on to anger over the past.

But, I do agree with you that it's a weird kind of dissonance, and I would feel sort of depressed by it I think, if I ended up in a department with a former terrorist. Just because it seemed like a kind of thoughtless form of revolution and it makes me wonder how thoughtful they are now, especially if they haven't spent the intervening years reflecting on 'why did I think that would help?' On the other hand, humans tend to "go with the flow" - we adapt surprisingly quickly to the way of the world around us, and we like being tool-using creatures focused on making things work in the future. And, thinking too much about the past is a bummer, so Bill Ayers did the right thing by modern standards to move on and do something useful.
posted by mdn at 11:08 AM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think your reference to child molesters is particularly apt...if a teacher were under investigation for child molestation, guilty or not, it's unlikely he would ever teach again.

This is a very poor analogy: they are no longer under investigation; they are not a direct threat to students, seeing as their issues were with the US government, and not students; compulsive criminal behavior is not the same thing as radical anti-government action, no matter how destructive that action might be, and no matter how tempting it is to equate sexual perversion with anti-government violence.

...justifying Obama's connections to him and I think the answers you are getting reflect that.



Obama's limited connection with Ayers has nothing to do with the discussion of why Ayers and Dohrn have positions in academia. No one is justifying anything; the opinion that academia does not generally have a problem with radical thought and action is something that people across the political spectrum can agree upon.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:18 AM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]

I think your reference to child molesters is particularly apt

No, it's completely ridiculous. "Gee, people don't seem outraged enough at what I'm outraged about, so I'll make a hyperbolic comparison to something I just know they'll be outraged about!" What's next, Hitler?

These people went too far in a dangerous direction during a bad period when there weren't really any clear paths if you were as opposed to the US government and its criminal activities, as most decent people were. It's clear you think they should be shunned forever and hired, if at all, only in the kinds of occupations untouchables occupy in India, but I personally am very glad you have no influence over the hiring policies of American educational institutions. Do you seriously think Ayers, by all accounts an excellent teacher, should be replaced by one of the usual gang of mediocrities because you disapprove of his activities forty years ago? Also, do you feel equally strongly about the violent activities of colonial rebels against the legally constituted British government in the 1770s?
posted by languagehat at 11:25 AM on November 17, 2008 [3 favorites]

But just because the FBI messed up doesn't mean there aren't any number of historical documents and recordings in which Dohrn calls for revolution, destruction, violence, and the upheaval of the government.

Similar things can be said about Washington, Jefferson, and many of our other Founding Fathers.

As history as a weapon said, it's all about context. I'm not sure how old you are, but my parents and others of their generation often say this about the latter years of Vietnam- things were different. There was serious social upheaval going on. Not to excuse the extremity to which Ayers et al took their position, but wanting to overthrow the government was a fairly widespread ideology. If there were a draft going on to support the current fighting in Iraq, we'd likely see a return to those sentiments.

By which I mean to say, I think that those who also lived through that era (who now make up a large portion of upper academia) are more understanding of what people went through during that time than you may be.
posted by mkultra at 11:27 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

Maybe if we turn the question around:

Why wouldn't these academic institutions hire them?

1. They both have skillsets that the institutions desire and require

2. Their backgrounds make it clear that they are disciplined people who work hard, and who have spent a great deal of time thinking about their work

3. They have never been convicted of a crime (not that this is necessarily a deal-breaker, anyway)

4. They have political and social connections that make them attractive candidates

5. Academics are wary of political litmus tests, and even if they weren't these candidates have espoused views that many people also espoused, although they may not have taken those views as far as the candidates did

One other thing to keep in mind - and this is speculation, but it's not like anything else in this thread isn't - is that many people on the hiring committees have probably lived in Chicago for a long time. Like, maybe since the 1960s and 70s, and may have very clear, personal memories of what happened during antiwar protests and the protests around the Democratic National Convention. They may also remember the trial of the Chicago Eight, which became the Chicago Seven. Neither the courts nor the police force showed themselves to be particularly worthy of respect in these and many other instances at the time, and someone who put him/herself in opposition to that is not necessarily going to have that count as a strike against them by their contemporaries.
posted by rtha at 11:36 AM on November 17, 2008

It's clear you think they should be shunned forever and hired, if at all, only in the kinds of occupations untouchables occupy in India

Cortex has implored me not to jump in here, but, man, that's over the line. You seem to be reading a lot into my question. I merely think it's odd that Dohrn and Ayers are accepted in academia (and in the culture at large), not wrong. And thanks to some productive answers above, I've gathered a better understanding of the mindset of the time and some historical context that I think is needed. As a person born in the 80's, it seems unfathomable to me that someone could blow up buildings for ten years and then get a prestigious teaching job. But it seems as though political resistance and violent civil disobedience were much more relative during that time. I just watched this video clip in which Dohrn herself admits that it would be unfathomable now for a person to blow up buildings in the post 9/11, post Oklahoma City bombing era, that such actions would be indefensible. So I still think it's an interesting question and I appreciate the many heartfelt answers.
posted by billysumday at 11:37 AM on November 17, 2008

As history as a weapon said, it's all about context.

This is a pretty good article that gives some context from a former Marine that became a reporter for the Chicago Tribune after returning from Viet Nam. For anyone who's inclined to be knee-jerky about an NPR link, here's an excerpt:

In March, 1970, the Weathermen – now re-christened the Weather Underground – resurfaced in spectacular, if self-destructive fashion. One of their cells, which were called "focos," had hatched a plot to plant a nail-bomb at a dance in the officer's mess at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Had this act of exemplary violence occurred, it would have killed and injured not only army officers but their wives and dates as well. Fortunately for the intended victims, the Underground was as inept at bomb-making as it was at street-fighting. The device blew up in the Manhattan townhouse in which it was being constructed, killing Ayers' girlfriend, Diana Oughten, and two other Weathermen. Ayers, Rudd, Dohrn, et. al. ended up on the FBI's most wanted list and went on the lam.

So far they had succeeded only in killing themselves and in alienating the rest of the SDS. As one SDS member at the University of Wisconsin remarked, "You don't need a rectal thermometer to know where the assholes are."
posted by oneirodynia at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]

"are there other former violent criminals who bombed federal buildings and committed armed robberies who have gone on to secure professorships at prestigious law schools or sat on the board of hundred-million dollar foundations? The answer seems to be "No"


Well, gosh, Bob Kerrey is still the President of the New School, despite disturbing evidence about his direct role in the massacre of 21 women, children, and elderly villagers in a botched raid under his command. Actual deaths. Does that count for you, or not?
posted by availablelight at 11:42 AM on November 17, 2008

Why were the LaBiancas "pigs"? He owned a small chain of grocery stores, hardly a crime against humanity or an oppressor of the underprivileged.

Well, he did inherit those grocery chains. . . . part of the problem, not the solution if you're a budding Marxist Leninist aiming to take down the class system.
posted by troy at 12:03 PM on November 17, 2008

Well, gosh, Bob Kerrey is still the President of the New School, despite disturbing evidence about his direct role in the massacre of 21 women, children, and elderly villagers in a botched raid under his command. Actual deaths. Does that count for you, or not?

Well, since this is a question directed at me personally, I'm going to answer it, though I really should just step out of this thread. What the heck...

I would find it very, very odd if Bob Kerrey were to be appointed the president of an academic institution...in Vietnam. As it is, he once served for the United States government and did horrible things in its name, but I don't think it's odd that repugnant behavior in foreign lands, done under the banner of the US government, did not and does not go unpunished in the United States. Same thing goes for Kissinger. It's not about morality, it's about how some people work their way up through the system. In that context, it's not odd that Kissinger was rewarded by the US for the work that he did on behalf of...the US - no matter how evil.

On the other hand, Bill Ayers was once part of a group that sought the destruction of the United States government, and is now employed...by the United States government. I find it vastly fascinating and odd.

So, I'm not trying to make a moral argument as to whether or not Ayers and Dohrn should or should not be professors, or whether they are good teachers or not. I do, however, have trouble connecting the dots in order to see how a person goes from being on the FBI ten most wanted list to being a professor at Northwestern Law. That's why I asked the question. Thanks to some helpful answers and links, it seems that there is a generation of people who accept that the 70s were a turbulent time, combined with a couple of well-placed and powerful patriarchs who were able to open a few doors here and there.
posted by billysumday at 12:07 PM on November 17, 2008