- CounterPunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org –
David Graeber is Gone: Revisiting His Wrongful Termination from Yale
By Joshua Frank On September 4, 2020
David Graeber
speaks at Maagdenhuis Amsterdam, 2015.
I am so very sad to hear that David
Graeber died yesterday in Italy at the age of 59. David was not only brilliant,
but he was genuine, accessible, and passionate. What a huge, immeasurable loss,
could 2020 be any worse? Here is an interview I did with David in 2005 when he
was wrongfully fired from his post at Yale. RIP friend. The world, and our movement,
was so much better off with you in it. Your fighting spirit will live on. – JF
David Graeber, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Yale University, and the author of Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams and Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, among many other scholarly publications. Last week Graeber was informed that his teaching contract at Yale would not be extended. However, it was not Graeber’s scholarship that was ever in question; rather it was his political philosophies that may have played a heavy hand in the administration’s unwarranted decision. Graeber, a renowned anarchist scholar, recently spoke with Joshua Frank about the fiasco. As one of our other favorite anthropologists David Price put it, this “is a ghastly look under the hood at how academic knowledge is manufactured at America’s ‘finest’ institutions.”
JOSHUA FRANK:
Prof. Graeber, can you talk a little bit about the circumstances leading up to
Yale’s decision not to renew your teaching contract? How much of their decision
do you think was based on your political persuasion and activism?
DAVID GRAEBER:
Well, it’s impossible to say anything for certain because no official reasons
were given for the decision and I’m not allowed to know what was said in the
senior faculty meeting where my case was discussed. In fact, if anyone who
attended were to tell me what I was accused of, they would themselves be
accused of violating “confidentiality” and they would get in trouble, too. But
one thing that was repeatedly stressed to me when I was preparing my material
for review is that no one is really taking issue with my scholarship. In fact,
it was occasionally hinted to me that if anything I publish too much, have
received too much international recognition, and had too many enthusiastic
letters of support from students. All that might have actually weighed against
me. Again, I have no way of knowing if that’s really true, because everything
is a secret. But I’d be willing to say this much: What happened to me was
extremely irregular – almost unheard of, really. It happened despite the fact
that I’m one of best published scholars and most popular teachers in the
department. Does it have anything to do with the fact that I’m also one of the
only declared anarchist scholars in the academy? I’ll leave it to your readers
to make up their own minds.
JF: If I am not
mistaken, you have been up for review at Yale before, correct? What has changed
since those reviews were held?
DG: I had an
official third-year review and I had no problems with that, they told me I was
doing fine. Then, after that, I started writing essays defending anarchism, and
getting involved in big mobilizations against the IMF and G8 as well organizing
with the peace movement. When I got back from my sabbatical, everything had
changed. Several of the senior profs wouldn’t even say hello to me. I was
assigned no committee work. When I came up for review in my sixth year for
promotion to term associate – normally a rubber stamp – suddenly, several
senior faculty virulently opposed my promotion on the grounds that I didn’t do
any committee work. Not surprising since they refused to give me any. They also
produced a whole panoply of petty charges – “he comes late to class,” that sort
of thing – which, as usual, I was not allowed to know about much less respond
to. Of course I was acting exactly as I’d acted for the first three years, too,
but suddenly it was a terrible problem. The vote deadlocked so they took it to
the Dean who told them they couldn’t fire someone without a warning, so I was
given a letter telling me I had to do something about my “unreliability” and do
more service work. My contract was extended for just two years instead of the
usual four, and I was told they would vote at the end of the next year to see
if it would be extended (so that I would be able to come up for tenure.) So
this year I’ve been running the colloquium series, doing all sorts of extra
teaching – this term for instance, I effectively taught three courses instead
of the required two because I had one weekly class with undergraduates who were
all taking independent studies with me – taught one of the most popular courses
in Yale (Myth and Ritual, with 137 students) … But on Friday May 6, I was
informed that they had voted not to renew my contract anyway and offered no
explanation as to why.
JF: I know there
is no union you can turn to at Yale for support, as faculty members are not
allowed to unionize, but have you reached out to the Graduate Employee and
Student Organization (GESO, Yale’s graduate student union)? I know they are not
recognized as a legitimate union by the university, but have they been an ally
in all of this?
DG: To be honest,
I actually tried to avoid getting involved in campus activism for many years. I
figured we all have to make our little compromises, mine would be: I’d be an
activist in New York, and a scholar in New Haven, and that meant avoiding the
whole unionization question as much as I could. In the long run, of course, it
was impossible. Our department is extremely divided, certain elements in the
senior faculty hate GESO with an infinite passion and campaign tirelessly
against it, the students are all factionalized; it’s a mess. I supported the
principle of unionization of course; I was also very critical of what I saw as
the top-down organization of the union (after all, I’m an anarchist – my idea
of a good union is the IWW); I just tried to be fair to all sides. But in the
end I got drawn in. It all came to a head a few months ago, actually, when
certain elements in the senior faculty tried to kick out a very brilliant
graduate student who also happened to be one of the department’s major
organizers. As it turned out, I was the only professor on her committee willing
to openly stand up for her during the meeting where they tried to terrorize her
into leaving the program. She refused to back down, and with the help of some
of my colleagues, we managed to get her through her defense successfully, but
after that, certain elements in the senior faculty seemed determined to take
revenge.
I’m definitely
working with some union people now. But almost all of the graduate students,
the most pro-GESO and the most anti-GESO, seem to have been shocked and
outraged by what happened. In fact, one of the things that has come of this,
that’s strangely wonderful, is that it’s the first thing that really brought
both sides together. The students are organizing and they’ve put together a
petition and are already starting to take all sorts of action to try to
pressure the university to reverse the decision.
JF: Do you
think some of this extreme tension within your department, and the episode with
the grad student you defended, played a role in your contract not being
renewed? Or was this just an extension of an already contentious relationship?
There seems to be a huge divide between some of the senior faculty and
yourself. What else, if anything, have they done to show their dislike for your
political persuasion – or is it more your activism that gets under their skin?
DG: I
don’t want to give the impression that the senior faculty are all the same:
there are some amazing, wonderful scholars amongst the senior faculty here.
We’re really just talking about three, maybe four, who are atrocious bullies. I
have five colleagues who were just awesome, and who fought as hard as they
could to defend me. It’s just that the bullies never give up – they’re willing
to throw all their time and energy into these battles, since after all, most
have long since given up on any meaningful intellectual life – and of course
since everything’s secret, there’s no accountability.
They can
tell one lie about you, get caught in it, and then next time around just make
up another one and eventually the majority of the faculty will say “it doesn’t
matter whether what they say is true. If they hate this guy so much, then
clearly his presence is divisive Let’s just get rid of him.” As for the episode
with the grad student: absolutely. Again, some of these people have no
intellectual life. In most departments there’s one or two characters like that,
you know. Their power is the only thing they really have. So anyone challenges
that power in any way and they react like cornered tigers. That’s why they hate
the union so much. That’s why they go berserk if anyone stands up to them.
One thing
that I’ve learned in academia is no one much cares what your politics are as
long as you don’t do anything about them. You can espouse the most radical
positions imaginable, as long as you’re willing to be a hypocrite about them.
The moment you give any signs that you might not be a hypocrite, that you might
be capable of standing on principle even when it’s not politically convenient,
then everything’s different. And of course anarchism isn’t about high theory:
it’s precisely the willingness to try to live by your principles.
JF: So are
academics not supposed to be activists then? I’m thinking of Ward Churchill’s
recent controversy at the University of Colorado and Joseph Massad’s at
Columbia. Do you think your case is symptomatic of a larger problem in the US
where radical professors are being targeted for their unpopular political
views? Or are these just isolated incidents?
DG: I don’t want
to give the impression that the senior faculty are all the same: there are some
amazing, wonderful scholars amongst the senior faculty here. We’re really just
talking about three, maybe four, who are atrocious bullies. I have five
colleagues who were just awesome, and who fought as hard as they could to
defend me. It’s just that the bullies never give up – they’re willing to throw
all their time and energy into these battles, since after all, most have long
since given up on any meaningful intellectual life – and of course since
everything’s secret, there’s no accountability.
They can tell one
lie about you, get caught in it, and then next time around just make up another
one and eventually the majority of the faculty will say “it doesn’t matter
whether what they say is true. If they hate this guy so much, then clearly his
presence is divisive Let’s just get rid of him.” As for the episode with the
grad student: absolutely. Again, some of these people have no intellectual
life. In most departments there’s one or two characters like that, you know.
Their power is the only thing they really have. So anyone challenges that power
in any way and they react like cornered tigers. That’s why they hate the union
so much. That’s why they go berserk if anyone stands up to them.
One thing that
I’ve learned in academia is no one much cares what your politics are as long as
you don’t do anything about them. You can espouse the most radical positions
imaginable, as long as you’re willing to be a hypocrite about them. The moment
you give any signs that you might not be a hypocrite, that you might be capable
of standing on principle even when it’s not politically convenient, then
everything’s different. And of course anarchism isn’t about high theory: it’s
precisely the willingness to try to live by your principles.
JF: So are
academics not supposed to be activists then? I’m thinking of Ward Churchill’s
recent controversy at the University of Colorado and Joseph Massad’s at
Columbia. Do you think your case is symptomatic of a larger problem in the US
where radical professors are being targeted for their unpopular political
views? Or are these just isolated incidents?
DG: If you’d asked
me six months ago, I would have probably said “academics can be activists as
long as they do nothing to challenge the structure of the university,” or
anyone’s power within it. If you want to make an issue of labor conditions in
Soweto, great, you’re a wonderful humanitarian; if you want to make an issue of
labor conditions for the janitors who clean your office, that’s an entirely
different story. But I think you’re right, something’s changing. I mean, I’m
sure it’s not like there’s someone giving orders from above or anything, but
there’s a climate suddenly where people feel they can get away with this sort
of thing, and the Ward Churchill and Massad cases obviously must have something
to do with that. I’ve been hearing a lot of stories, in recent weeks, about
radical teachers suddenly being let go for no apparent reason. They don’t even
have to dig up something offensive you’re supposed to have said any more – at
least, in my case no one is even suggesting I did or said anything outrageous,
in which case, at least there’d be something to argue about.
If I had to get
analytical about it, maybe I’d put it this way. We’re moving from the
neoliberal university to the imperial university. Or at least people are trying
to move us there. It used to be as long as you didn’t challenge the
corporatization of the university, you’d be basically okay. But the neoliberal
project – where the politicians would all prattle about “free markets and
democracy” and what that would actually mean was that the world would be run by
a bunch of unelected trade bureaucrats in the interests of Citibank and
Monsanto – that kind of fell apart. And of course the groups I’ve been working
with – People’s Global Action, the DANs and ACCs and the like – we had a lot to
do with that. It threw the global elites into a panic, and of course the normal
reaction of global elites when thrown into a panic is to go and start a war. It
doesn’t really matter who the war’s against. The point is once you’ve got a
war, the rules start changing, all sorts of things you’d never be able to get away
with otherwise become possible, whether in Haiti or New Haven. In that kind of
climate, nasty people start trying to see what they can get away with. “Fire
the anarchist for no particular reason? Maybe that’ll work.”
That’s why I feel we have to fight this. I
don’t think it would be all that hard for me to find another job. My CV and
publications kind of speak for themselves. But if you let something like this
stand, it hurts everyone. So when people asked me whether they should start
mobilizing for me, I said, go right ahead. And the outpouring of support has
been just amazing. We already have 1400 signatures from Argentina to Singapore
and the petition has only been up for a couple days now. I hear that the
European parliament is about to pass a bill specifically about my case. The
teacher’s union in the UK is going to consider placing Yale on their “gray
list.” People are mobilizing all over the world.
Article printed from CounterPunch.org: https://www.counterpunch.org
URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/09/04/david-graeber-is-gone-revisiting-his-wrongful-termination-from-yale/
Donations can be sent
to Max Obuszewski, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 431 Notre Dame Lane, Apt. 206,
Baltimore, MD 21212. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at]
comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment