Much has been said lately about William Ayers, a founder and leader of the Weather Underground, which bombed at least a dozen locations in the late 1960s/early 1970s in protest against the Vietnam War. No one was injured or killed in any of the bombings except three of the Weather Underground's own members when a bomb they were making prematurely exploded. After the explosion - one of those killed was Ayers' girlfriend - he went underground for some time. Charges were filed after he went underground but later dropped due to prosecutorial misconduct and thus he was never tried or convicted.
He has never repented and the now-famous New York Times interview is repeatedly brought up as evidence that he remains a terrorist. Meanwhile he and his wife (who was also a member of the group) have become respected professors in well known universities. They have been applauded as valuable members of the community.
There are two questions relative to the current political debate:
1) Does the fact that they have become respected members of the community make up for setting bombs 40 years ago?
2) How much should people that met Ayers only after he had become respectable be held accountable for Ayers' actions of so many years ago?
To evaluate these two very different questions one must base their opinion on actual factual information. Too much of what is being said is more reflective of the bias of the commenter than actual fact. The following is a short wikipedia article on Bill Ayers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
The following is the original New York Times interview published on the morning of 9/11/01. Like everything else published that morning, it hit the streets many hours before the fateful attacks.
William Ayers took exception to the way his words had been used by the interviewer to produce an intent that Ayers felt was not accurate. Ayers thus wrote a follow up piece to the NYT clarifying his positions. That letter follows:
I'll let people read the information and decide for themselves. Ideally we should all review additional sources of information before passing any judgment, as all subjective reports carry some bias (all one has to do is watch how CNN and Fox News to see how differently the same information can be presented). However, even if additional sources are not reviewed, the above actual NYT article and Ayers response letter at least provide the actual words used in both. This is a vast improvement over the willful misquotings some commenters have utilized to push their own particular agendas (in both directions).
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
You can't make up for past sins. They are what they are.
People who met Ayers after he became "respectable" have no responsibility for Ayers actions before they met.
My own take on Ayers is that the evil actions of others cannot justify evil actions on our part. When comparing evils, what Ayers did was not so bad as what others did but that does not make what Ayers did any better. It was still violence. It still risked the lives of innocent bystanders.
I don't think either Ayers or his wife are in any way threats to anyone today. I agree with his opposition to the senseless violence of his time and the present. But I can also see no excuse in that violence for violence on my part.
Also, Ayers endorcement of any political candidate will not affect my evaluation of that candidate. :-)
Ayers has moved on with his life and those that harbor grudges from 40 yrs back should move on with their lives- just like Ayers did.
The second question is a no-brainer. Of course we can't hold people accountable for the long past lives of everyone they meet. Again, if we did, none of our friends would be allowed to associate with us.
The second question is a no-brainer to me. Also how many times can you say I am friend with a person but do not share their views? We expect people to go out and repeat that, denounce that person every time that person gives a speech, writes a book? That's ridiculous.
They are teachers now, teaching the same type of radical contempt for government and love of anarchy as they once showed by making bombs. Now they're spreading their venom into the minds of our children.............in the classroom. They're sick.
How could these nitwits get a teaching gig?
What Left Wing nut-factory would hire them?
It was 40 yrs ago, life moved on and all it can say about 40 yrs ago is "Too bad, so sad, get over it."
His wife is Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center. Again, doesn't sound too radical, though I suppose it could be a cover.
Oddly enough, I know professors (not Ayres) at both Universities and they don't seem to think either University is a "left wing nut-factory." Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they, having personal knowledge and all.
I would be interested in any further enlightening you could add to your opinion.
Have you been to a college campus lately? Being controversial is part of the essence of having an intellectual capacity to argue non obvious, non conventional thinking. 'Yes sir, I agree with my government on everything at all times' does not get you anywhere.
Ayers is a non conventional thinker who did bad things 40 years ago. He paid for what he did. You want the tax payers dollar to pay for him to sit in jail?
Talking about a conservative law school? It does not get more conservative than Northwestern unless you consider southern obscure law schools worthy of the name (LOL).
Whether any institution or organization is left-wing or right wing nut factory is a matter of perspective and whether one considers anyone on the other side a nut. Aside from having known a couple of people who attended the University of Chicago any opinion I offered would be base on the reputation of the institution and while that reputation is one of being rather liberal I do not consider all liberals nut cases anymore than I consider all conservatives nut cases.
As for Ayres, the fact that he does not see any wrong in having participated in violent protest is a matter for concern because it makes me wonder how he would react to a student activist who might be leaning towards violence as a means of protest,
As for Obama's relationship with Ayres, it would have to be closer than I have been lead to believe it is to have any influence on my opinion of Obama. It is about as relevant to today as Hillary and myself having been Republicans in our youth or Ronald Regan having been a liberal in his youth.
Also, I use "respectable" to describe Ayers in his "grown up" life not because I think he is...I have no knowledge of the man and, in fact, like most people had never heard of him until recently. No, I use respectable because that's how the people who now know him refer to him, like the Mayor of Chicago and lots of community leaders who say he has contributed significantly to the community. That doesn't mean anything he did 40 years ago is right or even forgiveable, but it does mean he has focused his energies on making the world a little better. I suspect he felt that's what he was doing in protesting the Vietnam War in the way that he did, but he obviously feels that the methods are not appropriate for current times. So today he teaches critical thinking, something we all need to practice.
The whole city is a Left Wing Nut-factory.
The University of Chicago has excellent, conservative economics and finance departments.
Northwestern University has an excellent business school and MBA program. But business schools are not law schools..............unfortunately, this is where the Liberalism/Radicalism inserts itself. And both schools are weak at repelling these kinds of kooky infiltrators (like Ayers and his wife).
Like I said earlier, Ayers and his wife are still terrorists. Now they simply do it to our children................without bombs, but ten times as dangerously.
I certainly don't agree with setting bombs in any case, even if no one was hurt there was property damage and terror. Although I have to say that the late 60s/early 70s was way before 9/11 so we obviously didn't have the fear of terrorism that we have now (and especially the home-grown kind) and apparently the bombs they set weren't particularly damaging. There were many protests during that period against the Vietnam War, and many were violent (and people did die in some of the other protests). I remain ambivalent about Ayres and his wife's histories, but again, they have long since become respectable. So who are they really? The youths who used violence to protest an unpopular war, or the University professors and community organizers they have become in their adult years?
I'm reading through the comments of Rory's article on "Why isn't Democracy working." Fascinating stuff. Here's the article URL.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977305415
"Bret - are you saying that all University professors are terrorists and are subversively teaching our college students to attack the government (and they are college students, not children)? That doesn't seem particularly supportable. Can you support your contention with some additional information?"
Review my comments above. Do the words "all University professors are terrorists" appear anywhere in my comments?
No? Didn't think so.
Ayers is a self-proclaimed terrorist, as well as being a witnessed terrorist. Face it - he's a terrorist.
Didn't the University of Chicago do any kind of a background check on this nimrod? This guy should be a jailhouse lawyer, not a real one.
You have a valid argument for not forgiving Ayers for his actions of 40 years ago. But to call him a terrorist in present tense is not supportable by the facts of at least the last 27 years. You can still not like him, but opinion should at least be based on factual information.
The derivation of "all University professors are terrorists" is a logical extrapolation from your presented thought argument. You state that the "whole city is a Left Wing Nut-factory" and that Ayers and his wife"now they simply do it to our children................without bombs, but ten times as dangerously." Yet these are extrapolations lacking evidence. You can't extrapolate beyond logic for some of your arguments than behoove the logical extrapolation of other arguments. That would be cherry picking, and we've seen from the current Administration how dangerous cherry picking can be.
As for the University of Illinois at Chicago (the corect name of the University), I can't imagine that they didn't know who they were hiring. Apparently they decided that Ayres had reformed from his earlier violent acts. Clearly Ayres and his group set bombs, and even though he was never tried or convicted of anything (due to prosecutorial misconduct), he admits to doing so. No one other than his fellow terrorists was hurt, though obviously there was some property damage (apparently minor). Yet Ayers had since become respectable, not because he says so or the University says so or anyone says so, but because his many years of service to the community and the educational system show that he has.
But I'm not really here to defend Ayers, since I never met the man nor care to. At best I am ambivalent about him because I do not have all the facts I need to choose between despising or forgiving him. More importantly - I don't have to. I cannot be painted by the same brush as someone I've never even met. And Obama shouldn't be painted by the same brush as someone he knows. We're not talking about a trusted advisor where their character and history matter in the discourse. We're talking about an occasional acquaintance.
In any case, Obama is not Ayers (or Rev. Wright). Opinions about Obama should be based on his life, his words, his actions, and not the actions of people he met doing respectable community and educational work who may have "had a past." This is especially true when you cherry pick these to chastise Obama and ignore the perhaps even greater and more direct activities of the other candidates. This inconsistency suggests there are ulterior motives to your statements.
"Bret - Ayers WAS a terrorist like other people were thieves, murderers, coke snorters, or embezzlers. Those others all are allowed to rejoin society and contribute. Ayers IS now a University professor and community activist lauded by the community itself and the Mayor of Chicago."
Yep, he's a terrorist who never served his well-deserved stretch in the pokey.
I live in Chicago. Ayers is not lauded here. He's admired by the Extreme Left, but loathed as a scumbag by Moderates and Conservatives alike. Most mild Liberals disown the crackpot, just so they can't be painted with the same label as he has been.
"You have a valid argument for not forgiving Ayers for his actions of 40 years ago. But to call him a terrorist in present tense is not supportable by the facts of at least the last 27 years. You can still not like him, but opinion should at least be based on factual information."
Ayers is unrepentant over his actions of the 60's and 70's. Therefore he remains a terrorist.
His comments lately, expressing his feelings that the Weathermen should have blown up more stuff back then tells me that this guy is still a menace.
I'm willing to forgive him, but only after he serves some hard Federal time. Then he can reassimilate back into society, but not before. Forgiveness has not been earned.............yet.
Also, I believe you misread or are mischaracterizing Ayers' comments lately. If you are referring to the NYT article and his follow up clarification letter, then perhaps you should reread the links I posted in the article. He never said he thought they "should have blown up more stuff." He said that he wishes they had been able to do more to stop the Vietnam War before more of our soldiers were killed in battle. True, it's a distinction that can be argued, but he clearly wasn't advocating that anyone go "blow up stuff" to protest the current war in Iraq or for any other reason. Based on everything I have read he has long ago grown up and given up his past criminal ways.
As for serving hard time, he has to be convicted of something for that to happen. He was charged with crimes after he went into hiding, but these charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. We do have laws in this country, and while Ayers admits to breaking some of them with his terrorist activities of 40 years ago, the government is not allowed to break laws themselves in return. It was the government's fault he was never tried for his acts. Since coming out of hiding in 1981 (27 years ago) he has reportedly contributed to society and apparently has not broken any significant laws (while I don't know this, I do leave open the possibility that he may have broken some speeding laws, as do us all).
Everybody here in town knows this guy well. Everybody here in the Democratic party knows him well too. Nobody who values their reputation would be caught dead in the same room with this scumbag.
Ever seen him posing shaking hands with any bigwigs here in town? Nope? Me neither.
The University of Chicago hiring policies are now being reviewed to determine who exactly did his background check.
As I said earlier, I don't know the guy and so am not here to defend him or his reputation other than to present the fact that he has apparently moved on from his previous actions.
But also as I said earlier, I don't think he is particularly relevant to the Obama discussion. Sure, take a look at Ayers, but only with respect to any impact he may have had on Obama's thinking, actions, or integrity. I see not impact. The "association" being used to impune Obama is tenuous at best. We meet people all the time. We serve on boards with people all the time. So what.
I once spoke with Hillary Clinton at a cocktail party in DC. Am I to be painted by the same brush as her for the rest of my life? Of course not.
It is unlikely that Mayor Daley would be in the same room with the guy for a photo op. The ravenous press here in Chicago would eat him alive with pictures of that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason that Ayers, Wright, Rezko, or any other shady figure is even in this discussion is because Obama painted this to be a campaign about "character" and "judgment". Remember early on, when Obama was shooting from the hip with these terms?
Now that Obama has been tagged with more than a few bad judgments, he's not using those terms any more. He wants to talk about "change" and "hope"..............ethereal terms that can't be hung around his neck like a millwheel.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/daley_dont_tar_obama_for_ayers.html
Also, none of the people you mention reflects poorly on Obama's judgment at all. First, because the characterizations of each of them, and the characterization of any association with Obama, are caricatures and not reflective of reality. Second, because none of them is Obama. We can't set up a strawman and shoot it down and claim that because we shot down a false argument we should give veracity to it's result.
I also agree with you that Ayers, no matter what our opinion of him might be, is not a valid issue on which to impune Obama.
Thanks for contributing Donald. Great to have you here.
Consider that there was a truck bomb planted by al Qaeda operatives in the basement of World Trade Towers in 1993 (I had arrived via Path train in the Towers a week before it happened, so remember the events clearly). Even in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City the initial reaction was to suspect Islamic extremists (before it turned out to be a home grown terrorist). So there were warnings.
Another terrorist act on US soil is virtually certain under current conditions, and in fact, perhaps even more so because of the choices our current Adminstration has made that have served as recruiting tools for al qaeda and other groups. We cannot stop them forever with military force and, in fact, may actually be encouraging them. So what can we do?
The answer is certainly not an easy one. But clearly we cannot kill all the terrorists, since killing one inspires others. No, we must do as you suggest and deal with the root causes, both by evaluating our own actions and evaluating their motives. To suggest that terrorists terrorize "because they hate our freedoms," as our current Administration was prone to do, is sophomoric, inaccurate, and counterproductive to finding a solution. We need leadership in this country, not slogans. That leadership must acknowledge that people think differently, and no matter how much we may disagree with them, their thinking is in fact the driving force behind actions they may take (as it is also reflective of why we do what we do). We must all come clean and put everything on the table if we are to find a path forward into a future where we all can live.
I agree Israel is a major point of contention in Islamic states, as it is for many non-Islamic countries as well. Many see the creation of Israel in 1947 by splitting Palestine areas as an illegal act and imperialism. There seems no way to resolve the issue peacefully, and it serves as a focal point for every person who feels oppressed in the region (which is pretty much everyone it seems).
I also agree that all religions need to "come up to date" as you put it, and accept the validity of other religions (especially when you consider Jerusalem is a central player in all three). To paraphrase something Abraham Lincoln once said "All sides claim to have God on their side, I just hope to be on the side of God."