Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat Threatens Inst. Autonomy
119 comments
·October 26, 2024Aeolun
wrs
Not to mention the irony of “wanting to avoid even appearing to violate Federal law”, given the person the politicians are concerned about.
alephnerd
You can agree or disagree with Ben-Ghiat's thesis, but legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set.
The whole point of these kinds of lectures and discussions are to spark debates and conversations among decisionmakers.
It is especially ironic because Ben-Ghiat's research is explicitly about that - political meddling in military administration lead to degraded institutional capacity.
Look at 10/7 in Israel or Russia's fiasco in Ukraine - both are examples of how military and intelligence capacity can be degraded by political meddling.
throwawaymaths
> legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set.
This is exactly wrong. Legislators are supposed to intervene when an executive department comes dangerously close to breaking the law. This is doubly so for the military (Congress holds hearings on military action all the time, must authorize nonwar military action beyond 90 days, has special, stricter rules for military appropriations, etc.).
In this specific case, the idea that the US military academies are "autonomous" from Congress is kind of an unserious argument (or, at best misinformed). To get a seat as a student you must get a letter of recommendation from a sitting legislator. All of the generals and admirals, including those in charge of the institutions are required to be nominated and confirmed by the US Congress before they take their positions.
alephnerd
There is NOTHING illegal about a civilian giving an academic lecture for other academics.
The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well.
This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.
throwawaymaths
The usna is a part of the executive branch and the executive cannot sponsor election related content (hatch act). The author posted a blog post referring to the lecture in question which called out the specific name of a candidate. If the author made such a reference during her lecture, even if by accident, the organizers, officers of the executive branch, would be at risk of prosecution for sponsoring an election related event, which would be a complete pain in the ass even if they would be found innocent. Cancelling the lecture was prudent. Maybe postponing the lecture would been a more politic choice, but it was still a reasonable thing to do.
adolph
“PEN America today sharply criticized some Republican members of Congress”
The press release claims that the org sharply criticized but did not provide any evidence that actually occurred. Did they do this via a text message, visit offices or what?
okintheory
It's right there, in the press release:
>>> Jonathan Friedman, Sy Syms director of PEN America’s U.S. Free Expression programs, said:
“The irony cannot be lost here: government officials have used their positions to muscle out a scholar of authoritarianism from a prestigious lecture," <<<
adolph
Did Friedman utter those words to any member of Congress? Was he at a podium in an empty room at midnight?
wang_li
Government institutions are not meant to be autonomous. Outside of a narrow set of explicitly political positions, everyone who is in government should be apolitical in the carrying out of their duties.
o11c
Specifically, since this is a military institution, remember that all members swear (or affirm) an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, except Republicans".
rootusrootus
Snark aside, I would mention that when I left the military they did not ask me to renounce the oath. While it can be argued that it is implied to be limited to your term of service due to other language contained within, I am of the opinion that the important bits about 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic' are permanent. Unless you'd like to renounce it and declare your allegiance more specifically to something else.
wbl
That is closely related to autonomy. And the service academies are serious academic institutions. Inviting speakers on military history is very valuable to cadets and midshipmen. Why wouldn't they do it to give their students a broader view of what it means to be an officer?
wrs
Historians who can’t analyze politics are useless, and a military education system that ignores history is ineffective.
untangle
I graduated from "Annapolis" (AKA USNA, "The Boat School") in the 70's. My second career was in high-tech here in Silicon Valley.
Let me state the "quiet part" of the Naval Academy's mission out loud: It aspires to train the Services' future admirals and generals. It is not a vocational school, nor is it really a college. It's something else.
It strikes me that the relationship between flag-rank officers and their civilian (political) leaders is fair game.
Having said that, the selection of this speaker is edgy. But it's the timing of the event that I think puts it in the bad-judgement-or-worse category. We used to call this "poor headwork."
My recommendation would have been to postpone the event until next year, and then reexamine the issue more closely. And to do all of the above quietly.
asdf123qweasd
The problem with attempts to controll knowledge, aka limit it, is that it has a tendency to spiral. You limit information about this and that- some zealous partymonger goes astray and limits all the information related. Next you have a famine and because of the involved parties guilt about the dysfunction, knowledge is limited even further. You either have all the information, including the one about retardations going awry in the past. Or you do not and spiral down to become one of those figures in the history lectures doing bizar things, repeating past failures. Looking both ways in this comment. The whole narrative control thing of the left, which is completely blind to physical realities causing problems and makes everything a theater-society-production with a racist villian is almost as disgusting as the ahistoric "isolationism will solve our problems" of the right.
defrost
Any thoughts on the "narrative control thing of the" US right as detailed in this article?
A4ET8a8uTh0
Friend. After one of the more recent bigger political event in US, which, in more sane times, would have made most people pause, I asked people from 'the other side', if they would be willing to reconsider their current stance on 'speech', its limits and what is acceptable within society. They were not.
I guess what I am saying is that you probably should not be surprised when some will eventually say 'what is good for the goose'. I am personally not there yet, but I assure you it is a tempting position to take..
And this is before we ignore the background of potential ww3, normal election cycle tension and unusual, but very potent, vibes of potential civil war.
So... cool it with the US right, because you yourself are not helping. At all. More than that. You are actively making things worse. Good job?
anon84873628
There's a big difference between narratives plausibly based in fact and some shared version of reality - even if stretched and imperfect at times - versus narratives formed knowingly and deliberately out of lies.
"Both sides are bad" is simply untrue. One side is definitely categorically worse.
justin66
"Ben-Ghiat has stated that she did not intend to discuss Trump or contemporary America during the lecture, noting that the event was to be strictly nonpartisan."
throwawaymaths
https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-in...
""" -The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -
I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. """
justin66
And if you make it to the second sentence (I know I'm asking a lot):
I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.
This was, pretty plainly I think, meant to be note separate from the subject matter of the article whose title you found objectionable.
throwawaymaths
At the very least claiming neutrality after baking that sub stack title needs an explanation or apology, and even still the authorities involved are absolutely correct to cancel or at least postpone her lecture out of an abundance of caution to avoid a hatch act violation.
themgt
It's a bedrock of our system that the US military remain firmly under civil control and politically neutral. The article elides but deep-links through to Ben-Ghiat's Substack announcing the lecture, which is what set off the firestorm:
- The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -
I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. This lecture is not open to the public. I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.
_______________
That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military. ... Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims.
I can see both sides of the argument on cancellation, but it's frankly idiotic to announce your lecture to the Naval Academy in an essay you directly title and then expound on your criticism of a leading presidential candidate vis-a-vis the military, weaving that criticism into the very topic of the lecture you are to give to the military. The same would be true if the politician was Biden, Harris or anyone else. The military needs to stay a 10 foot pole away from politics. The alternative is incredibly dangerous.
https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-in...
AlotOfReading
The military can't stay away from politics. They're deeply embedded in the heart of American politics and to paraphrase clausewitz, war itself is politics by other means. Do you think Vietnam and the Iraqi war can be divorced from the political discussions that surrounded them?
The military needs to be acutely aware the delicate politicsl balance their role requires. I don't see how you can do that without open discussions of politics.
leereeves
> Do you think Vietnam and the Iraqi war can be divorced from the political discussions that surrounded them?
Of course not, and that's not what they meant.
The point is, those very important political discussions are left to civilians, and the military does what civilians decide. That is fundamental to democracy; without it, you have military dictatorship.
throwawaymaths
You are talking past each other. GP is using politics in the "what is happening right now with specific players sense". You are talking about politics in "everything since Cicero with generality" sense. Both of you are correct. Military needs needs to stay out of the former and be aware of the latter.
throwaway5752
What Republicans are doing is not normal and we are not safe from it in technology.
If you think you should be able to moderate, or not turn over commenter data because of their political content, then you should be worried. It's no different that trying to plan a curriculum with guest lecturers. If they feel welcomed to intrude on this decision, then it won't stop there.
readthenotes1
And working hand in glove to silence dissent is better?
unethical_ban
Sure, why not, when you're not going to say what you're talking about.
whamlastxmas
I genuinely don’t see much difference in behavior between the two parties
unethical_ban
I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, given how many examples we have that there are major differences. Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change.
At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.
Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.
whamlastxmas
Yes there are policy differences. My point is that the behavior is similar. They all lie, they all obstruct, they all gerrymander, they all have giant corporate and financial influence, they all drag their feet and fail to get anything meaningful passed, none of them care about real healthcare reform, they all push problematic overly capitalist ideals.
Yes there are differences. But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade and we still have broken healthcare, broken education, broke electorate systems, broken civil rights. If they were really that different we’d see different results based on who is in power, and we really barely do
A4ET8a8uTh0
<< I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples,
Hmm, what could be a good indicator of uniparty being in charge today? What current events could serve as a good indicator of why people may think it is all merely a kabuki theater with more cross-dressing than substance? What and who could possibly make denizens of US so gosh darn cynical? What could be the one thing establishment dems and reps just can't help themselves from doing?
<< At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.
There is no 'more guilty'. You are either guilty of it or not. You want to be holy and claim to dispense divine wisdom? You don't get to piss in the holy water then.
<< Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change.
Oh yeah. Such massive differences. So massive. Like. Public education. Everyone knows in Chicagoland left leaning individuals of means send their kids to public schools, because it is the right thing to do ( and public education is just the best kind of tits ). Everyone knows. And everyone who does not is likely an evil republican and likely a climate change denier. Maybe even a fascist.
<< hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.
Why on earth would I want the government to be modern or more democratic? Do you even know what you are asking for here? And which government? Federal? State? Local?
Like seriously. Do you want the government to use new and improved Python 3.13? Do you have a strong objection to use of C++ in government code? Do you want it to use blockchain to validate voter information? Do you want to use AWS to store everything about everyone? Do you want memory protection? What? Talk about being specific.
And why anyone would want US to be more democratic, where an average voter is functional, semi-literate moron[1] ( From 2012 to 2017, a survey conducted with 12,330 adult participants aged between 16 and 74 had a mean score of 264 out of 500 on a literacy test. There were participants from every state and county within the total that took the exam. ; 54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. )
They barely understand what is happening to them and you want to let them have more of a say how this country is run? Seriously?
Fuck man. If anything, we need to bring back full blown early republic when you had a right to vote if you had some skin in the game ( likely land ). Since it is 2024 we can add having kids as having a skin in the game.
<< Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.
Is it a useful example in your book? To me it signifies little. Power tries to get more power. Surprise.
[1]https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...
throwaway5752
I am disappointed by both parties but see clear differences in ideology and more importantly, respect for the law, due process, and civil rights.
In particular, the full title of this article is, "Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat at Behest of Republican Politicians Threatens Institutional Autonomy"
whamlastxmas
I agree there are idealogical differences even though they’re very similar in important ways too. I just meant behavior, no ideas, were very similar
kthjaG
So, her books compare Trump to Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and people are surprised that the event was cancelled.
Trump by the way is Netanyahu's favorite candidate.
All U.S. media organizations attempt the "Trump is Hitler" shtick as a final Hail Mary because they sense that Harris is going to lose. Just like in 2016.
wrs
The Republicans’ shtick is that any criticism of Republicans is entirely partisan and should be ignored or suppressed.
littlestymaar
And they do so while whining about “cancel culture” all the time and pretending to “defend free speech”…
zen928
It's interesting that you and your defending cheerleader down in the discussion chain are both one day old accounts exclusively spewing pro authoritarian pro trump rhetoric. It really does make it difficult to wonder if you have an antagonistic intention meant to push a narrative instead of trying to good faith contribute to the discussion ...
It may have helped your candidate avoid Hitler comparisons if he himself didn't bring up praise about Hitler. Not hard to see that it's bad optics.
rootusrootus
Trump is definitely a demagogue, so comparing him to other well known demagogues of the [relatively] recent past is perfectly reasonable. This is worth a national discussion because it was fundamental to the creation of this country, our system of government was intended to protect us from exactly this situation.
dragonwriter
> All U.S. media organizations attempt the "Trump is Hitler" shtick as a final Hail Mary because they sense that Harris is going to lose.
No, I think it is because he overtly calls for purges of the civil service and replacement with personal loyalists, use of the military against personal political opponents, ethnic cleansing on a world-historic scale in the US, etc.
> Trump by the way is Netanyahu's favorite candidate.
That’s not really an argument against him being a fascist authoritarian.
ethbr1
> Trump by the way is Netanyahu's favorite candidate.
Because they're both authoritarian?
Not sure what you were trying to suggest there. Netanyahu and Hitler have much in common in their political approach, even if their policies (obviously) differ.
idle_zealot
Do their policies differ? They both run an authoritarian, expansionist ethnostate bent on commiting genocide.
littlestymaar
You can still criticize Netanyahou and the Israeli government without being jailed in concentration camps or assassinated, which is a luxury that political opponents of Hitler didn't have…
AvAn12
Did you not read that he just said he will use the military and government to jail his political opponents? Yesterday. So he may be different than Hitler in that he does not wear a moustach, but the promise to jail political rivals is a big problem. And no, there is not an equivalence to Trump’s current indictments - they are all based on his actual violation of actual laws - and they have yet to go to trial - verdicts have not been rendered, and he might be found not guilty. This is not the same as jailing or threatening to jail people who you simply suspect may not agree with you. Trump is a menace and if you think you will “get rich on crypto” if he does and or some other such fantasy, you might be in for disappointment- especially if he should randomly decide you are on his enemies list. Please don’t fall for this.
mikeyouse
And the Trump-Hitler news is because a US Marine General, and Trump’s CoS and Director of Homeland Security went public with his fears based on the last time that Trump tried to deploy the Military against civilians and was met with pushback, after which he wondered why “His Generals” weren’t more like Hitler’s. There’s never been a less fit major political candidate in the US.
rootusrootus
> There’s never been a less fit major political candidate in the US.
And the polls and prediction markets both suggest he has a better shot at winning than the boring business-as-usual candidate. Prepare for four more years of chaos, and another test of our democratic institutions' ability to protect the republic. Guaranteed to be a wild ride.
Don't forget to vote! It matters!
klear
Everyone will agree that Trump makes silly comments! He made the same comments in 2016 and never even attempted to lock up anyone for the whole four years.
The Democrats always say the right things, but proceeded to try to lock up Trump for the entire period of 2021-2024.
Barking dogs don't bite, it seems that "Silent dogs bite" is also true.
derektank
Jeff Sessions was actively encouraged to investigate Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump which, to his credit, he largely resisted as he had decided to refuse himself on all matters that might be related to the 2016 campaign (Sessions had been a member of the Trump campaign). It's overwhelmingly likely that the next AG will be far more compliant to Trump's demands
V-eHGsd_
> but proceeded to try to lock up Trump for the entire period of 2021-2024.
that's a very strange/partisan way to say that they tried to hold him legally accountable for his actions.
rootusrootus
The best thing you can say about Donald Trump is that he has the attention span of a gnat and a sense of vanity so large that manipulating him is trivially easy. He had fewer accomplishments in his term than any president in memory. What he brings is chaos, not policy, and that is the only thing that gives me much hope at all should he win another term. We'd be much worse off if he had the skill to turn the rhetoric into action. Probably we will just get more useless wall.
mola
Netanyahu is an authoritarian that during the last 30 years has been busy dismantling Israel's democracy. So yeah, Trump is his favourite. He also like far right leaders like Hungary's Orbán and Poland's Kaczyński...
A4ET8a8uTh0
I find it interesting. Basic google check suggests that Ben-Ghiat is a political commentator. If that is true and accurate then her presence and presentation at Naval Academy is at best an opinion and not strictly a 'lecture'.
I have technically zero problem with her presenting, precisely because I am very, very pro-free speech, but this is akin to interpretative dancing representative performing at defcon.. kinda silly.
edit: I will add one more thing to the lazy disagreements via negative points.
If I am right, then her very presence there is political propaganda aimed for specific candidate. In other words, it is not clear whether she should be there at all.
derektank
Calling her a political commentator when she's a member of the AHA and a tenured professor of History at NYU feels a little bit disingenuous. You can just as easily call her a historian, and the Naval Academy employs (and produces) a lot of historians
A4ET8a8uTh0
Know that I love you.
Her very own web page states the following:
"Historian, Educator, and Commentator"
That is her words ( or at least someone who built it for her ), not mine. So you are 1/3 right?
Same page has interviews with her at MSNBC -- and if you listen to those, she does not exactly appear to be exactly an impartial observer.
[1]https://ruthbenghiat.com/ [2]https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/
skeledrew
Can you point to the particular clues which suggest that she isn't an impartial (from an academic perspective) observer? That she isn't presenting the empirical conclusions of her analysis and years of research?
V-eHGsd_
> So you are 1/3 right?
if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?), op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.
justin66
Strange comment. Is the argument that a PhD, professor and author of several books on any given topic is no longer a credible authority in their field after they act as a "political commentator?" And by extension, presumably, the most credible political commentators are the ones without any education or academic credentials?
That all seems pretty dumb.
> I am very, very pro-free speech
I bet.
throwawaymaths
It's not a question of if she's a credible commentator, it's that arms of the executive aside from the president and vp are forbidden by law from making political commentary directly relating to active candidates. By announcing the title she did, the author put the academy at risk of violating the law.
null
SauciestGNU
So are you proposing that nobody who has ever published a political opinion can speak at a state-sponsored event without violating the hatch act?
A4ET8a8uTh0
<< > I am very, very pro-free speech
I bet.
***
I addressed commentator comment with another poster, but if you were to look at my other posts, it is not hard to see the way I lean. You would lose that bet friend.
anon84873628
Elsewhere you said you go where the argument takes you, but haven't responded to this one.
Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". The purpose of these studies is hypothesize new viewpoints and narratives through which to understand the world. There is no unbiased or apolitical view of history.
I kind of agree with the person in the article that says the politicians that meddled in the fact that the lecture would be given did the very thing they claim they were concerned about.
That’s not the first time it happens. It’s always fine if they do it, but terrible if the other side does.