The New McCarthyism: On the Recent Purge of David Graeber

Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber's recent purge from Yale University—coming hot on the heels of the trial-by-media of Native American radical Ward Churchill—is one of many recent attacks on radical professors that have shaken the supposedly safe zone of the ostensibly liberal academy. Graeber’s contract was recently not renewed under highly suspicious circumstances after many years of teaching at the Ivy League school. The New McCarthyism: On the Recent Purge of David Graeber

KK Vega

Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber's recent purge
from Yale University—coming hot on the heels of the
trial-by-media of Native American radical Ward
Churchill—is one of many recent attacks on radical
professors that have shaken the supposedly safe zone
of the ostensibly liberal academy. Graeber’s contract
was recently not renewed under highly suspicious
circumstances after many years of teaching at the Ivy
League school.

"Being an openly anarchist professor would mean
challenging the way universities are run," Graeber had
written, "and that, of course, is going to get one in
far more trouble than anything one could ever write." Apparently, his situation has proven these
observations true.

Unlike some radical academics, Graeber has always
distinguished himself as someone who had a very active
presence ‘on the ground.’ In addition to having
written several widely-read essays on anarchism and
the anti-globalization movement, and the books
‘Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False
Coin of Our Own Dreams’ and ‘Fragments of an Anarchist
Anthropology,’ he was also a member of the NYC Direct
Action Network, and a familiar face at demonstrations,
benefits, and talks.

In fact, it was several years ago at one of these
events that he told me that, while it was great while
it lasted, the Ivory Tower (or at least his nook of
it) would not tolerate him for long. After he was
identified in the mainstream media as a member of the
Anti-Capitalist Convergence during the demonstrations
against the 2002 World Economic Forum in New York
City, right-wing Yale alumni started a campaign to
have him dismissed. Two years ago, his department
attempted to have him removed, and was only barred
from doing so for violating administrative procedures.
Nonetheless, Graeber himself has seemed surprised that
he would lost his job in this manner.

But what’s the momentum behind these difficulties that
radical academics have had? I think it has to do with
the ubiquitous presence of progressives of all stripes
(from Communist to queer) in the universities - long a
thorn in the side of the Right. So, with Bush's
election victory, it should come as no surprise that
conservatives see this as an opportunity to take out
some of the Right's most hated opponents—those damn
anti-American radical professors.

This is not to argue that there's some vast conspiracy
afoot, with its origins in either a PNAC three-drink
lunch or in some cold, dark crevice of Karl Rove's
reptilian brain. It's far more likely that the
atmosphere is simply conducive, and we are on the
defensive. So, the Rightists roll forward with their
agenda of abridging the cultural and political
freedoms of those who have the audacity to disagree
with them. And anarchists are on the forefront of this
opposition.

But the anarchist response to these attacks have been
mixed. Ward Churchill, for example, has only garnered
tepid support from the movement. True, despite being
an anarchist-sympathizer, Churchill had previously
gone out of his way to alienate fellow radicals with
tracts like ‘Pacifism As Pathology,’ and was in the
middle of a long-running internecine fight between
American Indian Movement factions. He also offended
some people by more-or-less condoning the deaths of
the elite "technocractic corps" in the September 11th
attacks (although not of janitors or temp
shit-workers, as he was widely misrepresented as
doing). It is also true that Churchill and other
radicals are often well-paid employees of state
universities and other public institutions, another
reason some anarchists have cited for their lack of
support. But while this position is impeccably
anarchist, it's also very short-sighted.

I once challenged one my friends on this once (she is
a NEFAC member as well as a city employee), she
quipped ‘As anarchists we are opposed to both the
State and Capital; since we have to work for one or
the other, what's the difference?’ Additionally, the
precedent set by purging a professor at a State
university holds for private universities as well -
not to mention for the larger society in general.

Depriving political opponents of work is one of the
most underhanded and effective ways to disable a
political movement. During the Civil Rights Movement,
this was a popular tactic used by Southern
reactionaries; South Carolina, for example, made it
illegal for school teachers to belong to the NAACP, a
law which resulted in widespread purges, as well as
resignations from the organization; obviously, it
created huge difficulties for recruiting new members
as well. Later, the segregationists cut to the chase
and tried (successfully in Alabama, Louisiana and
Texas) to outlaw the civil rights organization
altogether.

The details behind Graeber's dismissal are as bland as
any bureaucratic procedure. As a non-tenured
professor, his first two three-year reviews were
approved; after this he started engaging in more
high-profile activism (including, most recently,
defending a student who was an organizer for the
graduate student union). His next contract extension,
for four years, was originally a split vote: but on
appeal it was ruled that the faculty was guilty of
ethical violations for attempting to remove him
without prior warnings, and so his contract was
renewed for two years (instead of four). This current
dismissal comes at the review of point for the last
two years.

So why is this political? Because at Yale these
reviews are mere rubber stamps, since you're not "up"
for anything (such as tenure, which Graeber would only
be considered for if he worked the next two years).
Unless you totally screw up, it's a basic automatic
renewal. It's tenure that there's only a 3-12% chance
of getting at Yale, according to Graeber. The last
pre-tenure renewal was the point at which Graeber,
with strong student support and a sterling publishing
record, was canned.

Like Churchill, support for Graeber has been stronger
from progressives, students, and other professors in
general (and, in the latter case, anthropologists in
particular) than from anarchists. Not just have his
own students mobilized in defense of him and over
3,800 people from around the world signed a public
petition of support, but a bill has even been
introduced into the European Parliament specifically
about his case.

Perhaps the fairly tepid anarchist support stems from
an aversion to professors in general, or maybe it's
just plain resentment that he secured a position at an
Ivy League institution, instead of working at a high
school or community college, as some anarchists have
suggested were more appropriate teaching positions.
(Some radical listserves and websites are full of
big-picture comments, more-or-less literally like,
"fuck you, serves you right for teaching rich kids and
selling out to the man!") And, more then one person
has suggested that, with his extensive publishing
record and high powered resume, Graeber will have no
trouble landing another job.

But while we can debate these issues, what's missing
here is any kind of understanding about the larger
issues that are at stake, not to mention what's just
plumb fucked-up about radicals losing their jobs
solely on the basis of their political beliefs. If
controversial and radical professors can be purged for
their views on campus and their political actions off
campus, so can other radicals.
In fact, once purges are established as a precedent in
the universities, both public and private, this can
open the door to this happening at all levels in
society.

The universities are practically the only major sector
in our society where radicals have established a
serious foothold, and can function openly. (Contrary
to popular belief, they are not a majority in academia
– although liberals may be).

Unless there is a fundamental transformation of the
economic and social relationships of our society, we
are all dependent on the present system to get by.
Even squatters, dumpster-divers and train-hoppers are
dependent on capitalism to overproduce goods, which
then get thrown away and can be scavenged, occupied or
boarded. If the Right can dislodge radicals in one of
our only strongholds, it will have cleared any
potential obstacles to sweeping us out of all the
workplaces where we are forced to toil, whether they
are public or private. Remember, Churchill, as a
tenured professor and well-known scholar, is in a
position of strength that even Graeber, who taught at
an Ivy League school, was not since he did not have
tenure.

Nothing makes the reputation of a newcomer like
picking a fight with the playground bully, instead of
the shy kid in back. The last time this happened, in
the 1950s, the Right did the same and took the
radicals head on, purging them from their
then-stronghold, the unions, and in particularly the
CIO. This effectively smashed the progressive movement
for a decade, until the New Left arose.

Perhaps workplace justice for radical professors, who
many see as part of the privileged establishment, is
not the most pressing cause facing the anarchist
movement. Graeber himself has said that solidarity is
most needed for anarchist political prisoners, like
Jeffrey "Free" Luers. But perhaps, at the very least,
anarchists may wish to think of political action in
defense of fired radicals as a simple case of
enlightened self-interest, for they may be the next in
line.

For more info on David Graeber's situation:
http://www.geocities.com/graebersolidarity/

this article originally appeared in ‘Fifth Estate’
(Fall 2005 #370). www.fifthestate.org
subscriptions to FE are $10 in US / $20 international:
POBox 201016, Ferndale, MI 48220