Dean Millot at Edbizbuzz seems to think so.
I'm tempted to leave it at that, because, as Millot himself implies, this debate is pulling us further and further away from education policy and more and more into the realm of the bizarre. But it's not every day that I'm likened to one of the most despicable characters of the 20th century so, alas, let me respond.
Millot argues that the term "terrorist" is "hyperbolic" because the Weather Underground did not practice "the deliberate indiscriminate use of force against innocents to strike fear in the general public." Instead, they "just" blew up government buildings, taking care not to injure anyone.
This strikes me as semantic jujitsu (the Weathermen did use violence to forward their political aims), but I'm certainly happy to concede that what Al Qaeda perpetrates, for example, is much, much, much worse.
Still, were the Weathermen's actions defensible? Hardly. Sometimes we at the Fordham Institute are considered "bomb throwers"--but only figuratively. We tend to disagree strongly with the teachers unions, but it would be morally reprehensible for us to call on school reformers to bomb their headquarters, even in the middle of the night when no one could be hurt. That's not how democracies are supposed to work.
Furthermore, Millot argues that Ayers was a "fugitive from justice," but since all charges were dropped because of "prosecutorial misconduct," he is presumed to be "innocent until proven guilty."
Yet in this article, Ayers is quoted as saying, "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. Isn't America a great country?"
So yes, I think the American Educational Research Association might want to think twice before allowing a man who partook in political violence and refuses to apologize for it to join its leadership team. (As I explained on the Education Gadfly Show last week, I'm not arguing that the AERA should strip his membership because of his wacky educational views; if that were the standard, the group would have no officers.) In fact, if a young Bill Ayers walked into an education school wanting to be a teacher, I don't think he would even qualify for that, under the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education's "dispositions" standard, which all ed schools are supposed to apply to teacher candidates:
Professional attitudes, values, and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal and non-verbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities. These positive behaviors support student learning and development.
Is using violence to promote your political beliefs a "value" that the education community wants to embrace? Is blowing up government buildings a "positive behavior"?
So yes, I think it's less than ideal that our education system is willing to embrace Bill Ayers regardless of his past activities, for which he refuses to apologize. (And I'm hardly alone.)
And that, supposedly, makes me a McCarthyite. Millot writes:
Labeling someone who has never been found guilty of a violent crime--let alone terrorism, a "terrorist" is irresponsible. If it becomes socially acceptable for people in positions of responsibility who have the respect of a larger following to make such statements, I fear a return to the chilled atmosphere of policy discourse in the 1950's called McCarthyism. "If you don't agree with me, you must be a Communist--or in this case a terrorist (and I, by implication, must be a patriot)." This is truly a serious threat to a free society.
I didn't call Bill Ayers a terrorist because I disagree with him, but because he blew stuff up to forward his political views. But fine, call him whatever you want. And while you're at it, have the guts to say that an unrepentant bomber (is that better, Millot?) shouldn't be welcomed with open arms by the education field.
Next question?
