At the end of my last blog on this topic, I stated that little did I know that the trail of letters from McDermott to Cohen to me was the first act in an ongoing performance.  Events from that "first act" did die down, but not before Cohen and I exchanged letters and McDermott delivered a ringing radio performance. 

In the aftermath of my January 31, 2005, column discussed in Part I, McDermott went on the radio February 4, 2005, and ridiculed me saying that I was "starved for attention as a child," calling me a "moron", "nutty professor", and "completely and totally clueless."

But more important than his ridicule of me, on that February 4, 2005, radio show McDermott decided to go after my employment by accusing me of not doing my job.  And just how would McDermott Jr. know how I performed my duties as a professor? He announced he had engaged in conversation with my Chancellor, Chancellor Howard Cohen about me, that I regularly missed classes and I did not hand out syllabi (among other things, all not true). 

Call me crazy, but I find the efforts of an elected official to get a taxpaying citizen fired from their job an unseemly sort of endeavor.  What I find just as unseemly, if not more so, is that Cohen, a high ranking State official by virtue of his position as Chancellor of a State-funded institution, apparently saw nothing wrong with such behavior. "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome" was clearly running its full course here. 

Remember, freedom of speech (particularly political speech) is an individual right to be protected against the government's suppression.  It is not a tool to be used by the government or government officials to suppress unwanted taxpayer/citizen criticism. Cohen and McDermott, both government officials (one as administrative head of a State-funded institution the other elected to office) were attempting to stifle political speech.  The Democratic Party should be appalled at this behavior.  That is as un-American as one can get.  It offends every sense of what America stands for and has fought for.

As an American, and Indiana State, tax paying citizen, on February 4, 2005, I wrote "governmental enforcer" Cohen and told him "Shame on you" for sending an official governmental message to elected Democratic Party partisan McDermott Jr. that somehow attacks on a professor's job by an elected official are okay.  Cohen, of course, wrote me back, denied he was any way involved with McDermott Jr's behavior, but did inform me that he considered me an "embarrassment" to him, which just happened to be the exact word that McDermott, Jr. had used on his weekly radio show to describe my relationship to the University. 

It was after this little flurry of exchanges that things died down, but only for a bit.

About six months later, "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome" was once again manifesting itself in the halls of academe and the second act in this ongoing performance was underway. 

On August 25, 2005, I wrote one of my regular columns regarding the funding of State universities in Indiana (082505.mht).  This was but one of many columns I have written and speeches I have given on this topic. In this column, I squarely put the onus on our elected State legislators, particularly John Aguilera and Ralph Ayres (who were both serving on the House Ways and Means Committee, which wrote the bi-annual budget), for not addressing the disparity in higher education funding between the various regions of the state of Indiana.  There was nothing unusual about this column.  Or so I thought. 

But this time was different.  Chancellor Cohen, as Chancellor of Purdue Calumet wrote a letter to the editor criticizing my August 25, 2005, column (CohenLtr.mht).  It is important to understand here that Howard Cohen did not disagree with me as Howard Cohen, the citizen, he disagreed with me in his official State position as Chancellor Cohen, and as Chancellor Cohen he defended the Northwest Indiana delegation, in particular Aguilera and Ayres, against my "unfair and uninformed" column.
Even Aguilera recognized that Chancellor Cohen's defense of him was the University defense of him as an elected official when he wrote Cohen on September 1, 2005 (AguileraLtr.mht), saying "I [Aguilera] appreciate your support and the support of the university against the negative attacks of Professor Eisenstein [italics added]." "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome" indeed. 

All I could think was: "This is the theater of the absurd.  Do the elected officials in NWI really believe that it is the job of State-funded institutions to protect them from citizen and taxpayer criticism?  Does Chancellor Cohen really believe that as the administrative head of a State-funded institution he should be providing comfort and aid to elected officials who receive criticism?"   Apparently they do. 

What is amazing is that the Purdue Board of Trustees did not step in to protect the political neutrality of the institution as required by law.  And where were the Republicans as they watched their tax dollars being used for partisan political advantage?

It is one of the most cataclysmic events of our nation's history, but it went completely un-noticed by one of our Country's leading state publically supported institutions of higher learning, Purdue University.  System wide this "academic" institution of "higher" learning is responsible for 70,000 students. 

I am sure that this was more the norm nation wide than the exception.  I wonder if someone took a survey would they discover that the disgraced Ward Churchill had more speaking engagements on America's campuses during the week of 9/11 than families of the victims.

The best that I can tell, no official or University organized effort was made to remember the events of September 11, 2001.  There was certainly nothing done at the Calumet campus.  The flags were flown at half-mast but without any explanation of why.  There were no ceremonies, no speeches, no discussion, no prayers for the victims, absolutely nothing.
 

While the State of Indiana's Purdue University was actively ignoring 9/11, real Hoosiers, like the high school students in Chesterton who placed 2,977 American flags in front of their school to memorialize the victims, were saying we remember.  In NWI, Valparaiso, Schererville, Indiana University Northwest, and others had ceremonies honoring the fallen and the brave of 9/11.  Even the Walgreens in Munster, Indiana, put an American flag for each victim in a park next to its store.  Guess who is paying the bills and from whom Purdue University is going to go and ask for more money to run its anti-American creed?

Nope. Nothing at all from the new President or the University at large.  The only "event" that happened was an e-mail sent to everyone by an individual faculty member on his own initiative.  This is the email with my response to all the faculty and staff: Remembering_9_11.mht

This was the sum total of all the "memorializing" of the victims of September 11, 2001 by Purdue University.  I am surprised that the University administration did not quote some rule saying that this was an "inappropriate" use of the University's email system.

Maybe it just was not viewed as "politically correct" to remember 9/11 and to honor its victims, so Purdue just didn't bother.   One needs only recall that Purdue University prides itself on having the highest enrollment of foreign students of any public university.  I am sure they were more concerned about "offending" someone than honoring the highest single loss of American civilians in a war in American history.

In its wisdom, the Indiana Legislature passed a law in the late 1970s that all University faculty in Indiana, whether they are citizens or not, must sign a statement of allegiance to the United States and Indiana Constitution.  The law is clearly stated in: Indiana_code_20120_6_faculty_oath.htm. 

The oath is a basic affirmation of American citizenship:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States of America, the constitution of Indiana and the laws of the United States and of Indiana, and will, by precept and example, promote respect for the flag and the institutions of the United States and of Indiana, reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States."

An inquiry by another faculty member, revealed that contrary to Indiana law there are no such records kept by the President of the University.  Not surprisingly, Purdue University, as other public institutions in America, believe they are above the law because of their intellectual supriority.  Taxpayers should just be happy to send money and not complain.

Everyone should be honored to agree to this.  Maybe if Indiana enforced its own laws and required every faculty member and administrator to sign this oath, Purdue would have had individuals with enough pride, courage, and respect for the United States to have actually done something to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11. 

Having lived in at least four very different places here in the U.S. (I have also lived in two other countries), I can say with all sincerity that Lake County in Northwest Indiana trumps them all when it comes to Democratic Comical Politics.

And there is no place or institution in Northwest Indiana that is not susceptible to the disease that plagues the Democratic Party here, "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome." Even the hallowed halls of academe are infected.

What was my first clue that "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome" infected one of our local universities? Let me start with a story from late 2004 into 2005.

After winning election as Mayor of Hammond, Tom McDermott Jr. decided that he was not at all happy with the free speech I was exercising. So, he talked to Chancellor Cohen at Purdue Calumet, my employer (in true NWI Democratic strong-arm fashion), and sent him an official Mayor of Hammond letter with attachments (mcdermott_letter.mht). (Of course, I was not aware of this letter until recently through a freedom of information request.) Now, the Mayor's letter to Cohen would be irrelevant if it were not for the fact that the next column I published on January 31, 2005, which was critical of Mayor McDermott Jr., resulted in my receipt of an "offiicial" Purdue Calumet letter from the Chancellor's office (cohen response and column.mht).

I always thought it was odd that Chancellor Cohen thought my criticism of McDermott was "personal." Now it is clear to me; McDermott had told Cohen that my criticism of him was personal, and Cohen took it as unadulterated truth. And I always thought it odd that Cohen would intervene on behalf of McDermott. After all, I spent considerable time criticizing former East Chicago, IN, Mayor Robert “Hollywood Bob” Pastrick. But Cohen did not send a letter to me on behalf of Pastrick. No, for some reason, only due to the "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome" of McDermott did Cohn intervene.

I am a vocal critic of the many, many Democrats in Northwest Indiana who exhibit clear signs of "Politico Corrupticus Syndrome." Call me crazy, but I just hate it when my, or anyone else's, tax dollars are stolen, misused, and abused. Unfortunately, this happens a lot in Northwest Indiana – it is kind of what the Democratic Party stands for here. Many of the local officials I criticized have been indicted and convicted. One even fled to Greece to avoid serving jail time.

Some people in Northwest Indiana thought that Chancellor Cohen did what he should have done. He was "in the right" and I "had it coming." But there is a fundamental and, thank goodness constitutionally protected, problem with that view.

Freedom of speech is an individual right and is meant to protect the individual from governmental suppression. Freedom of speech is not a mechanism meant to protect the government or governmental speech from unwanted taxpayer criticism. When Cohen, as Chancellor of Purdue Calumet, a state-funded institution, steps in as a State employee and supervisor to put a "chill on" or "a stop to" criticism of an elected Democrat, he is acting as a state (read: government) official and that means that the state (read: government) is attempting to control taxpayer speech.

For all you Democrats, you inherently understand this principle. Just substitute different names in a similar story. I'll substitute a fictitious Professor AntiAmericanus as a PUC professor. Imagine Professor AntiAmericanus writing a column viciously critical of President George W. Bush, equating Bush with Hitler. Imagine for a moment that this so upsets President Bush that he calls Chancellor Cohen, tells him of the offense, and then faxes a letter on official Presidential White House stationary to Chancellor Cohen asking for Cohen's attention to the matter. Then, imagine Chancellor Cohen acting on behalf of President Bush and sending Professor AntiAmericanus an official Purdue Calumet letter from the Chancellor's office, criticizing Professor AntiAmericanus for a "personal" attack on the President. You all get it; such an action would be an outrage.

It is no different just because the government official that Cohen is acting on behalf of just happens to be a locally elected Democratic Mayor.

Now, some of you are thinking that since I too make my paycheck from a state-funded institution, then the same applies to me. Not so. I am not an official representative of Purdue University Calumet. I do not speak on behalf of the University (just ask Cohen). That is why tenured professors such as Prof. Mike Adams can write regular columns for Townhall.com, but you will not find any University chancellor doing the same (probably because it would be illegal in most States).

In a couple of days, the storm died down. Little did I know that this was just the opening act of a two-year (and running) performance.