« Condi: "The president instructed us..." | TheraP's Blog | Nonsense: The Meaning of Life in Three Acts »
Did Condi violate her professorial role?
This little Condi-Incident has so many parts to it. One that has not gotten enough attention, in my view, however, is her behavior toward the student. I'm imagining some of these "helicopter parents" on the phone with the Dean of Students, chewing him out, asking if "this" is the kind of behavior the school allows toward students. I honestly think there may be a whole other level of outrage going on here. Imagine the mother of the guy she called "dear" and badgered and interrogated.
This is serious business. Not just from the point of view of what she said and what it all points to on the national and international stage. Or what it points to in terms of whether the NY Times (or anyone) takes this as seriously as we do. This occurred in a college dorm. A professor demeaned a student, who was asking serious questions. Now, if she cannot return to the role of professor, of someone who is there on behalf of students, then she should resign her position. Honestly, this is whole other aspect of it to me. And it bears on what is appropriate behavior for someone in authority when people who rightfully have a role, which includes learning and free and open questions, behave in perfectly appropriate ways (for a student, a citizen). I saw nothing in the student's questions which warranted Condi's behavior. I think it was out of line for a professor.
This is another very important aspect of what occurred under bush gangsterism - the arrogant and contemptuous treatment of citizens, the "So what?" attitude. It's been bad as a way of governing. And it's percolating into other areas now. Honestly, were I the parent of a Stanford student, I'd be organizing parents right now!
This is serious business. Not just from the point of view of what she said and what it all points to on the national and international stage. Or what it points to in terms of whether the NY Times (or anyone) takes this as seriously as we do. This occurred in a college dorm. A professor demeaned a student, who was asking serious questions. Now, if she cannot return to the role of professor, of someone who is there on behalf of students, then she should resign her position. Honestly, this is whole other aspect of it to me. And it bears on what is appropriate behavior for someone in authority when people who rightfully have a role, which includes learning and free and open questions, behave in perfectly appropriate ways (for a student, a citizen). I saw nothing in the student's questions which warranted Condi's behavior. I think it was out of line for a professor.
This is another very important aspect of what occurred under bush gangsterism - the arrogant and contemptuous treatment of citizens, the "So what?" attitude. It's been bad as a way of governing. And it's percolating into other areas now. Honestly, were I the parent of a Stanford student, I'd be organizing parents right now!
Advertisement
















Condi is taking heat and she does not like it or understand it. She and w just figured that status is everything.
They feel they should be accorded a certain amount of respect because they held an important office. What they did while in those offices is irrelevant.
You should have done this, you should not have done that. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO as Cheney likes to say.
Condi is surprised that a nobody, a student a mere citizen would have the gumption to question the actions of someone as important as she. That's all.
How could anyone have the nerve to question what this important stateswoman has done?
May 4, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, dd!
Her current role is so in conflict with her previous one that I simply can't see how she'd be able to carry out being a detached objective observer in a classroom, where the give and take of discussion is the reason for being there!
May 4, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
In as much as there is (and should be) a certain amount of respect for the office, Condi is an examplar of how to abuse that respect and bend it into a justification for any type of behavior either professionally ("I'm SoS, I can do what I want" in her best Cartman voice) or personally (STFU you silly plebian student-type object). It's the arrogance of power and she's really only a minor player in that genre (cf Cheney's "SO?!?")
May 4, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
How right you are.
May 4, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but Condi and the others in that White House earned a certain amount of disdain. They didn't respect the offices that they were holding and didn't respect the American Constitution or people. So fuck 'em.
May 4, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matyra, funny stuff. Tell it to them straight.
May 4, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Condi's behavior toward that student is atrocious. She's arrogant and sanctimonious. The student was correct in his point that we defeated the Nazis without waterboarding. Condi had to win so she played twenty questions trying to find things that he wouldn't know the answer to so she could belittle him in an attempt to make herself look good. It's obviously backfiring on her.
May 4, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, teach! Your words carry special weight!
May 4, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
See here, Comment #72, for the fact that she was wrong about the prison being certified "model":
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/03/if-condi-said-nixon-directly-rather-than-through-anonymous-sources-would-the-nyt-hear/#Respond
May 4, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get this! The "model prison" served so little food, that alone would be a violation:
http://washingtonindependent.com/41572/cia-optimized-enhanced-interrogations-through-calorie-restrictions
Excellent article by Spencer Ackerman, former TPM reporter. Well worth the read!
May 4, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine. Right now students and their families are making decisions about which colleges to attend. Which ones to visit or apply to. I'm sure this can't be a teeny-weeny issue for Stanford.
May 4, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And while we're at it ... why the hell is UC still letting Yoo teach law classes? Talk about a tainted degree ... I wouldn't trust a lawyer who was trained by Yoo to hold any position.
May 4, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's on leave from there, partly (I'm sure) due to protests and efforts of people to get him fired. Fear not... people are working on it!
May 4, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone also notice in the vid at 2:42 thru 2:50 she said this:
Then what the hell are we doing in Iraq?
May 4, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good catch, mage!!!
May 4, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let us now point to the pic of Bush walking hand in hand with whoever that Saudi prince was...
The House of Saud routinely works its balancing act, playing both ends against the middle to preserve its theocratic existence.
May 4, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We're goin' into Iraq, find a way" w in January 2001, eight months before the attack.(Suskind)
May 4, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good link DD. Did you happen to catch the PBS Frontline program which detailed Cheney's actions after 9/11? It pretty much said that Cheney leaned on the CIA to find(make-up) a link between Saddam & Al Qaeda.
It was called
The Dark Side
One of PBS Frontline's best. You can watch the whole thing online at the link above.
May 4, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
DARK SIDE is also a great book by Jane Mayer.
May 4, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
An aside, I think the video is great in that for once we aren't looking at talking points or dogma as we are getting a glimpse at Condi's inner workings. Can you imagine the gold that we would get if we got Cheney to "go off"? He's always spouting contemptuous dogma, even now. But we've never seen him unmasked.
May 4, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, wouldn't that be interesting.... I hope one day he's in a cell where 24 hours a day he can be under our observation. Or someone's!
May 4, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's sad about that (or wonderful, depending upon your POV) is that if he's ever incarcerated, he'll be treated hundreds of times better than he's allowed others to be treated.
May 4, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally would love to be the one to tell him that!
May 4, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a little update on Condi's ongoing losing legal debate with 10 year olds (from WaPo):
"Leaving today's event, Rice was pressed to clarify her remarks by an al-Jazeera TV crew. She seemed to suggest that it was Justice Department lawyers who deemed the waterboarding legal, not Bush himself. "Let me be very clear. The president said he would not authorize anything that was illegal," she said. "It was not legal because he authorized it. It was because he said we would do nothing illegal and the Justice Department and attorney general said it was legal.""
interesting discussion of this over at Attackerman
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/05/03/condoleezza-rice-will-even-mislead-a-fourth-grader/
May 4, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
As many of us know, Spencer Ackerman is a former TPMer! And man, what a great post!
Condi just can't catch a break now, can she?
May 4, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you find interesting in that discussion, Obey?
From one "pug" to another...
"Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country."
That seems to be her gold standard defense, but Ackerman is just out for cheap shots as I read the article. I agree with some of his shots but then he throws reason out with the bathwater.
"he said we would do nothing illegal "
I know you don't care for parsing, but I will mention the "would" ambiguity here because it seems to me that it must be tied in to her cognitive processes as part of denial process. My most generous guess is that it means to say that Bush, and therefore Rice, acted with good intentions, they intended to stay within the law -- to find ways to interrogate which did not violate the letter of CAT. That of course leaves open the question of the spirit/intent of the law.
May 4, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there's a bit of snark in there, but this stuck out
"we know from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's timeline that Rice authorized "as a policy matter" the use of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques before the Office of Legal Counsel had issued its August 2002 blessings."
I haven't got a clear idea of the timeline, but if this is accurate, she is being grossly misleading. As for your point about 'would', to me I don't know why it even matters what the president said. It's just not relevant to the question. The fact that she raises this irrelevant point does perhaps say something about her state of mind.
The OLC opinion probably has some exculpatory value, don't know how much. It's not just any old lawyer giving his opinion...
May 4, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What timeline problem? It's on the record that the Aug 2002 memos were after the fact, summarizing and formalizing verbal discussions. You'd have to show that OLC was not even consulted informally in order to show that actions were taken without the advice of OLC. And even so, that OLC rubber-stamped those actions after the fact doesn't prove any collusion or misdeeds.
I'm of course not arguing to ignore the stuff coming out.
May 4, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok granted. But the burden of proof is on Rice and co. Like I said, I don't know what this kind of defense is worth, but she needs to show she was acting in good faith on the basis of OLC opinion - whether formal or informal...
May 4, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But the burden of proof is on Rice and co."
You mean you want it to be that way contra the American tradition of the burden being on the accuser?
May 4, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I had in mind the courtroom exchange
Prosecutor: you ordered illegal acts under CAT, did you not?
Rice: Yes, but I was ordered to do so
P: Following orders is not exculpatory
Rice: Ok, but I acted in good faith following OLC opinion
P: Do you have any evidence that you received such an opinion before giving the order?
Rice: No.
P: I have no further questions your honor.
May 4, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nails her, doesn't it?
May 4, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It damn well should. Unless she's acquitted on appeal before Bybee's court. Aargh...
May 4, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. If nobody testifies on her behalf to back up the verbal permission slip, then it looks bad for her on that point (not nailed in a larger sense). But as I've said, it's on the public record that conversations did take place on the subject before Aug 1, 2002. So absent perjury or some larger conspiracy there would be corroboration of the point. So the prosecutor loses the point and has to establish the case on other grounds.
A good defense atty would object to the phrasing of the first Q, "illegal" has insufficient foundation, in the first place. But I understand it's an attractive proposition!
I finally got around to reading the Apr 25 article based on friends of Bybee. At first I thought it would be damning, but careful review leaves me neutral on its projected impact legally. Of course it provides grist for the anti-Bush crowd's mill. (I'm not pro-Bush, btw).
May 5, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It gets worse...some idiot let Condi loose in an ELEMENTARY school! It's not enough that she is allowed to abuse college students, someone decided that it would be a good idea to let her near 3rd graders!
May 4, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her remarks sounded like they were meant for the press. Not exactly the way you would communicate with children.
May 4, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link which provides an email address in case anyone wants to weigh in here with a complaint to Stanford's faculty affairs person:
http://facultyhandbook.stanford.edu/fa.html
(Next, read down and find the email address)
May 4, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
All sorts of ways to reach administrators dealing with Student Affairs at Stanford can be found at this link:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/
May 4, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well worth reading this article at the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/05/11/090511taco_talk_gourevitch
May 4, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A group at Stanford circulated a petition in March asking that Rice be relieved of her job:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=3158
This past weekend there was a group of alums that nailed a petition to that effect on the door of the Stanford president.
After this incident caught on the cellphone, I'm guessing Condi may feel a tad bothered by all this negative publicity.
May 4, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP- a little more about the New Yorker article you are referring to here, Interrogating Torture.
Dickday wrote an excellent blog on Saturday about the shameful prosecutions of the prison guards that were shown in the pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib.
The New Yorker column verifies and confirms dd's thesis that those soldiers were not just a 'few bad apples' acting on their own initiatives.
These 10 low-ranking soldiers are the only Americans that have been prosecuted for the torture crimes that Condi and the high-level officials authorized. One of them is still in prison serving a 10 year sentence.
Excellent blog, as usual, TheraP. Thanks for being such a tireless advocate on the subject. Just wanted to draw attention to some other victims, also.
May 4, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be my guest. Any time! This all interrelates. And bears repeating over and over. Until it's over!
May 5, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Decider was a wimp.
Imagine he’s in a room of advisors and he says with a wink” Now you know I won’t do anything illegal. Now I repeat I’ll not do anything illegal. Do I need to say it again”
Someone in the room decides to be the hero, picking up on the veiled inference, and states” I’ll make it legal for you Mr. President.
Sigh of relief; the wimp passed the buck to his subordinates, they’ll take one for the (Gipper) Decider.
Now about that promotion, How does Supreme Court Justice sound to you,
May 4, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bybee made it "legal". Here it is all wrapped up together!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42275
Thanks for your comment, Resistance!
May 4, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a terrible synthesis, that linked article.
May 5, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What gets me about her justification is the part about 9/11. “Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility…” blah blah blah. And watched Americans jump out of 80 story buildings…blah blah blah.” The world is not a bunch of easy choices…”
Hey Condi, we were there. And we all are in a position of responsibility. And we didn’t’ choose to lie ourselves into a war and we didn’t choose to torture human beings.
The New York Review of Books released the Red Cross report (until now Classified) yesterday. Here’s the link.
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
May 4, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, strato. And how right you are about Condi's remarks. As I said elsewhere, other people also have to make life and death decisions. They train for it and they train to do that carefully, taking account of all sorts of "rights" and responsibilities and ethics and morality and the law. If she wants to whine now, she should have resigned then. She was viewed as a terrible National Security Adviser. And her record at State is not much better. Up to now she's been this "golden girl" who got promoted up the academic ladder and was assigned to tutor a dilatory scholar in international relations. Finally she's hitting the real world and it's not a pretty sight as this lady comes undone just because citizens have the right to question those in authority.
She has a lot of learning ahead of her. And she has no right to tell anyone to "do your homework" because she is the one now who will be facing the music, not us.
May 4, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking about the ICRC report, she said: “They made no allegations about interrogations at Guantanamo.” (at 4:46 on the video)
She is flat-out lying to that student about the ICRC Report. Talk about not doing your homework – and she clearly hasn’t. For us, it was declassified YESTERDAY. I am still reading it, and to me it graphically reports how the US indeed tortured people at Guantanamo.
She is going to face the music alright. And her professional career should end. By bashing a student who is thoughtful and questioning, she has showed her true colors for all to see.
May 4, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Righteous Anger! I love it!
May 4, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it seems to me Condi is saying, we were frightened and overwhelmed and we were desperate, so we condond torture once we had a legal argument that would help us evade responsibility. We knew we were leaving behind our values, so we thought we would get an attorney to pre-exonerate our nefarious decisions.
May 4, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attorneys needed - coming and going!
May 4, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what just struck me is that this contempt is actually rampant in the way communcation and attitudes are reflected by the relgious right. I have to seriously wonder how 'religion' figured in here. when they were screening potential employees etc. they were screening those with any ties that they considered to be liberal. I wonder if they also screened for 'religious' ties that might bring with them certain sort of loyalty and ignorance of facts?
May 4, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bybee, for example, is a devout Mormon. I think you're on to something here! We certainly know that many people hired by DoJ came from these fundie law schools. And who better than people who believed bush was some kind of "savior" and they were engaged in a kind of holy war?
But, oh dear, to go back to Stanford and find students who actually think and can't be berated into submission!
May 4, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes the problem, and maybe why Condi was so condescending, is that from the 'we are a christian nation' perspective... the student and you and I are the 'ignorant ones...thus the
'So what?' From this perspective 'facts' outside of 'religious facts' are just inconveniences, not actual matters that one should be held accountable for.
With the whole revelations thing at work behind it is it really possible this, the war and torture, was all done in the name of christianity? I don't know how the mormon faith fits exactly?
May 4, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
First) I know many devout Mormons and they reach for a high moral standard, so as a people not all are like Bybee. Having said that
Isn’t it amazing, if what you say is true? Find a Mormon, seeing as how they have some sense of the Holy writings, but not content with the original version, they have their own set of values, then claim it is Superior to the original.
If questions are raised about their Book when compared to the original, then repeat the mantra, the original is full of errors or can be improved or clarified.
(If anyone had the authority to correct the writings of the original it would have been Jesus; Except Jesus quoted extensively from it.)
If you think the Constitution is outdated, then find someone willing to argue that it is, then replace it with your own set of values. Call it the Mormonized version.
Our Constitution is only a few hundred years old, and it has been tested in the courts. To assume that the American people would give so much power to one individual President is in stark contrast to the will of the people and their Representative form of Governance.
Thanks for the link TheraP, How Bybee made it legal.
Anyone know how Alberto and Harriet played there parts in this mess?
May 4, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can safely cast them as sycophants. (Harriet Miers and Gonzo, I mean)
May 4, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those students nailed her and they knew it. She was up against the wall with the camera in her face feeling trapped by her past deeds screaming she made no decisions. She was just a messenger. Those students knew they had her. It must have been torture. Oh, wait, we know torture this was not. These were students doing the work the press has failed to perform these past 8 years.
May 4, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least she didn't tell the little Jewish girl that she was just following orders:
From the Washington Post:
Rice, in her first appearance in Washington since leaving government, was at the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital before giving an evening lecture at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue. She held forth amiably before a few dozen students about her love of Israel, travel abroad and the importance of learning languages, then opened the floor to their questions.
The questions had been developed beforehand by students with their teachers and had not been screened by Rice. At first, they were innocuous: What was it like growing up in segregated Birmingham, Ala.? What skill did she want to be best known for?
Then Misha Lerner, a student from Bethesda, asked: What did Rice think about the things President Obama's administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?
Rice took the question in stride. saying that she was reluctant to criticize Obama, then getting to the heart of the matter.
"Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country," she said. "But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."
May 4, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for drawing that important contrast: The little Jewish girl and the Condi, who carefully, apparently, wasn't just following orders.
Still, she puts the "authorization" on the shoulders of bush. And she wants to believe that if he made it "very clear" "we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or our obligations" - she simply believed him! Nothing about thinking for herself. Nothing about considering international law, which is very clear on this - that there are no exceptions, no "just following orders" (or the authority of another!) - no use of "others do it too". But it still does sound like that's what she did, even though she now isn't using the "magic" and dangerous words "only following orders".
Thank you for underscoring, however, that it was said to "a little Jewish girl". Which makes the behavior of Condi all the more appalling.
May 4, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, you are right. Condi all but said she was following orders. Her defenses of "if the president does it, it can't be illegal" and "just following orders" show just how culpable she is. She is supposed to have this great knowledge of history and now is left to recycle the long discredited defenses of criminal regimes past.
May 5, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if you saw Saladin's great rant below. But he proved your point about her lack of historical knowledge.
I salute you! :-)
May 5, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And when you're that president you can turn "illegal" into "legal" as quick as you can say "Gonzo".
May 4, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! That gives new meaning to his name: GoneZo! (as in So Gone!)
May 4, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Condi did violate her professorial role--you can't treat students with the same contempt and dishonest political posturing that you once felt empowered to treat the press to.
When you dilute yourself into thinking that you're governing from a place that towers above dissent or rational inquiry; when you believe that your proximity to a national decision automatically trumps and devalues the intelligence of anyone that may question the legality or morality of that decision, you could use an education at Stanford better than you could provide one.
May 4, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. Well said.
May 4, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign!
May 4, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, now Condi's even getting torture questions from 4th graders: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/4th-grader-ques.html
Karma?
May 4, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh, I didn't realize Obey had covered this above.
May 4, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twice is better than not at all! Thanks!
May 4, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to have to disagree, but I don't think Rice violated her "professorial role". If she is actually a faculty member, she is protected by "academic freedom" which guarantees her right to express her opinion, particularly in areas where she has some expertise. This is how the academic world works.
Nor do I think she was particularly disrespectful toward the student. Her tone of voice was a bit strident, but at least in my experience this is how she always sounds. And maybe it was a bit strange to call the kid "dear", but I didn't find her condescending (at least in the sense of talking down to him).
That said, I completely disagree with everything Rice said. But my point is that we should focus on the precise content of what she said, and not get distracted by trivialities related to style.
May 4, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Non-verbal behavior and tone of voice convey much of the meaning in any sentence. To imagine they are trivial is laughable.
Rice may have the freedom to speak as she chooses, but I doubt the university approves of her demeaning, badgering, and interrogating a student, who is not even in a class! The university has a reputation to uphold. Did you realize alums of Stanford are up in arms over this?
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news.....-Rice.html
It may be she always sounds strident, but if that were your kid, I doubt you would want him or her treated that way.
May 4, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
From this AAUP article:
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2000/MA/Cols/lw.htm
My question goes to the professorial role. Thus, we are looking at ethical standards when it comes to belittling a questioner, badgering, interrogating and so on. I simply can't believe that ethically this can be defended!
May 4, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't make that link work but I found it with a search. Here it is again.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Intern_Grills_Condi_Rice_Over_Torture_Bay_Area.html
May 4, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks ever so much! And sorry about that. Glad you found it!
May 4, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lying to students does not come under academic freedom!
Condi clearly lied about several things in what she told the student!
May 4, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, see long comment below on ethics from the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) - the very group that defends academic freedom, but nevertheless insists on ethics!
May 4, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was an AAUP Chapter President at a major university for a number of years, and found it fairly easy to cherry-pick statements from the AAUP Redbook. There are other relevant AAUP policy statements, such as those related to personality characteristics such as being disagreeable, that would you might want to read (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/collegiality.htm).
As a psychologist, I of course agree that tone of voice and body language can convey meaning. The problem is that these non-verbal behaviors are highly confounded by personality and ongoing mood, and in this sense they often need to be viewed separately from the actual semantic content.
Sorry, I just don't buy your view that she "belittled" or "badgered" the student. One could argue, for example, that her questioning the guy was giving him a chance to respond, as opposed to just talking down to him. Whether she "lied" or not depends on whether or not she believes what she said, and I suspect she has rationalized these things to the point that she does believe them.
I despise everything Condi Rice stands for. But she still has a right to defend herself, and I don't believe she violated any professorial standards.
May 4, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, Doug, but where in the heck do you get that "that these non-verbal behaviors are highly confounded by personality and ongoing mood"? I've never heard such thing in all my years as a Clinical Psychologist! Confounded by? No! They are part and parcel of!
We've had other people who are professors and teachers weighing in here. And others who are psychologists or therapists. None of whom are making such nonsensical statements.
How does badgering promote a student answering? He's not even a student in her class. This occurred in a dorm! It's not appropriate behavior at any age!
Even if you're not a clinician, if you had people coding a tape of this, they would be coding both verbal and non-verbal behavior.
Not only that, they've found (via research) that impressions of professors, based on just a few minutes of video, are as consistent in terms of how students assess the person as months of sitting in their classroom. We've seen this Condi over and over, condi-scending to all of us. Just not viewed her doing that also as a professor, to a student, in a social setting. Which, in my book, is reprehensible!
I recommend you look at the comments of both MBH and Saladin just below you.
May 5, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You claim I'm making "nonsensical statements" that go beyond anything you've ever heard from other psychologists. Wow.
I guess I didn't explain things very well. I used the term "confounded" in the sense that interacting processes can be "confused" with one another. Obviously, semantic content, non-verbal behaviors, on-going mood, and personality are all interacting processes that often influence one another. Nevertheless, we can separate them rather easily, and often this is the best thing to do. In Rice's case, I think it's important to separate them, particularly when it comes to her professorial standards (which is what your article focused on).
When it comes to academic freedom, the AAUP would never try to silence someone because of their personality, on-going mood, or non-verbal behavior. Let's say a committee of Stanford faculty decided that Condi had indeed violated professorial standards because of her tone of voice and arrogant behavior toward this student. This would of course never happen, but if it did, it would only serve to suppress academic freedom across the university.
When it comes to professorial standards, Rice should be charged with "moral turpitude" based on her actions in the Bush Administration and terminated. Your emphasis on her behavior toward this student only serves to trivialize things.
May 5, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go in Peace, DougD. Your points are not convincing, nor is your claim to be a psychologist.
May 5, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sure don't respond well to disagreements.
This was a simple disagreement, I apologized several times, and yet you insult me multiple times. Do you have any idea how depressing it is to be accused of not being a psychologist after spending 30 years doing research, teaching, and so on.
This is exactly what they do on the right-wing blogs. Rather than respond to the person's actual content, they respond by trying to undermine your credibility.
And you are accusing Condi of being arrogant and condescending?
May 5, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Doug, TheraP did accuse Condi of being arrogant and condescending.
May 6, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever heard of sarcasm?
May 6, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is something on the timeline...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090423/ts_alt_afp/usattacksmilitaryjusticecongresszubaydah_20090423112919
Condi nodded.
Hmmmm.
That's gonna be tricky. A nod can be interpreted in more than one way, can it not?
May 4, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bombshell, flowerchild! If she assented to this prior to its being "legalized" - she is in a world of hurt! No wonder she's so eager to press her case!
May 4, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
From: Statement on Professional Ethics (AAUP)
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/statementonprofessionalethics.htm
These are the AAUP ethical standards for professors:
May 4, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize (re #4) it would be hard to give notice of an intent to torture or assent to torture, nevertheless.... it does affect the institution she was on leave from...
May 4, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a Harpy, and always has been.
May 4, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And her finger wag at the student on the video really pissed me off.
May 4, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
May 4, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera: When I first saw the clip on Olbermann, I assumed she was speaking to college students (Stanford) and felt she was kind of rude. Then I found out it was a third grader, and I was appalled. And yes, as a parent, I would definitely be demanding she apologize for her inappropriate treatment of a student with a question. If she didn't like the content, then don't allow questions.
Honestly, she should move to Palin's state, where it appears many people are lacking in compassion like her, whether it is aerial wolf shootings, killing turkeys during interview (background) or sitting on a real dead bear chair. They make me sick.
May 4, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you, Amelie. I wish these folks didn't keep popping up, making things worse.
May 4, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have greats posts Thera. And I get to vent :) Take care.
May 4, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
From ICRC-Report, Notes, page 37.
http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf
May 4, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The children of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed - whose entire family was disappeared!
May 5, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so glad you closed in on this issue. Nothing upsets me more than people in authority--especially teachers and professors--acting above their students. When they think that way, they never seriously consider the questions, and then they can never give worthwhile answers. Condi is the personification of a teaching style based on fear, shame and guilt. It's despicable.
May 5, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've succinctly said it all! Thanks for that!
May 5, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god. (warning nothing worth reading here, just a rant)
So I have been avoiding this video because I don't really have many nice things to say about condi, and I didn't really want to be riled up. Well I was bored and decided to wonder over here to another of Thera's well written, if depressing, posts. Big mistake. I was doing okay until I got to the "with all due respect Nazi germany never attacked America"....WTF!!! 19 spoiled saudi bastards with box knives are more dangerous than fucking WWII germany and Japan. The nazis decimated our shipping lines, killed millions and their fucking ally sure as shit attacked 'the homeland'. This woman is a fucking idiot. She has always been an idiot. She doesn't know shit about shit. She was a 'russian' expert who completely missed the fall of the soviet union and thought glasnost was fake.
Did that give her pause, maybe to stop and reflect what she and all the other crazy neocons got wrong in their analysis and the lefty liberals like Moynihan got right. Nope. She just went on ahead using her connections to get Chevron a damn pipeline, and then help bush to peer into pooty-poo's soul and thereby kick the nascent russian democracy to the curb while sending our jobs to china and our money to arabia. It was the height of irresponsibility for her ever to be given a position of power. Cheney and rummy openly mocked her. They didn't even deign to return her phonecalls.
Cheney simply installed he could more easily control w. My god what an embarrassment this woman has been. She has never been anything but a neocon Eliza Doolittle. I mean this is the woman who while exercising on her elipitical machine during the Palistian elections exclaimed 'no thats not right, that can't be right" when they elected Hamas. These people were watching American and Israel tanks kill muslims everyday who did you fucking think they would vote for? How god damn stupid and insensitive to reality can you be? Jesus rummy and the neocons weren't even that stupidly naive. And she was the Secretary of State for gods sakes. Call Jordan? Call Saudi, call that thug mubarak that we give billions too every year for nothing. Nope too fucking stupid. There are so many examples of her idiocy i don't even knwo wheer to stop. HOW THE fUkckning HELL?
Okay carry on your civil discourse,
this is simply a relapse of bush derangement syndrome. carry on. nothing to see here.
May 5, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin, that was by far the best possible, most beautiful rant that anyone could have given this post! Magnificent! I intend to reread it right now, just for pure pleasure.
I reread it. I love it just as much!
I wish you could be the one to read this aloud at her sentencing. And I'd pick MBH to read his aloud when she either resigns or is fired from Stanford.
May 5, 2009 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
The question is . . .
"Did Condi violate her professorial role?"
Is the Pope German?
Is Cheney's name Dick?
~OGD~
May 5, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see what all the hullabaloo is about. Condi got a little testy and called a young man "dear" and was, perhaps, a bit condescending toward her questioner when he didn't know two answers to her questions. To me, it is an exchange from two well-read (despite Condi's "do your reading" remark), intelligent people, one of who was in a defensive mode because she was being attacked, although respectfully. I think she did a good job of defending her indefensible position (remember this post is about her demeanor toward the young man, not her positions) and she is a professor who may be a bit more arrogant than most, but, again...so what? She leaned over to give him the last answer which she didn't have to do and it made her look like a professor who actually wanted her student to learn. She was merely defensive, as anyone would be, and nothing more.
May 5, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's most important is not how you see this (or even I see this), but how prospective students and their families, current students and their families, and alums, along with current faculty, along with potential donors, happen to see this. I, myself, don't think it is good publicity for any university. And I suspect right now Standford administration is concerned about this very question.
May 5, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
smartalec is correct -
You seem to be being a bit disingenuous here (I won't call you a liar, as you did me). Your article was making claims about Condi's violation of her professorial role, but now you're all worried about Stanford's publicity.
May 6, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey Doc . . .
I bet someone's told you this in your long illustrious career of horse crap verbosity.
Stick a sock in that piehole!
You're a bore.
~OGD~
May 6, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sound exactly like someone on a right-wing blog, and you haven't the slightest clue what's going on.
May 6, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why in the world would any educational institution want people like her and John Woo to teach others. Reminds me of when part of junk bond king, Michael Milliken's restitution process included teaching finance in the minority community!
May 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same thing goes for the psychologists who engaged in designing a process to break down personalities. I have a feeling our entire society has do some serious soul-searching.
May 5, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink