Maggie's Farm

I’m not a philosopher, but Martin Heidegger’s central proposition, Desein," the being for whom being is a question.[27]” (Wikipedia) is explained as follows:

…Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world amidst things and with others, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one's own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one's own existence [emphasis added], is the basis of Heidegger's notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the "vulgar" temporality of calculation and of public life.

Martin Heidegger was a very influential German philosopher during the middle years of the 20^th century. Wikipedia, on his writings:  “Within philosophy it played a crucial role in the development of existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, postmodernism, and continental philosophy in general.” Of course, there were and are disagreements or criticisms of his writings, but little doubt that he was influential.

On the other hand,

Heidegger supported National Socialism in May 1933 and was a member of the Nazi Party until May 1945.[9] Himself and his defenders, notably Hannah Arendt, see this support as arguably a personal " 'error' " (a word which Arendt [ed: who had a post-WWII affair with Heidegger] placed in quotation marks when referring to Heidegger's Nazi-era politics).[10] Defenders think this error was largely irrelevant to Heidegger's philosophy. Critics, such as his former students Emmanuel Levinas[11] and Karl Löwith,[12] claim that Heidegger's support for National Socialism revealed flaws inherent in his thought.[13]

Yes, Germany was ill-treated after WWI, and suffered a terrible depression. Many sympathized, but there is a clear dividing line from supporting Hitler’s mad programs. New York Times, May 7, 2010:

For what makes Heidegger’s Nazism a challenge — as opposed to merely a scandal — is the fact that he did not drift into evil, but thought his way into it. And once we acknowledge the powerful attraction of his work, we are morally and intellectually bound to explore what part of that attraction is owed to ideas with a potential for evil.

In some circles, Tony Kushner’s literary work is acclaimed, particularly his play Angels in America or screenplay for Munich; In some criticized.

Pros and cons on Angels in America (Wikipedia):

“Mr. Kushner has written the most thrilling American play in years,” wrote The New York Times.[5]; Writing in The New Republic, Lee Siegel said, "Angels in America is a second-rate play written by a second-rate playwright who happens to be gay, and because he has written a play about being gay, and about AIDS, no one—and I mean no one—is going to call Angels in America the overwrought, coarse, posturing, formulaic mess that it is." [7]

Pros and cons on Munich (Wikipedia):

The film garnered a 78% favorable rating from critics (per Rotten Tomatoes), though its "Top Critics" rating was lower at 61%; Chicago Tribune reviewer Allison Benedikt calls Munich a "competent thriller", but laments that as an "intellectual pursuit, it is little more than a pretty prism through which superficial Jewish guilt and generalized Palestinian nationalism" are made to "... look like the product of serious soul-searching." Benedikt states that Spielberg's treatment of the film's "dense and complicated" subject matter can be summed up as "Palestinians want a homeland, Israelis have to protect theirs." She rhetorically asks: "Do we need another handsome, well-assembled, entertaining movie to prove that we all bleed red?"[14]… Melman and other critics of the book and the film have said that the story's premise—that Israeli agents had second thoughts about their work—is not supported by interviews or public statements.

Which brings us to the book Tony Kushner co-edited, Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The American Library Association’s Booklist describes it:

For left-wing "or progressive" American Jews, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to present a wrenching predicament. Many are almost genetically sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, viewing Palestinians as oppressed, even colonized, victims. Yet their sustaining identity as Jews will not allow them to abandon Israel, or even Zionism, entirely. Kushner and Solomon have assembled a wide variety of journalists, scholars, and activists who consider the dilemmas and even suggest possible solutions. Some of these articles are thoughtful, provocative, and certainly worthy of further consideration. Some are filled with pointless guilt-mongering and lead nowhere. If there is a common theme here, it is that, given compassionate and reasonable Israeli policies, a comparable Palestinian response will be forthcoming.

One of the brave Trustees of CUNY raised the issue of Tony Kushner’s apologetics for those fighting against Israel and its existence. Enough others agreed and the honorary degree invitation was withdrawn.

CAMERA, as of 2006 (CAMERA update here), summed up Tony Kushner’s “work” on Israel: “…he repeatedly blames Israel for supposed “ethnic cleansing” and “dispossession” of Palestinians, casting the alleged action of denying Palestinians a homeland as the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict….” There follows many quotations from Kushner, such as “I've never been a Zionist. I have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state. It would have been better if it never happened. —The New York Sun reporting Kushner comments made at a conference in NY(10/14/02)” Or, “Kushner sits on the Board of Advisors of the "Jewish Voice for Peace," which advocates divestment and boycott campaigns against Israel. His name appears on JVP letterhead, including on a letter "salut[ing]" the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) for its move toward divesting from companies that do business with Israel.”

Today, Tony Kushner, as usual, defends himself as a Jew who just happens to disagree with Israel: “…he was “dismayed by the vicious attack and wholesale distortion of my beliefs.” Kushner adds, ““I’m sickened,” he added, “that this is happening in New York City. Shocked, really.” “

It is understandable that Tony Kushner is sickened that this is happening in New York City, where his ilk are accustomed to be honored and sheltered by its “progressives.” It is heartening that there are still standards maintained by some for granting honorary degrees. Honorary degrees should not be granted to protectors of anti-Western terrorists, protectors who hide behind a self-blinded dislike for most of the common values that constitutes the West and Israel. Although Heidegger defended himself by saying, after the war, he didn’t agree with all the Nazi programs, and Kushner defends himself by saying he doesn’t agree with all his allies in the “progressive” anti-Israel movement, the core of Heidegger’s philosophy – a precursor to much of today’s “progressive” thought – still holds: “the need to be responsible for one's own existence.” Kushner is not near of the status of Heidegger, but he’s cut from the same cloth, and its holes should not be honored. Kushner is being held accountable. Honor and honorary degrees must mean something real.

Update: See CUNY Trustee statement below. -- And, professors try an end-run past the full Board of Trustees. A copy of their letter is here. It's about time professors learn who they work for. Brooklyn College, CUNY, history professor comments:

That the highest elected faculty official at CUNY could describe such Kushner statements as Israel is involved in “a deliberate destruction of Palestinian culture and a systematic attempt to destroy the identity of the Palestinian people”; or “the founding of the State of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity”; or “Israel is a creation of the U.S., bought and paid for” as merely “presumed” anti-Israel statements shows just how pervasive anti-Israel sentiment among the faculty has become....That academic freedom applies to such an extent that Trustees are required to ignore their powers in the academic system and simply rubber-stamp anyone whom the faculty wants to honor, no matter how offensive the honoree’s views, strikes me as a very difficult argument to make.

The New York Times, bible of NYCs liberal chattering class, doesn't take laying down the rejection of honor for one of its gilded:

Statement by CUNY Trustee, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld:

Tony Kushner, an Extremist, Can’t Represent CUNY

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld

Following our consensus decision to table the honorary degree nomination of Mr. Tony Kushner it is worthy to note that Mr. Kushner repeats the ugly charges against Israel for which he is known in a letter to the City University Board of Trustees and the media, in which he attempts to defend himself. He is disingenuous and dissembling.

If his libelous statements against Israel were made by anyone outside the Jewish community, that person would be correctly labeled an anti-Semite. When you hold the State of Israel – a nation in a struggle for its survival from the beginning, a target for the misogynist, racist, anti-western, dictatorial regimes which surround it – to a standard you would hold no other nation under normal circumstances, let alone under such exigencies – and when you spew libel against our sole regional democratic ally for “crimes” concocted by delegitimizers, you are an anti-Semite.

I would no differently oppose a racist for an honorary degree who personifies himself by calumny against a people. If Mr. Kushner were a  CUNY student degree candidate,  or even more extremely, if he were David Duke or Lynne Stewart or Sonny Carson or any other detestable individual, no trustee or administrator would have the right to deny him or her a degree if requisite requirements were fulfilled .

To the contrary, an honorary degree is wholly within the absolute discretion of the board to grant. It identifies the University with accomplished, generous citizens or public figures. It is also a tool which highlights the University and enhances its image in the educational marketplace. Every year, there are candidates that some trustees may not particularly favor. We can all express dissent where we warrant it – it is our right.  However, every nominee that has been brought before the board, during my 12 years at least, has been approved by the full board. Mr. Kushner, however, was opposed because he is an extremist. No extremist from any quarter is a good face for any University – from far left or far right. Honorary degrees are public declarations of esteem by the university community conveyed to the honoree; for the university, they are image-building, advertising and publicity as well.

The denial of the honorary degree to Mr. Kushner, despite his protestations was a reflection of his long-held radical sentiments. CUNY should remain a place of comfort and welcome for all of our students, faculty and administrators   - including supporters of the Jewish State.

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld is a trustee of City University New York.

Interview with Jeffrey Wiesenfeld: (Atlantic)

I asked him if he had any doubt Kushner was an anti-Semite. He said: "Anyone who accuses the Jews of ethnic-cleansing is participating in a blood libel, so yes, he's a Jewish anti-Semite." ... Wiesenfeld told me it is this specific charge -- that Israel was built on a campaign of ethnic cleansing -- that caused him to actively oppose the granting of an honorary degree to Kushner. "I've been on the CUNY board since 1999, and every year we have two or three honorary degrees on each of our 20 campuses. There have been people who have been critical of Israel in this group, but I never opposed them. Criticizing Israel is not a disqualifier. I wouldn't vote for such a person for public office, but this doesn't make them anti-Semitic."...
I asked him if was going to keep up his opposition to Kushner. "If Tony Kushner wanted to come to the board and say, `You know, when I looked at all of this, I oppose Israeli policies, I think they're heading in the wrong direction, but I sincerely regret having said that the State of Israel should never have been created, and I shouldn't have said that the State of Israel had been involved in a national plan of ethnic cleansing, and that this accusation has consequences for the Jewish people,'  guess what, the shit I'm taking from the left I'll be taking from the right because I would support him."