"Why was he fired? I mean, why was he really fired? What did
he do? What did he do to bring this down on himself? He must have done
something wrong...Wait. Are you saying he was fired because he
exercised his natural right to free speech? He spoke freely? That's
it? That's all? No, I can't believe that. He must have said something
that I would disagree with---in which case, he should have been fired.
I feel better. He said something I disagree with. He should be
fired. What right does he have to say something that makes me feel
uncomfortable? That crosses the line. I have a right not to feel
uncomfortable. Isn't that the most basic of all rights? Isn't that
written in the Constitution?" (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
What happened to Professor James Tracy?
Here is what the NY Times had to say (
"Florida Professor Who Cast Doubt on Mass Shootings Is Fired," 1/6/16):
"MIAMI - A Florida Atlantic University professor who suggested in blog
postings and radio interviews that the 2012 massacre of children at
Sandy Hook Elementary and other mass shootings were a hoax designed by
the Obama administration to boost support for gun control was fired
Tuesday.
"James F. Tracy, 50, a tenured associate professor of communications at
the Boca Raton university, has repeatedly called into question the
authenticity of recent mass shootings, including the slaying of
churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., and office workers in San Bernardino,
Calif. In his blog postings and radio interviews, Mr. Tracy has said the
Newtown massacre may have been carried out by 'crisis actors' employed
by the Obama administration."
Here are a few more news quotes about Tracy:
Orlando Sun-Sentinel op-ed (
"Tenure be damned, Professor James Tracy embarrasses FAU," 12/17/2015):
"In our view, academic freedom is not a license to do or say whatever
you want, consequences be damned. So we welcome the termination
proceedings begun against Tracy this week by FAU, a university he
continues to embarrass with his 'didn't happen' conspiracy theories
about the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter, the Boston Marathon
bombing, the San Bernardino shooting and other mass attacks."
The Washington Times (
"Florida Atlantic University moves to fire professor who questioned Sandy Hook," 12/18/2015):
"Florida Atlantic University moved Wednesday to fire a professor who has
faced calls for resignation after claiming the mass shooting at Sandy
Hook Elementary School was a staged drill that the community benefitted
from financially...The school said in a release on its website that
School of Communication and Multimedia Studies professor James Tracy was
served Wednesday with a notice of termination, to which he has 10 days
to respond."
And then we have this from the Daily Beast (
"This Professor Trolled Sandy Hook Parents---And His University Wants Him Gone," 12/17/2015):
"James Tracy, who taught a course chock-full of conspiracy theories at
Florida Atlantic University, reportedly harassed parents of a Sandy Hook
child, demanding proof of his death... Florida Atlantic University
announced on Thursday it planned to fire tenured professor James Tracy
for allegedly harassing parents of the victims of the shooting at Sandy
Hook Elementary that left 20 children and six adults dead... After years
of Tracy stating that the massacre was a government conspiracy, the
professor reportedly sent a certified letter to Lenny and Veronique
Pozner demanding they prove that their deceased 6-year-old, Noah, ever
existed. When the family notified the police of the harassment, Tracy
responded on a 'Sandy Hook Hoax' Facebook page, claiming that the family
had 'made out very well for itself financially' from the tragedy...
That was enough for the university to take action."
Here is my interview with James Tracy. Let's read, at length, what he has to say:
Q: Did you harass Lenny and Veronique Pozner about their son, Noah?
Absolutely not.
In March of 2015, Lenny Pozner, acting on behalf of his "HONR Network,"
filed a copyright infringement claim with Automattic, the ISP and parent
company of Wordpress.com, where my blog, Memory Hole, is housed.
Pozner/HONR Network demanded that I take down an image that Pozner
purports to hold copyright ownership in. This well-known photograph,
purportedly of [Lenny's son] Noah Pozner, was voluntarily provided to
the press by the Pozners in December 2012 following the Sandy Hook
massacre event and has since been reproduced millions of times in print,
electronic, and online media throughout the world.
An identical photo of Noah Pozner also appeared in December 2014 in the
wake of a school massacre in Peshawar Pakistan, purportedly representing
a child victim in that shooting. I wrote an article in January 2015 on
the re-emergence of this image and included the photo in question. Even
the BBC eventually acknowledged how the photo first appeared following
the 2012 Newtown massacre. When Automattic/Wordpress presented me with
Pozner's takedown request it remarked that my inclusion of the photo in
the post constituted "fair use" under US copyright law, which provides
for republication of copyrighted material for the purpose of "commentary
or criticism." Nonetheless, I removed the photograph from my blog, and
responded to the allegations, referencing free speech concerns and
asking for documentation and evidence supporting Pozner's copyright
claims. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any journalistic outlet that
has ever attempted to accurately report this.
I should note that by early 2015, Lenny Pozner had become infamous
within the alternative media community for filing blatantly frivolous
infringement claims. Pozner's objective appears to be to shutdown any
commentary or criticism of the controversy surrounding his son's death,
as alleged. To contest such claims, anonymous bloggers and YouTubers
must divulge their legal identities. Pozner and his HONR Network
associates then use this identifying information to stalk and harass
Sandy Hook researchers, going so far as to contact their family members,
neighbors, and employers, to suggest these researchers are emotionally
harming Sandy Hook victims' families. But there's nothing unlawful with
such study and criticism. On the contrary, it is Pozner and his group
who are involved in unlawful stalking, harassment and defamation. This
very harassment and defamation of myself reached a crescendo with the
Sun-Sentinel's December 10 publication of an article by Lenny and
Veronique Pozner entitled,
"Sandy Hook Massacre 3rd Anniversary: Two Parents Target FAU Conspiracy Theorist; FAU Professor Taunts Sandy Hook Parents."
Q: How do you view free speech and the 1st Amendment, in light of what is happening to you?
Free speech and academic freedom are closely intertwined. When school
officials at FAU [Florida Atlantic University] initially expressed their
concerns about my blog in 2013, I explained to them that if I could not
practice my constitutional rights during my personal time, then my
right to academic freedom and professional autonomy on the job is
likewise threatened. This is the case for university faculty at FAU and
throughout the country. The American Association of University
Professors and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
supported my stance in letters of protest to school officials when FAU
first attempted to discipline me for my personal blogging in March of
2013. Regardless of the lies told by the Pozners and their media allies,
I don't think there's any question given what has transpired that FAU
has acted wrongfully, and in violation of its own principals of academic
freedom, institutional tenure and my constitutional rights.
Q: On what basis did the University fire you?
FAU's contention is that I failed to file "outside activity" forms for
my personal blog. In January of 2013, they made the same request and at
that time I explained that such endeavors are personal and protected by
the First Amendment. The administration fell silent for 34 months, and
then abruptly resurrected this unconstitutional basis as cause for
termination in late December 2015. For their exact "reasoning", see
FAU's Notice of Termination, dated January 6, 2016.
Q: Before this situation finally blew up, you must have
known you were on a collision course with the University. What were
your thoughts about that?
I had no idea that university officials would so brazenly violate the
well-established principals of academic freedom and my constitutional
rights. In 2014, a new president, John Kelly, was recruited from Clemson
University and installed at Florida Atlantic. His administration was
characterized to me by one senior FAU faculty member as the most
anti-faculty administration in thirty-plus years. This administration
has proceeded to discipline or threaten with discipline several faculty
who've made public pronouncements that Kelly and his inner circle
disfavor.
In September 2015 the Kelly administration attempted to effectively
eliminate tenure by implementing a controversial post-tenure review
process that faculty eventually caught wind of and protested. I also
reported on that episode.
See James Tracy,
"Academic Freedom Threatened in America: The Policy of Post Tenure Review," Global Research, September 20, 2015.
Q: In a similar vein, people must have been telling
you, in the past few years, that you were treading on dangerous ground,
relative to job security. How did you respond?
I can't recall any colleague suggesting that I was in danger of being
disciplined, much less being stripped of tenure and fired. I was
confident that tenure and the First Amendment still had meaning at FAU. I
was obviously proven wrong.
Q: Do you believe your present situation is a test case for academic freedom in America?
Absolutely-for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of the
press. All of these protections exist so that faculty and citizens can
examine, research, and publicize the potential malfeasance and
wrongdoing of those in power. As some academics and journalists have
come to realize, however, is the unwritten code guiding what topics can
actually be addressed. Political assassinations and similar events are
often deemed suspect and off-limits.
I think this is strongly-rooted in the misleading yet almost uniformly
adhered to notion that we live in an "open society," a mythic pluralism
overseen by properly functioning political institutions inhabited by
fair-minded political leaders and bureaucrats, all of whom have our best
interests at heart. Of course, universities are a central part of this
mythic democratic order. Researching such difficult subject matter calls
the legitimacy of this system into question. At the same time
controversial and poorly-understood topics are exactly what tenure and
academic freedom exist to foster and protect.
Q: Is anyone at your University defending you?
I have maintained contact with most of the colleagues I've come to know
in my thirteen years at FAU. They understand how I have been defamed in
the press and recognize the grave injustice of the termination. Yet not
nearly enough people have condemned the FAU administrators' action,
particularly the egregiousness of their conduct. As noted, some faculty
clearly fear retaliation, and rightly so. Others both at FAU and
elsewhere have simply bought the disinformation the news media have
circulated without examining the facts, which is the most painless and
convenient course of action.
Q: What would you say to people who believe your claim about Sandy Hook is completely absurd?
You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into in
the first place. Most challengers of my analyses and criticisms of
unbelievable official narratives have not even attempted to explore the
evidence researchers and journalists have presented through alternative
media. It's much easier to shoot the messenger, particularly when the
messenger is framed as an insensitive deviant, and refrain from critical
thinking.
Q: Playing Devil's advocate for a minute---it's one
thing to espouse a controversial view in a college classroom, but when
grieving parents feel pain because you're going after them, all bets are
off, and your University has a right to terminate you, on the basis
that you're crossing a moral line and bringing shame to the institution.
I didn't "go after" anyone, even though that's how the legacy news media
chose to present and cultivate the controversy. In the immediate wake
of FAU's public announcement that it was poised to terminate my
employment on December 16, 2015 the media assumed that I was being fired
because of my public comment and letter to Pozner's HONR Network. Yet
the administration fired me on a technicality that cannot warrant the
termination of any tenured faculty member, particularly one such as
myself who since 2002 has established an impeccable record of research,
teaching and service at FAU. I contend that I merely sought the truth,
did my job and engaged in constitutionally protected activities. I did
not bring shame on FAU. The disclaimer on my blog specifically states
that I don't speak for FAU. In fact, FAU has brought shame to itself by
violating long standing principals of academic freedom, and by violating
constitutional rights that it is supposed to safeguard and protect.
Q: There is going to be a University hearing, at which
you'll defend yourself against job termination? What shape do you
anticipate that hearing will take?
In January 2016, I dropped the faculty union-appointed attorney and
hired a counsel of my own choosing who I believe will be a stronger
advocate. While I cannot discuss any case details or specifics, it is my
understanding that any legal action will be directed at those who have
violated my constitutional rights, and I have the right to a trial by
jury. This is how the proceedings will take shape, unless a Court
determines that I am entitled to relief as a matter of law without a
trial.
Q: Here are several questions together; sort them out
in whatever way you want to: How do you separate the right to free
speech, the right to express your conclusions about Sandy Hook, from the
content and substance of your conclusions? What's the primary issue
here? Did your University fire you because you've expressed a very
controversial view, or because you've become embroiled in a conflict
with the Pozners?
George Orwell once remarked, "At any given moment there is orthodoxy, a
body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept
without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this or that or the
other, but it is not done. Anyone who challenges the prevailing
orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A
genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing,
either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals."
I maintain that the primary issue is FAU violated my constitutional
rights, which exist to provide the basis for rational argument and
exchange, and protect "unorthodox" views, which with the benefit of
hindsight often demonstrate their significance. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court: "The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to
allow "free trade in ideas"--even ideas that the overwhelming majority
of people might find distasteful or discomforting." (Virginia v. Black
2003)
Regardless of how the FAU administration dressed this matter up I don't
believe there's really any question that I was fired for exercising my
constitutional rights.
Q: If your tenured employment is re-established there, how will you go forward?
A perfect definition of an intellectual slave, in my view, is someone
who recognizes truth but fears to publicly acknowledge or affirm it. I
would very much wish to have my job back. Yet if this were achieved I
would remain concerned about efforts by school officials and others to
infringe on my constitutional rights and harm me for standing up for my
rights, as well as the rights of others.
Q: Do you believe there are people trying to avoid the
issue of free speech and academic freedom in your situation? Do you
believe they're shading this controversy and mischaracterizing it, in
order to invent other reasons for firing you, so they don't have to face
the question of freedom head-on?
The fact that FAU administrators have chosen to fire me on pretextual
grounds is ample proof that they must at all costs avoid the questions
of academic freedom and free speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment