[http://coreyrobin.com/2013/07/26/please-do-not-sign-brooklyn-college-worker-ed-petition/].
Robin claims that the Center has been mismanaged in what might rise to a criminal level, that it has no quality standards, and that it no longer serves any worker education purpose. He says it should be ended and a new one begun, housed in the political science department, and moved from its current location in downtown Manhattan to the Brooklyn College campus.
Doug Henwood posted Robin’s blog on his (Doug’s) facebook page, presumably because he agrees with Robin. When someone raised a question about Robin’s post, Doug said that he knew Robin well and trusted him “thoroughly.”
Doug also commented on Laibman’s note, quoting directly from it:
“David Laibman: ‘I reject the idea that one must first have detailed empirical knowledge of a given situation in order to voice an opinion.’ [Henwood]: Lovely. It should be engraved somewhere. ‘I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm going to talk about it anyway.’
Doug’s comments, and others he has made, are problematic. First, he mocks Laibman when he says that we don’t need detailed empirical knowledge of a given situation in order to voice an opinion. However, Doug, in effect, tells us not to sign the petition on the basis of his trust of Robin. Laibman, on the other hand, taught at Robin’s college for many years and must surely know the internal political dynamics of the school. He also taught two courses in the Graduate Center for Worker Education. He also knows something about the relationship between Robin and the Center. Henwood knows none of these things; he has never been a professor, much less one at Brooklyn College. In a later comment on facebook, Doug tells us about some “scuttlebutt” he has heard from Brooklyn College folks, which supports Robin’s contentions. Scuttlebutt is gossip. The folks are not named. So, who “doesn’t know what he is talking about, but [is] going to talk about it anyway”?
Now, it turns out that nothing has come of the two-year investigation of the Center. As Charles Levenstein, who co-authored the report on the Center to which Robin refers in his post, said on Doug’s facebook page: “After two years, no charges have been made by the Attorney General. The issues raised by Robin that instigated the investigation have not been substantiated. At least one faculty member who I know well was dismissed, grieved and has been reinstated. I am disappointed that you seem to repeat the distortions and smears handed to you by a friend who has a long history of hostility to the program.” A person I know who has been very close to all of this told me that just this past week, “those he [Robin] accused of mismanagement have been completely cleared.” So, again, who doesn’t know what he is talking about?
A second problem with Doug’s comments about Laibman is that Laibman never says we need no empirical knowledge, just no “detailed” empirical knowledge. Surely Henwood has publicly commented on a thousand matters without detailed empirical knowledge. Not long ago, he commented disparagingly about Edward Abbey without, to my knowledge, knowing the first thing about him. He vigorously praised Jane McAlevey’s recent book on her union organizing experiences in Las Vegas without, again to my knowledge, investigating, even in a cursory manner, the truthfulness of what she wrote. Fair enough. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Now, as we see in the second post Julio sent to lbo, Manny Ness, a person with considerable knowledge of the Center for Worker Education, says that the report Robin refers to is secret. Apparently no one has seen it besides those who wrote it. The Center has received a positive review from the Middle States evaluators. And so forth. What the Center really seems to need is more funding.
It may turn out that Robin’s take on the Center is correct, and Ness, Laibman, I, and others are wrong. If so, I suppose justice will prevail. And we will learn a valuable lesson. But before someone urges people (some 5,000 facebook “friends”) to agree with Robin, because he “trusts” him, he ought to look into things a bit more. Get at least some empirical knowledge. Don’t pass on “scuttlebutt.” Because what if Robin isn’t so trustworthy? What if he has other fish to fry? Doug won't suffer. but the students will.