Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Controversial professor Bill Ayers speaks at UD

Lecture on education reform sparks protest

Published: Thursday, February 25, 2010

Updated: Thursday, December 30, 2010 23:12

bill ayers

Josh Shannon

Bill Ayers speeks to the crowd.

ayers protester

Josh Shannon

Cathy James protests Ayers' visit to the university.

Bill Ayers, the controversial professor whose alleged ties to Barack Obama drew fire during the 2008 election, spoke to a group of education professors at the university on Wednesday.

Ayers' hour-long speech at Willard Hall Education Building received praise from attendees but sparked a small protest by community members who criticized the university for hosting the 1970s radical.

Forty years ago, Ayers helped found the radical group Weather Underground, which was responsible for a series of bombings around the country in protest of the Vietnam War. He now teaches education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and is well-known for his ideas on urban school reform.

During the 2008 presidential election, many conservatives criticized Obama for having ties to Ayers, pointing out that Ayers hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama during his first run for state senate. However, a New York Times investigation found that the professor had little influence on Obama.

Wearing a sports jacket over a black T-shirt bearing a large drawing of Riley Freeman from the "Boondocks" cartoon, Ayers took aim at politicians and others who claim lazy, incompetent teachers are the root of the problems in public schools.

Instead, he told the audience, much deeper problems are to blame for poor performance, chiefly the funding gaps between schools in rich and poor areas, a fact he said is not lost on the students affected.

"The kids aren't hidden from it – it's in their faces, "Ayers said. "It seems like what we're saying to them is, "Sorry, there's nothing we can do about it.' "

Access to quality education should not be determined by a student's neighborhood or the income level of his or her parents, he said.

"If we take seriously the idea that every human life is of incalculable value, then we shouldn't allow a situation like we have in the Chicago area where some schools are funded to the tune of $40,000 or $50,000 per student per year, while down the road, a school is funded at $4,000 per child," Ayers said.

He advocated for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing all children a quality education.

"We need to frame education as a right," he said.

Ayers criticized Race to the Top, the Obama administration's program of giving funding to states that meet specific educational goals and standards.

"There's nothing wrong with standards, but standardization is a problem," he said, adding that, in his view, most standardized tests are biased.

"When the test results come in, we're going to get rid of the lazy, incompetent teacher, but what have we done for that kid?" he said.

Ayers was invited to campus by Elizabeth Soslau, a graduate student in the School of Education. Soslau said she has long been familiar with Ayers' work in education and asked him to speak at the university after meeting him at a conference in Washington, D.C.

"I was thrilled," Soslau said. "I was meeting a rock star."

Though Ayers' visits to other schools have sparked controversy, Soslau said she did not worry about that happening here.

"We really counted on academics being able and willing to hear free ideas, and that's what happened," she said.

The speech was not heavily promoted by the university. It appeared in the calendar listings on the College of Education and Public Policy's Web site but not in the university's main calendar on the UDaily Web site. Soslau said the event was targeted toward education professors, but community members were welcome.

Ayers also spoke to an undergraduate class, but Soslau would not provide details about that lecture.

Ayers was generally well received in the lecture hall, but outside Willard Hall Education Building, a half dozen people demonstrated against him. The protesters were from First State Patriots, an advocacy group that is part of television commentator Glenn Beck's "9-12 Project."

"I disagree with him brainwashing our children," said Cathy James, of Newark, who was holding a sign that read, "Ayers teaches Marxist agenda."

Bill Page, of Wilmington, who attended the speech and then rejoined the other protesters, said that if he didn't know Ayers' background, he would have thought he was a good speaker.

"He's talking about the incalculable value of human life, but he planted bombs to take human life," Page said.

He said he was disappointed that the university would host a speaker with a radical past.

"Why, just because he has some good points, should we let all that go?" Page said

In an e-mailed statement, university spokesman John Brennan said that views expressed by Ayers do not necessarily represent those of the university.

 "All members of the campus community have the personal responsibility to promote an atmosphere of civility in which the free exchange of ideas and opinions can flourish," Brennan said. "We do so by learning from individual and collective differences and by respecting every human being."

Ayers was not paid by the university for his speech, Brennan said.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

23 comments

Anonymous
Sat Mar 6 2010 21:39
Planting bombs with the intent to harm property and people is not an absurd description of terrorism. Anyone who would defend a man who plants bombs on American soil is traitorous. It is despicable that a man like that is defended by so-called "educated" individuals. It is even more despicable that a university would invite a bomb-planting criminal to its campus. The fact that this event was kept so quiet is proof that the university was well aware of the potential outrage that would follow his being here. Shame on the university, and shame on anyone who would defend this man in any way.
Anonymous
Fri Mar 5 2010 01:28
""Bill Ayers is a terrorist. I agree. But I also don't care. Bill Ayers is not lurking outside my house at night with a pipe bomb"

I'm sorry, but that is just a ridiculous statement. "

The statement is ridiculous because the modern definition of terrorism is ridiculously nonspecific. Don't confuse absurdity purposed to highlight other absurdity with absurdity for its own sake.

Anonymous
Thu Mar 4 2010 20:10
"We all sin fellow Christians"

Ah, but most don't sin by blowing things up, there's the catch.

"Bill Ayers is a terrorist. I agree. But I also don't care. Bill Ayers is not lurking outside my house at night with a pipe bomb"

I'm sorry, but that is just a ridiculous statement.

Calling Christians
Tue Mar 2 2010 17:57
OK, so I think you are talking about two different people: 1. a man who has a radical and criminal past and 2. one of the U.S.'s leading education scholars. This forum was not devised for the first person. Rather, he spoke to a crowd of academics on educational topics. Period.

Because he spoke on education, I largely do not even understand any protests for his appearance.

But, yes, cast your stones. Righteous as you are. We all have regrettable pasts, some more than others. I wonder what things you have done in your past? We all sin fellow Christians. And because we all sin, we should forgive and see the new person for what he is--a serious scholar who cares about children, the poor, the marginalized. He sounds like a Christian (at least how Jesus would have defined it!). And perhaps, those of you protesting his appearance are not Christians, but your allegiances (Tea Partyers, Glenn Beck fans, and so on) act primarily in the name of "Christianity." But, let's be real: you are making judgments, casting stones, demonizing a different person living in a different time. I am happy and proud that the university brought such a caring person to campus that thinks about Christian causes like caring for the poor and for children, but for the rest of you, I am concerned.

Anonymous
Tue Mar 2 2010 08:16
I certainly feel much better about this guy since one of the most liberal leaning newspapers, the New York Times, determined there was little connection between Ayers and Obama. People have to pay attention. I can assure you that schools are NOT spending $50,000 per student per year. Even the richest private school would not do that. New Jersey has pretty much shown that throwing money at the students in inner cities does not have any impact on their test scores, it just provides nicer facilities.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 23:47
"And the tea party protesters are not morons--although I suppose from an elitist leftist academic, they may be labeled as such. On the contrary, the tea party protesters are just sick of government taking their money from them to use as they see fit--but this is a digression from the main point. No university should welcome a TERRORIST to speak. "

Regarding your first point:

Tea Party protesters are, as a rule, not smart enough to put their money to intelligent use. Try to think of federal expansion as preventing the idiot masses from screwing up in too meaningful of a way. I'm sorry if you think differently and are offended, but you are wrong and will go down with the ship. Once again, it's nothing personal, but running a modern superpower is a duty best left to people who are not fatally nostalgic for good old days which never existed.

Regarding your second point:

Bill Ayers is a terrorist. I agree. But I also don't care. Bill Ayers is not lurking outside my house at night with a pipe bomb. He's not passing around instructables for napalm and as far as I know he's no longer blowing up statues of bullies. I don't see him as a threat to my person and possessions, and I seriously doubt he even knows I exist. As a citizen, I think at this point that any effort spent censuring or restraining Mr. Ayers would be wasteful and entirely symbolic. As a student, I take offense at the notion that a single charismatic speaker could wholly shape my personal ideology. As a human being, I'm disgusted that you lack the tiny spark of courage required to view a person as a being in the present rather than a case file from the past. There's a good chance that you stand when the national anthem plays, but you don't deserve to. Ayers does, but you don't.

Liz
Mon Mar 1 2010 21:15
Wow, a whole half a dozen protesters. At least 1/6 of them don't know the difference between "x" and "k".

I will say I'm disappointed in The Review. They transcribe James' sign with the correct spelling of Marxist--but that's not what she said. Maybe she's protesting against someone named Mark. Why does the Review twist her words like this?

RAF
Mon Mar 1 2010 20:32
Looks like Cathy James would benefit from some teaching... any kind of teaching.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 14:45
If you click on the picture of James, you can make it larger. Definitely a "K" instead of an "X" (look at the lower right hand side, it's curved where an "x" would be straight).

I guess it's too much to hope that she was making fun of the people who were actually protesting, and did it ironically? Because I can't take someone seriously who doesn't even know how to spell what they're against.

Also, I can see protesting against his past actions (if you do or don’t call him a terrorist, he still was a criminal), but his “Markist [sic] agenda”? Sounds like he wants kids to get an equal education. I can’t really see wanting kids to be punished because you disagree with their parents’ actions (this is addressed to the earlier commenter, who talked about drug addicts or others having kids they can’t afford). While their parents’ actions may be irresponsible in some cases, is that the child’s fault? If the kid isn’t given an adequate education, aren’t we allowing the cycle of low-paid, low-educated people who continue to have kids they can’t afford, or who get involved in drugs, etc?

Anonymous
Mon Mar 1 2010 14:35
Is that a K or an X in Cathy James' sign?

Also, I wasn't aware of UD having a neo-nazi professor, but they did have the skinhead from American History X come and give a talk last year. He doesn't hold those beliefs anymore though, and talked about how he regrets his past. It was actually a pretty good talk. (I didn't see Ayers, and I'm not too familiar with his past, so I'm not commenting on that)

Anonymous
Sat Feb 27 2010 22:04
yes a constitutional amendment guaranteeing children education. get a clue before you talk out of your ass.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 11:39
I agree with the last poster: parenting is where everything begins. Don't want your kids to grow up in the inner city in poverty? Then don't have kids you can't afford! Or, for that matter, don't become a drug addict. It's gotten way out of hand, playing the race card and victim card, and then demanding that the government tax the productive citizens in order to subsidize the lazy and irresponsible. Ayers is a terrorist: period. He decided to plant bombs, willing to risk the death of innocent people. How can a man like that possibly be defended, let alone regarded as a "rock star"?
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 07:14
Ayers is just another apologist for a failed public school system. No amount of money can provide what these sad faces need in the classrooms he refers to in his speech. Children need parents who raise their children to see that an education will lead to a better life not "adults" with children who drop them at the school door and expect to pick up a genius at the end of the school day. These "adults" with children and enabling politicians are the cause for failing public schools. Take responsibility for educating your own kids. Ayers should be in prison.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 06:19
And please stop using the O'Reilly/Beck rhetoric. It makes me want to throw up.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 06:17
Regardless of his past history... The message he has now is noble and should be heard. Our schools systems are deplorable. We are setting up inner city children for a life of welfare and food-stamps. Inner city students are not oblivious to the fact that they will not have the same opportunities as middle-upper class suburban kids.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 23:06
Ayers said he didn't kill anyone with his bombings. Well, neither did the Underwear Bomber. Does this make it right or ok? A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. He never paid his debt to society for bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol, and the NYC Police Headquarters. And for that, the University should never have invited him. Ms. Soslau, you are so young and naive. Mr. Ayers is no rock star.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 23:04
Ayers said he didn't kill anyone with his bombings. Well, neither did the Underwear Bomber. Does this make it right or ok? A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. He never paid his debt to society for bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol, and the NYC Police Headquarters. And for that, the University should never have invited him. Ms. Soslau, you are so young and naive. Mr. Ayers is no rock star.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 22:49
I was not aware of a Neo-Nazi being at UD, but that is NOT something to be proud of. And the tea party protesters are not morons--although I suppose from an elitist leftist academic, they may be labeled as such. On the contrary, the tea party protesters are just sick of government taking their money from them to use as they see fit--but this is a digression from the main point. No university should welcome a TERRORIST to speak.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 21:41
Well we did have a neo-nazi professor here not too long ago if you recall. He had to wear long sleeve shirts to cover up the swastikas and other propaganda on his arms. The University does a good job of not being one sided. And yes, the morons out there throwing tea parties are the equivalent of the whacko family protesting at the funerals of our servicemen.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 25 2010 18:27
It is an outrage indeed that the university would welcome a domestic terrorist. If a self-described Nazi wanted to speak, I'm sure there would be a different attitude expressed by the university and those who defend this man. When someone is willing to plant bombs in the name of leftist causes, they're championed as a hero of "social justice" and "progressive" thinking--if a conservative protests taxation, they're labeled dismissed as morons and are compared to racist militiamen. The bias is so transparent.






log out