UMKC Statement on the Violence Videos

The University of Missouri-Kansas City continues to review approximately 18 hours of unedited video from the Labor, Politics and Society class. From the review completed to date, it is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.  Such selective editing is disturbing and the release of students’ images without their permission is a violation of their privacy rights.
We want to underscore our commitment to the importance of academic freedom, freedom of speech and the free-flowing discussion of challenging topics in our courses. We also recognize the serious responsibilities this places on us to ensure a balanced perspective is offered to our students within our curriculum.
In this particular case, we also affirm our belief that studying labor unions, their history, and their role in society is an important subject given the role they have played and continue to play in the United States and the world.  As a result, we continue to review the appropriate place for such an offering within our curriculum.
During the course of our review the past couple days, UMSL has accepted the resignation of its lecturer.


Statement from Gail Hackett, Provost
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Context, Editing and “Pedagogical Explanations”

Context, Editing and “Pedagogical Explanations” 

As the debate and various blogging and anti-blogging deconstructs the words of Judy Ancel, noted communist union organizer in Missouri, the most pivotal video becomes the flashpoint: the advocacy of violence to achieve political results.

Ancel’s explanation is that this is out of context in heavily edited videos displaying a pedagogical explanation.

It would be odd to make an entire fuss over just one snippet, one 10 second statement in one classroom among the 3000 four year colleges in the country. There are millions of adults in college, were these 20 the only that mattered? Surely Judy Ancel doesn’t deserve this kind of news attention! This was just a pedagogical explanation!

Are pedagogical explanations everywhere at risk of similarly being taken out of context in heavily edited videos in the blogosphere?

No. Clearly not. Ancel was not giving a pedagogical explanation, she was rebutting the point made directly before, about shunning non-violence. When one student mentioned that one should follow in the social change model of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Judy Ancel rebutted that point by using a quotation from a former SNCC leader who made the simple observation that violence is an appropriate political tactic.

At least some in the audience did not take away that she was just offering a “pedagogical explanation” but was offering a larger discussion about appropriate political tactics. Mere minutes earlier the statement was made that “no tactics are off the table.”

What tactics would have been off the table? Why, clearly, the tactic of political violence.

Judy cited to the example of revolutions. Previously she had noted that terrorism was a tactic to use that was no longer called terrorism when it was successful.

Let’s say that again so that it’s perfectly clear, terrorism against the people, political violence, leads to revolutions. Revolutions then clean up the historical record and make their people look like freedom fighters, but their tactics were legitimate. Judy seeks radical political change, Judy is a revolutionary. Judy endorses the use of political violence to get results, she just wants it to be successful to be a revolution.

There’s no way to sugarcoat this, and no way to spin this so that it denies the truth of what Ancel is saying: violence is a legitimate and desirable political tactic, terrorism, when it leads to a successful revolution.

The only reason there’s any squirming here is because she’s caught, in the sunlight, with her own words in public view. Judy no doubt expected this seminar to go off splendidly by introducing radicalism into her organizers without any problems. She thought that these casual mentions of political violence wouldn’t be noticed, after all they never had before. Judy thought that she could get them to see a bigger range of options, to use terrorism against businesses, to help bring in the FBI for a week to shut down a business.

Is that someone who thinks that violence isn’t an appropriate political tactic?

What Judy is caught saying is entirely in context with every other salacious thing said at this conference.

Judy wanted to teach these young organizers how to use violence, how to suggest violence, how to use soft terrorism in order to get political results.

She’s only sorry she’s been caught. This was not a “pedagogical explanation” it was a prescription for political tactics. Her explanation was that this was an effective tactic and ought to be considered.

The more Judy Ancel is put into context, the worse her words get. The University of Missouri system ought to be ashamed during these tough economic times, when so many workers are out of work, for spending money and supporting people like Ancel who suggest violence to shut down businesses and hurt other workers.

There’s no pedagogical explanation that can defend what she’s said.

Hilarious: UMKC tries to cover for Judy Ancel

To Whom it Concerns:

As many of you know, in recent days, heavily edited recordings of our class discussions have been posted on a variety of third-party political blogs and websites. Many of these videos feature clearly identifiable images and recordings of students, whose personal information (including such information as home address) is easily accessed via the UMKC student directory.

A quick perusal of the comments sections on the blogs and websites where these videos are posted will yield a host of threats, attempts to intimidate, and calls for violence and/or legal action against the students and teachers featured. These threats are reactions to opinions that were often not even those of the students or teachers featured, but rather pedagogical explanations of the positions expressed by historic figures in the field of labor relations.

Student records are protected by the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, and to release those records without consent is both a violation of federal law, and a disservice to one's fellow students and citizens, especially when those records have been doctored in such a way as to engender the violent reaction that can be found on the various websites that are posting them. I would encourage those of you who feel that our privacy and safety should be respected and protected to contact the both the University and the Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education to let them know you expect these videos to be removed and that you expect the persons responsible for this violation of your privacy to be held accountable.

Sincerely,
Stephen Davis