Meet Michael Theodore Roth, a former phD philosopher

While there are many Michael Roths in this world, Michael Theodore Roth is the author of the poetics of resistence, Heidegger’s line

He majored in philosophy as an undergraduate, and got a masters and a phD in continental philosophy.

He is a commited left-wing activist.
He was hired to “teach” philosophy at the University of Illinois and University of Wisconsin, and possibly other schools like Illinois State University (or some University with Illinois in the name).

nupress.northwestern.edu/title.c … 101-1318-X

“Roth argues, with Derrida against Heidegger, that crossing this line is not a move into irrationalism (to say nothing of National Socialism”

amazon.com/Poetics-Resistanc … 0810113171

He “taught” philosophy to students, and made remarks that resulted in complaints to the Department chair that he was using the philosophy classroom as an opportunity to indoctrinate his leftists activists political beleifs in an alarming manner described by Dinesh D’Souza, Roger Kimball, Christine HOff Sommers, and David Horowitz.

I am a former student of Michael Roth, I took his course, Introduction to Philosophy. I found he made a lot of remarks I found offensive, and taught material that I regard as off-topic, which the department chair shared my concern. The philosophy department chair agreed that Roth’s using the philosophy classroom to talk about the Black panthers, the movement, its origins and aims, and how Cointel pro infiltrated, harassed, and discredited their movement, including assassinations of key leaders, to the exclusion of any discussion and readings of Plato and Aristotle, does not seem germane to students taking their first and only philosophy class.

I personally would like to ask Michael Roth whether the complaints I raised with the department philosophy undergraduate chair, Robert Wengert, was communicated to him, and if so, what his responses are.
vpaa.uillinois.edu/reports_r … ngert.html

I have no way of reaching him. No one at Univ of Illinois or Wisconsin has his contact information that they are willing to share with me (if they do have it), and they do not even know if he is teaching at another University or college.

What conclusion does Roth want his students to draw, when he spends no time on Plato and Aristotle in an introduction to philosophy class, but plenty of classroom time and lecture on the Black Panthers and Cointelpro? The conclusion I’ve drawn is that the Black panthers and Cointel pro are more important topics for philosophy than Plato and Aristotle.

I disagree with your conclusion. I did however take a seminar type class once called “moral extremism” where we talked about the IRA, Nelson Mandella, Mother Teresa, MLK, Ghandi, etc… Not a bad class.

smears, you fell of the stupid tree and hit every branch. he only presents the conclusion as if he agrees with it. he doesn’t. he presents the conclusion as a problem. hence everything that came before it.

That was very nice. I see that you don’t understand sarcasm or humor. Let’s insult one another. That’s the way to be clever.

Introductory philosophy should first and foremost be about introducing the student to the tools for making a good argument, the range of the philosophic discipline, and the like.

Unfortunately, I doubt that the situation of any class within the humanitites of an American university becoming a forum for the propogation of left-wing propoganda is an untypical one. The humanities and social science departments of the American university have become almost exclusivelycoprised of, shall we say, progressive thinkers. As a result rather than being introduced to the wide range of world views and conflicting concepts that would enable critical thinking to develop in a student, indoctrination is just as often the end result of the liberal arts education in America.

edsmith,

Due to this quote your opinion of Roth can no longer be seen as an unbiased student who was simply shocked by his methods of teaching. It is clear by the manner in which you have framed this statement and your citation of four extremely radically conservative authors that you are yourself an extremist- or at the very least your opinions are shaped by them.

Dinesh D’Souza, “The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 … the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”

Roger Kimball is actually quite interesting when applying his Hegelianism to the Bush Administration. well worth the read However he is still a self proclaimed devout conservative.

Christina Hoff Sommers, an anti-feminist who specializes in counter pointing just about all of the principles of feminism, “…battery may have very little to do with patriarchy or gender bias…”

David Horowitz founder of the Freedom Center an organization that specializes in getting conservative talking heads into the mainstream. And among other things… this Gem.

I think most everyone would agree that Roth’s teaching of the said subject matter “does not seem germane to students taking their first and only philosophy class.” However I question the legitimacy of your claim. The manner in which you have approached this topic makes it appear as though Roth only taught his students these things while ignore the totality of philosophy. Is it possible that this particular moment during his entire semester of teaching is what you have chosen to dwell upon. (Lets also not forget about the Plato/Vagina thing- I still think it may be a legitimate argument.)

I ask you this… What was the context of his mentioning the Black Panthers or Cointelpro? Did he spend an entire day (or weeks) on the subject or maybe ten minutes? I myself can imagine why and how those two subjects could come up in a first philosophy class- especially because it is relatively a recent historical incident which can easily be applied to today.

Honestly did you spend no time at all on these two thinkers? I find this very hard to believe. If you still have it available may we see this courses syllabus?

I first had Roth, and much later, the above speakers cam to speak at my campus, and the department Chair, Robert Wengert, and other faculty agree that Roth was unprofessional indoctrinator.

He spent 25% of the semester on radical feminism, another 25% on black issues like slavery and Malcolm X, and another 25% on Marxism and anti-capitalism.

I complained to the philosophy department chair on just this matter, and he agreed that Roth did not meet professional standards, specifically Roth was unprofessionally using the classroom to indoctrinate students in progressive leftists theology, a Jesus camp version for Marxists.

I am curious as to what exactly happened thereafter.

In an entertaining campus debate between a Dinesh D’Souza and a Rabbi Michael Lerner on who is to blame for 9/11, quite naturally Michael Lerner came across as a crowd favorite.

In his closing remarks, as a criticism against American suppose value of individualism,the good rabbi lamented on the irony of how the universal response to a questionaire he gives to first year students was how their previous education had taught them how to think for themselves.

In perfect unison, the crowd broke out into applause.

Irony upon irony.

Dinesh de Souza, by the way, laid the blame for 9/11 squarely upon the terrorists and the terrorist culture in that debate.
It was Rabbi Lerner, and one would suppose his appreciative college crowd along with him, blamed the West and America for the terrorist attacks.

The debate itself is audio online.

If the pofessor has tenure, he is virtually untouchable. In the name of academic freedom, he may pursue any agenda that he wishes too.

edsmith,

So are you saying that the authors you cited were only mentioned because they all spoke at UIUC? I am sure you saw others as well. Why only mention them? Anyway…

If this is the case that he truly only spent about 50% of the semester covering Philosophy 101 then I will agree that this is a misuse of the class. I consider a criticism of Marxism and Capitalism to be very important topics and should rightfully take up about 25% of a 101 Philosophy class. Regardless I would find this a nice change of pace from the typical stale conservative ideology one typically finds in Academia.

If he wants to discuss these topics, he shoudl present all sides of the debate, and show respect for students with conservative opinions.

Every faculty member knows Roth cannot tolerate conservative views, which he regards as racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, elitist, capitalist. Roth showed no respect for students who disagreed with him.

I mentioned them since they are germane to my experience in philosophy 101.

Philosophy PhD Theodore Drange debated philosophy phD and theologian William Craig over God’s existence, which has no relevance to my experience in philosophy 101. There were 800 or so students attended in Folger auditorium, across the union from the quad and adjacent to Gregory hall where the department is and where Roth taught (on the third floor). It was video taped. I briefly attended on invitation from some fundies.

Is there a reason we needed to know about the Black Panthers, and the Cointel pro, in this course?

edsmith,

Agreed.

Well I will argue that conservative views are capitalist, classist and elitist. The other two come and go regularly.

Fair enough.

Not extensively no. But I can see the use in mentioning the topics and even covering COINTELPRO when talking about the ideas behind modern democracy.

In short - it is clear that he is incapable of separating his radicalism with his responsibilities. This is somewhat enviable but ultimately it is inappropriate. That’s that.

edsmith,
What is there in your personal collection of self-substantiations that is threated by Roth? Can you show me a rational excuse for trying to defame this teacher? Any philosophy that is not open to various interpretations fails as a philosophy. It becomes, instead, Mosiac law, which to most thinkers is an agumentative stalemate at best and lie at worst.