Blogs > Cliopatria > More Pluss

Apr 5, 2005

More Pluss




From my fellow Cliopatriarchs, I learned yesterday about the rather strange case of Jacques Pluss, who has been dismissed from his adjunct teaching job at Fairleigh Dickinson University.  Professor Pluss, it seems, is a member -- indeed a leader -- in the American Nazi Party.

Pluss, who holds a Ph.D. in my original field, medieval history, was teaching Western Civilization at FDU when he was abruptly dismissed in the middle of the semester.  The official story is that his dismissal had nothing to do with his politics; rather, he had missed six or seven class meetings this semester and was let go due to these excessive absences.  But whatever the reason for his dismissal, an FDU dean made it clear that his politics alone would bar him from ever receiving a future teaching assignment:

It’s not politics, it’s hate mongering,'’ (Dean John) Snyder said. “It’s just hatred directed at the very students he taught. His position would be untenable on the basis of student welfare. It’s our job to see to it that students are treated with respect and security.”

The problem is, as this article from the FDU newspaper makes clear, Pluss was scrupulous about keeping his Nazi politics hidden from his students, many of whom were African-American or Jewish. One student is quoted as saying

...he never once taught propaganda or expressed his views in class. He came off as being liberal in his thinking. An incident arose in class about racism, and he appeared to be very anti-racist.

There's been some discussion at Cliopatria in the comments below this post

I have to say that I am troubled at Pluss' dismissal.  On the one hand, I find it hard to believe (and frankly an embarrassment) that a University of Chicago Ph.D. could end up as a flak for a Nazi Party. (I won't link to their sites, but it's easy to find the various Nazi parties in this country.  They seem to be like Presbyterians, always going into schism.  No further analogy between Presbys and Nazis intended!)  On the other hand, if he really was successful in keeping his extreme views out of the classroom (and the students suggest he was), then I cannot accept the idea that public institutions ought to bar professors from the classroom on the basis of beliefs they hold outside the classroom, however radical and abhorrent those beliefs may be.  In this sense, I'm a firm liberal.

I'm obviously no Nazi.  But I am an evangelical Christian male teaching women's studies.  In my private life, I'm staunchly anti-abortion.  Though I'm still in my period of self-imposed silence from blogging on the subject, any visitor to my blog will know this -- and obviously, many students visit my blog.  But I do everything I can to be scrupulously fair about the issue in my women's studies classes.  I allude to having worked with folks on both sides of the issue, but I don't say where I stand today.   It's vital that my students feel that the material on such a sensitive subject is being presented impartially.

I have been told more than once by pro-choice feminists that it is problematic for me, a straight white Christian pro-life male, to teach the one class in the entire college that focuses heavily on reproductive rights issues!  I insist, over and over again, that my biology ought not to trump my teaching ability.  It is the worst sort of ghettoizing to suggest that only women can teach women's history, only blacks teach African-American history, and so forth.  At the same time, those of us who are "outsiders" by virtue of race or sex have an obligation to be especially fair-minded and sensitive, particularly to the concerns of our students, most of whom are likely to be members of the particular group under discussion.

Many students find my blog.  If my students find this blog, they will learn about my love for chinchillas, my upcoming wedding, my passion for sports.  They will learn of my various strange spiritual peregrinations.  They will learn of my commitment to consistent-life politics and theology, and will learn of my particular brand of Christian feminism.  They'll learn about marathoning and Mennonites, the joys of tenure and tattoos.  In other words, they'll get a fuller picture of who I am than they will in the classroom.  The same thing is true of Professor Pluss's students; when they visit his Nazi website, they'll find  out who he "really is".  I'd imagine his students might be offended, and some of his students of color might be particularly horrified.  But what if a young woman, say one who had recently survived an abortion and is enrolled in my class, discovered my site and was offended?  What if she questioned my ability to continue to teach her, given my (somewhat ambivalent) commitment to the pro-life cause?  How is my case different from that of Professor Pluss? (Besides the fact that I have tenure!) Obviously, I think my own gently evangelical politics are a good deal more congenial than his, but that's a highly subjective conclusion, isn't it?

If Pluss was fired for his absences, so be it.  But Dean Snyder's remarks above chill me a bit, and not because I have even the remotest sympathy for Nazi politics.  They chill me because I know that in some sense, he and I are similar in that our public lives outside the classroom call into question our fitness to teach certain courses.  And that troubles me immensely.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Jonathan Dresner - 3/29/2009

Typically, Mr. Pluss has both ethical and epistemological difficulties on display here.

First, in a gross violation of student privacy law and professional ethics -- and possibly libel, to boot -- he reveals a students grade and disparages his performance.

Second, a simple failure of reading. "near Nazi-American Bund campsite" is not the same as "near a German Bund Camp."


Jacques Anthony Pluss - 3/29/2009

The comments made above by Dennis Johnson are completely ridiculous. First, let me categorically state that I have never plagiarized a thing, either in my scholarly or non-scholarly writings! But, more to the point, just take one of Johnson's statements and examine in it a second or two: how, in the world, could I have been raised near a German Bund Camp when I wasn't even born until 1953? The German-American Bund was long dead by then, of course. And, for another example of Johnson's "fertile imaginings," he seems to accuse me of having mis-handled student evaluations for the graduate course in which he was enrolled. But I myself was never requested to hand out (or appoint a student to hand out and collect) any evaluations for the course in question! Finally, if he's going to list a very partial bibliography of my scholarly work, at least he can spell the word "dowry" correctly--it's not "dowery", and least not in my title. I've no idea how Johnson conjured up the rest of the incorrect nonsense about me, but I can assure the readers here of one thing: Dennis Johnson performed at the very bottom of the course scoring system. He was clearly unable to "think outside the box," and he did not understand the postmodernist approach I took to the course material. Most others surely did. What we have, in Johnson, is a jealous young man of mediocre intellect, who must blame me for the inadequate performance I and the rest of the seminar could not help but view in him. Shame. As for his completely unprofessional remarks about Julius Kirshner, now Professor Emeritus at The University of Chicago, I can only say that Kirshner was a fine mentor and a good friend, and I myself never had reason to question his professional conduct. It was a joy, in fact, to study under so gifted a scholar, and even though I have not had contact with him in many years, I wish him all the best.
Dr. Jacques Reinhard Heydrich Pluss, Leader, The New American National Socialist Party, ANNP.


John H. Lederer - 4/9/2005

Yes..my mistake and my apologies to Mr. Chamberlain -- must have had the frayed pathways of my mind short out by going Churchill->Winston-->Neville-->Chamberlain. Thank you for pointing out the error.


Ralph E. Luker - 4/9/2005

Mr. Lederer, You surely mean Churchill rather than Chamberlain. Sure, it would be wrong only to hold up the scholarship of those who have offended us politically and to hold innocent of scholarly flaw all of those who don't offend us. But, why not then make bad motivation illegal? There is, undoubtedly, a lot of bad scholarship out there. Neither you nor I have the time, energy, or resources to go track it all down. Those who create it ought to be smart enough to stay out of spotlights.


John H. Lederer - 4/9/2005

Of course we also go over a line if we examine those whose views we don't like (Pluss or Chamberlain) for example for any fabrications, plagiarism, misattribution, etc, while letting those whose views we agree with escape the same examination.



John H. Lederer - 4/8/2005

It has always seemed to me that the strongest argument for treating race differently than other factors that we discriminate upon is that race is not changeable by the individual (Ward Churchill aside). It is not a matter of choice and thus it is inherently unfair to regard it as a part of a person's worth.

But we do discriminate on the basis of lots of other things that are largely immutable -- height, intelligence, good looks and so on.

Race has a special status at law because of the constitutional history of slavery.

Why outside of law is it different than other physical charcteristics? I certainly agree that poor expectations on the part of a teacher can influence how a student performs, but I suspect that height or maturity also affects a teacher's expectations.

Why is race different? Is it a matter of history?

The same sort of differentiation seems to apply in other areas. Take religion as an example. We are, I think, more sensitive to anti-semitism and anti-catholicism than anti-fundamentalism. I realize that there is a history of the Holocaust and the problems with Catholic immigration in the 1800's, but, for instance, the Mormons have a rather harrowing history of persecution but we don't seem to be sensitive to anti-Mormonism?

What determines how acceptable a particular discrimination is?


Oscar Chamberlain - 4/8/2005

Now charges like this--once confirmed--could be the basis for dismissal. Classroom fabrications alone have caused problems for far more august scholars.


Dennis W Johnson - 4/8/2005

My last class at graduate school was taught by Jacques Pluss. I did not know he was a Nazi, but I hated his class from the beginning when he lashed out at me for pointing out historical errors in one of the readings. Then he went on a tirade against the historical profession. He bragged that he had given a lecture where he invented a medieval document and laughed at how he fooled everyone. He also mentioned that his University of Chicago mentor Julius Kirshner also lied things up, so the entire profession is corrupt. Then he excused his action by saying he was going through a mid-life crisis.

From the point on, I had lost complete respect for him. Unfortunately, this was the only graduate level history course offered in the summer semester and I wanted to focus on my master’s thesis.

These documents that he wrote should be reviewed by other historians for any fabrications

Dissertation of Jacques A. Pluss, Baldus de Ubladis of Perugia on Dowry Law (University of Chicago, 1983).
Julius Kirshner and Jacques Pluss, Two fourteenth-century opinions on dowries, paraphernalia and non-dotal goods, p.65 Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, New Series Vol. 9, (1979) - Articles
Pluss, Jacques Anthony, "Reading Case Law Historically: A Consilium of Baldus de Ubaldis on Widows and Doweries," American Journal of Legal History, 30 (July, 1986), pp. 240-265.

At this point I am not sure how much he said was lies. He said he was from Aargau Canton in Switzerland; he fought in Vietnam, never files for taxes with the IRS, and left the other professorship to open a horse farm. As class went on, he went on tirades against the liberals several times. At one point he did mentioned he grew up near Nazi-American Bund campsite in New Jersey. He said Nietzsche was his favorite philosopher and a few minutes later he said the Nazis were influenced by Nietzsche. He said Leo Strauss was not really a refugee from the Nazis. Pluss was against the Iraq War, but had voted for Bush and blamed Paul Wolfowitz.

Unfortunately the conservative students seemed to like him. I guess he was trying to convert good Republicans into to Fascists. At the end of the class, he said that since he was not a full professor we did not have to do teacher evaluations. Now I think he forged his teacher evaluations.


Anne Zook - 4/8/2005

I don't actually think it's splitting hairs. There's a significant difference between the two.

If I hate green peppers because they smell bad, that's one thing.

If I hate green peppers because they're green peppers, then that's just irrational.


Anne Zook - 4/6/2005

"Though I can certainly think of other differences, isn't the core difference that one opinion is "acceptable" and the other is not? That doesn't play well in a freedom of speech discussion..."

No, it's not about acceptability. One is a discussion of a behavior displayed by a human being. The other is a subjective evaluation of a human being's essential worth, based on ethnicity or religion.

Hugo hates the sin. Pluss hates the sinner (and without evidence that any sin does, in fact, exist).


Oscar Chamberlain - 4/6/2005

John,

In the context of education, the difference can be of some importance. At the K-12 level there is research that shows that the expectations of the teacher about how a student will perform can affect how the student performs, even if there is no obvious difference in the way that teacher addresses students. It seems likely that the same phenomena could be true in smaller university classes.

More generally, the belief in racial limits goes against one of the core beliefs of American education at its best, which is a faith in the potential of each individual. That faith is essential no matter how many students seem to be evidence against it.

I do not think that this, in itself, is grounds for firing Pluss (again assuming that he did not discriminate on campus), but it is more than sufficient grounds for me to be uncomfortable when I say that he should not have been fired.


Michael Burger - 4/6/2005

Hm. . . . I'm a medievalist and probably out of my depth, but . . . . Isn't there more to be said for Nazis as Socialists than RL's point implies? I seem to recall that Goebbels regarded the Nazi revolution as still incomplete because a socialist agenda had not been sufficiently implemented: that would come once tactical compromises with capitalists could be safely be reneged upon.

Of course, there is the can of worms of to what extent the Nazis had a coherent ideology at all. People now seem to stress the improvised nature of Hitler's decision making.


Derek Charles Catsam - 4/6/2005

Three quick points:

1) I've never placed any stock in the argument that the Nazis were socialist because they used the term in their name. For one thing, the Nazis abhorred socialism and communism. But for another, are we really placing that much faith in self naming? If so, do we believe also that China really is a people's republic, and thet the GDR was really a democratic reublic?

2) Let us keep in mind that pluss was an adjunct. l
Like it or not, adjuncts tend to work at the whim of the department.

3) I tend to agree with Anne Zook that there is an enormous difference between being part of a party or group, indeed a leader in a party, that believes in the inferiority of some people because of their racial or cultural identity and particular beliefs (re: say, abortion) that are at least widely held on both sides. It may be splitting hairs, but it also might be a hair worth splitting.

dc


John H. Lederer - 4/6/2005

"There is, in fact, a clear difference between having an opinion about a behavior or an action (abortion) and the belief that skin color confers superiority or that ethnic background inherently dooms someone to second-class (at best) citizenship."

Though I can certainly think of other differences, isn't the core difference that one opinion is "acceptable" and the other is not? That doesn't play well in a freedom of speech discussion...


Ralph E. Luker - 4/6/2005

Jason, Hayek was incorrect and so are you. Neither Fascism nor Naziism advocated public or worker ownership of the means of production. By definition, that means that National Socialism wasn't socialist at all. In fact, Adolph Hitler's regime in Germany handed over government owned industries to private ownership. Because it was a totalitarian state, the Nazi regime in Germany maintained a strong control of all industry -- but ownership and control are two different matters. The Nazis were bitterly opposed to the Communists' and the Socialists' advocacy of public or worker ownership of the means of production. State policy was heavily skewed to benefit the industrial elite. Whatever else it might be, that isn't socialism.


Jason Nelson - 4/6/2005

Mr. Kotsko,

I know that Nobel Prize winner F. A. Hayek would strongly disagree with you, as do I. No doubt many who are socialists wish to maintain the “purity” of socialism by agreeing with you. There is a reason that the National Socialists were called socialists, because they were.



Adam Kotsko - 4/6/2005

Sometimes I have this perverse wish that the Nazis would have called themselves the "National Christians" instead of the "National Socialists." It's ridiculous how the right wing gets to play off the transparently false Nazi propaganda that they were supposedly "socialist."


Anthony Paul Smith - 4/6/2005

They should have pied him.


Ralph E. Luker - 4/6/2005

If you look at Horowitz's Front Page Mag, you'd see that Davie condemns both Pluss and Churchill as socialists, but argues that the academy tolerates international socialists, but not national socialists. It's a problem for David because he does remember that he's Jewish. The odd thing is that Horowitz hasn't called for Churchill's ouster from CU's faculty.


Adam Kotsko - 4/6/2005

I am troubled by yet another instance of the persistent bias against right-wing views in the academy. If we can't discuss Nazi policies and ideas on their merits, then I don't see how we can claim "intellectual diversity."




[I DON'T ACTUALLY MEAN THAT LITERALLY: it's meant as a reductio ad absurdum of a Horowitzian position.]


Jason Nelson - 4/6/2005

I agree with Mr. Luker on this one. Further, I do not believe that the pro-life analogy is that useful in evaluating this case. It would only be usefull if you were pro-choice, or even an abortion advocate AND the classroom you taught had amongst the other students unborn children that you believe should have been aborted. Your analogy really made me think, but I dont think it is on point in this case.


Ralph E. Luker - 4/5/2005

Hugo, I don't want to be taught by anyone who expresses generic contempt for Southern, white, male, evangelical Republicans. But aren't we being told that the academy is full of people who have such contempt? The problem with such expressions of generic contempt is that they imply -- Pluss even declares -- that such people are limited by what they are from becoming all that any of us might become. I simply don't see how someone holding such views can be a teacher.


Anne Zook - 4/5/2005

Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but this is just what I mean when I talk about PCism run crazy.

There is, in fact, a clear difference between having an opinion about a behavior or an action (abortion) and the belief that skin color confers superiority or that ethnic background inherently dooms someone to second-class (at best) citizenship.

Your hypothetica student might be made uncomfortable by your anti-abortion beliefs, yes, but you're saying you think she made the wrong choice. You're criticizing her action.

If she's a minority, Pluss is saying she was born wrong. He's criticizing her existence.

Andhe's saying that she'll be less-intelligent and less-worthy for her entire life, no matter what.

You're bending over backward to be "fair" but the parallel you're drawing isn't valid.

(Okay, your "credentials" for teaching the class you teach have been challenged. That's okay. It doesn't mean you're not qualified. It just means your students care about getting a fair view of the subject. It means the class matters to them.)

I know...I posted that if Pluss kept it out of the classroom, I wasn't sure it was right for him to be fired for his private beliefs. I don't know how comfortable I am with that statement, but right now I'm sticking with it. Unfortunately, in a free society, people are entitled to be narrow-minded bigots.

Also? Just for the record, I don't see this as parallel to the Churchill case, either. Churchill actually published something I, personally, thought was over-the-top, inflammatory, and unbalanced. In his, you know, professional capacity. That's a different trangression altogether.







Hugo Schwyzer - 4/5/2005

These are offensive terms, absolutely. It troubles me a great deal. But the fact that he may be psychologically dysfunctional is separate from his being pedagogically dysfunctional. If he uses those words in the classroom, forget it -- but if he uses them as part of his exercise of his First Amendment rights in a non-teaching context, I think we've got to swallow hard and let it stand.

Before anyone goes there, I am, for the record, 7/16ths Jewish -- and the greatgrandson of folks who died in the Holocaust.


Ralph E. Luker - 4/5/2005

Hugo, How much does it trouble you that, outside the classroom, Pluss referred to his institution as being "judaized" or that, outside the classroom, he referred to some of his students as "niggers." At that point, it seems to me, that the distinction between "in the classroom" and "outside the classroom" breaks down and you've got a dysfunctional faculty member on your hands.