Advantage Malkin
Last year, when Michelle Malkin was out promoting In Defense of Internment, she engaged just about anyone who was willing to debate the issue. One such person was Eric Muller, an individual who, for reasons known only to the Volokhs, has been occasionally invited to post at the Volokh Conspiracy. Muller’s argument typically consisted of one part argument, three parts ad hominem/feminem, with frequent analogies to Holocaust deniers. It was worse than reading Andrew Sullivan, honestly.
Needless to say, Muller’s scream therapy didn’t win too many converts, so last month he resorted to Plan B. Can’t win a debate? Then get the other guy’s book pulled off the shelf so there can’t be a debate at all! Is That LegalTM? Sure, but it’s also scummy as hell. Fortunately, it didn’t work. Tonight I received an email from Alisa Lynch of the Manzanar National Historic Site informing me that Mazanar had decided not to drop the book, for exactly the right reasons. I’ve requested her permission to reprint the message in full. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: As I suspected, the same message has already been sent far and wide, and now appears on Malkin’s site (hat tip: me). I’ve reproduced it in the entended area below. Also see Joel B.’s comment; apparently this is not the first time Muller has tried to get a book banned.
Thank you very much for expressing your opinion about the presence of Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment in our Manzanar History Association (MHA) bookstore at Manzanar National Historic Site.
Our decision to carry the book last fall followed extensive review and consultation with historians, academics, former internees, and others. The consensus was that, while none substantially agreed with Ms. Malkin’s conclusions or scholarship, it is not the role of the National Park Service to censor dissenting viewpoints, past or present. As one prominent academic stated, “providing only one perspective is not education, it is propaganda. There are not many books written with this general perspective, and it’s important to include dissenting views.”
The National Park Service’s approach to telling the stories of Manzanar is to invite visitors to experience the site and leave with memories and emotions fueled by their own inherent values. The goal is to increase visitors’ knowledge level without dictating their conclusions. To that end, Manzanar History Association and National Park Service staff work closely to identify and review titles for the store. As of May 2005, there are 749 items in MHA’s inventory, including more than 300 books. Both of our organizations recognize the sensitivity necessary for any book selection on a topic as important and emotional as the World War II experiences of Japanese Americans and others.
In the end, we chose to carry In Defense of Internment for a number of reasons, including:
Manzanar was designated a national park unit to preserve and interpret the history of the loss of civil rights by Japanese Americans during World War II. We believe that not carrying this book could ironically be viewed as denying the First Amendment rights to free speech.
We believe that it is useful to present various perspectives when reasonable. We do not actively seek materials counter to the majority opinion or materials that are innately controversial, but wish to consider books garnering national attention, as well as books recommended by visitors or others.
We feel we have an obligation to share the unique history of the site in such a way that creates context, encourages open dialogue, and fosters commitment to keep the story alive. Presenting a variety of viewpoints, when appropriate, is essential to this process.
We do not feel that by including Michelle Malkin’s book, or any others, we are inferring National Park Service endorsement of the author’s perspective and/or opinions.
In the past few weeks, we have received nearly 200 messages on this topic. We have read every one and are grateful for your willingness to share your concerns and comments. Your perspective is part of an important dialog that will help all of us to come to a greater understanding of our history and our hopes.
On behalf of the National Park Service and Manzanar History Association, Thank You.
Sincerely, Alisa
Alisa Lynch
Chief of Interpretation
Manzanar National Historic Site
Nice to know that our government appreciates the spirit of the First Amendment even if our law professors don’t.
UPDATE x2: Muller’s back with a predictable whinepost of his own, bitching and moaning about the “hate mail” he has received from the “Malkin Goon Squad.” With language like that, you’d almost think Malkin had been the one trying to get his book banned somewhere. Now his panties are in a wad – and supposedly Malkin’s to blame – because some lawyer sent him an email telling him he looked like a pussy. My reply is as follows:
If it makes you feel any better, I’m a lawyer, too, and I don’t care that you look like a pussy, only that you act like a prick.
I’m doubtful as to whether this comment will make it past the comment filter, which purports to screen only for “malicious” comments but which thus far has let through only five fawning ones, one of which contains a frivolous attack on the lawyer who sent the message. Time will tell. And if you want to know whether or not the lawyer was right, his photo is here. Personally, I don’t think he looks like a pussy so much as a smug little twerp who’s gone through his entire life listening to people tell him what a wonderful person he is.
UPDATE x3: Seven more comments are up, but surprise of all surprises, mine is not. I frankly wouldn’t blame the guy for not running a message like that, if he hadn’t been such a jerk over the fact that Malkin doesn’t allow comments at all.
UPDATE x4: Chris Cross argues in the comments that caving in to Muller’s demands would have violated not only the spirit of the First Amendment, but the letter, as well.
May 7th, 2005 at 8:37 am
A BOOK-BANNING DODGED–THANK YOU!
A few weeks ago, UNC law professor Eric Muller–the chief critic of my latest book whom I debated several times on the radio and engaged extensively (see below)–called on his blog readers to get my book banned –yes, banned–from the…
May 7th, 2005 at 8:53 am
Did you read about Muller’s attempted book-banning of a story about a family that goes to Japan, related to Christianity in his daughter’s school library. I don’t have too much respect for the man at this point.
May 7th, 2005 at 10:46 am
My guess is that there are currently tenured Marxist professors who teach that the de-kulakization under Stalin was justified. And the Ukrainian famine and the other terrors committed by the USSR in the name of the “future.”
Indeed, famous British historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that if the Soviet has created utopia, the murder of the tens of millions would have been justified.
Michael Ignatieff: “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of 15, 20 million people might have been justified?”
Hobsbawm: “Yes.”
Full quote and story re above here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6963
SMG
May 7th, 2005 at 11:21 am
My non-guess is that you’re right. I had one such professor in college myself.
May 7th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
In your last sentence, you appear to imply that a decision to remove the book from the shelves would be a First Amendment violation. Could you expand on that a bit?
It seems to me that the NPS doesn’t have an obligation to carry every book on any given subject. I would think that the crux of the debate should be whether the book is accurate and helpful to people who want to understand the interment.
May 7th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Certainly the NPS does not carry an obligation to be the guardian of the first amendment.
But, as an agent of US we expect and demand fairness.
May 7th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
What Flap said. The Park Service has no First Amendment obligation to carry any books, and Muller, a pravate citizen, has no First Amendment obligations at all. Nevertheless, both sides’ behavior make it clear that one of them appreciuates the spirit of the First Amendment, while the other does not. I’ve revised the last sentence accordingly.
May 7th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
But if the Park DOES choose to carry books, wouldn’t banning Malkin’s constitute viewpoint discrimination?
May 7th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Sure, but that doesn’t mean it would be unconstitutional. Having the Park Service sell only books that represent the official views of the U.S. Government would probably be a dumb idea, but AFAIK it would be constiutional.
May 7th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
I can’t make my way through these debates. I started reading Muller’s criticism, but couldn’t get past the “Why didn’t I get a review copy?” and “How did she write it so fast?” arguments. You’d think that, if he had a substantive argument, he’d put it up top.
May 8th, 2005 at 9:01 am
Perhaps an unfair comment but hell this is the internet.
It seems to me that Prof. Muller has a lot of “emotional involvement” in this issue and is unwilling or incapable to consider contrary views. I know, a bit of psychobabble on my part and when one engages in such tactics the statement can never be proven false (or true).
Malkin has compiled a great deal of interesting information that needs to be included in our history of this terrible episode.
The internment was wrong, a terrible injustice. But it’s much more complicated than I think Muller seems (note the qualifer) to portray it, e.g., simply racism. Of course, racism was a major factor; but not the only consideration.
SMG
May 8th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
As I refer to my First Amendment Survey outline–content based regulations (of which viewpoint discrimination is one) are subject to strict scrutiny.
So yeah, while it wouldn’t necessarily be unconstitutional, the gov’t would have to make the strong case.
In a related context, a public school prohibit certain books from its library, provided they aren’t do so based on the particular viewpoint of the books. Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
There may be an issue re: the “public” nature of Manzanar–but it presumably is public in SOME respect since it’s administered by the Park Service–and accordingly, any regs must be content neutral.
May 8th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
I’ve only skimmed the case so far, but added a link to your comment so anyone else who has the time can read it more carefully. Note that there is no majority opinion in this case, so I’m not sure what its precedent is, particularly since Justices Rehnquist and O’Connor were among the dissenters.
May 9th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Fair enough, here’s a better and more recent case:
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819.
Granted it was a Kennedy opinion, but it was a maj. opinion (w/ Rehquist, Thomas, Scalia, and O’Connor joining)
Takeaway point:
The necessities of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for which it was created may justify the State in reserving it for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics. Once it has opened a limited forum, however, the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set. The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint.
Thus, in determining whether the State is acting to preserve the limits of the forum it has created so that the exclusion of a class of speech is legitimate, we have observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination, which may be permissible if it preserves the purposes of that limited forum, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum’s limitations.
829-830, citations omitted.
Basically, if the gov’t opens it up to the expression of some views, then it generally can’t discriminate based upon viewpoint.
June 6th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Guess I’m a bit late to this coversation, but I certianly enjoyed the commentary.
Muller banned me from his site after I asked if he was receiving and taxpayer dollars courtesy of the “Civil Liberties Public Education Fund”. I wanted to know because I don’t see how a legitamate scholar could accept taxpayer dollars that have been legislated to “educate the public” (a horror story in itself) on one side of an issue and then expect to be taken seriously. It’s kind of like the booze industry financing a study the concluded binge drinking is healthy.
So anyway, then I find at this site…
http://www.library.ca.gov/cclpep/index.cfm#admin
Muller’s name pops up as a $$$$ beneficiary in a couple of places, namely…
“Dr. Eric L. Muller
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
“LOYAL PROTEST: JAPANESE AMERICAN DRAFT RESISTERS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS”
This project has two related components: (1) the completion of a book chronicling the experience of the Nisei draft resisters of World War II and their encounters with the federal criminal justice system, and (2) a public lecture tour in California to share the results of the research on the Nisei draft resisters with interested organizations and groups in California. ”
…and…
“Eric Muller
University of North Carolina School of Law
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Project Name: Judgments Judged and Wrongs Remembered: Examining the Japanese American Civil Liberties Cases of World War II on Their 60th Anniversary”
So I question Muller if he’s feeding at the reparations trough, he indignantly replies “never”, bans me from his site and then I find this information that exposes him as a fraud and a liar….
If you haven’t also been banned from Muller’s site, perhaps you may be inclined to give him a visit at his latest post and let him know he is a fraud and a liar.
Cheers!
This project is a conference to be held at the Japanese American National Museum commemorating the 60 th anniversary of the various legal cases on Japanese American civil liberties from World War II.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Good idea, but I’m pretty sure I’m banned from his site also.