The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Denounced by Colleagues, Anti-Semitic Prof Threatens to Sue

By Heidi Beirich on April 18, 2008 - 6:30 am, Posted in Academic Racism

macdonald.jpegCalifornia State University, Long Beach (CSULB), Psychology Professor Kevin MacDonald (right) is facing more condemnation from his colleagues for his anti-Semitic research. In the past month, both the Jewish Studies Program and the History Department have issued statements (here and here) specifically distancing themselves from MacDonald’s hateful work. The Anthropology Department also has a statement under consideration. The statements all affirm MacDonald’s right to academic freedom and his tenured position on the CSULB faculty.

MacDonald’s views were outlined in the 2007 Intelligence Report exposé, “Promoting Hate,” which prompted his removal from teaching required undergraduate courses. MacDonald believes that Jews are impelled by genetic factors to undermine the majority populations of the societies they live in. In fact, MacDonald puts it like this in journalist Jon Entine’s new book, Abraham’s Children: “Jews do not act in the best interest of society. We need to systematically put in place some controls, call it discrimination if you will, to restore parity with other groups.” Since the turn of the millennium, MacDonald has also become a white supremacist activist. He has held leadership positions in several white supremacist groups, and in 2004 he was honored with a $10,000 prize for his work on the Jews by The Occidental Quarterly, a white supremacist publication where he currently serves on the editorial advisory board.

The latest twist in the long-running saga of Kevin MacDonald — a man who has bitterly complained that his colleagues and others are trying to suppress his free speech and academic freedom with their criticism — is the professor’s threat to sue faculty members who have negative things to say about him. His legal threats have sown fear on the CSULB campus, causing other faculty members, particularly in the psychology department of which he is a part, to stifle their opinions of his work.

MacDonald’s legal threats were made public in a memo (PDF) written by Psychology Department Chair Ken Green to his faculty earlier this month. Green’s letter was directed to those department members considering issuing a statement that would formally disassociate the department from MacDonald’s work. Several professors feel that the three statements already posted on the department website that reiterate the department’s commitment to diversity and denounce the use of psychological research as propaganda for racist groups are inadequate for that purpose. Green’s E-mail to his fellow faculty members instructed that MacDonald’s threat of legal action “is a factor that should be reviewed and considered.” No offer of a legal defense was made by school officials.

Green summarized MacDonald lawyer Thomas J. Finch’s demand letter, entitled “CSULB’s Campaign to Stigmatize, Defame and Constructively Terminate Professor Kevin MacDonald.” Finch, a Colorado general practice lawyer, writes that MacDonald has received “abusive treatment” and been “damaged” by his colleagues’ critiques of his work. According to Green, Finch’s letter complains that other faculty members have made “pejorative remarks about the scholarly integrity of [MacDonald’s] work” and that faculty are “‘chilling’ the exercise of [MacDonald’s] free speech rights and effectuating a ‘constructive’ termination of his employment.” The letter threatens a suit in federal court.

MacDonald’s views were a major topic of discussion during a panel hosted by CSULB’s LGBT Resource Center this Monday, April 14, entitled, “Hate Speech, Hate Crime and Far Right Movements.” Organized as part of the campus’ annual celebration of Diversity Week, several panelists denounced MacDonald’s work and asked the university’s administration to also condemn it. As a participant on the panel, I called on CSULB President King Alexander to exercise his own freedom of speech by denouncing MacDonald’s anti-Semitism and standing in solidarity with those faculty members who are being effectively silenced by MacDonald’s threats of legal action.

So far, Alexander has declined to speak out publicly against MacDonald’s work, though he has reportedly expressed concerns about it privately. Alexander’s silence stands in contrast with the actions taken by many other university presidents faced with racists or anti-Semites on their tenured faculty. In 1999, for example, Florida State University (FSU) President Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, a fierce advocate of free speech, publicly called the racist views of psychology professor Glayde Whitney “very distasteful” and “very troubling.” Whitney, now deceased, believed black people to be “bigger in bone, smaller in brain” than whites. Whitney also authored a fawning introduction to neo-Nazi David Duke’s 1998 autobiography, My Awakening. Whitney described the former Klan leader’s plodding, 717-page tome as “a painstakingly documented, academically excellent work of socio-biological-political history that has the potential to … change the very course of history.” To alleviate the concerns of minority students, FSU provided alternative instructors for students uncomfortable with taking Whitney’s courses.

Regardless of his complaints, MacDonald seems to be quite freely exercising his own free speech rights. This month he began advertising his new book Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, published by the hate outfit, The Occidental Press. The foreword is written by Virginia Abernethy, MacDonald’s good friend and a self-declared white separatist.

There were others exercising their free speech rights, too — the kind of people, apparently, who see Kevin MacDonald as their truth-telling hero. For his efforts in helping to organize the Monday panel on hate groups, Jewish Studies Program Director and History Professor Jeffrey Blutinger found this comment on his voicemail: “Yeah, Jeff, you dirty, slimy Jew, you should be afraid, ashamed, ashamed, of the way you’ve attacked Dr. MacDonald. I think I’m going to buy some more of his books, make sure he gets even more money. I can just tell you, America would be a much better place if all you sneaky, sneaky kikes would get the hell out.”

Tags: , ,
  • Ken

    Zionism = Racism
    Israel = Racism

    Israeli Zionism = German Nazism = American KKK
    *All 3 are racist political ideologies that seek to create a pure race state.

    95% of Semites are Arab. Semitic is a language, NOT a race or religion.

    I am pro-semite but anti-zionist. Only Zionist Bigots seek to seperate the Semitic People.

    I am against a racist 2 state solution the Zionist bigots want and I support a 1 state solution.

  • IludiumPhosdex

    No wonder the weird and unwholesome is looking for all manner of “whipping boys” they can blame for “seeking a disproportionate share of power and control” @ the expense of, in Bill “No-Spin Zone” O’Reilly’s immortal words, “the White Male Christian Power Structure” somehow “entitled as of right” to a Guaranteed Monopoly on American religiopolitical power and authority.

    The likely justification therefor?

    None other than that phrase in Dred Scott v. Sanford, vintage 1857, which held that blacks

    are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

    The which these hard-wired Zealots and True Believers want extended by implication to other classes of “inferior peoples,” among them:

    welfare “basket cases;”


    other “inferior races” (as in Hispanics, Muslims and Asiatics);

    Jews and other followers of “noncomformist” faiths; and

    “sexual degenerates” (homosexuals in particular).

    The rationale therefor? Again, per Dred Scott:

    [The Constitution] must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption. It is not only the same in words, but the same in meaning, and delegates the same powers to the Government, and reserves and secures the same rights and privileges to the citizen; and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.

  • Slavyanski

    MacDonald’s claims are based in some cases, on false historical sources, such as the phony biography of Lazar Kaganovich. More importantly, we are often presented with examples of this or that movement having Jewish “overrepresenation” as the only evidence that this somehow has to do with some genetic predisposition. For example, Latvians were the most overrepresented group in the early Soviet Central Committee, yet MacDonald doesn’t seem concerned about this. Russians were overrepresented as well, having over 65% of the positions despite being in the high 40s in terms of the population of the Russian Empire. Again MacDonald doesn’t care. THOSE groups of Communists were apparently true believers in the ideology.

    But he wants us to focus on the Jews, and assume that somehow their being involved had something to do with advancing Jewish interests. Never mind the fact that the faction with the smallest amount of Jews in 1917 was the Bolsheviks, and there was the Jewish Bund, which was the first to condemn the Bolshevik seizure of power.

  • unlucky13

    Denouncing targets who then deounce denouncers in turn is child’s play nonsense.Should listen to man and raise all reasonable objections to his notions of circumstance of Jews.Then after reasoned debate listeners(masses)should form own informs opinion about deliberations.That is what adults would do-but small minded children rush in to drown out all voices of reason-thus handing political victory to opposition.McDonald’s ideas can be easily dismised as meaningless nonsense in my opinion-but it requires no denounciation but sharing of point that just as well is Jews are seen to genetically interfer with others-it can be said of any group of persons in entire world in relation to other groups.thus McDonald’s ideas must be shown to only apply to Jews and not other groups-something he has not and cannot do-forwith that even he did he would,in turn,has negated his entire thesis.All groups of persons genetically interfer with others if any one group does.If he cannot,therfore prove that his thesis rightfully only applies to Jews then he has much work to be done to be able to prove point and no more time to be dealing with Jews.But also-he must show why he start only with Jews as opposed to other groups.That he have no resonable explaination or excuse for-since are only 14-18 million Jews in entire world of more than six billion persons.

  • Joe B.

    Why does SPLC only seem to focus on White racism?
    Do they believe they fallacy that only whites can be racist?
    Is that a tolerant view?
    Why is there no focus on Black supremacists?
    Or muslim anti-semites?
    This seems rather hypocritical of a group that claims to be for civil rights.
    Perhaps you need a sign that says “white people need not apply”
    I suppose you will now brand me a racists and add me to your list of people commiting racist thought crimes.

  • James Bowery

    As usual, the forces of “antidiscrimination” are reckless. Nowhere in the “coverage” of Prof. MacDonald has the “antidiscrimination” punditry mentioned the obviously damaging falsehood published by the CSULB dept of history wherein they claim that MacDonald did not review the history of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

    MacDonald has them dead to rights and, as usual, they respond with little more than more smear tactics.

    You guy lost me 20 years ago. I’ve sacrificed much — professionally and personally — as a result but the payoff has been worth it: The truth.

  • IludiumPhosdex

    Would the following remarks of Chris Matthews (per his MSNBC programme Hardball of the 16th inst., as transcribed by Media Matters for America) be considered anti-Semitic in their own right?

    To wit:

    What is the Catholic vote, Mike Barnicle? It isn’t like a vote like, for example, if you’re a Jewish voter probably you care about Israel, that’s a safe bet. You have one key concern. I can’t think of other groups that would make it that simple. But clearly, if you’re African-American, you care about civil rights. You care about certain programs of the federal government. That’s a generalization, but probably true. You’re more progressive. But Catholics — where would you put them? Is there a squirrel box or a rabbit hole you can put them in politically?

  • Rob

    The forward is written by Virginia Abernethy, MacDonald’s good friend and a self-declared white separatist.

    Heidi doesn’t know the difference between “forward” and “foreword,” LOL. Maybe she was thinking about her favorite newspaper.