duke_website_1.jpgEver since arriving at California State University, Long Beach, I became aware of its most notorious professor. Long Beach State’s blemish is of the Jew-fearing kind— a real live Jew-hating racist loved by antisemites worldwide. Just when I hoped he had faded into ignominy, allowing me to focus my energy on invited speakers calling for another Holocaust, the end of Zionism and Israel, MacDonald’s virulent racism and pseudoscience are in the spotlight.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has published an investigative article, “Promoting Hate: California Professor is Font of Anti-Semitism,” outlining MacDonald’s antisemitism and xenophobia which permeates his so-called “research.”

In a candid and banal interview with the local Press Telegram, MacDonald outlines his distrust of Jews saying that the “organized Jewish community” are in conflict with those of other ethnicities and ultimately aim to “lessen the power of the European-derived majority.” [FYI Prof. MacDonald—most American Jews are descendants of European immigrants.]

MacDonald told the LA Times:

“Jews, who have typically been in the minority in countries around the world, are compelled by an evolutionary strategy that makes them push for liberal policies, like immigration and diversity, with the intent of weakening the power of the majority that rules them.”

MacDonald, as all good anti-Semites, attributes Jews with uniform group-think strategies bent on destroying Western Society from within. MacDonald couches this ideology in pseudo-science, that is totally rejected by the school of evolutionary biology.

Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker of MIT wrote that MacDonald’s work lacks the basic components of scholarship, such as a control group and a comparison with alternative hypotheses. MacDonald’s theory about the genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups — in this case Jews — are refuted by a wealth of data while his theses “collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language.”

In a prepared statement Long Beach State University officials would say only that “academic freedom does not constrain or restrict the spectrum of knowledge, whether that knowledge is popular or unpopular.”

The articles by InsideHigherEd, and the SPLC are very informative and helpful in outlining how racists and xenophobes use the cover of academic research to promote their agendas. MacDonald, like the infamous Norm Finkelstein and others, use their so-called scientific pursuit, in order to further hate, discrimination, and personal vendettas.

As is obvious from the interviews with these subjects, their personal histories and neurosis contribute to their obsessions. MacDonald became obsessed with Jews during the Vietnam protest era. He saw so many Jews in the anti-war movement, he deduced that it was part of the Jewish plot to bring down American culture!

We have been called by many news sources to comment on the allegations. In general I have recommended that they speak to members of the faculty here that have known MacDonald for years, and know the story inside out.

We felt compelled to issue a statement of some kind: “We trust that the University will take appropriate steps based on these findings to ensure that Long Beach State is an open and welcome place for all minorities and religious groups.”

Universities can act against tenured professors for immoral conduct and phony science, but rarely do. Northwestern will not fire its own Holocaust denier, Prof. Butz, because it is supposedly outside the purvey of the subject he teaches. However, they have issued statements condemning his views. Colorado has been trying unsuccessfully to boot out their own Ward Churchill, once they proved that he was a fraud.

Has MacDonald’s views of race and Jews affected his teaching and how he treats black, brown, Jewish, Asian students in his class? Has his distaste for Jews caused his students to suffer? Can an African American student studying child psychology register in his class and feel they have a fair chance?

MacDonald says that all his students have a fair chance and he does not let his extremely disturbing views on race enter into his teaching. Are we supposed to believe David Duke’s favorite Professor?

Students of that are black and or brown have a different story to tell. According to one professor who agreed to speak to me off the record, non-white students in class know they will not be called on. Another professor told me that MacDonald’s writings are such classics of antisemitism, that he keeps them on the shelf next to Mein Kampf, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

MacDonald has been attacked before and choose to be silent, offering no interviews. Now MacDonald is readily spewing his anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Why now? As he approaches retirement age, perhaps he feels invulnerable. He has nothing to be ashamed of, he is on a quest to warn the world and the United States about the fifth column in their midst. Perhaps he is emboldened by other factors and forces, we may never know. However, it’s never too late to fire a fraudulent, racist professor.


Long Beach State Faculty Senate
, Office of Academic Provost, Division of Academic Affairs— the next step is yours. Stop your support for MacDonald and condemn him at faculty meetings. Remove the protection he enjoys at the departmental level. Hopefully then the administration will act and send MacDonald out to pasture and spread his manure elsewhere. MacDonald is a racist and fraudulent professor who must go.

About the author

Rabbi Yonah

30 Comments

  • Do not make this guy a hero; do not make him a martyr. This is what they want. We do not want this controversy. He is a lunatic with tenure. Please ignore him.

  • Yes but DK, he IS a teacher. Theoretically helping to shape the minds and opinions of his students. Would we stand by idley if an open klan member was teaching at a publicly supported institution?

  • “Would we stand by idley if an open klan member was teaching at a publicly supported institution?”

    I do nothing when far-Leftists preach open warfare against white men, and preach resentment and hatred towards them. So too here. I try to be consistent.

    Now — if a student claims he or she is being discriminated against by a professor for not espousing a certain view, that’s another thing entirely, and deserves a swift and solid kick in the ass.

    There is some concern that this professor is bringing in such nonsense into his classroom. That is what should be monitored.

  • DK’s right. Besides, I’d think LBS students are able to identify the wackos among the faculty. He’s likely not the only one.

  • So we should just shut up an be quiet, unless some unsuspecting student happens upon the class and is afraid to do aynthing for fear of retribution, and then does nothing. Then this cycle repeats itself again and again.

    Who cares if they make him a martyr?

    They are antisemitic Jew haters and they will always hate us it seems.

    MacDonald should be fired so that the university can have some dignity and future students will not be harmed by his poison.

  • “MacDonald should be fired so that the university can have some dignity and future students will not be harmed by his poison.”

    Only if he brings this stuff into the classroom. If not, it isn’t the university’s business.

  • As I wrote in above, students have reported problems AND his crazy research is in his course packs.

    And, HE is in the classroom, that is a major probelm in itself.

  • Wait, wait, wait. Kelsey is absolutely wrong about this. If professor’s research is antisemitic or racist, the taxpayer should not be paying his salary. There is a private realm and a public realm and research that is professionally published is part of an academic’s duties when working for an institution of higher learning. Maybe private colleges can get away with it if they receive no public funds, but any state college should not be able to get away with it.

    If this guy wants to give a talk to neo-Nazis, that is something which nobody can control as long as he doesn’t bring the talk to the classroom. If the guy wants to write a book that isn’t academic in nature or isn’t written during work hours, then that is fine as well. However, the minute his bigotry appears in his academic output, written or taught, he should be censured.

  • I can’t ignore the irony of kids being taught the horrible lessons of the eugenics movement in their history class, and then going into a psych class to be taught the precise, same philosophy.

  • “However, the minute his bigotry appears in his academic output, written or taught, he should be censured.”

    No. Then anyone challenging the status quo can be called racist or a bigot and silenced. It’s so not worth it. I would rather suffer anti-Semitism on the public dollar than go down that road.

  • There are waivers that all professors sign when working with state or city universities that outline specifically the responsibilities that lay upon a university professor. One of the clauses (ok not sure if this is in California, but I have run into this in at least three states) specifically outlines that the teacher will not spread hatred, prejudice, etc…(do not remember the exact phraseology). If such a clause exists in MacDonald’s contract, he should and could be fired easily.

  • Muffti doesn’t often say this, but he agrees with DK. Freedom of speech on campus is not something to fuck with lightly and allowing professors to follow their research is not something to fuckw ith lightly either, like it or not. This isn’t to say that you shoudl never fire anyone; but DK is right – if you wanna fire people for expressing their views in ways that may be against your liking, you are going to have to fire an awful lot of your leading academics.

  • It’s a slippery slope in both directions. On the one hand, if you make a big stink, it just gives these scumbags publicity, which is what they want. On the other hand, if you do nothing it gives them a sense of impunity.

    I tend to think these people will keep sh*ttng on Jews as long as we take it. Every time someone like McDonald, Pharaoh-con or Duke spews their bile and we do nothing, it just empowers them. Trust me, if a professor made these sorts of claims about African-Americans or Mexicans there would be riots on this campus. Not saying we need to riot but crap, man, when do we simply say “enough”? Do we need to wait for someone to explicitly say, “kill the Jews”? In the past few weeks we’ve had entertainers fired from radio stations for making inappropriate comments towards African-Americans and Asians. I’m not saying that the standards (or lack thereof) of morning radio are the same as academia but these sorts of lines are crossed regarding Jews all the time and so many Jews do nothing.

    DK, I think the anti-Semitism of the Islamists, white-supremacists and radical leftists should all be concerns. As much as they deny it, at “anti-war” rallies you have radical Muslims, lefties and “no war for Israel” types marching side-by-side. So rather than either/or I think we need be concerned about all these creeps. After all, the last big terrorist attack in this country prior to September 11, 2001 was perpetrated by white nationalists.

  • In every age, among all people, and in every argument in which one side asserts the high ground, there is always and forever the same response: switch the subject.

    Trying to get this kook fired does just that. It perfectly complements the ‘academic freedom’ defense. Instead of asking, ‘how does someone like this get hired at UC? How did these views get a publicly-funded platform in the first place?’, the debate– even on this site– is whether this guy’s spouse gets the benefit of his TIAA-CREF money.

    He’s gonna claim he’s a martyr in any event, I understand that. But the objection has to do with ideas, and the hiring– not the firing– practices of the university.

    There’s a far, far better argument for intervening at the pre-tenure stage– the Finkelstein case– than here. And this is indeed a slippery slope. The shoe will end up on the other PC foot sooner or later– involving, say, an academic who writes critically of Islam or Arab cultures.

  • Muffti isn’t sure there is a hard and fast rule here; he would fire professors (a) i the envent that they spread hatred, act incompetently, fail to teach their classes, only after they had gone through warning periods, probation periods and the like and other mediation failed. (b) occcasions of sexual harrassment (c) violence on campus towards studens or other faculty (or staff). Thats all muffti can think of off the top of his head this morning.

    Of course, Muffti can’t claim he is objective on this matter – for obvious reasons. But he thinks that insofar as you think that higher educatin is important and you htink htat generally it leads to good results int eh way it is run, you should alos htink that freedom of speech and freedom of research is generally a good ting not to be messed with, even if it leads to abuses once in a whiel. Like it or not, if you want people to strive to find the truth of things, they have to be able to do it in an unconstrained manner.

  • I wouldn’t shed a tear if this guy got fired. But, to follow up Muffti’s point, all of the cases that established the First Amendment freedoms we enjoy were close cases– advocating violent overthrow of the government, the Klan’s right to march, porn, etc. And in the great run of those cases, error, if any, has been on the side of permitting speech. That’s especially true of political speech, which (unlike, say, commercial speech like advertising), is at the core of 1st Am. concerns.

    The Constitution often requires us to hold our noses. If we want to punish someone for his views, we’d better be prepared for the consequences: it may bite us in the ass the next time around.

  • Let’s get clear here, TM…Muffti does not think that this is a first amendment right. The first amendment concerns the rights of citizens against their government, not against their employers, so far as Muffti can tell. *(He’d be glad to be corrected on this, by the way). But he thinks tha tall the same, professors have enjoyed and often utilized to the good, their ability to speak without fear of firing by their institutions. That’s the whole point of tenure. And so Muffti thinks the moral is the same but the route of gettign there is different:. be prepare for consquences coz it may bite you in teh ass next time around.

  • Hmmmm…it seems you’re giving me the choice of actually being bitten on the ass now or potentially being bitten in the ass some time in the future.

    I take both your and Tom’s comments seriously, however, and do believe that your points are valid. I think we are better off as a society for not having legal mechanisms in place prohibiting certain types of speech. However, it is incumbent upon us as members of this society to ensure that we speak up against this type of speech vociferously. I also think that as taxpayers, we have a right to point out when publicly funded or subsidized institutions support this type of speech by employing a person like this professor or worse, by inviting into their campus hateful bigots like UC Irvine has done.

  • WEVS1,

    Good to see you again, my friend. It has been too long.

    You wrote,”I tend to think these people will keep sh*ttng on Jews as long as we take it. ”

    They will do so even if we don’t “take it.” You noted, “if a professor made these sorts of claims about African-Americans or Mexicans there would be riots on this campus. Not saying we need to riot but crap, man, when do we simply say “enough”?”

    I have no interest in reacting like those who would even threaten riots or boycotts over a racial slight, never mind those that actually do so.

    You said, “I think the anti-Semitism of the Islamists, white-supremacists and radical leftists should all be concerns.”

    Well, that’s your perspective, but I am more concerned about the Islamists and the radical left, as they seem more of a threat at this time in history. And with a change in immigration policies, I could not only reduce the domestic threat of Islam, but would undercut some of the fuel for the far-Right’s recent incremental growth.

    And if we get rid of the Democratic party’s unfortunate (but weakening) support of current policies of affirmative action, then we not only again undercut support for the far-Right, but with the return of working and middle class white Democrats, effectively cock block the far-Left’s influence.

    So you want to focus on one meshuganeh and make a big fuss and risk backlash? I think we should be killing three birds with one stone. We don’t have time or influence to waste on this nut job. He’s a hateful nut job. I would hate to make him a martyr. He’s worth so much less to ‘them’ alive and fully functional. He may be teaching at a universty, but he’s getting old, and mostly preaching to the choir.

    Don’t give him a megaphone.

  • Muffti, because this is a state school, MacDonald will be able to claim a constitutional violation. This is referred to as the “state action” requirement. As stated by the Supremes, e.g. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991), courts ask “first whether the claimed constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority”.

    If it were DePaul or another private university, there would likely be no state action and therefore no basis for a claim of violation of First Amendment rights (though the Court in the same case added that state action could be found where “the private party charged with the deprivation could be described in all fairness as a state actor.”)

    And Middle, you’re right– it’s repel me now, or repel me later. But if the First Amendment didn’t bite us all in the ass on occasion, we’d never have tough cases like this one to argue about.

  • Interesting, Tom. So the SC has determined that state or federal institutions have a different obligation than private institutions. That makes sense, I guess. Well, we certainly don’t want MacDonald to win a big financial claim because of his bigotry. He can still be censured, though. There is no reason why the school can’t assert, for example, that it stands in strong opposition to his research.

  • Agree, Middle…. First Am., remember, says, “Congress shall make no law abridging” free speech. Basically the state action requirement means the local private school, or the Boy Scouts, or the Elks can get rid of this guy– or boycott or picket him–for his views, while the state gets held to a different, more restrictive standard.

  • That’s true…Muffti agrees that tere is a first amendment worry here. all the more reason not to fire him- we like the first amendment, don’t we?

  • I find myself compelled by an evolutionary strategy that makes me push for liberal policies. Consequently, I’d like to say that Kevin Macdonald is a douchebag and his ideas are repugnant to the extreme. That having been said, the University tenure system is too valuable and it is not worth compromising it because of one douchebag.

    I believe in free speech and I believe in tenure. Tenure allows academics to mostly rest on their laurels, but on occasion they push envelopes and allow for the continued development of intellectual discourse free of the fear of the consequences of promoting difficult or unpopular ideas. The same thing applies to free speech. Macdonald’s ideas are indeed repugnant, and in the free marketplace of ideas, his notions are shared only by the most marginal loser dregs of society. I’m not worried by the Macdonalds of the world, but I am worried about a world where unpopular ideas are subject to official censure.

  • Thanks, DK. I was out of the U.S. for a while.

    “I have no interest in reacting like those who would even threaten riots or boycotts over a racial slight, never mind those that actually do so.”

    I feel the same way. My rioting days are definitely behind me. Just wondering where people draw the line and when they think it is crossed.

Leave a Comment