Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

Calling a state senator’s push to get him axed from his public university job as “frivolous,” William Ayers today said lawmakers have more important things to do than to go after him.

Ayers, a former member of the radical Weather Underground group and a topic of heated discussion during the 2008 presidential campaign, was responding to a downstate Republican’s proposal to forbid a public university from employing someone who has “committed a violent act” against the United States or Illinois.

“This is absurd,” Ayers, 64, told a mostly young audience in a speech at Riverside-Brookfield High School. “It’s a waste of time.”

The Weather Underground bombed government buildings in protest of the Vietnam War. In a 2001 book, Ayers said he participated in the bombings but never hurt anyone. Charges were filed against him but were dropped in 1973.

* Here’s the bill…

Creates the Prohibition on University Employment Act. Prohibits a public university or a private university that receives State funds from employing a person who has committed an act of violence against the government of the United States of America or the State of Illinois.

* The Question: Should the General Assembly involve itself in this issue? Explain.

And, please, let’s not turn this into a rehash of the 2008 presidential campaign. Stick to the question. Thanks.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:28 am

Comments

1973 is a long time ago. People change. Let it go!!! It’s a total waste of time when Illinois is in pretty tough shape. I wonder if that same Assemblyman would be able to pass the same scrutiny of his own past that he is holding up to others?

train111

Comment by train111 Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:31 am
I think the state GOPS should be sooooo proud of the Bomke initiative. All radicals of all shapes and sizes should be banned from any public payroll. So if you got a guy who wants to assasinate Hispanics for murders they did not commit ….adious BrickheadJoe
I think ChopperJim would be out of luck
Another shining example of why GOPs are sinking into sand

Comment by NixonGnats Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:32 am
Ayers is right- there are about a million better and more important issues that the GA could be addressing. Stop looking backward when we have plenty of right now problems to deal with.

Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:33 am
No, because it’s idiotic. Ayers wouldn’t lose his job — he’s never been convicted of anything. And if it’s changed to “anyone suspected of violence, or anyone that at least one Senator or GA member thinks has committed violence, or anyone who has ever spoken approvingly of violence” that would reveal it for the cheap, mindless, thought-police, score-settling thing it is.

Comment by Muskrat Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:36 am
“has committed an act of violence against the US” - as opposed to having been convicted of an act of violence.

Bomke had to know this proposed law was unconstitutional when he introduced it. A purely political swipe at Hyde Park liberals…

Comment by Capitol View Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:39 am
I just wonder how many University employees there are out there who “have committed an act of violence against the United States of America or the state of Illinois”. Can’t be that many.

I also think this law is incredibly vague. Does the girl who threw a pie in George Ryan’s face count? (note: I don’t think she’s a prof, just asking)

This is dumb. Let’s cut the budget first.

Comment by Concerned Observer Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:40 am
Not now. Too many other serious issues on our plate. I have no use whatever for Bill Ayers, but sheesh, it’s been almost 40 years, let it go. He may be “unrepentant” of what he did in the ’60s, but I don’t think he’s likely to try it again anytime soon.

Comment by Secret Square Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:41 am
This is a waste of time and silly

Comment by independent Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:42 am
Absent the particular individual involved, is there a public policy problem being dealt with here?

Committing violence against the U.S. gov’t or State of Illinois?

If the Iraq War was determined to be an unnecessary war (by the State of Illinios), could Congressmen who supported invading Iraq be denied employment because they committed violence against the U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:44 am
A waste of time. The oversimplification of the language in this bill hints that it is meant as nothing more than a media magnet. There are already laws on the books that exclude those with certain criminal histories from serving in certain state offices. Let’s stick with those and move on already.

Comment by Jake from Elwood Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:44 am
Sore losers! Its the economy stupid! No one cares about this issue. Didnt in the election, and sure dont now. There may be no good answers to a 9B budget hole, but stop wasting the time I am paying you for and get to work on the real issues facing Illinois.

Comment by Downstate weed chewing hick Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:44 am
Perhaps the bill would be better worded for someone who is “CONVICTED of committing and act of violence..” I will likely get slammed, but in my estimation, those who are convicted of violent acts against the government - or any entity - should not given an opportunity to extend their personal agenda on my kid. There is more than enough brain-washing at the college level the way it is.

Comment by captain fuzz Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:46 am
Ayers is right about this one. Bomke’s bill is garbage. Does he really have nothing better to do as the ship of state sinks?

Comment by Railfan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:49 am
As we now know from this blog on impeachment: To fire a guy we don’t need the same level of due process we do in a criminal court.

So much for committed and convicted.

If we can justifiably cap executive pay when they are receiving federal bailout money because it is tax dollars at stake, then we have legitimate right to determine who gets hired and paid with state tax dollars.

Government got into the game of saying who can be hired a long time ago (with good justification, I might add). A consequence of that is government can tell you who you can’t hire. It only becomes more so when tax dollars are at stake.

I do agree it is a swipe at Hyde Park liberals. It’s a good one, too.

And does the state have better things to do? Yes. However, there is plenty passed in Springfield with little to no debate and we let them get away with it all the time.

Comment by Greg Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:49 am
Nothing like a no-brainer QOTD for Friday. Why don’t we all take a half-day and go drinking.

No, the GA should not involve itself with this issue. The GA needs to quit listening to every single thing a interest group has to say on an issue and solve the bigger problems of this state. There’s a vetting process for hires everywhere. If this guy wasn’t doing the job, they’d get rid of him or anyone who isn’t performing. Look! We even got rid of Rod.

Comment by BandCamp Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:50 am
I don’t have a problem with the bill, and actually agree with it. Although many people disagreed with our government’s foreign policy decisions and actions in Vietnam, and obviously even to this day elsewhere in the world, there are more acceptable, peaceful forms of protest that do not involve committing treasonous criminal acts. I also do not believe a conviction should be required when a person confesses to the crimes in writing. Everyone should be held accountanble for their actions and the related consequences, and I am sure there are many other qualified applicants out there who would be unaffected by this law.

Comment by Bud Man Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:54 am
I think it’s a spot on proposal. If you commit terrorist acts against the government, I sure as heck don’t want to be paying your salary. Such a law should have been in place years ago. About time. Don’t give me this “they have more important things to do” farce of an argument. The GA passes many useless and pointless bills every session.

Comment by Anon Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:57 am
In my opinion, Ayers is basically an unrepentant radical with a violent past who should be the poster boy for extremist views that are held by a large portion of the elite leftist university professor pool. I believe same should be winnowed down to create more of a balance of views in higher education. However, this legislation is a serious waste of time. Our current situation is simply frightful. We need the combined efforts of the whole of Illinois gov’t to prevent serious problems from visiting this state. This legislation ought to be stuck into some dead end committee to die the death it deserves.

Comment by dupage dan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:00 pm
No, it’s a stupid political stunt by Bomke. Ayers is a spoiled rich kid and not worth another thought or wasted breath.

By the way, Ayers isn’t a liberal, Hyde Park or otherwise. FDR was a liberal. Truman was a liberal. Paul Simon was a liberal. Ayers is a navel-gazing punk, a self-described “radical” who somehow manages to rationalize living large off the money his old deal-making daddy banked when he worked his way up to be chairman of ComEd.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:03 pm
Anon @ 11:57am

While I agree with you in principal we should not be encouraging the GA to use its’ limited brain power to pass any useless and pointless bills during this session. Ayers was not convicted so can’t be forced out due to allegations. Rule of law is in play. Efforts should be in place to create more balance in universities but now is not the time.

Comment by dupage dan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:03 pm
Anytime a bill is crafted to go after a single person, you know it is a bad bill. It is not like Ayers was hiding until this past election. He has been at UIC for years.

We all know, including Bomke, this will go no where, and it is just a political stunt. I just don’t see what political capital is actually built with this bill.

Comment by montrose Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:06 pm
I don’t agree with the legislation, but I’m not thrilled with this guy working for a public university in this state either. That said, that decision was made at the University level and that’s where any future decisions about him should remain.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:07 pm
Going to be the contrarian here I guess.

In some ways I can see how the state may feel it is good public policy that state tax dollars not be spent paying people who committed acts to deny constitutional rights to people using non-constitutional means.

I have had a problem with my tax dollars paying Bill Ayers way back when President Obama was a state senator.

If the dude had been a member of a different organization that did the same thing besides an anti-war group would you still think it was none of the state’s business?

If he had a FLAN activist or someone who attacked clinics run by the state would you still feel that was not a problem in terms of employment by the state?

Comment by OneMan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:08 pm
The GA should not involve itself in the issue. It’s a loser. Ayers’ government employment, though ironic (as an admitted Communist and former criminal), is likely protected by tenure.

Let’s look forward. We have real issues that need work NOW. If Conservatives want to limit the number of criminals and tunnel-vision ideologues in our public universities, then great, I will support you. Figure that out and implement your plan going forward so that we don’t hire another Ayers. But please, no more Vietnam-era Culture War garbage.

Comment by Kool Aid Man Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:08 pm
Wordslinger…

You make a good point.

Comment by OneMan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:09 pm
No. It looks like a trap, and I hope they stay away. Voting against it would be certain fodder for campaign materials., [e.g., Sen./Rep. x supports the employment of state employees that have committed acts of violence against the US!], and a unanimous vote would make it look like it was a great idea.

Comment by Keep Smiling Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:10 pm
I wouldn’t rush to call this frivolous if Bomke is attempting to create policy, but it also opens a huge can of worms that I’m not sure should be opened. And if he’s just introducing the bill to get headlines then he should be ashamed of himself.

As several have noted here, there are all sorts of problems with the wording.

Committed or convicted of committing?

What is the definition of violence? Is it limited to physical violence?

Why only the US or Illinois - why not cities, villages, counties, townships, schools, libraries, public health facilities, state parks or others?

Why only universities - why not elected or appointed office, elementary schools, or any other public employer (or private employer that receives state funding)?

Should the following be considered violence under this bill:

If some drunk teenagers eggs a state police cruiser on Halloween.

A protester shouts at the governor.

Someone illegally drives an ATV through a state park tearing up the natural habitat.

An angry parent slams the front door in the face of a DCFS case worker.

A governor causes injury to state historic sites or state parks by neglecting their upkeep and maintenance.

Bill Black hurls an object at the Speaker or decks another legislator with a right cross. Barack Obama gets physical with Rickey Hendon.

I could keep going, but I need to go write my 25 things for Facebook.

Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:14 pm
No, it’s stupid and since he was never convicted of anything, would it even apply. A massive waste of time.

Comment by Dead Head Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:17 pm
I’m not thrilled with tax dollars paying for Ayers salary. But I’m not exactly thrilled with my tax dollars paying for lawmakers salaries either. I consider them a far greater waste of time and space than Ayers, who at least stands for something, even if many don’t like it.

Here’s a thought: Should the young woman who hit George Ryan in the face with a pie be barred from holding a post at a public university?
Wasn’t that an act of violence?
Or is just people you don’t like who should be barred? Sen. Bomke?

typical shortsighted pandering to a constituent rather than focusing on real, big picture issues which is why the state’s in such crappy shape.

Comment by Frank Booth Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:25 pm
We are giving Ayers attention because? I think it because we are Illinois and Illinois looks for trouble.

Comment by Stayathomemom Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:27 pm
Get rid of this creep. Canada was right in not allowing this piece of garbage into our country. If you hated America so much, get the heck out.

Nothing but a spoiled rich kid who thought he was a tough guy.

Anyone who defends his past acts as “acting out” or “behind him” are just as insane as Ayers.

I’m ashamed that he is from Chicago.

Comment by Brett Michaels Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:31 pm
I don’t think it is either “frivolous” or “absurd” for this Senator to want to have this man fired. His legislation is unworkable for a myriad of reason, however, I will not ridicule the man for trying.

Ayers and his wife surrendered in 1980 after being a part of this subversive group that for 7 years bombed, ran jail breaks, blew themselves up planning murder, robbed banks, along with their regular every day activity which constituted drugs, orgies and your basic subversive fun and games. Ayers was one of their leaders.

I don’t think it should take legislation to keep him from teaching our children just a proper job interview.

Interviewer: Please tell me about your job history?

Ayers: Well, I specialize in blowing up government buildings?

Interviewer: Thank you, We’ll get back to you.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:32 pm
the legislation is a waste of time and a trap. but Ayers is an over rated goof and if Canada won’t let him in, why is he employed by a public university?

Comment by Amy Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:32 pm
Don’t Worry Be Happy……you are so off base. Quit trying to compare apples to oranges.

Comment by Brett Michaels Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:33 pm
Anyone who commits acts of treason against this country should be punished, not rewarded with a taxpayer funded position.

The General Assembly should pass this on to DC where it belongs. Lets face it, the powers that be in DC won’t do anything about it.

Comment by Say WHAT? Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:34 pm
Larry, Larry, Larry, there are about 9 billion other things the legislature should be spending their time on !

Comment by bluedog demo Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:34 pm
1. Define “act of violence,” and clarify whether conviction is required.
2. Don’t make it apply to just cases where the state or federal governments were targets, but any act of violence. And that includes DUI’s which pose a clear and credible threat to the public, even if no one is injured.
3. Make it apply to any government job, or government-funded agency, including elected office.

Then its got my vote.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:34 pm
I seem to remember a similar discussion when he was first hired many, many years ago. I don’t remember the specifics (killed too many brain cells over the years) but obviously nothing came of it.

To the legislation, it is not a bad idea, unfortunaltly common sense does not prevail in our education establishment. He should not have been hired in the first place law or no law.

Comment by Taxhound Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Heck, I’d rather learn about the Weather Underground from someone *from* the Weather Underground than someone who’s a specialist in home-grown radicals.

But this is me. I’m sure most folks disagree. I always wondered why Patty Hearst isn’t teaching somewhere.

I’m a proponent of academic freedom. There’s a lot of unpleasant and questionable stuff I learned in my time in public and private universities, but it was all fascinating and I’m glad I was exposed to it.

Heck, I met far more *dangerous* people during my time in Illinois state government.

Comment by Macbeth Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:40 pm
Sometimes I have a hard time reconciling our overwhelming desire to:
1.fire a man who’s not yet been convicted of any crime and to prevent him from ever holding an elected position in Illinois (Rod B.)

with

2. the free pass we give to an admitted domestic terrorist who is paid with government dollars to teach our young people.

The actions taken against the first man is justifiable by consensus opinion, and yet sanction of the second is frivilous. Seems like many on this blog have a situational moral compass.

Comment by Budget Watcher Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:41 pm
The other thing I’d note — and perhaps this applies to Ayers, too — is that listening to 60’s hardcore radicals discuss their so-called “radical-ness” is a weird experience these days. I was watching a documentary on the SLA from Robert Stone, and one of the SLA folks talked about his disillusionment to penetrate the inner-circle of “Tania” and her captors and realize that the radicals were as suburban and domestic as anybody he’d meet in the street.

Interesting comment — and I suspect one that rings true in any fringe organization — home-grown or elsewhere.

Comment by Macbeth Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:44 pm
It looks like Larry Bomke (my own senator) did this to appease a supporter. As already pointed out, the language is bad. And while the bill doesn’t specifically state it, it appears to be person specific legislation. This bill should not even be called for a vote.

Comment by Cheswick Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:47 pm
Note to Du Page Dan:

“Elite” is good.

Definitions include:

“A group enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status” or “The best or most skilled members of a group.”

Most of us strive to be “elite.” I want my children to grow up to be “elite.”

If you want to toss around insults, it is strange to use the term “elite.”

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:57 pm
Yeah, why is “elite” the term used when talking about university athletic programs and a putdown when talking about university professors?

Just sayin…

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:08 pm
Ummmmmmmm………excuse me……….even if Bomke’s bill were to be enacted………might the ex post facto prohibitions contained in both the federal and state constitutions operate to shield Ayers?

Comment by Dooley Dudright Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:17 pm
Budget Watcher, while I understand your concerns, there are a number of very significant differences between Blago and Ayers:

1. Ayers’ crimes happened decades ago; Blago’s happened as recently as two months ago and very likely would have continued if he hadn’t been stopped.

2. Ayers’ charges were dropped, presumably due to lack of evidence or the government just deciding it wasn’t worth the effort to prosecute him. Most of Blago’s potential criminal charges haven’t been filed yet and evidence is still coming in.

3. It’s a lot easier to ignore or avoid Ayers than it was to avoid Blago. What Ayers says or does affects mainly the students in his class — most of whom, I presume, are there of their own free will — and once they graduate or finish his class they are entirely free to ignore his drivel. What Blago did is likely to impact every single resident of Illinois now and for years to come.

Comment by Secret Square Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:19 pm
“Elite” is good, and “elitist” is not so good.

Comment by Jake from Elwood Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:32 pm
This may not be the top priority for the GA, but by calling it out as “frivolous” or a waste of time, Professor Ayers has probably assured the bills passage. Why start a fight he could lose?

He would be better off making no comment or acting contrite.

Comment by carbon deforestation Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:33 pm
I have what I hope will be a accepted as a friendly amendment to the bill.

Since we’re working off the 2008 GOP’s talking points, I would add a provision calling for an investigation of all Illinois university, school and government staff and elected officials (as Michele Bachmann recommended on Hardball relative to members of Congress) to “find out if they are pro-America or anti-America.”

Comment by Reform Now! Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:35 pm
Oh, and I would add a provision requiring an investigation to determine which parts of the state are in the Real America, the Pro-American parts of America.

Once the investigation is completed, the state would be reconfigured to include only the Real and Pro parts and the rest would be jettisoned.

Comment by Reform Now! Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:39 pm
I think the GA really has bigger fish to fry right now. Even if it were a good idea, now is not the time.

Comment by Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:40 pm
I wonder if Ayers could add job fixer to his list of achievements. Either that or U of I recruited out of one of the worst professor pools imaginable.

BTW, If Paul Vallas wants to win Cook County he should start sporting a toupee because he and Ayers look way too much alike.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:42 pm
This is a distraction issue…no way should the legislature dictate this. It’s an issue best dealt with by the people hired and paid well to screen out people–if enacted, couldn’t a long-ago resisting arrest charge come back to haunt someone? Aren’t police officers part of the government? From the tinfoil hat balcony: what if in the future there truly was an evil government and someone bravely stood up to it? Would they then be subject to sanctions? Good grief, Bomke, try staying focused on real issues affecting the state and your district.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:43 pm
I would like to see Mr. Ayers removed from his position as much as Sen. Bomke evidently wishes for it. However, it’s not something I think the General Assembly needs to worry about.

As for those who think Ayers has changed, he has not. Only his methods have changed. He no longer bombs federal buildings. But pumping young educators full of Communist propaganda is much more destructive to our free, individualistic society than any bomb he ever planted.

Comment by Fan of the Game Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:44 pm
Jake, the difference between being elite and elitist is like the difference between being sexy and sexist

Comment by Secret Square Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:45 pm
Please bear in mind that Ayers’ students are not grade school kids; they are adults who are or should be capable of thinking for themselves. Also, I don’t know that any student would be literally forced to take his class; there are usually plenty of options for meeting degree requirements.

I don’t like the idea of my tax money supporting his nonsense, but in the grand scheme of things, I don’t see where he’s all that big of a threat to truth, justice and the American way. My husband and I took classes from some pretty wacky leftist professors in our time and managed to survive with our moral principles intact.

Comment by Secret Square Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:54 pm
No, the General Assembly has to work on fixing the financial mess. As far as I am concerned, they really shouldn’t be doing anything else but taking a microscope to the budget to look for areas to cut and investigating ways to raise revenue without further debilitating the economy. If they’re doing this job, they won’t have time for anything else. Ayers is just another distraction. Who really cares what Ayers has to say or what he did 20 years ago?

Comment by Cinho Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 2:34 pm
Good grief people!
What a bunch of lemmings you are!

Forget Ayers! Do you think a university should hire people with violent criminal acts in their past? How about a rapist? How about a murderer? How about a pyro? Do you think a university can discriminate against people with violent pasts, just as they discriminate against people who fail to meet other criteria?

Of course they can! And should!

We do credit checks, we do background checks, we do resume checks, we do more than just pat folks on the back and give them jobs, right? So, how can you just sit there and think it is OK for our universities - that we pay for - ignor a professor’s violent past? It would be inexcusable!

Why did you people get a college education if you are unwilling to draw a line and take a stand? How cowed are you? There is a big difference between a trash-talking professor and a bomb-throwing one!

It isn’t just politics! It is common sense! You don’t hire violent people with criminal pasts and put them in professorships!

Don’t let scum like Bill Ayers prevent us from protecting our public universities from violent nutjobs behind the lecturns, hired by idiots willfully blind to common sense.

Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 2:52 pm
Ayers is not the problem. The problem is the people that hired him. It reminds me of the University of Colorado. If he is the best that the University can hire, we are in trouble.

Comment by Hickory Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 2:59 pm
Problem #1. Having the GA dictate academic personnel issues at public universities is a great way to destroy morale at those universities and induce the best faculty (not necessarily Ayers himself, but his colleagues who would have to deal with the headaches) to go to private institutions. That would really serve the working-class students of this state well.

Problem #2. Bill Ayers is not the only professor teaching who has a criminal past. Some of the best criminologists (not just in Illinois, but across the nation and industrialized world) are people who started out as convicts (up to and including convictions for homicide) who not only became productive members of society through education, but have some of the best knowledge of the criminal justice system that they can discuss with colleagues and students. (That’s just one obvious example. I have worked with excellent scholars in the humanities and social sciences who have criminal pasts. They are fully functioning members of society whose work has benefited the lives of hundreds of students. I can’t speak for Ayers’s students, but suppose they feel the same way?)

Problem #3. The idea that someone with one violent crime on her or his record from 40 years ago represents a threat to colleagues, students, and the public welfare today is even more stupid than the idea that African-American state senators would vote not to convict Rod Blagojevich. Violent recidivism does not have a four-decade shelf life.

Comment by Boone Logan Square Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 3:16 pm
I find it incredibly hard to believe that the rants that are being left up here are OK, and my post about the crimes of the Bush Administration was deleted. Ayers is a Communist scum radical treasonous unrepentant spoiled rich-kid propagandist. Got it. So we should pass laws against him?

And Mr. Miller, none of this is inappropriate, excessively rabid, gratuitously insulting, or based on rumor? Got it.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 3:41 pm
VM makes an excellent point of showing how this idea can only be supported by mis-alinging facts. VM refers to Ayers as as a currently violent person - “You don’t hire violent people… ” I agree, but there is nothing which indicates Ayers is at presently a violent person or a threat. If a person does not represent a threat, then perhaps unvisirties could select employees based on merit. I have yet to see anyone identify that Ayers is not qualified, or that he has ever caused or represents a threat of harm to the university.

VM the only common sense you voice is the senseless proposition that ability should be chased away with moral outrage for 40 year old conduct.

Every school boy who ever got in a fight better watch out, if the republicans have there way we wont consider qulaifications or merit, just whether your decades old youthful decisions match their own beleifs.

Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 3:48 pm
Since he still professes to believe Communist bs, fire him for being an idiot. Or fire him for his past. But do it because you think it’s the right thing to do, not because the General Assembly told you to. This would be a stupid law.

Comment by Anon Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 3:50 pm
Perhaps we should replace Bomke if this is what he thinks should be at the top of the GA agenda.

Comment by Anon Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 3:52 pm
If Bomke amended this bill to define “an act of violence against the government of the United States of America or the State of Illinois” or at the very least deny employment based on convictions of certain felonies and misdemeanors, it might have a chance. I’m not defending Ayers’ actions of 40 years ago, but since he has neither been convicted nor pleaded guilty to any of his “admitted” crimes in a court of law, it would seem to me that the state has absolutely no basis for denying him employment. As it stands, this bill is nothing more than a cheap political stunt based on an unpersuasive and irrelevant argument from a failed presidential campaign.

Comment by Cubs Fan Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 4:22 pm
Doesn’t the General Assembly have better things to do? Shouldn’t Bomke be worried MORE about the state employees in his district that are going to be out of work? Sheesh…

I’m not “pro-Ayers” but this seems like a “press pop” for Bomke.

Comment by 312 Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 4:24 pm
Outrageous bombast and demagoguery from Bomke. Is ther no such thing as rehabilitation?

Comment by Captain America Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 4:42 pm
Bomke made a mistake in attempting this; that said, Ayers is a blight on the U of I, both as a professor and as a representative of the institution (let’s be honest, all employees are seen as such, no matter the employer).

@Captain America: Rehabilitation does work, as pointed out above by Boone Logan Square, but Ayers is unrepentant after 40 years — you can’t rehabilitate a person who refuses to see a problem with the behavior…

Comment by Chambananon Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 5:00 pm
Right. Cranky old boomers still fighting the Vietnam War. You’ll all be dead soon enough. Just let it go.

Comment by HappyToaster Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 11:15 pm
1. Gratuitous proposal, having no practical effect except to divert attention from real issues. Reminds me of a few years back when fixing education was once again the top priority, and the crowning achievement of that legislative session was the “no driving in the left hand lane except to pass” law.

2. Part of a fulfilling university education is to be exposed to divergent thought. I’m not advocating hiring murderers/rapists/etc. to serve as profs, but I suspect Ayers provides students with a first hand perspective of how certain groups of the population reacted when confronted by a government that pursued an illegal war, abused constitutional rights and became detached from the real needs of the people they were supposed to serve. Doesn’t that perspective have value now? Or is that what Sen. Bomke would like to prevent students from learning?

3. I first saw it in the autobiography of Malcolm X so I don’t claim ownership of this concept, but one could easily categorize the damage inflicted on the people of Illinois from the recently-departed governor and the complicit legislature as violence. Look at the schools in Chicago and Downstate. Look at the financial pressure placed on the providers of indigent care who are still waiting for reimbursement. Look at the social service agencies whose clients are directly impacted by actions like passing a budget that was known to be at least $2 billion out of balance. If violence is defined as an act that causes jeopardy to one’s physical well-being, then Sen. Bomke and the rest of the legislature need to rethink this gratuitous piece of grandstanding in the event hat any of them wat to go work at a university after they retire from office.

Remember, Rich, you asked ….

Comment by Peter from Bloomington Saturday, Feb 7, 09 @ 6:45 pm