Sorry, Not Sorry

Johns Hopkins fires professor over clash with student protesters, but he says he has no remorse for either the attack or being a "white male."

By Colleen Flaherty

August 12, 2019

123 COMMENTS

TWITTER

Daniel Povey

Johns Hopkins University terminated a nontenured associate research professor of speech and language processing who broke into a student sit-in earlier this year with bolt cutters. He says his counterprotest was supposed to be nonviolent and that he wanted to access servers in the occupied building. But protesters accused him of attacking them, and the university says that whatever happened, he put students in danger.

The professor, Daniel Povey, shared his notice letter on his website last week -- along with the news that he’s leaving Baltimore for a job in industry and is definitely not sorry.

Inside Higher Ed Careres

Search Over 35,000 Jobs

Search

Browse all jobs on Inside Higher Ed Careers »

“I am aware that some people are trying to ‘cancel’ me and get me fired from my next job. See if I care!” he said in a lengthy post. “I’ll tell you this, though: whatever happens, I will never apologize and I will never back down.”

The “normal script is that I am supposed to get down on my knees and say ‘Please accept me back into your midst, liberal America! I accept that I was wrong,’” he said, adding, “No way. Fuck you.”

Povey further accused student and local protesters of lying about what actually happened inside Garland Hall at Hopkins on day 35 of the overall protest, about a week after they forced a shutdown of Hopkins's main administrative building and chained themselves to walls, railings and staircases. In reality, Povey wrote, he was attacked -- not the other way around.

In response to Povey’s statement, the JHU Sit-In group posted video of the incident. (Povey has since said it is misleadingly captioned. The video itself is grainy and a collection of short clips, so it's difficult to discern what actually happened. It shows Povey using bolt cutters to break through to protesters and, later, someone getting punched.) An accompanying statement from the group says, “We are pleased Professor Povey is no longer welcome on campus, as he has negatively affected students and the community.” However, it says, “we are disappointed that Povey continues to defend his actions, shows no remorse, and disparages students based on his perceptions of their identities.”

The group noted that Povey did not say “anything racially motivated during the actual attack.” It also alleges that the university was manipulating the cooling and heating systems inside the occupied administrative building, and that they may have damaged a server Povey was using.

JHU Sit-In is dedicated to resisting what it calls campus militarization, including a proposal for an armed, private police force; ending the university’s dealing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and justice for Tyrone West, a black Baltimore resident who was killed by city police during a traffic stop in 2013.

According to Povey’s termination letter, he was suspended and banned from campus in May over allegations that he “engaged in violent and aggressive behavior when attempting forcibly to enter Garland Hall,” and his conduct “was motivated by racially discriminatory animus and created a hostile environment.”

Povey has admitted leading a group of people to the campus building around midnight on May 8, carrying bolt cutters. “You believed the group of nonaffiliates you brought with you could become violent,” the termination letter also says. As a faculty member, “you created a dangerous situation that could have ended in serious harm to our students, yourself and others in the community.”

Povey was repeatedly told not enter Garland Hall prior to the exchange, despite his requests to enter the building to access computer servers there, according to the letter.

“These actions by a member of our faculty are entirely unacceptable. The safety, security and protection of our students and others are of paramount importance to the university,” wrote Andrew S. Douglas, vice dean for faculty. While the university will continue its investigation until it reaches its conclusion, “your own account of events based on your oral and written statements provides more than sufficient grounds for immediate termination, and we are hereby terminating your appointment with the university.”

Povey’s termination is effective Aug. 31, so that he may help his graduate student advisees transition in the coming weeks.

In the post to his personal website, Povey said he was leaving to take a job in industry in Seattle, starting next week. He’ll still be working with students and collaborators remotely, he said.

Regarding the incident, Povey said that he was “frustrated [by] the prospect of a long siege at Garland where our computer servers live,” and “organized a group of what I called ‘counterprotesters’ to try to regain control of the building from the students.”

A “scuffle” ensued, he said, “and I was carried out of the building by the protesters.” The university “seems not to have been able to substantiate the allegations that I attacked the protesters,” he said, but Johns Hopkins “leadership still decided that I still needed to be fired.”

While the termination letter says he put students in danger, Povey wrote, he actually told the university that his associates were under “strict instructions to not retaliate if attacked.” He did shrug when he was later asked whether he was confident that they would have been able to follow those instructions no matter what happened, though, he said.

“So essentially I am being fired for what might have happened, while the students are getting off scot free for things that actually did happen. They actually made false allegations against me, both in public (on Twitter) and to the university authorities. They actually attacked me and hurt me; many of you saw the big scratches on my back. They also threw a lot of punches at the people with me, who showed admirable restraint, although I understand one punch was thrown by a person in my group. They actually shut down Garland and inconvenienced thousands of people, requiring the fire department to cut open the doors to get them out. But they suffer no consequences. Am I sensing just a liiiitle bit of a double standard?”

What accounts for that, beyond Povey’s faculty status, he asked? “My feeling is that this mostly has to do with underrepresented minorities, specifically black people (and trans people). There seems to be nothing that Americans, or American institutions, fear more than being accused of racism (or similar isms), which leads to ridiculous spectacles like what we're seeing here, where such a huge organization can be paralyzed by a handful of deluded kids.”

If Povey had known in advance “that everyone inside the building was black (that was what I saw; although from media coverage it seems that there may have been a white trans person in the core group) -- I wouldn't have gone ahead with the counterprotest,” he said. “I’m not an idiot; I know that as a person who demographically ticks all the 'oppressor boxes,' I would have to be severely punished for opposing such a group.”

White men in “this environment seem to be expected to constantly atone for their existence by telegraphing their exclusive concern for every demographic group but their own, like a neutered puppy dog or some Justin Trudeau man child,” he said. “It's pathetic, in my opinion, and I don't accept it at all. I am not prepared to apologize for being who I am. I don't think that empathy should preclude critical thinking or basic self-respect.”

Povey goes on to criticize critiques of “toxic masculinity,” compare current discourses on gender and race to Animal Farm and Nazism, discusses animus toward market-dominant minorities, and ends with some Bob Dylan: “I ain't sorry for nothing I've done/I'm glad I fought, I only wish we'd won.” He at one point uses the word -- widely considered a slur -- "retarded."

In its response, JHU Sit-In wrote that Povey’s words are “alarmingly reminiscent of those written to justify abhorrent acts of violence, including the recent mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso.” The university “must take a definitive stance against discrimination and violence” and JHU Sit-In looks “forward to seeing the additional measures JHU takes to address the campus culture that fostered these actions.”

Johns Hopkins has said that it can’t comment on private personnel matters, but that the "safety, security and protection of our students and others are of paramount importance to the university." A "troubling incident in early May prompted an investigation," it said, and, based on the "undisputed facts of the case, the university took interim and now permanent action to ensure the safety and well-being of the community

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38675399)

https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/styles/medium/public/media/Screen%20Shot%202019-08-11%20at%203.44.28%20PM.png?itok=JvwcM7EE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38685830)

“What accounts for that, beyond Povey’s faculty status, he asked? “My feeling is that this mostly has to do with underrepresented minorities, specifically black people (and trans people). There seems to be nothing that Americans, or American institutions, fear more than being accused of racism (or similar isms), which leads to ridiculous spectacles like what we're seeing here, where such a huge organization can be paralyzed by a handful of deluded kids.”

“... White men in “this environment seem to be expected to constantly atone for their existence by telegraphing their exclusive concern for edemographic group but their own, like a neutered puppy dog or some Justin Trudeau man child...”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38675694)

Leaving Hopkins

Everyone,

I am leaving to take a private-sector job in Seattle, starting August 19th. I will still be working with my students and collaborators here remotely. As you'll see from this letter, I have been fired from Hopkins effective the 31st of August. I had arranged a backup plan beforehand, so will be leaving a bit earlier. Please don't blame the Whiting School or Andrew Douglas for this; this comes from higher up. You'll see from the letter that I am not supposed to communicate with (almost) anyone at Hopkins... technically I am just putting this on the web; and if you find it, you find it.

I don't expect all this will come as a surprise to most of you, given that three months ago organized a counter-protest against the student occupation of Garland hall, and a number of people were extremely triggered about that; but I thought you might like a little background.

What was never in dispute is that, being frustrated as the prospect of a long siege at Garland where our computer servers live, I organized a group of what I called “counter-protesters” to try to regain control of the building from the students. This was on the evening of May 8th; there was a scuffle and I was carried out of the building by the protesters. They then made allegations to the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), saying that I had attacked them. The OIE seems not to have been able to substantiate the allegations that I attacked the protesters, but university leadership still decided that I still needed to be fired. (The attached letter claims that they are still investigating... I think most likely the true story is either they found the protesters were lying or realize that they'll never know what happened).

What the administration seems to be saying is that I put the students in danger by bringing outsiders into what could have been a dangerous situation. You'll see that the letter states that I believed the group I brought with me “could become violent"... the actual conversation with their lawyer went like this: after I stated that everyone was under strict instructions to not retaliate if attacked, I was asked whether I was confident that they would be able to follow those instructions no matter what happened; and I shrugged.

So essentially I am being fired for what might have happened, while the students are getting off scot free for things that actually did happen. They actually made false allegations against me, both in public (on Twitter) and to the university authorities. They actually attacked me and hurt me; many of you saw the big scratches on my back. They also threw a lot of punches at the people with me, who showed admirable restraint, although I understand one punch was thrown by a person in my group. They actually shut down Garland and inconvenienced thousands of people, requiring the fire department to cut open the doors to get them out. But they suffer no consequences. Am I sensing just a liiiitle bit of a double standard? I mean, obviously faculty will be held to higher standards than students, but that's nowhere near enough to account for the difference in treatment.

Where could this double standard come from? Well, obviously there's the fact that they were protesting for a left-wing cause, and I was opposing them. I'm not convinced that that's enough to explain it, though. My feeling is that this mostly has to do with underrepresented minorities, specifically black people (and trans people). There seems to be nothing that Americans, or American institutions, fear more than being accused of racism (or similar ism's), which leads to ridiculous spectacles like what we're seeing here, where such a huge organization can be paralyzed by a handful of deluded kids.

Now if I had known in advance that everyone inside the building was black (that was what I saw; although from media coverage it seems that there may have been a white trans person in the core group)— I wouldn't have gone ahead with the counterprotest. I'm not an idiot; I know that as a person who demographically ticks all the 'oppressor boxes', I would have to be severely punished for opposing such a group. I miscalculated by trusting the coverage in JHNewsletter, which seems to have given a false impression of the demographics of the protest; their photos showed mostly white people. Now many of the people sitting outside the building were white, but that seems to have been window-dressing; they were just bystanders and didn't do anything except take a bunch of cellphone video. All the people that I saw fighting and screaming were black. If it were simply a matter of difference of opinion I expected that Hopkins would at least pretend to be even-handed; but once race and transgender status enter the picture I don't think that's possible any more.

I'm aware that it's a huge violation of social norms for me to say publicly that I think whites, or males, are being discriminated against1. As far as I can tell there are three specific circumstances in which it's acceptable for a white male in left-of-center America to allude publicy to these types of double standards:

To justify them

To advocate for their adoption

To deny that they exist at all

Clearly what I am doing here doesn't fall into any of those three categories. But the truth is, I left the bounds of left-wing respectability quite some time ago.

1. Some people seem to be taking this statement out of context. This is not a blanket statement that white males are discriminated against in general, just in the context of campus politics.

White males in this environment seem to be expected to constantly atone for their existence by telegraphing their exclusive concern for every demographic group but their own, like a neutered puppy-dog or some Justin Trudeau man-child. It's pathetic, in my opinion; and I don't accept it at all. I am not prepared to apologize for being who I am. I don't think that empathy should preclude critical thinking or basic self-respect. I don't accept that a person should have carte blanche to disrupt everyone's lives just because of their minority status; and I don't feel it's right that I should be fired just for opposing a group whose victimhood makes them politically unassailable. This might sound very controversial to some people here, but to me it seems like common sense.

After writing the words above, I can hear in my head a chorus of marginalized voices crying: “But.. but.. but.. we're triggered!” “Hate!” “White supremacy!” “Transphobia!” and demanding special protection. I expect that some people will characterize my plea for equal treatment as an incitement to genocide. Let them. Unlike some people here, I have the mental strength to not be manipulated by these kinds of histrionics. I don't need the approval of victim groups to bolster my self-esteem; and I'm capable of weathering a little outrage. (The fact that I have career options helps, obviously). There's a difference between tolerance and cowardice; there's a difference between broad-mindedness and self-hatred; and no-one should claim they are bravely defending ‘oppressed classes’ when in reality they are just too timid, self-conscious or mentally feeble to stop themselves from being manipulated by their advocates. Males educated here in America seem to be uniquely supine in this regard. Is it something they put in the cafeteria food?

Perceptive readers may see the above as an appeal to masculinity. Yes, that's essentially what it is. The obvious response, for a progressive, would be to put the adjective “toxic” in front of that word “masculinity” and throw it back at me. OK. I'm aware that in the progressive world male is bad and female is good, just as in Orwell's “Animal Farm” it was “four legs good, two legs bad”. To round it out you can add: “non-white good, white bad”; “diversity good, uniformity bad”; “majority bad, minority good”; “powerful bad, powerless good”, and so on; and you have a nice little moral system, one that may be perfectly self-consistent. Now, I view moral systems as arbitrary and subjective: it's just a particular assignment of people, actions, thoughts, events, artifacts and so on, to the categories “good” and “bad”— typically reinforced by myths or cherry-picked facts, and held together by some more general principles or concepts. So from a certain abstract point of view, the progressive moral system as on the same footing as any other.

What I do find very odd, though, is that any straight white male would buy into it. It's the same as if a gay Jew were to join the Nazi party and begin endlessly apologizing for his ancestors having lent money to Aryans at too-high rates of interest; and agreeing that he needs to recognize his “problematic Jewishness” and “toxic homosexuality”, stop talking, and make space for Aryan voices to be heard. He might even take pride in having acknowledged the uniquely cancerous and exploitative nature of the Jewish people, despite being one himself. So is this person virtuous, or is he just too-easily manipulated? You decide. I know we're approaching cerebral-haemorrhage territory here, for left-of-center readers, but it's true: there are many things said by American progressives where if you replace “white patriarchy” and “women of color” with “Jewish capital” and “Aryan youth”, and add a picture of a blond boy and a swastika or two, you'd have a very serviceable Nazi propaganda poster. Think about it.

Of course, there are differences. Genocide of one gender by the other, or of a more-powerful majority by a less-powerful minority, is perhaps not historically common. The point is, the language used to describe the more-successful demographic (Jews in Nazi Germany; white males here) is similar; and the psychological states of the people involved are no doubt similar as well. This isn't about moral equivalence; it's about that hypothetical gay Jew's reaction to being told that his demographic characteristics are “problematic” and “toxic”. Do we see him as virtuous and strong, or as weak? Suppose we say that he's weak. What is it about a white male social justice warrior today who's constantly “checking his privilege” and “making space for minority voices” that might make us admire him? Yes, white males now are overrepresented in some respects; but so were Jews in early-20th-century Germany— much more, in fact. See “World on Fire” by Amy Chua, which says, IIRC, that they had a 10-times-larger-than-average income; and according to this they seem to have been 25-fold overrepresented at the top tier of business. (Hitler might have been a little bit triggered by that). So what exactly is different? Our guy might have been in more physical danger; but doesn't that give him more of an excuse to act the way he did?

I've heard the objection that unlike the situation today, the Jews were not oppressing the non-Jewish Germans. My response is that oppression is something that's in the eye of the beholder. No-one today would suggest that they were— not in polite society, at least— but at the time, many Germans felt that they were being oppressed. If you apply the logic of today's progressives, where differences in outcomes are automatically assumed to be the result of some kind of bias, I find it difficult to see how you'd argue that there was no oppression of any kind. Today, even a 10% salary difference can lead to cries of discrimination; a factor of 10 is much harder to ignore.

You might also say that the Nazis were wrong about the Jews being bad (or at least, worse than non-Jewish Germans), whereas it's actually true that white males are bad; and that history proves it. But that's a subjective judgement, because facts alone can never tell you what's good or bad unless interpreted within a moral framework. And if you use a moral framework that was constructed with the specific goal of proving that women and non-whites are good and white men are bad (because it originated in women's-studies and black-studies departments at universities), then that's the conclusion you will reach.

By singling out these academic disciplines I certainly don't mean to tarnish all women or black people. In fact, I feel that in the long term those academic communities are doing a disservice to the people they represent, by taking extreme positions that inevitably cause a backlash. Black people seem to be generally more sensitive to this concern than whites, as you can see from their greater support for moderate candidates in the current Democratic primary. Whether that's because they perceive it more clearly or because they actually have skin in the game, I don't know.

I also want to be clear that I'm not in favor of any political or cultural movements that are animated by resentment. The choice isn't, and shouldn't be, between demonizing one demographic group or demonizing the other. But to join a movement that's specifically against one's own group? That's retarded. Man up, America! You're better than that. Leave that ideology to the man-haters and racial agitators that generated it, stop apologizing, and start living your lives!

Anywho: as for me, I may not have my job, but at least I still have my dignity and my independence of thought. I'll leave you with some words of Bob Dylan:

I ain't sorry for nothing I've done

I'm glad I fought, I only wish we'd won

Please send my regards to the OIE, and say that, thanks to them, my career prospects have greatly improved.

Sayonara!

PS I am aware that some people are trying to “cancel” me and get me fired from my next job. See if I care! I have lots of other career options. When this whole thing started I told my friends, if the worst comes to the worst I can always go to China or Russia. I'll tell you this, though: whatever happens, I will never apologize and I will never back down. I know the normal script is that I am supposed to get down on my knees and beg, “Please accept me back into your midst, liberal America! I accept that I was wrong.” I will never ever do that.

PPS They have now posted some video of the incident. Misleadingly captioned, but if you look at the video itself, and bear in mind it's what they felt was most advantageous to release from the much larger amount of video they collected, it doesn't really bolster their story that I attacked them. For me the funniest part is where they ominously zoom in on— da da da dah! — a Guns'N'Roses t-shirt. Like it proves we're white supremacists or something. Dudes! Guns'N'Roses isn't even metal; it's just mainstream hard rock. Plus I'm pretty sure that Axl Rose is Jewish. Did you guys even realize that it was the name of a band? (shakes head). Also: when they say I am pulling on one of their people, I believed I was pulling on the arm of the guy with me in the blue shirt. When I freeze-frame the video, it does actually look like the hand of a black person; I might have been confused.

PPPS As you can see from how this document starts, it was intended to be read by some of my colleagues at Hopkins, as an attempted workaround for a ban on communicating with them (we'll see whether Hopkins will decide to advance the date of my termination as a result of that). I did not provide any public link to it, and didn't really intend for it to go viral. But now that it has gone viral I don't plan to remove it, because I would see that as backing down in the face of pressure from ideologues; and that's not something I would do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38677531)

I've heard the objection that unlike the situation today, the Jews were not oppressing the non-Jewish Germans. My response is that oppression is something that's in the eye of the beholder. No-one today would suggest that they were— not in polite society, at least— but at the time, many Germans felt that they were being oppressed. If you apply the logic of today's progressives, where differences in outcomes are automatically assumed to be the result of some kind of bias, I find it difficult to see how you'd argue that there was no oppression of any kind. Today, even a 10% salary difference can lead to cries of discrimination; a factor of 10 is much harder to ignore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38677537)

Jesus, so JHU let a hostile force occupy a building for nearly a week? That's the real lede here. A warning, a demand to clear out, and a reasonable period to comply (no more than thirty minutes). After that, send in the militarized police and prosecute everybody to the full extent of the law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38684779)

https://www.uvm.edu/uvmnews/news/takeover-20

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38684800)

Think about this. You have a bunch of privileged kids at one of the best universities in America -- which university also happens to be in one of the most dangerous cities in America -- complaining about the security staff and LEO who are putting themselves in harms way to protect those same kids.

Seriously, FUCK them. Keep pushing libs. You'll eventually get what you want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4321812&forum_id=2#38684848)