Unlike this writer, I heartily disagree with the assertion that Nicholas De Genova provides an "irrelevant or incoherent answer," or that "the interviewer [had] to gently re-ask the question". In fact, the tone of derision and condescension originates from the interviewer and not the interviewee.

Dr. De Genova, my graduate professor of anthropology is one of the most empathic and sympathetic academics I know. In his determination to stand for what is right, he has taken great risk to support people of the developing world by confronting immense criticism for his anti-U.S. stance. Inappropriate criticism came from many sources (c'mon, a congressman tell Columbia University how to manage its employees?). Dr. De Genova has also received unwarranted death threats from individuals whose words smack of blind jingoism.

Having taken a class with Dr. De Genova, I knew him to be a soft-spoken individual with strong ideals who genuinely cared about his students and the process of learning. His research into the culture of rap and hip hop music underscores his desire to bring a legitimate voice to a subculture often dismissed as violent and superficial. He was always open to students' ideas and encouraged everyone to participate, even undergraduates who floundered in his academically rigorous graduate classes.

Knowing this about Dr. De Genova, I find it impossible to interpret his comment as desiring the death of U.S. troops. I know he is aware that those American troops who are at the frontlines of war are typically young people who are in many ways socially and educationally disadvantaged. These are among the people Dr. De Genova cares most about, not the fat cats in Washington.

Even prominent economists like Jeffrey Sachs, advisor to the secretary general of the United Nations, and Democratic presidential candidates have denounced the U.S. war machine headed by George W. Bush. Dr. De Genova's comments simply expressed his desire to see the end of U.S. imperialism, and not the death of American lives. I know he would prefer not to see American soldiers lay down their lives fighting senseless and cruel wars against civilians in Somalia, Vietnam, or Iraq.

Dr. De Genova did us a great service by courageously challenging what economist Jeffrey Sachs has referred to as a climate of jingoism and persecution. No American should feel persecution for opposing American foreign policy. And Dr. De Genova's comments should not be misconstrued as desiring the death of American soliders but as desirous of the end of U.S. imperialism in soverign nations.

Sounds like someone's polishing the teacher's ... apple.

And quite a commentary on the intellectual state of the academy--at least that academy and in that "discipline".

Having never met the Good Docter I can not say for certain what his personal politics are, but from what I understand he was not calling for the deaths of American soldiers, only for Military embaresment. One question I would like to see him asked is what he would prefer, American military action in Iraq, or the constant mass killings of Iraqi citizens by their own leader, and the leagle raping of Iraqi women by their leaders children.

Jane Liu describes his remarks as a desire for an end to American Imperialism, and Dr. De Genova takes military defeat as a victory for the cause of self determination. How would leaving a brutal dictator in power advance the self determination of the Iraqi people? How does setting up free elections advance American Imperialism?

I will agrea that Dr. De Genova should not be persecuted for his remarks. Freedom of speach is one of the great ideas America is founded apon, not Freedom to say only what others want to hear, Freedom to say what you want. No one should ever be persecuted for taking a stand on any issue, regardless of how unpopular their stand may be. Insults and smear campaigns should have no place in debate.

I. Bendito - when you learn that people can speak with integrity without ulterior motives then maybe you won't be so suspicious. It also is so easy for you to dismiss the validity of my arguments this way, isn't it?