Howard Doughty
 Howard Doughty  ( professor, author, editor) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | 18 September 1945 |
| Alma mater | • Glendon College • University of Hawaii • York University • University of Toronto |
Has grave concerns about the changes he’s seen in colleges and universities, in the nature, scope and limitations of academic freedom | |
Howard A. Doughty is a Professor in the School of English and Liberal Studies at Toronto's Seneca Polytechnic in Canada.[1]
Academe
Professor Doughty has taught at the University of Hawaii, York University, Hawaii Pacific University's MA program in Diplomacy and Military Studies, and at Seneca since 1969. During his Seneca tenure, he published more than 400 articles in peer-reviewed journals and eight high school textbooks in Canadian studies. He has also presented more than 100 academic papers and keynote addresses at professional conferences, with his principal interest in the theory and practice of democracy as it relates to education.[2]
Book reviewer and author
Howard Doughty is the book review editor of The College Quarterly and of The Innovation Journal; editor, "Culture & Difference" (2011); "Discourse & Community" (2007); author of over 300 articles and 400 book reviews.[3]
Review of Who Killed Hammarskjold?
Doughty's review of "Who Killed Hammarskjöld? The UN, the Cold War, and White Supremacy in Africa" by Susan Williams, Columbia University Press, 2011 was published in The Innovation Journal in 2012. His review begins:
- 'Sometimes there are just too many conspiracies. When that happens, the forces of evil in the world get together and work out the details of a sinister plan. They prepare to use all means at their disposal, including lethal force when necessary, to cover their tracks. Usually it is sufficient to use their pawns in the corporate media to persuade a nervous public that the real problem lies with "conspiracy theorists" and not the conspirators. These "conspiracy theorists" are presented as paranoids, who are just a degree or two of delusion away from UFO abductees and Loch Lomond monster sighters, not to mention people who swear they've seen Elvis in the sportswear department of their local Wal-Mart. Which local Wal-Mart? Why the one in Edmonton, Alberta or East Sandusky, Ohio. It doesn't matter. They're all the same.
- 'I should know. I am a firm believer in the idea that, from time to time, governmental agencies, criminal organisations and small groups of extremists (separately or in concert) decide to assassinate certain people and successfully carry out their plans. I first became committed to this view on 22 November 1963. Although unaware of their identitiy, I instinctively knew that "they" had executed John F. Kennedy. Today, I still have no idea which particular villains killed him.'
Doughty also casts doubt on the lone gunman convictions in the RFK and MLK cases, before devoting 14 paragraphs to the assassination of Dag Hammarskjöld. These are his two concluding paragraphs:
- 'A final question remains. Why bring any of this up now? The pertinent personalities are long since dead. The Congo, Belgium and other parties to the disputes have long since moved on. Although Russia continues to be worrisome to many Western leaders, the Soviet menace is no longer apt to frighten children in their beds. So, what purpose can possibly be served, even if some distinguished panel of experts or an international judicial inquiry were able to exhume the truth?
- 'One answer is that the truth is worth pursuing regardless of the topic. It shall, as someone once said with confidence, set you free. Another is that the same sorts of events have occurred many times since and targeted assassinations of foreign nationals are everyday current events. (Iranian scientists seem to be the cible du jour.) By opening up the past and drawing parallels to the present, we may be able to contextualise contemporary debates about formal kill-lists generated by well-respected governments, rogue states and terrorist groups alike. There may be a risk insofar as illuminating past bad behaviour may encourage a blasé acceptance of continued bad acts, but I would like to believe that we have not become so intimidated by the national security state or made so hard-hearted by compounded atrocities that we can look with indifference upon such fundamental violations of human ethics. And, not to make light of it, we may regain an interest in some of the more heinous political murders of our era, even if it shows that the "conspiracy theorists" were right all along.'[4]
