Western and the Hilborn Issue

 

   Professor Kenneth Hilborn was a member of the History Department at the University of Western Ontario (now Western University) for many years. When he died, he bequeathed a significant amount of money to the University, most of which is used to fund scholarships for prospective students of history. To those scholarships, his name is attached. 

  Two recent articles indicate that Western University has undertaken a court action to have his name removed from those scholarships. The reprehensible Professor Emeritus held views that are now not acceptable.

   If there is any debate about the action of the University, up at the University, I am unaware of it. It could simply be that Professor Hilborn was an awful person, or perhaps it is that no one wants to publicly challenge those who think Hilborn horrible. It is not a good time to come to the defence of someone whose views are so at odds with the Zeitgeist which exists, at least on college campuses. Hilborn’s always were.

   There is no doubt that Professor Hilborn was a zealous, right-wing, very anti-communist conservative. The degree to which he was a ‘racist’ is more debatable as is the contention that he opposed LGBTQ rights, as well as the assertion that he caused “epistemic violence by suppressing, dismissing and trivializing people who were oppressed, vulnerable or discriminated against.” 

   Apparently those words are found in a document produced by a research group in Western’s history department, which is at odds with another history department document produced a few years ago when Hilborn first became an issue. It has been suggested that the new criticism from within the department is what led the University to seek to remove Hilborn’s name.

   The first two simple paragraphs are basically correct, but the issue is a complex one better examined by others. I think it is worth doing so and will provide all you need to proceed. Background about Hilborn and the donation is included below, as well as the articles which attack Hilborn. The response to those attacks by Professor Francine McKenzie, a professor at Western, is a good one I think, and, among other things, indicates that there are no stipulations with the scholarships that suggest that students have to devote themselves to studying only the types of revolting ideas promoted by Professor Hilborn. I also don’t think it likely that Professor Hilborn insisted that the Department agree with his ideas when the money was given or that it endorse his ideas after he was gone.

   I am interested in this because I am assuming that the University is asking for Hilborn’s name to be removed, but has no intention of relinquishing the money. I find that baffling and wonder if Western would have pursued this course if Hilborn had any remaining relatives. If his name is unacceptable, then his money should be as well.

   I also will declare an interest. I was a student in the History Department at Western and also was an employee of the University. I knew Hilborn as well as anybody, which means I knew him not at all. He lived alone and was regarded by many as a rather “odd duck.” He walked from south London to the north with a briefcase in one hand and the newspaper in the other which he read as he walked. He was thought to be wealthy (and obviously was), knew about Kurgerrands, but clearly never spent any to update his wardrobe.

   He was outspoken and frequently confronted those who were opposed to the Vietnam war or those who wished to divest from South Africa. If you want to know what he thought you simply have to look at his letters to Western News and I have included one sample from the hundreds he wrote. If you would like to examine some of his arguments, they are plainly on display and you will see also from the many rejoinders he produced, that he was a tough guy to argue with. His views were well known, but I am sure that if he had pushed and promoted them excessively in the classroom or inflicted punishing grades on those who disagreed, purely on ideological grounds, the department would have heard about it. 

   He taught a course on “Totalitarianism” and I am pretty sure he was against it. One has to at least admire his prescience and if he were alive today he would have a chance to see it in action on campus.

Sources:

Information About Professor Hilborn and the Scholarships:

In Memoriam: 2013
In memoriam - Kenneth Hilborn (posted Dec. 11)
Professor Emeritus Kenneth Hilborn, who retired in 1997 from Western's Department of History, died peacefully at home in London, Ontario, on Thursday, November 21 in his 79th year. Prior to his retirement Professor Hilborn had 36 years of service at Western where he taught courses in International Relations. Professor Hilborn was a graduate of Queen's University (Kingston) and the University of Oxford. He was the son of the late Harry W. Hilborn and the late Marguerite Mary Carr Hilborn. Cremation has taken place. Internment at Mount Pleasant Cemetery. Expressions of sympathy may be made through London Cremation Services (519) 672-0459 or online at www.londoncremation.com

The Donation Announcement, 2016. 

The Donation Announcement, Sept, 1, 2016

“Donation From the Estate of Professor Ken Hilborn Creates Awards for History Students,” Western Social Science News and Updates, Sept.1, 2016.

The Recent Articles about "The Hilborn Issue:"

“Western University Seeks Court Approval to Rename Scholarships Honouring 'racist' Professor: Late London Prof Spoke out Against Multiculturalism, Feminism, Student Activism, LGBTQ Rights,” by Colin Butler, CBC NEWS, Sept. 7, 2022.

"Western University is seeking permission from an Ontario court to remove the name of an emeritus history professor from six academic prizes funded by his estate following criticism that he espoused radical, racist views."

“Western Seeking to Remove ‘racist’ Professor’s Name From 6 Scholarships,” Estella Ren, The Gazette, Sept. 8, 2022

The Criticism of Hilborn and the Scholarships:

“University Donations and the Legitimization of Far-Right Views,” Asa McKercher, Active History, Sept. 14, 2019.
This article is cited in the CBC article noted above. Professor McKercher is in the History Department at the Royal Military College.  He notes that Hilborn did not publish enough and that what he did publish would not have been accepted in respected academic publications. He does make a good point at the conclusion about universities having to be careful of donors with "questionable motives", but apparently Hilborn's was to "reward academic achievement amongst history students."

“Congress 2020, Interrupted: Racism and Commemoration in Western University’s Department of History,” Will Langford, Active History, May 5, 2020.
This essay is also cited in the CBC article. Professor Langford thinks Hilborn was a racist, associated too closely with unsavoury characters on the far right, and a supporter of "Western Civ." Prof. Langford argues that those on the right, mix up and conflate academic freedom and free speech. It is worth reading his related articles which touch upon Rushton and Jordan Peterson. 
See: “Congress 2020, Interrupted: Racism, Academic Freedom, and the Far Right, 1970s-1990s,” Active History, 28 April 2020, https://activehistory.ca/2020/04/congress-2020-interrupted-racism-academic-freedom-and-the-far-right-1970s-1990s/ 
“Congress 2020, Interrupted: A Brief History of University Codes of Conduct,” Active History, 21 April 2020, https://activehistory.ca/2020/04/congress-2020-a-brief-history-of-university-codes-of-conduct/

I did not and do not agree with most of Hilborn's views, but feel strongly that he had the right to express them. My views about free speech and academic freedom are less nuanced than Professor Langford's and they are expressed here: "Free Speech & Ontario Universities."

The Response to the Criticisms by Professor McKenzie:

“Western’s History Department and the Hilborn Student Awards,” Francine McKenzie, Active History, May 7, 2020.
"While Hilborn was a faculty member, his controversial and objectionable views provoked critical responses from faculty and students.  Few current members of the History Department knew Ken Hilborn or were aware of his political and personal beliefs. After Asa McKercher’s essay appeared in Active History in September 2019, the department discussed the implications of having student awards created through his bequest and decided that the awards should stay."

A Sample of One of Hilborn's Letters to Western News:
    

   Those who wish to examine Hilborn's opinions have the opportunity to do so by visiting the Western News website. The folks at Western Libraries' Archives and Special Collections are to be commended for digitizing the print issues which go back to the early 1970s. 

    The issues are searchable and the results are always interesting. The "Letters to the Editor" section is particularly useful for those interested in the thoughts and ideas expressed by faculty and students in the latter part of the last century and the first part of this one. The "Letters" seem to have ceased around the time the Western News became digital in 2018.

    That may not be such a loss. I doubt that those on campus would feel as free to express themselves these days. Plus it may also be the case that faculty have less time to write letters which help not at all in advancing careers. The Hilborn critics often attack him for his polemicizing and for not publishing more academic articles, but students surely learned more from the letters published and rebutted than the academic articles printed and they were more widely read.

   

   Here is an example of an exchange between Hilborn and another faculty member over the South African issue. Presented first is a letter challenging one of Hilborn's earlier letters. Hilborn's rejoinder follows. There are many such letters and rejoinders and they are usually even longer.

   Here is the link to the Western News Archive. 

Baguley Letter _ Nov. 3, 1988, p.4.
Both 'a sustained argument' and 'a source of wonder...'

 Dear Sir: New readers of Western News should be warned that periodically dull and predictable letters from Kenneth H. W. Hilborn appear in this column defending the regime of South Africa as a bulwark against communism. Hilborn's recent effort (20 October 1988) has at least the merit of presenting a sustained argument (against 'divestment'), for what it is worth. It also has the merit of containing an analysis of the plight of what he calls the 'economically vulnerable mass' of black South Africans. Yet it is a source of wonder why, with the economically and politically invulnerable advantages of a professor's salary, tenure and a free society, he should not be more sympathetic to their plight and should be so resolute in justifying the status quo in the regime that oppresses them. David Baguley, French Department.

Hilborn Letter Nov. 10, 1988, p.4

Critics fail to challenge accuracy, logic of case 

Dear Sir: To borrow some of the phraseology used by David Baguley in attacking me (letter, Nov. 3), "new readers of Western News should be warned" that letters like Baguley's, criticizing me and misrepresenting what! have written, "periodically ... appear in this column." 

   The most conspicuous characteristic shared by most (if not all) of these letters is their authors' failure to challenge either the accuracy of the information I cite or the logic I use in drawing conclusions from the evidence presented. My critics prefer instead to condemn me, as Baguley does, for being "dull" — or something equally irrelevant to the issue under discussion. At least in a university, if not on a political platform, it is surely more important to be accurate and logical than to avoid being dull. 

   Occasionally, critics also condemn me for "defending" somebody wicked —even when I have said nothing whatever about the actually or allegedly wicked people in question. Thus Baguley accuses me of "defending the regime of South Africa" and "justifying the status quo in the regime," even though my two recent letters opposing "divestment" (published by Western News on Sept. 29 and Oct. 20) contain not a single reference to that government, nor a single argument "justifying" South Africa's domestic status quo.

    In the 1950s, some American politicians used to suggest that any opponent of various hard-line anti-Communist policies must be a supporter of communism. Baguley has borrowed this McCarthyite technique and adapted it to his own purposes, by implying that opposition to divestment means support for apartheid. It is disappointing to find an academic displaying no more respect than politicians do for intellectual distinctions. I am mystified by Baguley's contention that I should be "more sympathetic" to the plight of economically vulnerable South African blacks. I have argued repeatedly against economic sanctions, including bans on investment that would inevitably inflict further hardships on these vulnerable people — sanctions that they themselves (as distinct from well-fed "leaders") clearly oppose. Does Baguley imagine that those willing to see blacks suffer from greater unemployment are expressing sympathy for them more effectively? 

   Finally, I hope that Baguley (whose specialty is French) will endeavor to improve his style in English. His letter contains this sequence of words: ". . that periodically dull and predictable letters from Kenneth H. W. Hilborn appear in this column. . ." I believe Baguley meant not that my letters are periodically dull and predictable, but rather that my dull and predictable letters appear periodically. When an adverb is intended to modify a verb, I think it better to place the adverb in close proximity to the verb rather than before an adjective more than half a dozen words away. We faculty members should set the students a good example in these matters.

Kenneth H.W. Hilborn

Department of History 

Post Script:

  If the old issues relating to the Vietnam war and South Africa are not of interest to you, but newer ones like the BDS Movement and the Middle East are, then do a search for "Hilborn and Chomsky." In 1987, Chomsky was invited to speak as an alternative to Henry Kissinger who wanted the USC to pay him $31,000. The debate that ensued between groups such as Hillel, UWO Canadians Concerned For the Middle East and others, will be of interest to those concerned with more recent political problems.

The Bonus:

  For two assessments of members of the UWO History Department whose characters are not questioned see: N.S.B.Gras and Wallace Klippert Ferguson.

  As for the matter of character questioning, here are two quotes I provided in a post about "Historical Censoriousness":

" Yet we need to be charitable about the moral failings of our ancestors - not as an act of charity to them but as an act of charity to ourselves.  Our own unconscious assumptions and cultural habits are doubtless just as impregnated with bias as theirs were. We should be kind to them, as we ask the future to be kind to us."

and

“The dispensing of moral judgments upon people or upon actions in retrospect,” wrote Butterfield, is the “most useless and unproductive of all forms of reflection.”