Replies

The last time there was a moral crusade in New York, it was the one led by Reverend Parkhurst in the late 19th Century. A proponent of the "good government movement", Tammany later had the last laugh when the Tabloids reported his, uh, "extracurricular affairs."

Aren't you overlooking the morals crusade against Bertrand Russell in 1940-1941 to prevent his appointment to City College?

... the famous incident of Bertrand Russell’s dismissal from appointment as a Professor at the City College, New York (1940-41) on the ground of morality. The campaign against Russell’s appointment at the City College centered on his alleged lack of morality since he supported premarital sex, advocated for condoning adultery to certain extent instead of mandatory divorce and his being an atheist. As his invitation for appointment at City College was announced, it raised furor amongst the New Workers, politicians and jurors, which included all sorts of defamatory remarks and name-calling from all quarters. The Tablet editorial demanded dismissal of his appointment describing Russell as a “Professor of Paganism, Philosophical anarchist and moral nihilist of Great Britain”. The Jesuit Weekly, America, referred Russell as, “a desiccated, divorced and decadent advocate of sexual promiscuity who has betrayed his mind and conscience.” Reverend John Schultz, Professor of Sacred Eloquence at the Redemptorist Seminary at Esopus (New York), described Russell as a, “mastermind of free love, of sex promiscuity for the young and of hatred for the parents”. Referring to Russell as a “dog”, Councilman Charles Keegan remarked that, “if we had an adequate system of immigration, that bum could not have landed within a thousand miles.” But now that he has landed, Miss Martha Byrnes, the registrar of NY County, told the audience, what do we do with the “dog”? Russell, she shouted, should be “tarred, feathered and driven out of the country”. Amongst a deluge of uncountable insults and slanders against Russell, a Mrs. Jean Kay’s (of Brooklyn) Lawsuit against Russell’s appointment got celebrity attention whereby she declared herself concerned over what might happen to her daughter, Gloria, if she were to become Russell’s student. In court, Mrs. Kay’s lawyer Joseph Goldstein described Russell’s work as “lecherous, libidinous, lustful, venerous, erotomaniac, aphrodisiac, irreverent, narrow-minded, unfaithful and bereft of moral fiber.
Most of the genius scientists, academicians and philosophers of his time, including Whitehead, Einstein, Dewey, Shapley and Kasner et al., rallied behind Russell. Einstein wrote in his letter of support: “Great spirit have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.” Yet democracy, which should be characterized as “mob fanaticism” in this case, prevailed and Russell’s appointment was disallowed by a judge arguing, “Russell was unfit to teach” amongst many other judgments on moral issues.
http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/churchill_case.htm

Oh my how times have changed in New York!