Christina Jeffrey, a Kennesaw State University professor of political science, directs students through her Internet web site to her special “warning” page. Upon arrival, the new students discover a photograph of a menacing Rep. James Traficant, D-OH, wielding a 2×4 labeled “Bangin’ away in D.C.”
The warning to students is to “keep up with the readings.” Jeffrey’s threat is that if assigned readings are not kept up, she “will be forced to call (Traficant) and have him give you a call.” Considering Traficant’s surly mug, students are probably wise to heed Jeffrey’s admonishment.
Jeffrey is now also serving a stern warning to House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Best known as the House historian that Gingrich hired and then fired a few days later, Jeffrey is filing a lawsuit today to allow her to run for the speaker’s House seat in the 6th District of Georgia. The lawsuit seeks to overturn a University System of Georgia rule that prohibits professors from running for state or federal office. The suit will be filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta.
Jeffrey became a point of controversy in January 1995 when Gingrich hired her to serve as Historian of the House of Representatives. She was fired by Gingrich days later, because of accusations that she made anti-Semitic remarks in reviewing a Holocaust course for the Department of Education.
Jeffrey wrote in her review that “the program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view, however unpopular … is not presented, nor is that of the Ku Klux Klan.”
In a March 1995 letter to the Wall Street Journal explaining her review, Jeffrey wrote, “my review, of course, presupposed the existence and evil of the Holocaust, an assumption universal in academic discourse.” She further explained that “the DOE form specified criteria that were narrow and superficial and … included balance as a major criterion; I was not thinking of fairness to Nazis but of the absence of an intellectual foundation to support goodness and virtue.”
Jeffrey was subsequently supported and defended by several prominent Jews, including Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Jeffrey also has a lawsuit pending against Gingrich for breach of contract, because of his promise of employment for her after her firing. She plans to appeal the dismissal of another lawsuit, claiming defamation and slander by some House Democrats.
According to Jeffrey, the motivation behind her effort to run for the House is purely ideological.
“We (she and her husband, Robert) really don’t believe in vengeance,” said Jeffrey. “We think that if we acted out of that motive, it would do us more harm than it would anybody else. We believe that are hearts are pure and in the right place, and have the best interests of the people of the 6th District at heart.”
“The kind of disappointment that would lead to (her candidacy) is not personal. It is profound political and civic disappointment. Robert and I feel like we’re orphans of the revolution, and we’re not the only ones.”
In her personal survey of the residents of the 6th District, Jeffrey has found “great unhappiness” with Gingrich.
“Imagine what it was like in the 6th District in November of 1994,” said Jeffrey. “He recruited us for a revolution. Then when he got there, he forgot to fight. The dissatisfaction with Newt is very deep.”
Jeffrey’s opinion of Gingrich’s job performance has changed in the last three years. In a September 1995 interview for The Refuter, an online newsletter, Jeffrey expressed support for the speaker, despite her firing.
“Newt is my congressman. I still expect him to lead this Second American Revolution and I support his efforts.”
Today Jeffrey says “we were strong Newt supporters. We made a determination to stay in the Newt camp, and support what we thought was a revolution, and not let our personal differences get in the way.”
Now that she perceives the speaker has changed, Jeffrey believes it is time for her to become involved. “Newt is, and has been, obviously moving to the left to satisfy what he thinks he needs to do to be president,” she said.
“We really haven’t gotten much in the way of an explanation, for why all the things we worked and prayed for now aren’t important, and now are impossible. We simply don’t see it.”
Jeffrey hesitates to describe her own politics. She doesn’t like the labels.
“One label that’s been given to me, and I’m still a little uneasy with it, but it’s not inaccurate, is a Judeo-Christian libertarian.” While not a member of the Libertarian Party, she’s a believer in personal liberties.
Perhaps the issue that concerns Jeffrey most is, not surprisingly, education.
“I think it should be up to the parents in the most narrow sense. I think even a large school is a mistake for young children. The parent of one child in a school with 1700 children has too little influence over her child’s education. It needs to be small enough so the parents have an impact.”
Despite her lifelong status as a Republican, Jeffrey hasn’t decided whether she would run as a Democrat or Republican.
“One thing political scientists tend to have in common is we like political parties,” she said. “We like for them to mean something, because they’re important cues for the voters, who spend all their time working, and don’t have time to follow the issues, but are conscientious and want to vote.”
“These parties, and their leaders who want to be president, are going to move to the center, and when they do that, the parties are going to be confused. Maybe that’s not such a bad thing. For people like me who have strong political views, maybe I need allies in both parties, so that a bipartisan effort can be made, for example, to shut down the NEA. Maybe as long as it’s just a Republican effort, it’s not going to happen.”
Jeffrey is optimistic about her chances in getting the university rule overturned.
“It looks to me like an unconstitutional rule,” she said. “How can the state of Georgia get away with taking a whole class of people and say they can’t run for federal office?”
“If you want people who understand how the political system works, from a theoretical standpoint, then it’s good to have a few (professors) around. I think a professor’s place is in the House.”
Even her potential primary opponent agreed.
“The last thing Newt Gingrich said to Robert and me when we were in Washington … was that he thought ‘Washington needed some feisty professors.”
“But apparently he changed his mind — for political expediency. He didn’t want that smear machine coming after him.”
