RUTHFULLY YOURS

Were Martin Heidegger alive today, would he be granted an honorary degree from the City University of New York (CUNY)? We might consider that question in the matter of whether playwright Tony Kushner should be granted an honorary degree from CUNY.

Perhaps so. Honorary degrees are granted for many reasons, influence – academic or political, fund raising, agreement with the honoree’s views, to get a cheap graduation speaker. The defense of granting honorary degrees to some whose non-academic writings or speech or activities are controversial is that these are separate matters from the influence of the person. On the other hand, an honorary degree honors the whole person, unless the granting writ specifically excludes certain aspects of that person’s works and describes why others are more important. Not done, so it is the person who is being honored.
I’m not a philosopher, but Martin Heidegger’s central proposition, Desein,” the being for whom being is a question.[27]” (Wikipedia) is explained as follows:

…Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world amidst things and with others, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one’s own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one’s own existence

[emphasis added], is the basis of Heidegger’s notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the “vulgar” temporality of calculation and of public life.

Martin Heidegger was a very influential German philosopher during the middle years of the 20^th century. Wikipedia, on his writings:  “Within philosophy it played a crucial role in the development of existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, postmodernism, and continental philosophy in general.” Of course, there were and are disagreements or criticisms of his writings, but little doubt that he was influential.
On the other hand,

Heidegger supported National Socialism in May 1933 and was a member of the Nazi Party until May 1945.[9] Himself and his defenders, notably Hannah Arendt, see this support as arguably a personal ” ‘error’ ” (a word which Arendt [ed: who had a post-WWII affair with Heidigger] placed in quotation marks when referring to Heidegger’s Nazi-era politics).[10] Defenders think this error was largely irrelevant to Heidegger’s philosophy. Critics, such as his former students Emmanuel Levinas[11] and Karl Löwith,[12] claim that Heidegger’s support for National Socialism revealed flaws inherent in his thought.[13]
Yes, Germany was ill-treated after WWI, and suffered a terrible depression. Many sympathisized, but there is a clear dividing line from supporting Hitler’s mad programs.

In some circles, Tony Kushner’s literary work is acclaimed, particularly his play Angels in America or screenplay for Munich; In some criticized.
Pros and cons on Angels in America (Wikipedia):

“Mr. Kushner has written the most thrilling American play in years,” wrote The New York Times.[5]; Writing in The New Republic, Lee Siegel said, “Angels in America is a second-rate play written by a second-rate playwright who happens to be gay, and because he has written a play about being gay, and about AIDS, no one—and I mean no one—is going to call Angels in America the overwrought, coarse, posturing, formulaic mess that it is.” [7]
Pros and cons on Munich (Wikipedia):

The film garnered a 78% favorable rating from critics (per Rotten Tomatoes), though its “Top Critics” rating was lower at 61%; Chicago Tribune reviewer Allison Benedikt calls Munich a “competent thriller”, but laments that as an “intellectual pursuit, it is little more than a pretty prism through which superficial Jewish guilt and generalized Palestinian nationalism” are made to “… look like the product of serious soul-searching.” Benedikt states that Spielberg’s treatment of the film’s “dense and complicated” subject matter can be summed up as “Palestinians want a homeland, Israelis have to protect theirs.” She rhetorically asks: “Do we need another handsome, well-assembled, entertaining movie to prove that we all bleed red?”[14]… Melman and other critics of the book and the film have said that the story’s premise—that Israeli agents had second thoughts about their work—is not supported by interviews or public statements.
Which brings us to the book Tony Kushner co-edited, Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. The American Library Association’s Booklist describes it:

For left-wing “or progressive” American Jews, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to present a wrenching predicament. Many are almost genetically sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, viewing Palestinians as oppressed, even colonized, victims. Yet their sustaining identity as Jews will not allow them to abandon Israel, or even Zionism, entirely. Kushner and Solomon have assembled a wide variety of journalists, scholars, and activists who consider the dilemmas and even suggest possible solutions. Some of these articles are thoughtful, provocative, and certainly worthy of further consideration. Some are filled with pointless guilt-mongering and lead nowhere. If there is a common theme here, it is that, given compassionate and reasonable Israeli policies, a comparable Palestinian response will be forthcoming.
One of the brave Trustees of CUNY raised the issue of Tony Kushner’s apologetics for those fighting against Israel and its existence. Enough others agreed and the honorary degree invitation was withdrawn.

CAMERA, as of 2006, summed up Tony Kushner’s “work” on Israel: “…he repeatedly blames Israel for supposed “ethnic cleansing” and “dispossession” of Palestinians, casting the alleged action of denying Palestinians a homeland as the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict….” There follows many quotations from Kushner, such as “I’ve never been a Zionist. I have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state. It would have been better if it never happened. —The New York Sun reporting Kushner comments made at a conference in NY(10/14/02)” Or, “Kushner sits on the Board of Advisors of the “Jewish Voice for Peace,” which advocates divestment and boycott campaigns against Israel. His name appears on JVP letterhead, including on a letter “salut[ing]” the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) for its move toward divesting from companies that do business with Israel.”
Today, Tony Kushner, as usual, defends himself as a Jew who just happens to disagree with Israel: “…he was “dismayed by the vicious attack and wholesale distortion of my beliefs.” Kushner adds, ““I’m sickened,” he added, “that this is happening in New York City. Shocked, really.” “

It is understandable that Tony Kushner is sickened that this is happening in New York City, where his ilk are accustomed to be honored and sheltered by its “progressives.” It is heartening that there are still standards maintained by some for granting honorary degrees. Honorary degrees should not be granted to protectors of anti-Western terrorists, protectors who hide behind a self-blinded dislike for most of the common values that constitutes the West and Israel. Although Heidegger defended himself by saying, after the war, he didn’t agree with all the Nazi programs, and Kushner defends himself by saying he doesn’t agree with all his allies in the “progressive” anti-Israel movement, the core of Heidigger’s philosophy – a precursor to much of today’s “progressive” thought – still holds: “the need to be responsible for one’s own existence.” Kushner is not near of the status of Heidigger, but he’s cut from the same cloth, and its holes should not be honored. Kushner is being held accountable. Honor and honorary degrees must mean something real.