A friend of mine in law school just alerted me to the delightful case of Brown v. Li, in which a student fought the powers that be at the University of California-Santa Barbara (unsuccessfully, I might add) to have the following “Disacknowledgements” page included in his otherwise acceptable MA thesis. I, personally, don’t see what the problem is:
Disacknowledgements
I would like to offer special Disacknowledgements to the following degenerates for being an ever-present hindrance during my graduate career…
To the Dean and staff of the Graduate Division,
You fascists are the largest argument against higher education there has ever been. Any claims you make as an ally and resource for students is an utter sham. All dealings with you have ended in sheer frustration. I’d rather take a hot stick in the eye then deal with your bureaucratic nonsense. An especial disacknowledgement to David Fishman whose officious, blind devotion to absurd rules provides
disservice to both education and the university.To the entire management of the Davidson Library,
Your strict adherence to self-serving draconian policy has made it a supreme displeasure to work in your vicinity. Incomprehensible fines, unwillingness to help and general poor attitude has made most
library visits an ogre. I trust your incompetence will preside over the continued decline in library quality.To Professor Fred Wudl (formerly of UCSB, tenured at UCLA),
For failing to realize that your professorship and tenure doesn’t give you the privilege of disrespectful and cruel treatment of your students and employees. Further, it has surprised me that your arrogance and proclivity at being an ass can affect even those isolated from your presence. It is my supreme pleasure to never have associations with you again.
To Former Governor Pete Wilson,
A supreme government jerk who has personally overseen the demise of the university. You policies have 1) raised tuition and fees fourfold since my first association with the university, 2) dismantled and traded some of the most competent senior faculty, and 3) generally hurt as many people as possible. For these, I wish you to never wield any governmental power again as you have surely proved your ineptitude.
To the UC Regents,
Whose continued suppression of graduate students, your most loyal employees, serves as a paragon of corrupt management. May your continually biased and corrupt practices be fraught with continued
controversies brought upon by the students who you offer a fatuous disservice.And
To Science,
For being a hollow specter of what you should be. Your vapid conceits have rendered those in your pursuit lifeless, unfeeling zombies. If I can forever escape you, the better I will be.
If you care, much more can be found here.
An und für sich 
This would be a great academic tradition if it caught on. I am actually surprised they even noticed this being inserted in the thesis.
That said, if I remember the details properly, I know someone whose dissertation committee would only pass the individual’s written thesis if the committee inserted a preface more or less saying that ‘this radical theologian is not really that important.’ Yet these people–big names in the field at a major theological faculty–approved the subject matter, etc. It’s almost as if they discovered the topic of the dissertation at the oral exam!!
I’m not sure I understand your story. Could you rephrase?
Adam–are you referring to my story?
Yes, he is.
OK. Sorry I am not more clear. What I’m saying is that I know someone who is a graduate of a major divinity school in the US, whose dissertation committee, when passing the person’s dissertation, offered one condition of the dissetrtaion’s passing grade. That is, the only way the dissertation would pass is if a disclaimer signed by members of the dissertation committee could be insterted into the body of the dissertation. The issue was that apparently members of the committee thought that the student’s preoccupation with a certain radical theologian was problematic, but they felt that the scholarly inquiry was legitimate.
It is almost as if (1) the members of the dissertation committee didn’t want their names associated with the radical theologian in question and (2) the members of the dissertation committee had no idea what the student was really working on until they came to the discussion of the dissertation oral exam.
Needless to say, I guess, but that’s a really bizarre situation all around. I guess it didn’t dawn on them that the disclaimer actually speaks worse about them than no disclaimer at all. I hope the student found a publisher somewhere, even if only with the Davies Group, and kept the disclaimer.
So this would kind of be like if someone did his dissertation on Carl Schmitt and the committee wanted to insert a disclaimer denouncing Nazism?
This is awesome :)
No, the person has never published the dissertation but has a successful career in higher ed administration and has a side business related to the field.
And I agree, I think it says much more about the individuals on the committee than the dissertation itself–which I have seen and used for my own dissertation research.