|
Patriotic
Correctness
and other attacks on Academic Freedom
A Report by John K. Wilson
The Patriot Act isn’t
just a theoretical danger to civil liberties. Just ask Muslim scholar
Tariq Ramadan, who was hired by Notre Dame University’s Joan
B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies to teach this
fall. But the US government revoked Ramadan’s work visa in
July (after approving it in May) before he could come to America.Section
411 of the Patriot Act allows the government to ban anyone who has
“used his position of prominence within any country to endorse
or espouse terrorist activity ... in a way that the Secretary of
State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce
or eliminate terrorist activities.” The government does not
offer an explanation for why Ramadan was banned from the country.Ramadan
wrote in the Chicago Tribune, “Anyone who has read any of
my 20 books, 700 articles or listened to any of my 170 audio-taped
lectures will discern a consistent message: The very moment Muslims
and their fellow citizens realize that being a Muslim and being
American or European are not mutually exclusive, they will enrich
their societies.”
The Network
for Education and Academic Rights issued an academic freedom alert
for the United States, the fifth time the US government has been
cited internationally for violating academic freedom since January
2002.A visa is not simply a license to enter the United States;
it is also a license to stay in the US. International scholars and
students in the US are all subject to having their visa revoked
at any time under this provision of the Patriot Act, without any
reason being given. And unlike some immigrants who can participate
in the underground economy and stay in the US after losing their
visa, it is impossible for a scholar targeted by the US government
to remain in this country and do academic work. While any violation
of academic freedom is a serious matter, the Ramadan case is the
only one that directly impacts thousands of scholars and students
at colleges across the country. The Ramadan case also reveals the
rising power of conservative advocacy groups within the Bush Administration,
which pushed for H.R. 3077 to establish an International Higher
Education Advisory Board with broad investigative powers “to
study, monitor, apprise, and evaluate” activities of area
studies centers. Part of the effort to ban Ramadan from the
country was led by Daniel Pipes, an influential conservative who
was appointed to the US Institute for Peace. Pipes runs www.campus-watch.org,
and he assisted some French pro-Israel groups in lobbying the Bush
Administration to exclude Ramadan after his visa was initially approved.
Pipes has repeatedly defended his website, which posted what it
called “dossiers” on professors of Middle East Studies
that it deemed too left-wing, on the grounds that he was simply
criticizing these faculty, not infringing on their academic freedom.
The Ramadan case shows that Pipes goes far beyond criticism to helping
to coordinate attacks on academic freedom. The danger is clear:
under the Patriot Act, criticism of Israel is being categorized
as support for terrorism, and serves as justification for revoking
a visa. Yusof Islam, better known as Cat Stevens, was secretly put
on a no-fly list and banned from the US, apparently because he donated
money to Muslim charities that the US government thinks may be linked
to terrorist organizations. The growing right-wing network of
classroom spies makes the Ramadan and Islam examples particularly
dangerous. Websites like noindoctrination.org and studentsforacademicfreedom.org
allow students to post anonymously attacks on their professors and
what they say in class, without any verification of the accuracy
of the comments. Martin Kramer, one of the critics of Middle
East Studies, has noted gleefully to Middle East scholars, “You
are being watched. Those obscure articles in campus newspapers are
now available on the Internet, and they will be harvested. Your
syllabi, which you’ve also posted, will be scrutinized. Your
websites will be visited late at night.” Foreigners at
American universities must now literally watch what they say and
write, for fear that it might lead to banishment.
Silencing
Dissent on Campus
One of the most alarming trends of the past year has been the firing
of faculty who criticize their institutions. Shared governance means
little without the right of faculty to speak openly and critically.Penn
State Altoona: tenured theater professor Nona Gerard was accused
of “grave misconduct” and dismissed for criticizing
colleagues and programs in her department. Academy of Art University:
creative writing instructor Jan Richman was fired after a student
wrote a story full of sex and violence, and was expelled. Cumberland
College: Robert Day, an assistant professor of social work, was
fired for creating a website, wecareforcumberland.com, which called
for financial and administrative reforms at the college. Shaw
University: a student was expelled from the dorms and a professor
fired for circulating a petition critical of the university president.
College of the Ozarks: Jon Davis, an assistant professor of biology,
was fired for revealing that an administrator had bought his doctorate
from a diploma mill. Benedict College: two professors were fired
for refusing to follow a school policy requiring 60% of the grades
for freshmen be based on effort. Benedict President David Swinton
accused the professors of “insubordination.”
University
of Southern Mississippi: two professors were summarily fired for
investigating alleged resume inflation by a top administrator. In
a settlement with the university, the professors are banned from
criticizing the administration.
The
Politics of Controversy on Campus
Bans on political
speakers or requirements for “balance” create a dangerous
atmosphere for academic freedom on campus. An effort to ban Michael
Moore from campus does not silence Moore; but it certainly intimidates
students and faculty who may want to express similar ideas and feel
that they have been prohibited from campus. Lacking Moore’s
outspokenness and celebrity status, these individuals are likely
to remain silent.Utah Valley State College: public outcry over a
planned Oct. 20, 2004 speech on campus by Michael Moore led President
William Sederburg (a former Republican state senator) to order student
leaders to find a conservative speaker to “balance”
Moore. California State University at San Marcos: the president
rescinded support for Moore’s speech, claiming that state
law compelled the university not to pay for a speaker with strong
political views. After protests, Moore’s speech was moved
to a larger arena off campus and privately financed. Yeshiva
University: The Israel Club dis-invited Israeli Defense Forces refusnik
Guy Grossman after the other speaker in a planned debate withdrew.
Reportedly, the group was “under pressure from those who feared
the consequences of giving an ‘open forum’ to a left-wing
speaker.”
Bucknell University:
general counsel Wayne Bromfield refused to allow Congressman Pat
Toomey to give an April 8, 2004 speech on campus about “civic
engagement” because of a policy banning political speakers.
Ralph Nader, however, was paid to give the University’s commencement
address because the event was scheduled before he announced plans
to run for president. Toomey instead spoke nearby off-campus.
Calvin College: a student who listed an interest in gay rights in
a Congressional internship application had his application sent
to Barney Frank’s office, but an adviser at the college told
the student not to do an internship in a “homosexual environment.”
When David Halpern, program supervisor at the Washington Center
for Internships and Academic Seminars, objected to reassigning the
student based on the adviser’s beliefs, Halpern was fired
the next day. Le Moyne College: in fall 2003 refused to allow
a speaker from Call to Action to talk on campus, claiming that a
full dialogue required an opposing speaker. University of California
at Berkeley: three students, Rachel Odes, Michael Smith and Snehal
Shingavi were found guilty of “disturbing the peace”
for a peaceful anti-war sit-in at Sproul Hall’s front lobby.
Although all criminal charges were dropped, the three students were
selected for punishment by the university, not allowed to offer
a defense for their actions, and convicted in absentia. Forsyth
Technical Community College: writing teacher Elizabeth Ito was fired
for spending 10 minutes in a class criticizing the war in Iraq in
Spring 2003, and refusing to promise never to mention the war in
class again. Drake University: A Nov. 15, 2003 Drake forum on
“Stop the Occupation! Bring the Iowa Guard Home!” sponsored
by the Drake chapter of the National Lawyers Guild included nonviolence
training for activists. The next day, 12 protesters were arrested
at an anti-war rally at Iowa National Guard headquarters in Johnston.
Because of this, Drake University was ordered in a Feb. 4 2004 subpoena
from an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force to give up “all documents
indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting,
and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that
actually attended the meeting” and any campus security records
“reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting,
including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting,
and any records of attendees of the meeting.” Drake University
was also ordered not to tell anyone about the subpoena. The subpoena
was eventually dropped. University of Texas at Austin: on Feb.
2, 2004, Army intelligence agents asked for information about people
who attended a law school conference on about Islamic law and sexism.
Army agents visited several campus offices seeking a list of those
who attended and a videotape. The Army admitted that the visit overstepped
its rules. “The special agents and their detachment commander
exceeded their authority by requesting information about individuals
who were not within the Army’s counterintelligence investigative
jurisdiction.”
|
|