Anything the Palestinian Chronicle is for, I'm against.

In my view, academic freedom demands that Israeli academics speak out loudly against their government's oppressive actions in Palestine.

Obviously they've embraced John R. Bradley's sophisticated view of freedom of expression and applied it to academic freedom, which suddenly makes demands on the content of my political views.

Nice try.

Good for the AAUP, though; if they keep this up, I might actually consider joining.

Once again, we find interesting gems in the way the PC (ha!) phrases things:

Since then, their powerful lobby has started a massive campaign of intimidation, with a barrage of abusive messages, emails, phone calls, threats, etc. (mostly from US & Israel).

Yes, the all-powerful "their" lobby. (They never actually say whose lobby, so you reach your own conclusions.) With its campaign of intimidation by means of "abusive messages and threats." Shameful. What are they going to do next -- fire this woman? Oh wait...

The media have mostly taken the dubious high ground of "academic freedom" or down right misrepresenting the case.

Emphasis mine. What else can one say? This "academic freedom" thing -- what bullshit!

We think alike Daniel; you made the exact point I thought of when I first saw that statement. It has been the main "rebel without a cause" theory, that if you have freedom, you must be cynical of the authority that gave it to you.

M. Upton - "that if you have freedom, you must be cynical of the authority that gave it to you."

The liberal raison d'etre. FEH.

How predictable! Fucking assholes. Do they actually understand anything, ever?

Can you imagine if a couple of Palestinian academics were fired for being Palestinians? Kofi Annan would condemn it in the strongest possible terms...and everyone would be jumping to point out how terrible the Israelis are.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Two considerations on this issue:

1.- Why not write a letter of protest to Baker and all her friends at UMIST to let them know how much we like her compassionate views on the conflict and the right of individuals to basic liberties. Okay, she's into the inter-cultural business, but I don't think she's able to grasp the true meaning of these two words. She was born in Egypt, you know. Just like that thug by the name of Yes-sir Arafat.

2.- What better way to do it than using the addresses provided by the Palestine Chronicle, forwarding a copy to the news publication as instructed. But NOT SPEARATELY, so the staff at UMIST may know who is promoting this campaign of 'support'. Something like "I would like to express my most cordial acknowledgements to the distinguished people at the Palestine Chronicle for striving to denounce Mrs. Baker's bigotry that prompted the dismissal of her two Israeli colleagues". Well, you sure can figure out something better.

palestinianfreedom@hotmail.com

Please sign this petition. We need Alan Keyes more than ever.

[Link: www.joe4rep.com...]

Moan! Somebody buy her a dildo quick.

To me, the saddest thing about the odious Bakers is their complete cluelessness. They have no concept that they are in the wrong here, they cannot conceive that their despicable actions are rightly bringing opprobium onto their heads. Whatever happens to them, they will have no idea that their actions have consequences.

It's as if the Nazis really sincerely believed that they were attacked by Poland, or the Soviets that the Finns deliberately provoked them, or the Italians that the Ethiopeans were asking for it.

Well, whether he believed it or not, I.F.Stone convinced a few people that the US and South Korea started the Korean War. There are still Americans who believe that their nation somehow maneuvered the Japanese into crossing the Pacific to attack Pearl Harbor. And what the heck, apparently some people think McDonald's puts some addictive additive in Big Macs. Self delusion is more comfortable than the truth sometimes. If you're a post modernist, self delusion may be all you have to believe in.

Anyone, Bakers NEW mail-address?!!

I think we should refer to her as Ma Baker. Reminds everyone of her gangster-like behavior.

1. I am absolutely opposed to boycotts of academics, even if in cases where I might support an economic boycott.

2. Zulubaby is a little behind the times. The University of South Florida did fire a Palestinian professor for being Palestinian. The US government investigated him as a possible terrorist (he has relatives who are strongly suspected of terrorism) and didn't bring charges. You can click here for the AAUP and here at FIRE, a libertarian group usually supporting conservative students and faculty. (FIRE has dropped its main article on Al-Arian from its web site, as best as I could search; I wonder if they have changed their minds.)

If Zulubaby's love of academic freedom extends only to Israelis and their supporters, he can comfort himself here with the Washington Times' defense of the University, based mostly on the theory that where there's smoke you can fire. (Pun deliberate...)

Anyone, Bakers NEW mail-address?!!

The last time I got an email from Mona Baker forwarded to my in-box, the address read as usual: mona.baker@umist.ac.uk. By the way, a very disturbing letter of support by a colleague of hers working, guess where? That's it. Israel. Talking about how stupid humans can be...

The University of South Florida did fire a Palestinian professor for being Palestinian.

Andrew, the articles you cite don't say that. They don't say that the man has been fired; they indicate he was suspended. And it wasn't for simply "being Palestinian", but for making extreme statements and for suspicion of having raised funds for terrorist groups.

Now, you might say academic freedom requires he be able to do the first without professional consequences, and that the second hasn't been proven, and therefore he should not have been suspended. And based on my slight knowledge of the case, if you said that, I'd agree with you. The action of the USF trustees against al-Arian was wrong and should be reversed pronto.

However, the facts of the case appear to be far enough from "fired for being a Palestinian" that I have to question your good faith in claiming a parallel.

Jeanne, you beat me to it.

Andrew:

"If Zulubaby's love of academic freedom extends only to Israelis and their supporters, he can comfort himself here with the Washington Times' defense of the University, based mostly on the theory that where there's smoke you can fire. (Pun deliberate...)"

I don't see how the links you provide are supposed to "comfort" me, nor do I see that he was fired.

What Mona Baker did by firing those professors was anti-Semitic. That's what I have an issue with. She didn't fire those professors for terrorist activities or for any other reason than they are Israelis.

And I'm a girl, so you can change the he to she.

Bossman,

Just curious, who are you referring to in #9?

Here's more information about Sami Al-Arian, the professor who Andrew says was "fired for being Palestinian."

[Link: www.danielpipes.org...]

1. Professor Al-Arian has been suspended with the intention to dismiss him. That's fired.

2. It's certainly true that the reprehensible boycott of Israelis is aimed at all Israelis of all political persuasions, and is not strictly comparable to firing Al-Arian for his political beliefs, not his ethnicity. I must say, however, that the chorus calling for his dismissal for reasons that have nothing to do with his job show remarkably little understanding of how inappropriate both of these cases are. (Northwestern never dismissed Holocaust-denier Arthur Butz, he was just told to keep his vile opinions out of his engineering classes. AFAIK, David Pipes never went after the career of the author of "The Turner Diaries", who was a physics professor, either.)

3. The article that Charles cites admits that USF didn't even know why it was firing Al-Arian: first because he gave an interview (that's laughable), and second because alumni didn't like what he said (that's not grounds for revocation of tenure anywhere, and moreover illegal at a public university). Thank Goodness, eventually "expert" Steven Emerson stepped in to give them some reasons. Doubtless you remember Emerson as the fool who blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Muslims, except it turned out to be our homegrown demon, Timothy McVeigh.

4. If Emerson really thinks that Al-Arian is a terrorist, he should give his information to the government. Oh, wait! The government already had the evidence. They investigated Al-Arian thoroughly. They didn't charge him. If Al-Arian is arrested, tried and convicted in court on terrorism charges, then YES OF COURSE HE SHOULD BE FIRED. But Steven Emerson is a so-called terrorism expert (dubious), not a judge. He doesn't conduct a trial where the accused can put on a defense. He has should have no authority to create academic blacklists. Hey, let's stick with Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

5. The web page on Al-Arian from the libertarian organization FIRE [that I could not find before] appears here and I thank lurker XXX for finding the link.

Lazarus:

Steven Emerson stepped in to give them some reasons. Doubtless you remember Emerson as the fool who blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Muslims, except it turned out to be our homegrown demon, Timothy McVeigh.

What a distortion. Emerson intitally said that it looked like the work of Muslim terrorists. Emerson has been nothing but contrite about his conclusion and did not jump the gun during the 9/11 attacks for that very reason, and has paid dearly for that brief hiccup.

A quick judgment as a horrific event is unfolding or quickly in the aftermath does not impugn the real investigative work he has done. I am sure that you have jumped to conclusions about things only later to find out you were wrong. That doesn't mean you are always wrong or even occasionally wrong, especially after you have fully investigated something. One error does not a raving fool make. (Further, before you take your conviction that Emerson was wrong about Oklahoma City and place it your vault, there are currently investigations which at this early stage show that there may have been a connection between McVeigh and Islamic terrorists. Although there is not conclusive evidence we will have to wait and see how it plays out before you write Emerson off.).

Do you deny that there are Islamic extremist groups working on American soil? Do you dispute the facts in Emerson's book?

If Emerson really thinks that Al-Arian is a terrorist, he should give his information to the government. Oh, wait! The government already had the evidence.

Ah, the government. the same government that had Moussoui in custody during 9/11, the same goverment that ignored Coleen Rowley's memo regarding middle eastern men taking flying lessons, the same goverment that is baffled by the LAX terror attack. You win on that one A.L.

I get the sense from your posts that you do not agree with anything Charles posts on this site. Is that true? Do you believe that Islam as it is being practiced is a religion of Peace? Do you think that extremeist Islam is dangerous?

Let me cover Al-Arian first.

Yeah, the government hasn't distinguished itself, but vigilanteism isn't the answer. I don't want the University of South Florida deciding that someone called a terrorist in Steven Emerson's book should be fired, but someone called a terrorist in Noam Chomsky's book should be promoted. That isn't their competence. That's why we have courts, with rules of evidence, cross-examination, the right to put on a defense. If the reinvigorated anti-terrorism investigations charge Al-Arian, and he is convicted of course he should be fired. He should not lose his job on the say-so of Steven Emerson whatever his merits as an "expert." We went through this in the 1950s with Communism, and we got it mostly wrong and ruined many totally innocent persons' careers.

On Islam, maybe we need a separate thread. I certainly don't think Islam is a religion of peace. I don't think that of Christianity or for that matter Judaism, either. But I don't think there's something intrinsic in Islam as a religion that makes it more antithetical to secular values or peaceful coexistence. I don't think we're at war with all Muslims, in the US and elsewhere.

What I agree with on LGF, I'm less likely to comment on. I wouldn't have said anything in this thread (I think the boycott of Israeli academics is pathetic) until I read zulubaby's comment.

Andrew,

I understand the point you're trying to make, but Professor Al-Arian was not suspended (or fired) because he's Palestinian.

Mona Baker fired the two professors because they're Israelis.

There is a difference.

Zulubaby, both are serious violations of academic freedom. As a philosophical matter of academic freedom, Baker's is worse. It's true, the Israelis were fired not for their ideas (after all, they're closer to Al-Arian's beliefs than to yours). I just wish that sometimes you-all would think about the other side?!?! In terms other than "transfer".

Andrew, I'm not sure what you mean by, "In terms other than 'transfer'".

And as I said, I understand the point you're trying to make. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I hear what you're saying.

suspended with the intention to dismiss him. That's fired.

No, it isn't. He's still being paid; he's still listed as an employee of the university. This is not to say being suspended from one's job is a walk in the park, but it is not the same as being fired.

I must say, however, that the chorus calling for his dismissal for reasons that have nothing to do with his job

Are you undergoing delusions? What chorus? The only people here who have expressed an opinion on the propriety of any action to fire him - namely you and me - have both said we oppose it.

zulubaby triggered your post by saying:
Can you imagine if a couple of Palestinian academics were fired for being Palestinians?
We haven't yet seen an example of that happening.

Excuse me, Andrew. You say:

It's true, the Israelis were fired not for their ideas (after all, they're closer to Al-Arian's beliefs than to yours).

I'm a newcomer to this forum (not a native speaker, so sorry for that to all those who may read my postings), but still I cannot figure out how the points of view of Shlesinger and Toury could be sympathetic to the ideas expressed by Al-Arian. Take Miriam Shlesinger, for example. I mean, her son-in-law was killed by a HAMAS gunman who shot him in the face. Do you think she can somehow condone the violence that is going on, let alone the pain inflicted on civilians in the name of jihad? Would you call her beliefs similar to those of Sami Al-Arian who apparently yearns for demise of Israel? Even if we are talking about a cultural gap here, I cannot see your point.