Campus Report: AAUP leader cites threats to academic freedom

Roger W. Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), referred to the Solomon Amendment as “extortion” at a faculty forum Wednesday.
Bowen said the federal law, which allows the secretary of defense to deny grants to universities barring military recruitment, could jeopardize $35 billion in funding to academic institutions. “This is a real threat. It is intentionally punitive. It is obviously undemocratic,” he said.
A Japan scholar and former president of the State University of New York at New Paltz, Bowen rallied faculty against those whom he said oppose current academic freedoms.
Bowen said the Solomon Amendment compromises institutional autonomy and academic freedom. AAUP has filed an amicus brief supporting the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case centering on the Solomon Amendment.
Bowen also criticized David Horowitz, a Marxist-turned-neoconservative affiliated with Campus Watch, Students for Academic Freedom and FrontPageMag.com. “Horowitz sees the solution to ideological imbalance as [limiting] academic freedom,” Bowen said.
He said Horowitz invokes alleged ideological imbalance in college classrooms as an excuse for him to decide “who may teach, what they may teach and how it may be taught.”
Bowen also flayed the practice of appointing nonacademics with political ties to academic administrations. “It's not what you know, it's who you know that figures into these appointments,'' Bowen said.


Bowen said academic freedom and institutional autonomy could be vulnerable on several fronts--federal oversight over accreditation; resolutions centering on ideological balance on campuses; corporate sponsorship of research; government oversight of academic departments, including Middle Eastern studies; lack of protection for university employees in the health care system; the percentage of campus budgets spent on athletics; and the view of college campuses as another part of the economy.
Bowen told UD faculty that when universities are run as parts of the corporate world faculty members sometimes will be considered “whiners,” students will be considered “consumers” and staff may be considered expendable.
“The barbarians are inside the gates, and, in many cases, they are issuing the orders,” he said.
He recommended faculty write letters to newspapers centering on academic freedom and autonomy, submit op-ed pieces to newspapers and spend five to15 minutes at the beginning of each semester explaining AAUP philosophy on academic freedom and institutional autonomy to students in their classes. “That is something we are empowered to do, we have the ability to do, and we ought to be doing,” Bowen said.
The UD chapter of the AAUP and the Office of the Provost sponsored the forum.

Article: Ball State professor on "most dangerous" list

By: Hilary Brown

MUNCIE, Ind. (NLI) - Ball State University professor George Wolfe is a saxophonist and a peace advocate, but his somehow controversial beliefs have branded him as "dangerous" in a new book.

Wolfe gives students terrorist friendly and anti-American ideas, according to the book "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America," by David Horowitz. But terrorism does not fit into a class that focuses on peaceful conflict resolution, Wolfe said.

"I always try to point out that there are no non-violent terrorists. And what we teach in peace studies is really the antithesis of terrorism," Wolfe said.

The student Web site BSYou.net has complained about Wolfe before.

Ball State student Kyle Ellis is the editor of the site, and although he has not taken a class with Wolfe, he has attended one of Wolfe's lectures.

"I think it's alarming he won't accept any alternative other than a peaceful resolution to any conflict. Obviously peace would be the preferred method," Ellis said. "(But) that's not realistic, but he doesn't seem to realize that."

The site also featured the complaints from Ellis's friend and student Brent Mock about Wolfe's grading bias. Horowitz contacted the site about some of these comments and has previously published one of Ellis' pieces.

"I don't necessarily agree with all of (Horowitz's) methods, but I think he has the right idea," Ellis said.

Horowitz bases some of his opinions on Mock's complaints, but does not include both sides of the story Wolfe said.

"He doesn't tell the whole story I'm afraid, when you know the whole story you realize that I've been very fair as a teacher," Wolfe said.

And Lauren McNichols, a current student of Wolfe, said she agrees.

"He's very good about not actually taking a side, but explaining, well, Why do these different issues exist?'" McNichols said.

Wolfe named several administrators who have supported him in the past.

"I think the administration has really set an example for what other schools should be doing to support the faculty," Wolfe said.

Horowitz alleged in his book that Wolfe does not have sufficient background in the subject to teach peace and conflict studies, according to a book review.

"He is a saxophonist. He has his degree in music. But he teaches peace and conflict studies and has no qualification for that," Ellis said.

But the director for the Center of Peace and Conflict Studies is an administrative position. Wolfe said he received his doctorate in higher education administration. He also studied Ghandi for 15 years, visits India and is often asked to speak.

"I received my degree for music performance in 1972, and sometimes what people fail to realize once you get into the academic world you grow and continue grow," Wolfe said.

Wolfe is expected to return to teaching in the music department full-time, according to an e-mail issued by Ball State University. He was only teaching the introductory peace and conflict studies course, according to the Ball State Web site. The change in teaching subjects is not related to the book, according to department officials affiliated with the peace and conflict classes.

Wolfe's commitment to the non-violent philosophy is part of what makes him a better teacher, McNichols said.

"He's really passionate. He completely lives and believes what he studies," McNichols said.

Wolfe said he is taking everything in stride.

"If you look at the record in the past four years and with the current administration I think we need another saxophonist in the White House and if he keeps giving me this wonderful publicity I might just be able to run in 2008," Wolfe joked.

Article: Purdue professor poses no danger

Purdue professor Harry Targ, dangerous?
Targ, a frequent contributor to this page, has made David Horowitz's The ProFessors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.
Targ comes from the far left, but how can someone be dangerous just for his ideas?
A common fear is that colleges are indoctrinating students with their liberal ideas, and it is a good topic of discussion.
But Targ is not asking his students to follow him mindlessly. He is doing what a professor should do: Foster debate about issues.
You have to hand it to Horowitz. Labeling a professor as "dangerous" is an interesting way to sell books.
This label might be good for Targ as well. It might increase attendance at his classes from students curious to see what the fuss is about.

Article: Local newspapers defend academic frauds

What I find most interesting about articles such as the one in the Seattle Times is how their reporters leap to defend academic frauds like David Barash. Here is a man who is a trained biologist with no academic credentials to teach "Peace Studies" let alone to write a text book about Peace Studies. In the introduction to the book he and his co-author concede that they are lifelong ideologues (anti-American, pro-Communist and now sympathetic to Islamo-terrorists) and that their book is a propaganda tract. Yet this is offered in courses at otherwise respectable universities which are funded by taxpayers and students who are told that they are getting expert knowledge for their money. Professors like Barash make $100-$150,000 a year for 9 hours a week in the classroom; they get four months paid vacation and a lifetime job in the process -- all on the presumption that they are experts in a field of knowledge teaching their expertise. This is a corruption scandal bigger than Enron, But of course, the leftwing press can't be expected to care.

--David Horowitz

Article: Peace class lands UW prof on list of "most dangerous"

By Nick PerrySeattle Times staff reporter

Who would have thought someone teaching peace studies could make anyone's "most dangerous" list?
Such is the fate of University of Washington psychology professor David Barash, who's profiled in a new book called "The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America" by conservative commentator David Horowitz.
The book's jacket warns: "We all know that left-wing radicals from the 1960s have hung around academia and hired people like themselves. But if you thought they were all harmless, antiquated hippies, you'd be wrong."
In an interview, Horowitz said some professors are introducing political opinion into what should be a disinterested pursuit of knowledge, endangering the entire academic enterprise. Some professors even endanger the safety of Americans by claiming that terrorists are freedom fighters, he added.
Barash is taking the listing in good humor:
"I was too young and inconsequential to make it to Nixon's enemy list 30 years ago, so I feel like I've arrived," he said.
Barash, a biologist by training, has taught at the UW for 33 years. As well as peace studies, he teaches animal behavior and evolutionary psychology. He said he felt honored to be mentioned alongside notable academics like Noam Chomsky, Paul Ehrlich, Michael Eric Dyson and Howard Zinn.
He says he's taken to signing his e-mails "Dangerous David." His family's calling him "Dangerous Dude" or just plain "Dangerous," and students think it's a hoot.
Horowitz said he included Barash because of a book Barash co-wrote called "Peace and Conflict Studies." Horowitz said the book defends violent revolution and incorrectly points to Cuba as a place where people's lives have been improved through such violence.
Barash said his profile in the book is full of misrepresentations and inaccuracies. For instance, it claims he blames the Cuban missile crisis on the psychology of President Kennedy — when in fact his book mentions many factors, including the Soviet Union's missile buildup.
"It's just a lie. He either didn't read the book or look it up," Barash said. "The whole thing is just a cartoon."
Horowitz said the immediate impetus for the book was the controversial comments made by University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill last year.
In an essay, Churchill argued that some of those who died in the World Trade Center attacks weren't innocent victims because of their role in furthering American interests. Churchill went so far as to compare victims to a prominent Nazi.
One other academic from this state makes the list: associate professor Larry J. Estrada, director of American Cultural Studies at Western Washington University. Horowitz describes Estrada, who has written about U.S.-Mexican relations and border issues, as a "radical ethnic separatist."
Estrada said he thinks it's because he defended Churchill's right to free speech. Estrada described Horowitz as a "polemicist and pamphleteer" and not a serious scholar.
Barash said the book implies that academics like himself should be muzzled and exerts a subtle pressure on colleagues, donors and administrators to rein in faculty. He adds that he feels safe enough to say what he wants but wonders whether junior colleagues without tenure would feel the same.
"It should have a chilling effect," responds Horowitz. "They should behave as professionals."
The university with the most professors on the list, nine in all, is Horowitz's alma mater, Columbia University. When Horowitz was a student there he considered himself a Marxist. He said he lost confidence in liberal politics after a colleague was mysteriously killed — he suspects by the Black Panther organization.
Horowitz has more recently written several books and launched FrontPageMag.com, a conservative online magazine. This month the Fox News show "Hannity & Colmes" featured different professor profiles from his book every day for a week. None of the professors appeared on the show.
Horowitz said it's not the professors' political leanings that land them on the list, but the fact that they bring politics into the discussion at all. Asked why no conservatives made the list, Horowitz said most have been run out from liberal-leaning academia or are forced to lie low.
"I don't know of any conservatives who use the classroom for political agendas," he said. "The obvious reason is because they are too scared."
Nick Perry: 206-515-5639 or nperry@seattletimes.com

Editor,

The principal point I made in my comments to your reporter was that Professor David Barash has no academic credential to teach about the issue of war and peace. His expertise is biology not political science. The fact that he is writing textbooks on "Peace Studies" and teaching classes in a subject for which he is not qualified is a form of consumer fraud and reflects a widespread intellectual corruption in the university.

David Horowitz

Campus Report: Horowitz names 101 ‘dangerous academics’

by Benjamin Jones
Tuesday, February 28, 2006

David Horowitz, a notable conservative author and political commentator, recently published a book profiling what he believes to be the most dangerous academic professionals in America.Although Horowitz has been critical of the UW System in the past, appearing at UW-Stevens Point in 2004 to talk about the leftist teachings of professors there, he did not list a single UW System professor among the 101 most dangerous professionals.Horowitz’s book, released Feb. 13, is titled “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America” and includes profiles of 101 academic professionals from universities across the country. Additionally, Horowitz makes a number of accusations against these people, who he believes are teaching biased, “leftist” material.“When viewed as a whole, the hundred or more portraits in this volume reveal several disturbing patterns of university life,” Horowitz said in his book. “[These professors] appear to believe that an institution of higher learning is an extension of the political arena, and that scholarly standards can be sacrificed for political ends.”Horowitz said “disturbing patterns” include teaching subjects outside of one’s expertise, making racially and ethnically disparaging remarks, and introducing personal political agendas into the classroom.Graham Wilson, UW-Madison political science department chair, said his department is careful to avoid having personal opinions make their way into academic teachings.“In [the political science] department, we are acutely conscious, because of the nature of what we teach about, of the need to keep personal political opinions separate from what we know academically,” Wilson said.Wilson went on to say that the political science department at UW-Madison has a number of policies in place to preserve the distinction between private political views and academic material. These include not allowing graduate students to use their UW e-mail addresses for political recruiting, and sponsoring lecture committees rather than individual politicians to speak on campus.Wilson also said that when evaluating assistant professors, a major “red flag” in the process is if they talk about incorporating their own political policies into their curriculum.Among the 101 academic professionals included in Horowitz’ book is Eric Foner, a professor at Columbia University who Horowitz accuses of teaching against the Iraq invasion in 2003, among other biased practices.“The book and the charges in it are not to be taken seriously,” Foner said in an e-mail. “Life is too short to get into a discussion about Horowitz, who hardly merits the attention of any serious person.”Foner added that he has received a number of prizes for his work, including the Owsley Prize from the Southern History Association, which he says is “not normally considered a hotbed of anti-American radicalism.”Wilson said he believes the job of academic professionals is not to preach personal points of view, but to share their academic knowledge with students.“At the end of the day, topics we regard as important to write and teach about may, to some degree, deep down, reflect our values,” Wilson said. “But we really try to keep our personal politics in check.”

Camps Report: Horowitz claims 2 teachers are unfit

Penn State professors Michael Berubé and Sam Richards are named in David Horowitz's book.

By Catherine Battle

Two Penn State professors made the list of the nation's most dangerous academics of higher education, according to conservative author David Horowitz in his book, The Professors: 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

The book hit shelves on Feb. 13 and includes sections devoted to revealing the dangers of senior lecturer in sociology Sam Richards and professor of English Michael Berubé.

Horowitz said when he was in school, his professors never singled him out for his beliefs and he never heard them express their political views. He said this book is part of his fight to restore that respect.

"I have no problem with professors being left-wing. The problem is if they bring political agendas to the classroom," Horowitz said. "Advocacy is a form of preaching -- not teaching."

Among other things in the book, Horowitz accused Richards of teaching courses "in such fashionably Marxist-cum-post-modernist programs as 'cultural studies,' " and quoted him as saying that he is open about bringing his own ideology to the classroom.

He criticized him for giving his students credit to attend liberal events and said he has never been trained in the field he teaches.

"Sam Richards is an amateur academic ... you might as well go to the guy on the street and say, 'Hey, what

do you think about race relations?' " Horowitz said. "If Penn State were renamed the University of Marxism, I'd say no problem."

Richards said Horowitz attained content from his Web site and not class lectures.

"Horowitz has absolutely no idea what I do in my classroom," he said. "I haven't invoked the name Marx in a classroom in probably 12 years."

Richards said that while he agrees there may be a liberal bias in higher education, he feels that young people in general tend to be more liberal.

"I think this conversation we're having about liberal bias in the universities is an important conversation that we should have. It's just unfortunate for the conservatives that Horowitz is the one waving the flag for their cause because he's such a knucklehead," he said.

Richards said he gives students credit for attending both liberal and conservative events, including seeing Horowitz speak, and urges them to attend events that showcase views opposing their own to challenge individual beliefs.

Anterria Walker, who is one of Richards' teaching assistants for Sociology 119 (Race and Ethnic Relations), said Richards presents different sides of controversial issues.

"It's apparent what his opinion is, but he allows everybody to express their opinions, too," she said.

Berubé's teaching methods were also questioned in the book, which states, "The idea that a university might be an institution dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge rather than the imposition of left-wing fashions would seem to professors like Michael Berubé an idea from a galaxy far away."

Berubé disagreed.

"I feel I got in [the book] on a technicality because I've been mocking [Horowitz] mercilessly over the last year," Berubé said, referring to the numerous debates he has had with Horowitz and his magazine, FrontPage. "I'm in the least important category -- people who bother him to no end."

Berubé said the book has more to do with politics than education.

"It's a political campaign against liberals in academia," he said, calling Horowitz's claims "one string of nonsense after another" and "layers and layers of lunacy."

Berubé also said that much of the book attributes essays or quotations incorrectly.

Horowitz said his process for fact checking involves researching the topic, publishing it and then printing corrections if errors are pointed out. He added that no errors have been pointed out in the book.

Horowitz's publicist, Patricia Jackson, said Regnery Publishing, Inc. makes sure "the source was cited correctly and accurately tagged to where it appears in the books," but could not comment on claims like Berubé's.

"We don't normally specifically fact check," she said.

Campus Report: Conservative Horowitz to Visit Duke

BY PAUL BONNER, The Herald-SunFebruary 27, 2006 10:35 pm

DURHAM -- Conservative writer and speaker David Horowitz, whose 2001 advertisement in the Duke Chronicle student newspaper against reparations for slavery sparked campus demonstrations, will speak on Duke's campus next week.
Horowitz's appearance at 8 p.m. March 7 in Page Auditorium will be sponsored by the Duke chapter of Students for Academic Freedom, whose national organization Horowitz founded. Through the organization, Horowitz seeks to address what he says is pervasive leftist indoctrination in academia. He urges universities to adopt an "Academic Bill of Rights" and for states to enact legislation governing public colleges and universities.
Two Duke professors are, in Horowitz' opinion, among the "The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America," according to his new book by that title. They are miriam cooke, a professor in the Department of Asian and African Languages and Literature, and Fredric Jameson, a professor of comparative literature and Romance studies.
cooke, who does not capitalize her name, specializes in Arabic, and her research interests include Middle Eastern literature and feminist theory, according to a faculty Web page.
Jameson's research interests include 19th and 20th century French literature and Marxist literary theory, according to a faculty Web page at Duke.
Neither professor could be reached for comment Monday.
The president of the Duke chapter of Students for Academic Freedom, Stephen Miller, said Horowitz's speech will provide an antidote to a leftward tilt at Duke that disregards "hundreds of people who want to see a change," toward a more balanced political atmosphere. They include about 300 members each in the Duke Conservative Union and Duke College Republicans, he said.
The fact that the United States is having a conversation about intellectual diversity on campuses is because of a reform movement led by Horowitz, said Miller, who is a junior.
"It's electrifying," he said of Horowitz's speeches. "He has a vast knowledge of all things political."
Nearly five years ago, three days of campus demonstrations followed Horowitz's anti-reparations ad in the Chronicle, for which Miller writes a column. The paid ad, titled "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea -- and Racist Too," said American blacks are better off than Africans and objected that qualification for reparations would be based on skin color.
Miller said he doesn't expect campus demonstrations against Horowitz, although he wouldn't be surprised if the author faces some challenging questions.
Although Duke administrators have distanced themselves from Horowitz's ideas, they supported the Chronicle's decision to print the ad and have underwritten the cost of his planned speech.
About $500 came from the office of public affairs at Duke, university spokesman John Burness said. Other funding was chipped in by the university offices of the provost and student affairs, he said. Such support for speakers invited by student groups is common at Duke, he said.
What isn't common -- or likely at Duke -- would be for the university to subscribe to Horowitz's Bill of Rights, Burness said.
"We don't think we have a problem at Duke," Burness said the university has told Horowitz.
The university can address issues of intellectual diversity on its own, he said. University President Richard Brodhead and previous President Nan Keohane both addressed the issue in statements to faculty, Burness said.
Giving Horowitz a soapbox doesn't amount to endorsing his message, he said.
"We say all the time that when people come to Duke, it doesn't mean the university is sponsoring what he has to say," he said.
Nor can faculty members' beliefs necessarily be classified simply as either liberal or conservative, he said.
"We have between 1,600 and 1,700 faculty, and I would say that represents at least 2,000 opinions," he said.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-706846.html

Article: Ridiculous Left-Wing Reviews

by Christopher Flickinger Posted Feb 27, 2006

In an attempt to degrade and discredit David Horowitz's new book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, left-wingers (academics, most likely) have made Amazon.com their homepage where they continue to post scathing reviews of the book.The Professors currently holds a three star rating out of five possible stars at Amazon.com. But, liberals hope their persistent negative comments will lower that score and discourage others from buying and reading the book.Here are some of the comments posted by left-wingers at Amazon.com: Note: it's doubtful any of these comments came from an English Professor.
"This book is a steaming collection of unmitigated BS, lies, and more BS.,"
"After reading I found more:
- lying about liberal america - racist themes - lumping of people into convenient groups for Mr. Horowitz to bash - more hate - more vitiol
Save your money, buy something worthwhile"
"Horowitz, nothing to see here. A brief read standing in the stacks was all that was required for me to wish I could get back the 30 minutes I lost standing there reading."
"Buy it, then burn it. Horowitz has been confused for so long that he can't remember when he began hating America."
"Just another bitter and miserable offering from Horowitz. More tedious claptrap from a miserable man with an axe to grind. These people aren't going to stop until we put jesus and a fetus on the one dollar bill. Don't buy this book, unless you know one professor in question, if so. Have them sing it for you. Have a laugh at the expense of bitter ole horowitz."
Actually, Horowitz couldn’t be happier. "The more they rant, the more people will hear about the book and buy it. Right now it's in the top 100 books on Amazon (out of 3-4 million) in sales. Thank you comrades," he recently wrote on his website. Now, those who enjoyed the book are battling back with their own book reviews at Amazon.com:
"This is a book every American parent of college-age children should read before spending $150,000 to indoctrinate the next generation in the increasingly puerile postmodern degeneracy posing as pedagogy."
"As a teacher myself, I read through this book with great curiosity. I am just a high-school teacher, and not a mighty professor, but when I put this book down, I felt I could live my day. Who would want to be a "colleague" of the professors described in this book?"
"As a student who went to a school with two of the 101, I have to say that (contrary to some of the reviews) neither professor would be at all repentant about their points of view."
"Horowitz hangs the professors with their own words"
Left-wingers will continue to criticize The Professors -- you can count on it. But, you can also count on Horowitz, Human Events U and the Network of College Conservatives to expose and report on the professors who preach their liberal agendas to our nation’s youth.

Attack: By Way of Al-Jazeerah

A Caricature of Free Speech The reality of freedom of expression in Europe
By Richard Seymour
Al-Jazeerah, February 27, 2006

This article concerns academic freedom and free speech for Muslims in the West, and Islamophobia by looking at one case in Britain, of Nasser Amin, a 23 year old postgrad, who had written an article in the student journal of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London University
Axiomatically, leading academic institutions involve intense and varied debate over a variety of topics, and some of that debate ranges over territory that mainstream conversation often misses. The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a prestigious higher learning institution in the centre of London, would appear to have a defender of free and open discussion in head Colin Bundy. In the last month, the Director & Principal has openly defended the right of an apologist for the Uzbekistan regime, Shirin Akiner, to speak at SOAS, rejecting calls for reconsideration by former British ambassador the dictatorship, Craig Murray.
He previously overturned a ban imposed by the Student Union on the attendance of Israeli embassy counsellor Roey Gilad: the students have an anti-racist policy, and consider Zionism to be in practise a form of racism. Bundy has expounded an heroic Voltairean dedication to free speech in defence of these actions. Yet, one glaring exception renders the rule absurd: the treatment of a student named Nasser Amin. Amin had written an article for a student magazine arguing that Palestinians had the right to use force against Israel's occupation. Instantly, this issue was used alongside a clutch of others by some right-wingers and pro-Zionist students who insisted that SOAS was guilty of anti-Semitism. The broadsheets in the UK were joined in coverage of this claim by American far right website FrontPage magazine and Campus Watch, the former run by David Horowitz and the latter by Daniel Pipes, an anti-Muslim bigot. Gavin Gross, the SOAS student who had been most involved in pressing these claims, was given a glowing interview by FrontPage in which he dragged Amin's name through the mud. David Winnick MP raised the possibility in parliament that Amin should be charged with incitement to racial hatred. Finally, Bundy succumbed to the pressure and issued Amin with a formal reprimand, without even informing him of it or why he was being reprimanded.
Professors Richard Falk and Ted Honderich have referred in the past to a right to violence – Honderich has gone further, suggesting that on the basis of present realities, the Palestinians are entitled to their terror. Professor Michael Neumann uses similar arguments to Amin. These are public intellectuals, and so are in some position to defend themselves. Amin, by contrast, is a student. He is almost entirely defenceless. As a Muslim, he belongs to a community that is subject to calumny and extraordinary scrutiny of its every word and gesture. His academic freedom was sacrificed to the exigencies of an urgent political struggle by defenders of Israel to curtail the scope of anti-Zionism on campus. Some staff at SOAS spoke out on Amin's behalf, including his tutor Dr Mark Laffey, who said "It is part of the job description of an academic institution that you are willing to give offence. Our job is to seek out the truth, no matter how uncomfortable or unpleasant for various groups or interests." Another member of staff, John Game, circulated an open letter condemning Bundy for giving in to such pressure. The Islamic Human Rights Commission said a word or two on Amin's behalf, demanding that Bundy explain why the reprimand was issued without Amin being given the chance to defend himself, and also demanding that the reprimand be retracted.
Yet, Bundy's impressive dedication to free expression continues to elude him on this issue. Answer came there none, and Amin still has an official reprimand to remind him of just what commonplace argument he may not articulate in mixed company. He also has an MP who'd like to see him face jail for up to seven years. And he has American rightists accusing him of "Jew-hatred" for the benefit of audiences whom he may never address. Amin, for his part, feels that the article was "selectively misquoted" by the media and that he has been misused for political purposes. Further, just when he hoped the college would defend him from "Islamophobia, bullying, racism, harassment and slander", they instead acceded to the bullying, slapped him down and made him a scapegoat on their website.
This is not an isolated story. Campus Watch has been behind the hounding of a number of pro-Palestinian academics in the United States, including Professors Joel Beinin and Rashid Khalidi. The website has a page inviting students to tell on teachers who are insufficiently supportive of Israel. It attacked a professor named Joseph Massad who was falsely accused of bullying pro-Israeli students. In part, this is happening because the issues surrounding Israel-Palestine are becoming more urgent, while at the same time a decades-long pro-Israel consensus is eroding. There is also a vast gulf between what is academically known about the Israel-Palestine conflict and the picture generally presented in the media. This has produced a climate in which pro-Zionists and right-wingers feel compelled to try and rein in academic discourse. The treatment of Nasser Amin is a small introduction to that trend, one which began in America and is gathering pace in the UK. So the story is, if you like, about all students and their right to argue points of view that are controversial in mainstream discourse.
Richard Seymour is a student at Birkbeck College London, UK.