Opinion: USF's judicial rebuff

Last August, in a move that revealed her own misgivings about the case, University of South Florida president Judy Genshaft asked a Tampa judge to determine whether it would be proper for her to fire professor Sami Al-Arian, whose ties to Middle Eastern terrorist groups have precipitated a drawn-out controversy. Trolling the courts for political cover is an abuse of the judicial system, and it was good to see U.S. District Judge Susan C. Bucklew, in appropriately curt form, dismiss USF's gambit as inappropriate.

If Genshaft believed her own party line -- that Al-Arian, through his conduct and statements in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, violated the terms of his employment -- then the USF president simply would have fired Al-Arian and trusted the outcome to the courts. If Al-Arian had, as USF charged, created a threat to the campus and led people to believe he was speaking on behalf of the university, then Genshaft wouldn't need to shop around for judicial advice on the legality of her case. USF's lawyers -- and Genshaft herself -- are handsomely paid to make those kinds of judgment calls. (Genshaft is in line for a 37-percent salary increase and an array of new perks from a university board that has pressed her to fire Al-Arian.)

The only good part of this sideshow is that Bucklew's ruling exposes the duplicity and indecisiveness of USF's handling of the Al-Arian case. "The court system," the judge wrote, "was not designed to dispense such advice but was intended to decide cases." In other words, get your story straight and let it rise or fall on its merits.

The ruling may have precluded the chance, as USF board chairman Dick Beard said, to make "things simpler for the university," but making things simpler isn't really important for a case of substance, anyway, only one of convenience.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright