Perspective: Beyond dissent: the limits of faculty freedom

Most of what has been written about the University of South Florida's efforts to fire Sami Al-Arian, an associate professor of engineering, would lead one to conclude that the administration is out to punish him only because of what he has called his "unpopular" views. Al-Arian has repeated: "This case is indeed about academic freedom and freedom of speech." Echoing him, the treasurer of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has written that Al-Arian has been continuously harassed because he "advocates an unpopular cause." And in a widely circulated report, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which has long been active in furthering the interests of the professoriate, has concluded that the university's decision was politically motivated and identified the issue as one of academic freedom.

The Al-Arian case, however, is about a great deal more than restraints on speech and dissent. It is about how members of the academic profession must behave, on and off campus. Indeed, the "Declaration of Principles" of the AAUP, which has been in effect for most of the 20th century, cautions faculty "to avoid hasty or unverified or exaggerated statements, and to refrain from intemperate modes of expression," and to "set forth (their conclusions) with dignity, courtesy, and temperateness of language." In a 1940 statement, the AAUP elaborates on the "special obligations" and "special position in the community" of "members of the learned profession."

Putting aside for now the charges and countercharges surrounding the Al-Arian case, it might be instructive to consider only his work as the editor-in-chief of INQUIRY, a magazine published from the beginning of 1992 until spring 1994 by the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), which he organized and for years headed. Although only nine issues of INQUIRY were ever published (and are available in the Library of Congress), this limited number offers yet another opportunity to examine what Al-Arian has been doing while a faculty member at USF.

What is most striking in every issue of INQUIRY is dissent. The criticism of the United States is unending, with the sulfurous hyperbole most evident in the editorials. The United States is faulted for its "atrocious human rights record," "genocidal policies" and "mischievous" treatment of the weak and oppressed.

A not atypical excerpt from a June 1992 editorial fairly exemplifies the tone and virulence: "The killing of civilians to influence the outcome of war is a long Western tradition. The downing of the Iranian jetliner was an action done by the U.S. to force the Iranian leadership to accept the U.N. resolution concerning the Iran-Iraq War. As was the killing of innocent civilians at Al-A'ameria shelter in Baghdad during the Gulf War intended, as many reports indicated, to terrorize the civilian population and undermine the Iraqis' morale. . . ."

In the March/April, 1992 issue, "an update" on the 1991 Gulf War details the final act in a piece of political theater in which President George Bush, Vice President Dan Quayle, Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Colin Powell and Commander of the Allied Forces in the Persian Gulf General Norman Schwarzkopf were found guilty of war crimes. The purpose of the proceedings was to put "U.S. warmongers on trial for one of the most barbaric, genocidal wars ever waged, . . ."the imperialist (and) bloody Gulf War."

In general, everything that is done in the West is viewed with suspicion. An editorial in the March/April 1993 issue asserts: "The U.N. was established to consolidate the gains of the victors in the European wars (WWI and WWII), nothing more, nothing less. The organizational structure of the U.N. is fallacious in nature and should not be imposed on the international community." In a signed editorial in 1994, Al-Arian fully rejects any compromises on the part of the Palestinians in the Mideast peace process, and argues: "It is apparent that the Israeli final solution to the Palestinian Diaspora is to settle them where they are while transferring the majority of them from Lebanon and the Gulf to Iraq as part of the final U.S. deal with the Iraqi regime before the sanctions are lifted." He concludes that in order to end the violence in the Middle East, Israel "must be dismantled."

Although there is nothing in INQUIRY that unmistakenly counsels acts of terrorism, there are veiled threats. An editorial titled "The Islamic Bomb" concludes:

"It is ironic that in the midst of the West's festivities of its Cold War triumph over the communist world, it found itself with at least three Muslim nations who control over 1,700 nuclear devices. "They plot, and Allah plots; and He is the best of all plotters.' "

In the minds of some, this sort of reckless dissent may not be grounds for censure. Yet, it is not what has USF authorities pressing for Al-Arian's dismissal; it is his behavior that goes well beyond the wide latitude given him to say or write what he wishes.

Consider an editorial decision Al-Arian made in June 1992, when INQUIRY published two poems that foster and ennoble violence by tenderly and unambiguously encouraging children to take an active part in suicide bombings:

* * *

Most would agree that these poems have little relationship to what some on American campuses refer to as "Palestinian resistance poetry," and they give the lie to Al-Arian's protestations that he is a man of love and peace. Reflecting a twisted moral vision, they are obviously designed to encourage parents and children to accept and glorify the death of the latter. (Not quite as disturbing, on the second page following these poems, there is an advertisement for the Islamic Fund for Palestine, which shares the same post office box and telephone number with the ICP, soliciting money for "the families of the Martyrs.")

Although it may not be unconstitutional to publish prose or poetry celebrating various types of barbarity in the name of some religious or secular cause, it is appropriate to question the judgment of an academic editor who does so. That is the basic issue here. In the end, the courts will decide what is dissent and what is not protected speech.

The USF authorities have never asked that Al-Arian be deported or put in prison; all they need grapple with is whether to revoke his tenure -- that is, whether to give him a long-overdue push.

The simple fact is that in propagating the culture of terrorism in the pages of INQUIRY (and elsewhere), Al-Arian has shown extremely poor judgment; he has not acted responsibly, and as a result has forfeited his right to a permanent academic appointment.

It was an act of academic malfeasance for Al-Arian as an editor to publish poetry that fuels violence; he is guilty of moral turpitude, which the AAUP and the entire academic community have long held is, along with incompetence, adequate cause for discharging a professor, with or without tenure.

-- Dr. Lionel S. Lewis is a sociologist who was on the faculty at SUNY/Buffalo from 1963-1999 and has written six books and dozens of research articles, mostly on the sociology of higher education.

Back to Perspective

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

From the Times
Opinion page