January 9, 2002

Dear President Genshaft:

During another trying time in American history, Thomas Jefferson recognized that the institution of slavery corrupted the soul of those who brought it into being. This corruption enabled countless rationalizations designed to justify and perpetuate what was morally indefensible: the ownership and exploitation of human beings. The corruption was so profound that Jefferson himself was compromised by the very phenomenon he identified.

Like slavery, the institution of war produces its own corruptions. The Administrations public letter of 7 January 2002 offers yet one more proof, for example, that casualties are not restricted to the battlefield. Enter Sami Al-Arian. Insofar as America’s global campaign against terrorism calls for Jeffersonian reflection, we wonder if the Administration can begin to understand the damage it is doing to the University of South Florida, to academic principles, and to democratic values as it prosecutes Professor Al-Arian. Thus we offer this letter in response to your call for dialogue.

USF has fired a tenured professor in the name of campus safety and operational efficiency. As if blessed with privileged access to the truth, the Administration informs the university community from on high that it has made the right decision for the right reasons. While the University intimates that it would defend Al-Arian’s right publicly to speak about, say, the innovations of Microsoft Windows, the University has no obligation when it comes to the matter of, say, Palestinian self-determination. He’s just a computer science professor, so the claim goes. Hence academic freedom is not involved. The vulgar ghettoization of academic life aside, the university’s requirement that professors also be citizens active in the wider world has been traduced.

What’s more, we are told that Al-Arian brought his fate down upon himself. Despite warnings, he chose to pursue his “political agenda,” his mere “private activities.” And he would no doubt continue to do likewise in the future. The Administration’s mantra is simple: the decision was his; the risks were his, too. But blame is not enough here; hence the move toward slander. The Administration proclaims that the F.B.I. has not exonerated Al-Arian; warns that it keeps its files closed to the university; and alleges that Al-Arian is known to be associated with terrorists. This forms a beautiful juridical triangle: guilt by suspicion, guilt by insinuation, guilt by association. Joseph Welch, the Army’s attorney in the McCarthy hearings, would ask if at long last we had no decency.

Apparently, the specters of war, terrorism, the almighty dollar, and ethnic and religious difference have combined to corrupt the exercise of our judgment. Academic freedom is a core value or principle of the university; campus safety belongs to another category. It is an important objective, which is different. It is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. Safety, however important, is and must be subordinate to academic freedom in the final instance. Let’s assume the disruption to the university is as serious as the Administration claims. Let’s assume that a climate of fear pervades the university. No response logically follows from such assessments. Disruption and fear can be minimized and managed. Life is defined by risks, as those who fought to desegregate southern schools understood all too well. Thus, rather than invoke those who won’t stay on campus after dark, let us seek those who remain committed to the academic enterprise. As such, we will offer to teach any class next to Professor Al-Arian. And we will convince those enrolled in our classes to join us—not despite fear, but because of it, as a matter of principle. Unlike the Administration, we would not allow those issuing threats to the university to determine how the university will conduct its affairs. Unlike the Administration, we do not hold Al-Arian responsible for the violence and cowardice of others.

Like safety, money is also a means to an end. The university’s much-vaunted financial donors, who feel free to coerce and dictate through the checkbook, need to be educated on this matter--as does the Federal government. Frankly, people who threaten the university with their wallets are no friends of ours. What’s more, any truly great institution can and will defend itself when subject to criticism and attack, especially when it is unwarranted or unthinking. In short, in firing Al-Arian, the Administration has surrendered to external political and financial pressures. Patriotic political correctness reigns supreme at USF. The assertions the Administration makes to defend its decision are transparent pretexts. They fool no one and are endorsed only by the like-minded. For hoi polloi, this is sufficient. Mob mentality, however, ought to have no place at a university. But when reason has been displaced such mentality is free to run amok. This may be the greatest danger the university faces. Tragically, we have become a threat to ourselves and need look only in the mirror to see our most serious enemy.

Yours respectfully,

Steven Johnston

Michael T. Gibbons

Government and International Affairs