CAF Letters on North America

Letters on North America

September 14, 2009

Richard C. Levin
President, Yale University
PO BOX 208229
New Haven, CT 06520-8229

The Yale Corporation
c/o The Office of the Secretary
P.O. Box 208230
New Haven, CT 06520-8230

Dear President Levin and Members of the Yale Corporation,

We write to protest the decision to remove all images of Mohammed from the forthcoming book, The Cartoons That Shook the World, by Jytte Klausen, which will be published by Yale University Press in early October. The University’s role in that decision compromises the principle and practice of academic freedom, undermines the independence of the Press, damages the University’s credibility, and diminishes its reputation for scholarship.

The events surrounding the decision to remove the images are deeply troubling:

    • The manuscript was submitted to Yale University Press with the explicit understanding that inclusion of the cartoons was a prerequisite for publication.

• The book was accepted for publication, fully vetted by the Press and met its exacting scholarly standards. It also passed the standard legal review and was unanimously approved by the University Publications Committee.

    • Nonetheless, the University undertook its own unorthodox and unprecedented review in which it consulted various individuals, not about the substance of the book but solely about the risk that the illustrations could provoke a violent response.   These consultants did not receive a complete copy of the manuscript; they were provided with only the images.

    • Neither the names of the consultants nor their comments have been disclosed. Even the author was denied the opportunity to read the report or comments made by these reviewers unless she signed a nondisclosure agreement, which she declined to do.

    • Yale Vice President and Secretary, Linda Lorimer, has openly acknowledged that the University made the decision to remove the images, based on an unspecified fear of violence. Former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who is now a member of the Yale faculty, has stated that he “agreed with the decision by Yale” to remove the images, based on a “generic threat.”

No one involved in the decision has cited any actual threat of violence as a justification for the decision. Indeed, several Islamic scholars, including one of Yale’s handpicked experts, openly question the notion that the illustrations pose any risk of violence whatsoever, since the book would likely attract a small and specialized readership and the images have already been widely disseminated and are easily accessible online. In fact, some of the images that were removed, such as the Gustave Doré image of Mohammed in Dante’s Inferno, have never been associated with violence.

We recognize that there are people who will threaten violence to suppress ideas that they hate. They range from religious zealots seeking to ban images they consider blasphemous to animal rights advocates who recently threatened the staff of the San Francisco Art Institute over an art installation that they claimed represented cruelty to animals. However, even in the face of actual threats, we believe that there are ways for institutions like Yale to preserve their commitment to academic freedom and intellectual integrity.

Giving in to the fear of violence only emboldens those who use threats to achieve their ends. This misguided action establishes a dangerous precedent that threatens academic and intellectual freedom around the world.

Sincerely,

Joan E. Bertin
Executive Director, National Coalition Against Censorship

On behalf of:
American Association of University Professors
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom
American Society of Journalists and Authors, First Amendment Committee
College Art Association
Freedom to Read Foundation
First Amendment Project
First Amendment Lawyers Association
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Middle East Studies Association

The following three letters address the SSHRC-funded conference, Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace, held at York University June 22-24, 2009.

19 June 2009

Chad Gaffield, President
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
350 Albert Street, P.O. Box 1610
Ottawa, ON K1P 6G4, Canada

Dear President Gaffield,

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), I am writing to express our grave concerns about a recent public exchange which took place between you and the Minister for Science and Technology, the Honourable Gary Goodyear, regarding an upcoming SSHRC-funded academic conference entitled “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace”, scheduled to take place at York University 22-24 June 2009.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 3000 members worldwide, including 133 members at universities across Canada. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

CAF wishes to publicly acknowledge your defence of SSHRC’s “commitment to independent peer review and its grant policies and procedures” in response to Mr. Goodyear’s demand that SSHRC review its funding of this event. However, we remain deeply troubled by the minister’s unprecedented level of interference in SSHRC’s decision-making processes. We were dismayed by your suggestion in a June 11 statement on SSHRC’s website that, in light of the minister’s concerns, SSHRC might re-examine its support for the conference in order to ensure that the organizer has not violated any “post-award procedures.”

We strongly believe that this particular conference deserves the same unequivocal support SSHRC extends to all its grant recipients and that critical scholarship on controversial issues of our times such as the Israel/Palestine conflict can only proceed with the support of non-partisan, scholarly institutions such as SSHRC. We are therefore satisfied by your statement dated June 15 that “SSHRC has accepted [York University’s] assurance that planning for the conference is proceeding in a manner consistent with provisions of the Grant Holder’s Guide for the program.”

In his statement dated 5 June 2009, Mr. Goodyear demanded that SSHRC reconsider its funding for the “Israel/Palestine” conference, and strongly recommended that SSHRC subject this proposal to an unprecedented “second review process” in order “to determine whether or not the conference still meets SSHRC’s criteria for funding of an academic conference”. According to Mr. Goodyear, such a request was justified because, since funding was granted, several speakers were added to the programme whose names were not included in the initial proposal. Mr. Goodyear argued that “several individuals and organizations have expressed…concerns that some of the speakers have, in the past, made comments that have been seen to be anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic”. He also noted that some people worried “that the event is no longer an academic research-focused event.”

In your 11 June response, you correctly refused to subject the conference to a “second review process” on the grounds that the conference had already been “peer reviewed by an independent multidisciplinary committee of scholars, using established criteria”. This was a necessary and laudable response because it protects the professional vetting standards that SSHRC stands for internationally from a general politicization.

Nevertheless, in that same statement, you said that, “in this particular case” in light of “public discussion”, SSHRC would investigate “whether or not there had been significant changes to the conference since the application was submitted in November 2008”. Such a review of “post-award procedures” was deemed necessary in this case in order to ensure that SSHRC’s “policies and procedures” had been duly followed.

Both the decision and the language in which it is framed are of deep concern to us. We see no evidence of “public discussion” of this matter and the minister has withheld the names of the alleged sources on which he bases his demands. This, therefore, seems an instance, not of legitimate public discussion, but of political interference at the highest level. The government seems to have be attempted to force the hand of an independent academic institution. The minister’s concerns are political, not scholarly, and SSHRC does not have a mandate to make political judgments or to respond to those kinds of concerns. Institutions like SSHRC are required to protect researchers from political expediency and the pressures of partisanship. Allowing unnamed “individuals and organizations” to influence SSHRC’s review processes is a potential violation of SSHRC’s mandate.

We therefore commend you for issuing the June 15 statement in which you defend SSHRC’s “unwavering in its commitment to independent peer review and its grant policies and procedures” and clear the conference organizers of Minister Goodyear’s malicious charges and insinuations. You took an important stance on academic freedom in Canada.

We have written to Minister Goodyear to urge him to retract his request for a second peer review of the conference in order to restore the confidence of the scholarly community in his commitment to Canadian academic freedom, and to York President Mamdouh Shoukri to commend him for his strong commitment to academic freedom.

Sincerely,

Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President
Professor, McMaster University

19 June 2009

Gary Goodyear, Minister of State, Science and Technology
117 Confederation Bldg
House of Commons
Ottawa, On, K1A 0A6
Canada

Dear Minister Goodyear,

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), I am writing to express our dismay at your public interference in a major international academic conference to be held at York University on June 22-24, 2009 by requesting a second review process of the grant-in-aid it secured from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). It is unprecedented for a minister, especially one from a department that funds granting councils, to question the integrity of SSHRC in general and its acclaimed independent peer review system, its grant policies and procedures in particular. This intervention constitutes a gross violation of academic freedom and of the autonomy of scholarly inquiry from political expediency.

The conference “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace” fields an extraordinary slate of Israeli and Palestinian, North American and European scholars, many of whom are leaders in their fields of study and others of whom are promising younger scholars. The conference is based on a public commitment to “respecting the rights to self-determination of both Israelis/Jews and Palestinians.” The organizers’ statement of purpose further assures SSHRC and the general public on the conference website that they are committed to ensuring that “neither anti-Semitism, nor any other form of racism, has any place in this forum.” This commitment, they insist, “will inform both the conference and all aspects of its planning process.” Finally, the organizers explicitly state that the conference’s goal is to seek “to systematically measure models based on two states or a single binational state, federal and con-federal approaches, and other models in between and beyond.” To insinuate that there are anti-Semitic motivations behind these goals is entirely groundless and constitutes fear-mongering of the most reprehensible kind.

You announced in a June 5 statement that “some of the speakers have, in the past, made comments that have been seen to be anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic” and raise “concerns that the event is no longer an academic research-focused event.” You base your concerns on nameless “individuals and organizations.” But your announcement appears to have been prompted by pressure from Meir Weinberg, the national director of the Jewish Defense League in Canada and other pro-Israeli lobby groups.

Your vigilance against the spread of anti-Semitism is laudable. But at the risk of stating the obvious, criticism of Israel should not be conflated with anti-Semitism. You may not be aware that this conflation is part and parcel of the tactics of intimidation practiced by a few well-organized groups which are motivated not by finding equitable and peaceful solutions to the Israel/Palestine conflict but by a desire to insulate Israeli policies from all criticism. For many of these groups, advocating Palestinian statehood is ipso facto anti-Semitic. You have thus elevated the rumours and slander of the Jewish Defence League, an organization which represents a small fringe element among the Israeli and wider Jewish public, to the level of Canadian government policy.

Your allegation that “since funding was provided, the organizers of the conference have added a number of speakers to their agenda” is patently illogical and suggests that you are not familiar with the logistics of getting an international academic conference off the ground and funded. SSHRC, like many other bodies that fund international conferences, typically issues a “call for papers” as a condition for eligibility. While some senior international speakers are confirmed before the application deadline, thereby helping to convince the grant-giving institution of the academic merit of, and scholarly interest in, the proposed event, the actual vetting of the submitted papers occurs after the conference organizers are sure of the financial viability of the project. Given this, it would have been more appropriate for you to communicate any concerns you may have had with SSHRC directly, before raising them in public

In a June 15 statement, the SSHRC has reiterated its confidence in the proposed York conference and its commitment to independent peer review. We have written to Professor Chad Gaffield commending SSHRC for its swift response to the baseless allegations, and to York President Mamdouh Shoukri to commend him for his strong support of academic freedom.

We urge you to publically retract your request for a second peer review of the application concerning the York University conference in order to restore the confidence of the scholarly community in your commitment to Canadian academic freedom.

Sincerely,

Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President
Professor, McMaster University

Reply Received June 22, 2009

Dear Ms. Palmer,

Thank you for your correspondence on the conference at York University entitled, “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace”. I will ensure that the Minister is made aware of your comments.

I would like to encourage you to also write to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to share your thoughts with them. As you may know, the Council funds academic conferences under their “Aid to Research Workshops and Conferences in Canada” program and is responsible for grant decisions under the program. You can reach them at: webmaster@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca

Sincerely,
Stephanie Thomas

Member's Assistant
Office of the Hon. Gary Goodyear
Minister of State | Science and Technology
Suite 117 Confederation | Pièce 117 Édifice de la Confédération
House of Commons | Chambre des communes | Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

19 June 2009

Professor Mamdouh Shoukri, President
S949 Ross Building
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada

Dear Professor Shoukri,

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), I am writing to you to express our strong support for resisting calls to cancel the international academic conference entitled “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace” to be held at York University next week. CAF applauds your defence of the principles of academic freedom and university autonomy in the context of a general campaign of intimidation and interference by pro-Israel groups and federal politicians against your and other institutions of higher education in Canada.

The conference program contains an extraordinary slate of Israeli and Palestinian, North American and European scholars, many of whom are leaders in their fields of study and others of whom are promising younger scholars. In spite of the organizers’ unequivocal commitment to ensuring that “neither anti-Semitism, nor any other form of racism, has any place in this forum” and that it “will inform both the conference and all aspects of its planning process,” pro-Israel groups have alleged that the conference statement of purpose is smoke-screen for anti-Semitism and hate. CAF commends you for refusing to be intimidated by such baseless fear-mongering and for upholding the integrity of academia.

We have written to Minister Goodyear asking him to retract his call for a second peer review which we view as an inappropriate intervention in Canadian academic affairs, and to SSHRC Professor Chad Gaffield for commitment to the independence of the peer review process and the holding of the conference.

Sincerely,

Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President
Professor, McMaster University

8 May 2009

Joel Michaelsen, Chair
Academic Senate
Academic Senate Office, 1233 Girvetz Hall
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, California 93106

via fax # 805-893-8732

Dear Professor Michaelsen,

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, I am writing to express our grave concerns about the investigation that UCSB’s Academic Senate is conducting into allegations of misconduct on the part of Professor William Robinson. Specifically, we are troubled by the university’s willingness to open an investigation into Professor Robinson’s conduct based on criticism of his views by students, by an apparent lack of due process and adherence to university procedures, and by the possibility that outside interference influenced the decision to move forward with an official investigation despite strong evidence suggesting that the claims that Robinson had committed violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct were without merit.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 3000 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

It is our understanding that this investigation stems from an email message that Professor Robinson sent to students in his course “Sociology of Globalization” on January 19, 2009. In that email message Professor Robinson forwarded an article that juxtaposed images from the Holocaust with images from Gaza during the Israeli assault of December 2008-January 2009, drew a parallel between the plight of Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto under Nazi rule, and strongly denounced Israeli policies and actions toward the Palestinians. His message accompanying the article accused the Israeli government of engaging in genocide against the Palestinians, though he noted that (as he saw it) Israel’s intent was “not so much to physically eliminate each and every Palestinian than to eliminate the Palestinians as a people in any meaningful sense of the notion of people-hood.”

On February 9, 2009, the regional office of the ADL sent a letter of complaint to Professor Robinson, with copies to university officials. Ten days later two of Professor Robinson’s students complained that they believed the content of his email message to be anti-Semitic, and they also alleged that that message constituted an “abuse of an instructor position” and violated “the integrity of the faculty-student relationship.” We also understand that on March 9, 2009, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, accompanied by a local ADL representative, met with a group of UCSB administrators and faculty members, and that at that meeting Mr. Foxman pressed university officials to investigate Professor Robinson and sanction him for the email message he had circulated. It is our understanding that Executive Dean David Marshall relayed to Foxman and others in attendance that a charges process against Professor Robinson was underway.

If true, this would constitute a violation of the confidentiality of such procedures. Moreover, it is our understanding that the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked with opening a formal investigation two weeks after Mr. Foxman’s meeting with university personnel, on March 25, and that there is ongoing pressure from the ADL on the university to continue this investigation.

Whether or not one agrees with the substance of Professor Robinson’s views on Israel or with the way he chose to express them, we believe that there are grounds for grave concern about the allegation that his email message is anti-Semitic as well as about the university’s decision to bring him up on charges for the content of that message and its circulation to students. As a faculty member at UCSB, which claims to be firmly committed to the defense of academic freedom, Professor Robinson is entitled to express his views freely, even on controversial issues and even when some students may be upset or offended by what he has to say. The expression of those views in the context of a course that deals with global issues seems entirely appropriate as well. In this regard, there is no evidence that Professor Robinson “intimidated” the students through the email’s dissemination or prevented them from expressing views challenging its content or arguments.

According to the standards established by the American Association of University Professors, instructors have the right to “stimulate discussion and encourage critical thought by drawing analogies or parallels the vigor and vibrancy of classroom,” in the absence of which “discussion will be stultified.” It further declares that “ideas that are germane to a subject under discussion in a classroom cannot be censored because a student with particular religious or political beliefs might be offended.” The issues raised by Robinson are clearly germane both to the study of globalization in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to the specific themes addressed by the course as set forth in its description in the UCSB catalog.

Beyond our concerns about the Charges Officer’s apparent reliance on an overly broad definition of anti-Semitism to bring charges against Professor Robinson, we are also very concerned that Professor Robinson’s chair and dean were apparently not alerted to the students’ complaints, the appropriate initial procedural recourse in such a situation. More generally, we are concerned that university officials may have been unduly influenced by the pressure brought to bear on them by Mr. Foxman and his organization, which is known for aggressively attacking the kind of speech at the heart of this case. Discussing the case with ADL representatives in any manner constituted a violation of Robinson’s right to confidentiality, and opened the door to the appearance of outside influence in the adjudicatory process. The events that transpired at this March 9 meeting should be the subject of investigation in this regard.

Universities are often subjected to pressure by outside groups with their own political agendas, but it is the responsibility of university officials to defend their faculty against such pressure and uphold the principles of academic freedom. There are indications that this did not happen in Professor Robinson’s case. Moreover, we cannot ignore the larger context which surrounds this case: the fact that in recent years faculty at many colleges and universities across the United States have been targeted by advocacy organizations in an apparent attempt to stifle criticism of Israeli policies, often by alleging that such criticism is anti-Semitic.

We call on the UCSB Academic Senate to reconsider the charges against Professor Robinson to ensure that they do not constitute a violation of his academic freedom. We also call on the university to do whatever is necessary to ensure that its own procedures for investigating a faculty member accused of violating its Faculty Code of Conduct were strictly and fully adhered to in this case. Finally, we call on UCSB to reiterate its commitment to academic freedom for all faculty, including those who address controversial and sensitive issues, and to assure its faculty that it will not succumb to pressure from external organizations pursuing political agendas intended to stifle free speech and undermine the principles of academic freedom.

Respectfully,
Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President
Professor of History, McMaster University

cc:
Henry Yang, Chancellor
Gene Lucas, Executive Vice Chancellor
David Marshall, Executive Dean
Melvin Oliver, Dean of Social Sciences

Update: Case dismissed on June 24, 2009
Read American Association of University Professor's follow-up letter to Chancellor Yang (pdf)

23 April 2009

President John Bassett
Clark University
Geography Building, Room 202
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610

Dear President Bassett,

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association, I am writing to you to express our dismay at your decision to cancel a 21 April talk by Dr. Norman Finkelstein at your university. We regard your decision as a violation of academic freedom to which members of the Clark University community and Dr. Finkelstein are entitled.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 3000 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

According to a report in the Boston Globe, Dr. Finkelstein, who was invited to the campus by the Clark University Students for Palestinian Rights, was scheduled to speak on April 21. However, in your letter, you wrote that Dr. Finkelstein’s lecture would conflict with a conference hosted by the university’s Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies scheduled to begin two days later, on April 23, and continuing until April 26. Although Dr. Finkelstein’s lecture was scheduled to occur before the conference, you wrote that in your judgment, “having Professor Finkelstein speak on the same evening as our planned conference would only invite controversy and not dialogue or understanding.” Since the dates of Dr. Finkelstein’s lecture and the university’s conference do not conflict, your decision to cancel his lecture appears to be an act of political censorship that violates the academic freedom of Dr. Finkelstein, and deprives the students and faculty of Clark University of the opportunity to hear him.

We would also like to note that your decision to cancel the lecture came after Hillel objected to Dr. Finkelstein’s appearance. We are further concerned, therefore, that by forcing a cancellation of Dr. Finkelstein’s lecture, you are sending a message to the larger scholarly community that academic freedom does not extend to dissident voices on issues pertaining to U.S. policy in the Middle East and Israel.

In your letter to the university’s campus newspaper, you wrote: “The University remains committed to inviting a wide range of speakers to encourage diversity of opinions on controversial topics.” In keeping with this commitment, we ask that you reconsider the cancellation of Dr. Finkelstein’s lecture.

Sincerely,
Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President and Professor, McMaster University

29 April 2009

President John Bassett
Clark University
Geography Building, Room 202
950 Main Street
Worcester, MA 01610

Dear President Bassett,

I have just learned of your decision to reschedule the talk by Dr. Norman Finkelstein, your earlier cancellation of which prompted my letter to you dated April 23, 2009. This is a welcome development. It sends a positive message about the importance of academic freedom, especially on issues relating to the Middle East.

The promotion of academic freedom is fundamental to credibility and relevance of institutions of higher eduction.

Sincerely,
Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President and Professor, McMaster University

Reply received April 29, 2009

Dear Professor Aksan,

Thank you for your two letters. Professor Finkelstein did speak on the Clark Campus on April 27, only four days after the students had originally hoped he would speak. I am not into banning speakers of any persuasion. I did tell the students that the planned timing might seem a violation of common courtesy, given the nature of his attacks on the work of many of the speakers at a major conference scheduled on the 23rd and 24th.

What did not come out in stories, moreover, was that the students were still in the process of raising money for the talk. I did not cancel a contracted talk but intervened in a process that struck me as not being well scheduled.

When cooler but still free heads finally did prevail, the conference took place and a few days later Norman Finkelstein was able to be heard by people on the Clark campus. Clark has a long tradition of very diverse speakers being heard. That will not change on my watch.

Sincerely,
John Bassett

4 March 2009

Leon Botstein, President (pdf)
Bard College
PO Box 5000
Annandale-on-Hudson NY 12504

Dear Dr. Botstein:

I am writing on behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) to express our concern that your administration’s decision to terminate Joel Kovel’s appointment as Distinguished Professor of Social Studies at Bard College may have been, at least in part, politically motivated. We urge you to accord Professor Kovel a full and fair hearing, in conformity with Bard’s procedures and the standards commonly accepted in academic life, at which he can contest what he perceives to have been an unjust decision and a violation of his academic freedom. We also urge you to issue a public statement forcefully affirming Bard’s commitment to academic freedom, especially when controversial issues are involved.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 3000 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

In her letter to Professor Kovel dated February 5, 2009, Dean of the College Michèle Dominy explained this decision in terms of “the imperative to distribute our resources in areas of critical academic growth and program enhancement,” while you yourself have cited “fiscal constraints.” We certainly understand the difficult choices that colleges and universities currently face. But we also take note of allegations that the decision not to renew Professor Kovel’s contract may have been the result of his publicly expressed views on Zionism and the State of Israel. If in fact Professor Kovel’s views played any part in this decision, his non-renewal would constitute a serious violation of the principles of academic freedom and a threat to all teachers and students who exercise their right to teach about, and speak out publicly on, controversial issues, including Zionism and Israel.

As you know, Joel Kovel is a well-published scholar and by all accounts a successful teacher at Bard for two decades. In recent years, however, he has been subjected to considerable criticism for his outspoken views on Zionism and Israel, and he has also been the target of a campaign to stop the University of Michigan from distributing one of his books, Overcoming Zionism, in the United States, on essentially political grounds.

Bard College’s reputation as a bastion of liberal arts education characterized by free critical inquiry is richly and justly deserved. A full and impartial hearing for Professor Kovel would be in keeping with that tradition. We hope that you will conduct such a hearing and publish your findings.

Sincerely,
Virginia H. Aksan
MESA President and Professor, McMaster University

cc: Joel Kovel

Reply received March 9, 2009

Dear Professor Aksan,

Thank you for thoughtful letter. But I want you to know that the assumption that Bard chose not to renew Professor Kovel's contract because of his political views, which do not strike us at Bard as controversial or novel, is false. In consultation with faculty, Bard elected not to renew Professor Kovel’s contract because, like all colleges, it faces severe fiscal constraints and is doing everything it can to preserve the employment of its full-time faculty. After fifteen years of serving as the full-time occupant of a non-tenured endowed chair, he voluntarily assumed part-time status in 2004. At that time he received a five-year contract, with the understanding that after those five years the college reserved the right to renew his position on a year-to-year basis. He knew it was possible that his position might not be renewed after the 2008–2009 academic year. Professor Kovel enjoyed a fine and productive career at Bard for more than twenty years. We are sorry for and astonished at his allegations, which have no basis in fact.

I would also like you to know that Bard recently became the first American institution of higher education to collaborate in a dual-degree program with a Palestinian university. If you would like to read about our partnership with Al-Quds in Abu Dis, please see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/world/middleeast/15quds.html. Our goal is to improve the Palestinian education system.

Cordially,
Leon Botstein
President, Bard College

June 9, 2008
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520

via fax: 202-647-2283

Dear Secretary Rice:

I write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our concern regarding the State Department’s failure to respond in a timely fashion to the visa request of Professor Mahmoud Abossowa of Fatah University in Tripoli, Libya. As a result, Professor Abossowa was unable to attend a conference to which he had been invited at Harvard University, 16-18 May 2008.

The Middle East Studies Association of North American (MESA) was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 2800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.
Professor Abossowa was invited by the Islamic Legal Studies Program of Harvard University Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts to participate in an international conference on Waqf (pious endowments). Despite applying for his visa using the online visa request form in December 2007, well in advance of the May 2008 conference, and despite traveling from Tripoli, Libya to Tunis, Tunisia, for an interview with U.S. consular officials on 11 April 2008, no decision was made on his visa. Telephone calls and letters from Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program also failed to elicit a decision. The result was the regrettable absence of Prof. Abossowa from this international conference.

MESA is committed to fostering the free exchange of knowledge as a human right and to inhibit infringements on that right by government restrictions on scholars. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provide the principal standards by which human rights violations are identified today. Those rights include the right to education and work, freedom of movement and residence, and freedom of association and assembly. Infringements include governmental refusal to allow scholars to conduct scholarly research, publish their findings, deliver academic lectures, and travel to international scholarly meetings. We believe that the failure to respond to the visa requests of academics—treatment which effectively constitutes a denial of the visa—represents just such an infringement.

Had the failure of the State Department to respond to Prof. Abossowa’s visa request been an isolated incident, we would still have voiced our concern. Unfortunately, however, the treatment suffered by Prof. Abossowa is not unique, but rather an experience to which numerous Arab and/or Muslim scholars and students have been subject in recent years. Such treatment is profoundly counter-productive to the stated aims of our national policy. If the United States truly seeks a better understanding of and relationship with the Arab/Muslim world, it must be open to receiving and hosting a range of scholars from the region.

We urge you to look into the State Department’s failure to respond in the case of Prof. Abossowa. More generally, we ask that you review a process of visa application and processing which has been shown repeatedly in recent years seriously and negatively to interfere with the higher education community’s capacity to fulfill our core mission and which represents a serious threat to academic freedom.

We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,

Mervat F. Hatem
MESA President
Professor of Political Science, Howard University

cc: Ambassador Robert F. Godec
Consul Sean Cooper

Reply Received June 30, 2008

June 18, 2008
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Dr. Hatem:

This is in response to your letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding the pending nonimmigrant visa application of Mr. Mahmoud Abossawa. We appreciate your patience in awaiting a reply.

We reviewed Department records and learned that the security clearance for Mr. Abossawa remains pending. The U.S. Department of State acts as a coordinator in our federal government’s efforts to endure that all mandated security clearances are performed on each visa applicant. When processing visa applications, U.S. Embassies must scrupulously carry out all legal and procedural requirements for the protection and security of the United States.

We are working with the relevant agencies to complete all clearance requests as expeditiously as possible. As you can appreciate, security clearances are of critical importance to our national security. Each case is unique and warrants the full scrutiny of the agencies involved in the process for which a set time frame is not appropriate. When the clearance process is concluded, the Embassy will notify Mr. Abossawa.

We regret that Mr. Abossawa was unable to receive a visa in time to attend the conference held by the Islamic Legal Studies Program at Harvard University; however, the clearance process cannot be accelerated or waived.

We want to assure you that we are fully cognizant of the importance of international participation in programs and conferences at U.S. colleges and universities. The Department of State recognizes the significant academic, cross-cultural, and economic benefits that international students and scholars bring to our country, and are committed to fostering academic and scientific exchanges worldwide. We have made, and will continue to make, enormous efforts to ensure that foreign scholars are able to travel to the United States to study and work in a timely manner.

We hope this information was helpful.

Sincerely,
Jane Burt-Lynn
Chief
Public Inquiries Division
Visa Service

June 9, 2008
LTG Robert M. Williams, Commandant
U.S. Army War College
Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013
Robert.m.williams@us.army.mil

Dear Gen. Williams:

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), I am writing to express our concern about complaints by Dr. Sherifa Zuhur, Research Professor of Islamic and Regional Studies at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) and a member of MESA, that she has been treated by USAWC authorities in ways that may violate USAWC’s stated policy with regard to academic freedom, as well as the standards of USAWC’s accrediting organization, the Middle States Association of Colleges.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 2800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to defending academic freedom, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

USAWC policy states that “academic freedom for its faculty and students is fundamental and essential to the health of the academic institution.” However, Professor Zuhur has reported to us that, in apparent violation of this policy, she has been subjected to censorship and harassment because of views she has expressed or which have been imputed to her. Among other things, Professor Zuhur reports that she has had one or more scheduled lectures at USAWC cancelled at the last minute, apparently because some USAWC officials disagreed with her opinions about, and analyses of, U.S. policy in the Middle East, and also that she has been harassed for allegedly failing to comply with USAWC’s procedures for prior review of publications and public statements – procedures that she believes have been applied arbitrarily and inconsistently and that may in any case not conform to USAWC’s avowed commitment to academic freedom. In these circumstances it is not surprising that Professor Zuhur believes that her employment contract at USAWC is not being renewed because of her views and beliefs, rather than because of her job performance.

Professor Zuhur should not be made to feel that she is being subjected to an atmosphere of harassment and intimidation that makes it impossible for her to do her job properly and that denies USAWC students and faculty, and the wider public, the full benefit of her expertise. I therefore urge you to investigate Professor Zuhur’s complaints and ensure that all USAWC personnel comply fully and consistently with its policies on academic freedom and on prior review of publications and public remarks by faculty.

Sincerely,

Mervat F. Hatem
MESA President
Professor of Political Science, Howard University

cc: Sherifa Zuhur

June 2, 2008

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Re: Prevention of students from Gaza from studying abroad

Dear Secretary Rice,

We are writing on behalf of Human Rights Watch, the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, and the Committee for Human Rights of the American Anthropological Association to welcome the State Department's decision to reinstate the Fulbright grants that had been awarded for the coming academic year to Palestinian students living in the Gaza Strip. We appreciated in particular your own objection to the department’s earlier decision to “redirect” the awards because of Israel’s blanket refusal to allow students in Gaza to travel abroad, or to the West Bank, to continue their education.

We remain concerned, however, about the sequence of decisions and the official statements that accompanied them. According to The New York Times, seven Palestinian students received letters on May 29, 2008, informing them that the grants awarded to them earlier for study in the United States had been “redirected” because Israeli authorities refused them permission to leave the Gaza Strip. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that because the students “could not get visas,” the State Department decided to transfer the awards to students in the West Bank “rather than lose them for this year.”

On May 30, following disclosure of the State Department’s actions, department spokesman Casey said that US officials “have been actively speaking to Israeli officials here in Washington” and “noted the secretary’s personal concern about this issue.” When queried further, Casey said, “I think the conversations that have been held today indicated that the Israelis appreciated and understood our concerns about this issue.”

These statements, and the June 1 decision to reinstate the grants, do not explain why the State Department, over strenuous objections from the Fulbright program, “redirected” them in the first place. This action displayed a disturbing readiness on the part of the United States to actively support Israel’s policy of strict closure on the Gaza Strip, a policy that has caused grave harm to the population there and constitutes collective punishment, a serious violation of international law. Rather than accommodate Israel’s unlawful restrictions, the United States should vigorously challenge them at every opportunity.

We also want to call your attention to the fact that Israel’s refusal to allow students to resume or begin university studies outside of Gaza has affected many more students than these Fulbright awardees. We urge you to take this opportunity to call on Israel to allow all students in Gaza, except where there are legitimate security concerns specific to particular individuals, to exercise their right to freedom of movement and access to education. At a minimum, the United States should clearly and publicly disassociate itself from Israel’s policy of collective punishment as it affects students seeking to study abroad.

Both Human Rights Watch and the Middle East Studies Association have over the past year called on Israel to remove blanket restrictions that have prevented hundreds of Palestinian students from leaving the Gaza Strip to study abroad. In November 2007, Human Rights Watch called on Israel to cease its arbitrary denial of exit permits to some 670 students in Gaza from pursuing higher studies abroad. The Middle East Studies Association also raised this matter in letters to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. By late 2007, the number of students and dependents in Gaza seeking to study abroad had risen to approximately 1,100. Israel allowed fewer than half of those to leave Gaza for Egypt and Jordan for exit to third countries, and hundreds remained cut off from the possibility of studying abroad. According to the Israeli human rights organization Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, between one and two thousand students in Gaza seek to leave to study abroad each year, but since January 13 of this year none had been permitted to do so. Israel has also insisted that the Rafah crossing on Gaza’s border with Egypt remain closed; during the several days in late January when the border was breached, Egypt allowed only persons who already had visas to third countries to proceed to Cairo.

Gaza’s students need to have access to higher education abroad. Opportunities in the Gaza Strip are currently quite limited. Many degrees are not at all available in the four universities there. For instance, there are no undergraduate degrees in languages other than Arabic, English, and French, and no master’s degrees in law, journalism, and information technology. Doctoral degrees are not offered at all. Israel rarely permits professors and lecturers from outside Gaza to enter to teach there.

Israel’s restrictions on Gaza students seeking to study abroad are part of its more comprehensive and increasingly severe policy of closure. Since June 2007 Israel has enforced a strict blockade of the Gaza Strip, preventing, with very few exceptions, people and goods from entering or leaving the territory. Israeli officials say that the strict closure policy is intended to suppress rocket and other attacks by Palestinian armed groups, many of which hit civilian areas in Israel in violation of the international humanitarian law prohibition of attacks that target or cause indiscriminate harm to civilians. The strict closure’s impact on the ability of the armed groups to carry out these attacks is highly debatable. What is clear is that the policy has had a grave impact on the access of Gaza’s civilian population to essential goods and services, including education, and violates Israel’s obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention on occupations to protect the rights of Palestinians to, among other things, freedom of movement and to secure access to education.

International humanitarian law and human rights law permits restrictions on freedom of movement for security reasons, but the restrictions must have a clear legal basis, be limited to what is necessary, and be proportionate to the threat. Israeli restrictions clearly exceed these norms, and constitute collective punishment, a serious violation of international law.

With this in mind, we strongly urge you to use this opportunity to call on Israel to cease those restrictions on the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip that constitute collective punishment, including restrictions that prevent Gaza residents from studying abroad, and to disassociate the United States from any inference of support for those policies.

Sincerely,

Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director
Middle East and North Africa division
Human Rights Watch

Amy Newhall
Executive Director
Middle East Studies Association of North America

Setha Low
President
American Anthropological Association

4 November 2007

Father Dennis Dease, President
Mail AQU 100
University of St. Thomas
2115 Summit Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55205

Dear Father Dease,

I write to you on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) first to express our appreciation for your decision on October 10 to invite Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at the University. We commend you for your candid admission that your earlier decision to withhold the invitation on the basis of incomplete information on Tutu’s positions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was a mistake. However, in view of your commitment to academic freedom at St. Thomas, we also wish to express our concern about another aspect of this case: The removal of Dr. Cris Toffolo as director of the Justice and Peace Studies Program by the university administration.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 2700 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

Dr. Toffolo in a public statement admitted that she and a priest-colleague in the program sent a letter to Archbishop Tutu informing him that the university had decided not to invite him to speak on campus as part of a program sponsored by PeaceJam International. Dr. Toffolo believes that she was removed from her position because of her resistance to this decision and the action she took to inform Archbishop Tutu and others of the university’s position. In the August 1 letter dismissing her from her position, the university’s executive vice president for academic affairs, Dr. Tom Rochon, said Dr. Toffolo was being dismissed “for cause” for four reasons including the letter that she wrote to Tutu with copies sent to the executive director of PeaceJam International, the Episcopalian Justice office that deals with Christian-Jewish dialogue and three retired senior clergy whom she and her colleague had consulted for advice. Dr. Rochon later told the student newspaper that Dr. Toffolo was removed for lapses of ethics and competence in the performance of her job, charges that Dr. Toffolo adamantly denies. A petition signed by faculty and staff asks that the university reinstate Dr. Toffolo as director of the Justice and Peace Studies Program and apologize for the punitive actions taken against her.

The university’s commitment to academic freedom should protect a faculty member such as Dr. Toffolo from reprisals when speaking or writing in opposition to a decision made by the university administration. Archbishop Tutu has stated that he will not speak at St. Thomas unless Dr. Toffolo is re-instated in her position, which would in effect nullify your decision to invite him to speak on campus. Unless the removal of Dr. Toffolo is reversed, the university’s actions will have a chilling effect on free speech at St. Thomas Univesity.

Therefore, we call on you and the university administration to uphold the university’s commitment to academic freedom and re-instate Dr. Toffolo in her position.

Sincerely,

Zachary Lockman
MESA President

4 September 2007

Marshall M. Bouton, President
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
332 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
Chicago, Illinois 60604-4416

Dear Mr. Bouton:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA). We wish to convey to you our distress regarding your decision to cancel a forum, scheduled for September 27, 2007, in which two of this country’s most distinguished professors of Political Science, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, were to speak about their new book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. This action on your part constitutes a serious violation of the principles of free expression and the free exchange of ideas. We urge you to invite professors Walt and Mearsheimer to speak at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs at a mutually convenient time in the near future. It is important to rectify the effect that your cancellation on July 24 has had in reinforcing an intellectual environment that seeks to restrict informed and critical discussion of issues that are vital to this country’s future.

According to numerous press reports, pressure from supporters of Israel who are critical of Walt and Mearsheimer led you to take the highly unusual step of canceling the previously scheduled event. In these reports, you are cited as saying that the speakers are controversial and that you preferred that they appear in “an appropriate forum” balanced by an opposing viewpoint. Yet, John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, have spoken before the Council on numerous occasions in the past without being forced to share the podium with those who oppose their points of view. It is only in this case, that of a presentation critical of Israeli policy and its supporters, that they have been subjected to the litmus test of “balance.” We regret that you chose to succumb to pressure exerted on the Council and are dismayed that in justifying your actions you have adopted the argument that controversial ideas should not be aired unless they are immediately and at the same event “balanced” by opposing views.

As the Association of American University Professors, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many other organizations have persuasively argued in official statements, the argument of “balance,” selectively invoked, has been repeatedly used to stifle the free exchange of ideas, especially when it comes to discussions about Israel and U.S. foreign policy. We are concerned that your decision --reminiscent of that taken by the Council-General of the Polish Consulate in New York to cancel a talk on Israel and U.S. foreign policy on October 3, 2006 by the renowned historian New York University Professor Tony Judt-- contributes to raising the wall of censorship. Indeed, three other organizations in Chicago as well the Center for the Humanities at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, among others, have since either cancelled or turned down appearances by the authors.

We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision of July 24, and in the process affirm your support for free expression and the free exchange of ideas, by inviting Professors Walt and Mearsheimer to give a talk at the Council without requiring that they share the podium and without restrictions on the content of their presentation.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Zachary Lockman
MESA President

4 September 2007

The Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M., Ed.D.
President De Paul University
1 E. Jackson
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Fax: 312-362-7577

Dear President Holtschneider:

I write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our concern and dismay at what appear to be your university’s multiple and egregious violations of generally accepted standards of academic procedure in handling the tenure case of Professor Norman G. Finkelstein.

The Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in its field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 2700 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

As you will remember, the Committee sent you a letter dated April 10, 2007, in which it expressed its grave concern about the politicization of Professor Finkelstein’s tenure case as a result of the campaign launched against him by Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard University Law School. In that letter we urged you to ensure that Professor Finkelstein be evaluated for tenure at DePaul solely on the basis of his scholarship, his teaching, and his service to his university and professional communities, and that all aspects of Professor Finkelstein’s tenure process adhere to generally accepted procedures and standards. We regret that you did not choose to respond to that letter.

Unfortunately, developments at DePaul since that letter was sent indicate that proper procedures and standards were not being adhered to in Professor Finkelstein’s case. As a consequence the Committee now feels compelled to write you again, because in the aftermath of DePaul’s decision to deny tenure to Professor Finkelstein your administration appears to have violated accepted academic procedures and standards in at least two ways.

First, we deem unacceptable your administration’s refusal to permit Professor Finkelstein to pursue a formal appeal of the decision to deny him tenure. As you no doubt know, such a right of appeal is accepted by most leading institutions of higher education in this country. Our concern about this arbitrary and unjust decision is shared by your own university’s Faculty Council and by the American Association of University Professors, among others.

Second, we feel obliged to register our distress at reports that your administration has, just a few days before the beginning of the fall semester, suddenly decided to prevent Professor Finkelstein from teaching during his terminal year at DePaul, taken away his office, and put him on paid administrative leave. As you surely know, it is customary to permit faculty who have been denied tenure to teach for one final year. Your administration’s abrupt decision to prevent Professor Finkelstein (who is by all accounts an outstanding teacher) from doing so, without his agreement and despite strong objections from members of your own faculty and student body, strikes us as high-handed, if not vindictive.

However one judges Professor Finkelstein’s qualifications for tenure, it seems clear that DePaul has mishandled his case in a variety of ways and has repeatedly violated generally accepted standards of academic process and fair play. In so doing your administration has in effect given aid and comfort to those who seek to undermine the academy as a bastion of academic freedom and as a forum for the open and critical discussion of issues of vital public concern.

We live in a time when scholars, teachers and institutions of higher education across the United States are facing extraordinary pressures and vituperative assaults from individuals and organized groups based outside the academy and pursuing narrow partisan agendas, particularly with respect to United States policy in the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is therefore highly distressing that you and your administration at DePaul have in this case signally failed to adhere to accepted standards of academic procedure or to protect the rights of every member of your faculty.

We therefore call on you to promptly reconsider and reverse both of these arbitrary and misguided decisions, in order to undo the damage already done to DePaul University’s reputation as an institution of higher education and to help protect the norms of academic life and the principle of academic freedom that your university professes to cherish.

Sincerely,

Zachary Lockman
MESA President

June 11, 2007

Gerald A. Reynolds
Chair of the Commission
United States Commission on Civil Rights
Regional Office
624 Ninth Street, NW
Washington DC 20425

Dear Chairman Reynolds and Members of the Commission,

I write to you on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) to express our grave concern with aspects both of the briefing report titled “Campus Anti-Semitism,” released by the United States Commission on Civil Rights earlier this year, and of the “Findings and Recommendations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Campus Anti-Semitism,” dated April 3, 2006.

However, MESA is concerned that the briefing report and findings issued by the Commission may actually weaken efforts to combat anti-Semitism by expanding its definition to include an indefensibly broad range of legitimate speech and conduct. We are also concerned that false allegations associating Middle East studies programs and faculty with anti-Semitism may contribute to an already troubling environment of harassment, intimidation and censorship of faculty and students on college and university campuses, thereby threatening academic freedom.

Three issues are of particular concern to MESA. First, we are deeply troubled by the Commission’s apparent acceptance of an overly broad and vague definition of anti-Semitism that dangerously blurs the boundaries between actual anti-Semitic speech and conduct, on the one hand, and criticism of Israel, Zionism, or U.S. policy in the Middle East on the other. As a result, the briefing report and the Commission’s findings seem to accept or even endorse assertions made by panelists who submitted statements to the Commission that entirely legitimate views and policy positions with which they disagree should be characterized as anti-Semitic. Such assertions are particularly distressing when they involve scholarship and teaching by college and university faculty. Wherever anti-Semitism surfaces, an immediate and vigorous response is necessary. But efforts to demonize academic and other critics of Israel, Zionism, and U.S. policy in the Middle East by tarring them with the brush of anti-Semitism are clearly unacceptable and merit no less urgent and vigorous a response.

Second, we reject as unfounded the allegations and insinuations presented in the briefing report that university departments of Middle East studies promote anti-Semitism. The briefing report presents no evidence whatsoever that would substantiate such scurrilous claims, and none of the instances of anti-Semitism referred to in the report involved a federally-funded Middle East studies center. Unfortunately, the Commission permitted members of the briefing panel to repeat, without challenge, unfounded allegations concerning individual faculty members specializing in the study of the Middle East and/or Islam, all of whom have rejected the charges against them and denied their truthfulness. Several of these faculty members have in fact been subjected to exhaustive investigations by their universities which have not substantiated the allegations repeated in the Commission’s briefing.

We also insist that it is inappropriate and inaccurate for the Commission to have included among its findings the assertion that “many university departments of Middle East studies provide one-sided, highly polemical academic presentations and some may repress legitimate debate concerning Israel.” This assertion too is completely unsupported by evidence and should be stricken from the Commission’s findings.

Third, we are concerned that the procedure by which the briefing report was produced was defective; that much of its tone and contents is highly polemical and fall far short of the standard that Americans have a right to expect the Commission to adhere to; and that it may contribute to an environment on university campuses that undermines academic freedom as well as the kind of first-rate scholarly research and teaching on the Middle East and the Muslim world which our country so desperately needs.

As the briefing report notes, all of the universities invited to take part in the briefing declined to do so. To our knowledge, no representative of university-based Middle East studies programs or of the academic Middle East studies community was invited to participate. The briefing report, and the responses to it by several universities against which allegations were made, make it clear that the panelists presented a very partial, highly ideological, and narrowly partisan understanding of academic Middle East studies in this country and sought to define anti-Semitism extremely broadly and loosely. We fear that their purpose in so doing was to advance their own partisan political agenda, strengthen efforts to impose political litmus tests on college and university faculty, subject federally-funded Middle East studies programs to politically-motivated oversight, undermine academic freedom, and stifle free and open discussion on public issues of critical national importance.

We also note that efforts to dilute and expand the definition of anti-Semitism so as to encompass legitimate speech and conduct can have damaging consequences for efforts to address and combat real anti-Semitism. By adopting a vague and politicized definition of this insidious form of hate speech, the Commission increases the risk that attention and resources that are better directed toward combating real anti-Semitism will instead be diverted to politically-motivated efforts to censor unpopular or controversial views expressed by university faculty. We urge the Commission not to pursue or endorse such a course, but rather to focus its efforts on real forms and incidents of discrimination and hate speech, including anti-Semitism.

By accepting panelists’ unsubstantiated allegations and insinuations about biased and unprofessional conduct among Middle East studies programs and faculty, and by allowing them to be publicly tainted with the brush of anti-Semitism, the Commission has imposed a substantial burden on these programs and individuals. It is incumbent on the Commission to relieve this burden. We therefore call upon the Commission to clarify its definition of anti-Semitism by more effectively distinguishing it from criticism of Israel or of Zionism, and to state publicly that the allegations and insinuations contained in the briefing report and findings concerning Middle East studies programs and faculty are unsubstantiated by evidence and do not reflect the views of the Commission.

Sincerely,
Zachary Lockman
President

cc:       Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chair
            Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director
            Jennifer C. Braceras, Commissioner
            Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner
            Arlan D. Melendez, Commissioner
            Ashley L. Taylor, Jr., Commissioner
            Michael Yaki, Commissioner

10 April 2007
The Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M., Ed.D.
President De Paul University
1 E. Jackson
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Fax: 312-362-7577

Dear Father Holtschneider:

I write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our concern regarding the tenure case of Professor Norman Finkelstein.

We fear that the generally accepted academic procedures which should have been used to evaluate Professor Finkelstein’s scholarship, and thus his qualifications for promotion to tenure, may have been unduly politicized. We are particularly concerned that Professor Finkelstein has apparently been subjected to a campaign waged by an influential senior scholar outside his field from another university, which is designed to undermine his candidacy for tenure, on ideological rather than scholarly grounds.

We recognize that some people may regard Professor Finkelstein’s scholarship as controversial. He has certainly engaged in some of the most charged debates about the history and historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and other topics. In the context of Professor Finkelstein’s interventions in these debates he has had several highly publicized exchanges with Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard University Law School, whose book The Case for Israel (Wiley, 2003) Professor Finkelstein has subjected to scathing criticism on a variety of grounds. According to Inside Higher Ed as well as a widely disseminated report by Professor Jon Wiener in The Nation, Professor Dershowitz went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the publication of Professor Finkelstein’s critique Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of AntiSemitism and the Abuse of History (University of California Press, 2004). Those reports indicate that Professor Dershowitz authorized what Professor Wiener described as “threatening letters” to the counsel, to the university regents, to the university provost, to seventeen directors of the press and to nineteen members of the press's faculty editorial committee. Professor Dershowitz also appealed to the governor of California to stop the publication of the book. Fortunately, both the University of California Press and the governor’s office defended the principle of academic freedom in this case and refused to stop the publication of Professor Finkelstein’s book.

According to a Chronicle of Higher Education story dated 5 April 2007, Professor Dershowitz has admitted to sending a dossier critical of Professor Finkelstein to members of DePaul’s Law School and of its political science department. We regard this blatant and entirely unsolicited intervention in a tenure case by a very well-known faculty member from a different university as unacceptable. We fear that it may have unduly politicized and/or prejudiced your university’s consideration of Professor Finkelstein’s candidacy for tenure. This intervention is particularly distressing because it comes at a time when we have witnessed other instances of efforts by individuals or organizations to influence hiring, tenure or promotion decisions, based not on the candidate’s scholarship but rather on his or her political views, real or imputed.

We also note that a memorandum dated 22 March 2007 and written by Chuck Suchar, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at DePaul University, to the University Board on Tenure and Promotion seems to conflate the tone of Professor Finkelstein’s work with the substance of his scholarship. We would like to remind you that the American Association of University Professors clearly stipulates that scholars are to be evaluated strictly on the basis of their scholarship’s academic merit and their teaching –not on their collegiality, nor on whether some may deem their scholarly work too controversial. In this regard we are also concerned that Dean Suchar’s memorandum seems to judge Professor Finkelstein on the basis of his alleged failure to conform to what the dean describes as the “Vincentian value of ‘personalism,’” which is not generally accepted as a proper criterion for promotion to tenure.

We understand that Professor Finkelstein’s tenure evaluation is not yet concluded. We urge you and your colleagues to ensure that that evaluation henceforth proceeds in a manner that conforms to generally accepted procedures, such that Professor Finkelstein is evaluated solely on the basis of his scholarship, his teaching, and his service to the DePaul community and to the academic fields in which he works.

Sincerely,
Zachary Lockman
MESA President

February 14, 2007
Christopher Nikoloff
Head of School
Harker School
500 Saratoga Ave.
San Jose, CA 95129
Fax: 408-984-2325

Dear Mr. Nikoloff:

On behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and the Committee on Academic Freedom, I am writing to express our profound concern about the abrupt decision of the Harker School administration to cancel a talk to its upper school students by Professor Joel Beinin, scheduled for January 19, 2007.

The Middle East Studies Association of North American (MESA) was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 2700 members worldwide. MESA is committed to defending academic freedom, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere. As you are aware, Professor Beinin is a former president of MESA. However, the Committee on Academic Freedom is sending you this letter in its own right.

It is our understanding that Professor Beinin was invited to present a talk to Harker's upper school students and faculty as part of its Distinguished Speaker Series. On January 18th, however, the Head of Harker Upper School contacted Professor Beinin and informed him that the school administration had revoked the invitation, citing pressures that threatened to undermine its financial position and public reputation. According to press reports in the San Francisco Chronicle and elsewhere, that pressure was exerted by a small group of individuals, including the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley.

Your school’s decision to cancel Professor Beinin’s talk is a violation of academic freedom, a principle that is vital to the cultivation of democratic values and informed critical thinking, and which your school claims is central to its educational mission. The cancellation also deprives the students, faculty and staff of Harker of the opportunity to hear, and engage with, an important and highly informed voice on Middle East history and current politics, topics of supreme importance to American citizens today. Professor Joel Beinin is an eminent historian of the modern Middle East and of Jewish history. He has been a member of the faculty of Stanford University for more than a quarter century and is currently director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the American University in Cairo.

It is distressing that individuals and organizations purporting to speak for the American Jewish community seem to have been able to prevent your students and faculty from hearing the views of a respected scholar and teacher. This appears to be another success for various local and national organizations seeking to marginalize voices critical of U.S. foreign policy and the policies of the Israeli government.

We strongly urge you to resist such outside pressures and renew your school’s invitation to Professor Beinin. This would send an important signal to your students and to the community at large that Harker School remains committed to the principle of academic freedom and to freedom of speech more broadly.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Zachary Lockman
President

cc: Richard Hartzel
Head of Harker Upper School
500 Saratoga Avenue
San Jose, CA 95129
Fax: 408-984-2325

Diane Fisher
Executive Director
Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley
dfisher@jcrcsv.org

October 19, 2006
His Excellency Christopher Kastryzk
Consul-General
Republic of Poland
233 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Fax: 646 237 2105

Your Excellency,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA). We wish to convey to you our distress regarding your decision on the afternoon of October 3 to cancel abruptly a talk that Professor Tony Judt was scheduled to give a few hours later that evening. This action on your part constitutes a serious affront to the principles of free expression and the free exchange of ideas. We urge you to invite Dr. Judt to speak at the Consulate at a mutually convenient time in the near future and on a subject of his choosing. It is important to rectify the chilling effect that your cancellation on October 3 has had on the free exchange of ideas.

Dr. Judt’s October 3 talk had been arranged by Network 20/20, an independent New York City-based membership organization that sponsors lectures and discussion panels on issues relating to United States foreign policy. According to Network 20/20, many of its events are held at the Polish Consulate, and the Consulate had been generous and supportive of their efforts over the years. Dr. Judt’s cancelled talk was to be on U.S. foreign policy and the role of the pro-Israel lobby. Approximately 100 persons had been expected to attend. The president of Network 20/20, Patricia Huntington, told our committee that the Consulate had never before cancelled any of its programs there.

According to Ms. Huntington, a member of your staff telephoned her at 4:15 p.m. on the day of the event to tell her that it was cancelled. When she asked to speak with you, your staff member said that this was not possible because you were on the telephone with Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and that you had been on this call “a long time.” After notifying Dr. Judt of your sudden cancellation, she and other Network staff members, who had planned to arrive at the Consulate at 5 p.m. as usual to set up refreshments and deal with other logistics of the event, instead tried to notify meeting participants of the cancellation. In a subsequent press release, Network 20/20 said, “the consulate informed us that they were canceling the event because it was ‘too controversial.’ We regret that the Polish Consulate felt compelled to cancel Tony Judt’s talk.”

You have told the press that “maybe four” groups had called you on October 3 to express concern about Dr. Judt’s talk, but you declined to identify them. It now appears that the ADL person you were then speaking with was someone calling on Mr. Foxman’s behalf. Mr. Foxman has publicly denied allegations that the ADL put any pressure on you to cancel the event, but also said, “I think they made the right decision.”

David Harris, executive vice president of the American Jewish Committee, has said that he was one of the callers. “We didn’t want [the Consul General] to get blind-sided by any criticism that may emerge,” he said, according to an account in the Jewish Week of October 13. “It was natural to pick up the phone and say, ‘We want to be sure you know Tony Judt is a controversial figure in the Jewish community, and we want to understand whether you’re aware of it, because otherwise there could be misunderstandings.’” Harris said he “didn’t go to the extent of menacing or threatening, or any such thing,” and “I certainly didn’t ask the consul general to take any particular action.” According to press accounts, Mr. Harris has also commended the Consulate for doing “the right thing.”

From a perspective of protecting academic freedom and the core democratic principles of free speech and the free exchange of ideas, it is our view that you did the wrong thing.

In an interview with the Jewish Week, you said, “It’s not true that they threatened or made any pressure. They simply expressed concern.” Elsewhere you said, “The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure. That’s obvious – we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that.”

You have also said, “I don’t have to subscribe to the first Amendment,” and that you took your decision “for my state’s interests.” Of course, as Consul General you and your government have every right to determine what takes place at the consulate. In this case, however, Network 20/20 has used your premises regularly for several years, at your invitation. Your decision to cancel Dr. Judt’s talk at literally the last minute, following these telephone calls, reflects a disturbing disregard for freedom of expression, a principle that the governments of Poland and the United States have pledged to respect. It is difficult to avoid concluding that pressure was indeed exerted on you by various pro-Israel organizations, however elegantly it may have been conveyed. We regret that you chose to succumb to that pressure, thereby conveying a message that you do not consider the free exchange of ideas to be worthy of your support when those ideas are “controversial.”

We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision of October 3, and in the process affirm your support for free expression and the free exchange of ideas, by inviting Professor Judt to give a talk at the Consulate at a mutually convenient time and on a subject of his choosing.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Juan Cole
President

cc: Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Fax: 212-895-7700
David Harris, Executive Vice President, American Jewish Committee
Fax: 212-891-1492
Patricia Huntington, President, Network 20/20
Fax: 212-586-3291

October 3, 2006
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
Fax: 202-647-2283

Dear Secretary Rice:

We, the Middle East Studies Association of North America’s Committee on Academic Freedom, are writing to express our grave concern and dismay over the Department of State’s denial of a visa for a second time to a world-renowned scholar of Islam, Professor Tareq Ramadan. It is apparent that this decision was made on purely political grounds, in clear violation of the principles of academic freedom and free speech, both of which are critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy. We urge you in the strongest terms to review and reverse this decision without delay.

On August 30, 2004, we wrote asking for clarification regarding the Department of State’s then-recent decision to revoke the visa Dr. Ramadan had already been granted so that he could take the prestigious Luce Chair at the University o Notre Dame. As specialists in the region familiar with Ramadan's record, we stated that there was absolutely no evidence for the allegations then circulating in some media outlets claiming that Dr. Ramadan had advocated violence or had been associated with groups that perpetrate violence. On the contrary, numerous reputable scholars from prestigious universities had testified to his academic credentials and his character as a researcher and teacher.

In response, in a letter dated 3 September and addressed to MESA’s Executive Director, Dr. Amy Newhall, the State Department stated that the visa had been revoked “prudentially based on information that became available after the visa was issued” and that “Due to the confidentiality of visa records, as provided for in the Immigration and Nationality Act, [the Department of State] was not able to provide any details concerning this matter.”

Following the June 2006 ruling by a federal court which ordered the State Department either to grant the visa to Dr. Ramadan or provide an explanation for not doing so, Department spokeswoman Janelle Hironimus stated that Dr. Ramadan was denied a visa “for providing material support to a terrorist organization.” This charge is apparently based on the fact that he made donations between 2000 and 2004 in the amount of 600 euros to French and Swiss organizations that provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians – donations which Dr. Ramadan himself disclosed in his visa application. Thus, in denying him a visa, the US government is apparently using Section 411(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Patriot Act, related to excluding individuals believed to have provided “material support” for terrorism.

That contributions to European organizations seeking to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation is viewed by the US government as constituting support for terrorism, already speaks volumes about the administration’s lack of understanding of the region and the quality of its stated concern to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East. It is also unreasonable to expect that Dr. Ramadan should have had advance knowledge that the United States would at a future date put the organization to which he was contributing on its list of groups supporting Hamas; it figured on no such list at the time he made his donations.

Dr. Ramadan is a leading scholar and public intellectual whose writings and statements make clear his opposition to violence and terrorism. Indeed, the basic concern that motivates much of his work is one of reconciliation and interfaith coexistence. It seems clear that Dr. Ramadan’s charitable contributions in fact have nothing at all to do with the visa denial: its origins lie elsewhere. By his own account of the visa interviews conducted at the US embassy in Switzerland, the focus of the questioning was his positions on Palestine and Iraq. On these questions, like many others, Muslims and non-Muslims, Americans and non-Americans, scholars, intellectuals, and average citizens, Tareq Ramadan has been a critic of US policy in Palestine/Israel and Iraq. It appears that this visa denial has nothing whatsoever to do with his donations, but instead is punishment for his political views.

As we stated in our letter of 2004, “denying qualified scholars entry to the United States because of their political beliefs strikes at the core of academic freedom. On that basis alone, the decision to deny Dr. Ramadan access to our country is unacceptable.” We also find the decision profoundly counter-productive to the stated aims of US policy, which is to develop a better understanding of Muslims and the Muslim world. It is clearly in US interests to encourage dialogue and exchange with Muslims, particularly prominent and highly regarded members of Muslim communities who do not espouse violence, regardless of what their positions on US foreign policy may be. How does it serve the interests of the United States, which is currently seeking to improve its ties with and image in the Arab/Islamic world, to exclude from entry one of that world’s most highly regarded thinkers and scholars?

We are deeply troubled by this second denial of a visa to Dr. Ramadan. It is a clear violation of academic freedom and of the principle of free speech. We respectfully request that you review and reverse this decision without delay.

Sincerely,
Juan R.I. Cole
MESA President

cc: Ambassador Karen Hughes
ACLU

October 3, 2006
Ambassador Karen Hughes
Under Secretary
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs United States
U. S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520
Fax: 202-647-9140

Dear Madame Ambassador:

The Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association has taken the liberty of forwarding to you a copy of a letter we sent to the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, concerning the denial of an entry visa to the noted Islamic scholar, Tareq Ramadan.

We are concerned about an increasing number of visa cancellations of this nature. Such denials have had negative consequences for the image of the United States in the Muslim world and have also given rise to significant problems in the promotion and expansion of student and scholar exchange programs. It has adversely affected as the ability of our members to conduct research abroad and develop and maintain important scholarly and collegial connections in the Arab Middle East.

Individual members of our committee have expressed an interest in working with you and your staff to reach a larger understanding of the impact of current visa policies on shared interests and goals in the region.

Please feel free to contact Amy Newhall, Executive Director of MESA, who can put you in touch with relevant committee members.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Juan R. I. Cole
MESA President

June 20, 2006
Andrew D. Hamilton
Provost
Yale University
PO Box 208365
New Haven, CT 06520-8365

Dear Dr. Hamilton,

I am writing on behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America. We understand from recent press reports that Yale University’s History and Sociology departments had recently approved a decision to extend an offer of joint appointment to Dr. Juan Cole. According to these reports, the university’s Senior Appointments Committee subsequently voted to overturn that decision.

We are also aware that Dr. Cole’s candidacy for this position had attracted considerable hostile attention in some conservative media outlets as a result of critical positions Dr. Cole has articulated concerning policies of the governments of the United States and Israel. Our Committee is concerned that politically-motivated pressures outside and inside the university rather than professional norms may have influenced the Senior Appointments Committee’s decision to overrule the recommendation of the two departments.

We would welcome any clarification you can provide about measures the university has taken to ensure that such external and non-professional influences do not influence decisions on appointments. We would also appreciate knowing if the university plans to take any steps, such as an official independent inquiry, into the decision not to appoint Dr. Cole.

As you may know, Dr. Cole currently serves as president of the Middle East Studies Association. We are, however, an independent committee acting in our own right out of concern that political considerations may have played a role in the decision not to hire Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole, additionally, has formally recused himself from this matter inside MESA and the Committee on Academic Freedom.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this inquiry. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
Joe Stork
Chair
Committee on Academic Freedom

June 30, 2006
Mr. Joe Stork
Chair
Committee on Academic Freedom
Middle East Studies Association of North America
The University of Arizona
1219 N. Santa Rita Avenue
Tucson AZ 85721

Dear Mr. Stork:

As you can imagine, Yale’s policy on confidentiality prohibits me from commenting publicly on any appointment matter, including that of Professor Juan Cole, about which you wrote to me. I can categorically assure you that Yale’s search and the appointment processes are carefully monitored, both by a dean and by members of the Provost’s Office, and this is particularly so when specific appointments draws special internal or external attention. Our criteria for appointment are based solely on an individual’s scholarship, teaching, and service, and an individual’s political views are never taken into account in making appointment decisions. We also have robust procedures that the Provost may initiate if he or she has questions about the outcome of an appointment. No such procedure has been initiated in this case.

Sincerely,
Andrew D. Hamilton
Provost

March 13, 2006
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
FAX: 202-647-2283

Dear Secretary Rice:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), I write to express our very grave concern regarding the United States government’s blanket denial of visas to fifty-five Cuban scholars scheduled to participate in the Latin American Studies Association’s (LASA) International Congress, to be held on March 15-18, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. We urge you to reverse the State Department’s decision, which seriously interferes with the higher education community’s capacity to fulfill our core mission and represents a serious threat to academic freedom.

MESA is committed to fostering the free exchange of knowledge as a human right and to inhibit infringements on that right by government restrictions on scholars. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provide the principal standards by which human rights violations are identified today. Those rights include the right to education and work, freedom of movement and residence, and freedom of association and assembly. Infringements include governmental refusal to allow scholars to conduct scholarly research, publish their findings, deliver academic lectures, and travel to international scholarly meetings. We believe that the denial of visas to these academics represents just such an infringement.
We urge you to reconsider the recent decision to deny visas to the Cuban scholars scheduled to participate in the XXVI International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association. Intellectual exchange and scholarly collaboration across national borders is essential for our community. It is critical for foreign scholars to have freedom of access to our academic meetings—and just as critical for American scholars to be free to engage in scholarly argument about significant contested issues in our fields. These activities only benefit us all.

Sincerely,
Amy W. Newhall, PhD

Response to letter sent March 13, 2006
Amy W. Newhall, Executive Director
Middle East Studies Association
The University of Arizona
1219 N. Santa Rita Ave
Tucson AZ 85721

April 26, 2006

Dear Dr. Newhall:

Thank you for your recent letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressing concerns on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) regarding the denial of visas for Cuban scholars who wished to attend the Latin American Studies Association conference. I have been asked to respond to your inquiry personally. Due to mail screening procedures, we have only recently received your letter. We appreciate your patience in awaiting a response.

The Department of State is keenly aware of the importance of international participation in the United States’ academic and scientific communities. Foreign students and scholars enrich our country culturally and intellectually, help foster international goodwill, and assist in promoting United States interests abroad. We at the Department are fundamentally committed to protecting the openness of the United States while ensuring the security of our borders. Although security must remain our first priority, we work every day to see that access to our country is not impeded for those whose presence we encourage and value.

While we enthusiastically support and administer visa programs for legitimate travel to the United States, visas can only be issued in strict accordance with the criteria in the Immigrant and Nationality Act (INA). Each visa application is adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, and consular officers attempt to be as sensitive as possible to applicants’ situations. However, the officer’s first responsibility is to conscientiously administer the INA, and the fundamental issue is whether the applicant qualifies for the visa under US law on his or her own individual merits.

Current US immigration law, in conjunction with Presidential Proclamation 5377 of October 4, 1985, suspends entry in toe the United States of officers and employees of the Cuban Government and Communist Party, with very limited exceptions. Under these circumstances we approve vises for Cubans only when doing so supports US foreign policy interest in our efforts to advance the prospects for a democratic transition in Cuba.

We hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
Dale Rumsbarger
for
Julie Furuta-Toy
Director
Office of Diplomatic and Public Liaison Visa Services

April 7, 2005
The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg
Mayor
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
By facsimile: 212 788 8123

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

I write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our grave concern regarding the recent decision by the Chancellor Joel I. Klein to exclude Professor Rashid Khalidi from any further participation in teacher development workshops. This decision violates the right to impart and exchange information, one of the basic tenets of academic freedom and an essential right for elementary and secondary school teachers as well as university professors.

[MESA is...]

Chancellor Klein’s decision, which was announced by his press secretary, Mr. Jerry Russo, was explained as a response to past statements made by Professor Khalidi that were critical of Israel. Mr. Russo is reported to have said, “Considering his past statements, Rashid Khalidi should not have been included in a program that provided professional development for DOE teachers and he won’t be participating in the future.” The suggestion that responsible criticism of Israel and its policies should disqualify Professor Khalidi or any other respected scholar from participating in a teachers’ in-service training program undermines the values of free expression that we value in our society.

We had hoped that this letter would be unnecessary, given your demonstrated commitment to the fundamental values of freedom in our society, but we have been disappointed by your silence on this matter. We would like to emphasize that Professor Khalidi is a respected historian, a former President of this organization, and a highly regarded teacher. It is noteworthy that prior to his dismissal he offered two lectures on the Middle East as part of the teacher development workshops that elicited only praise. Moreover, many of Professor Khalidi’s colleagues have heard him publicly criticize Palestinian political authorities. By Chancellor Klein’s logic, Professor Khalidi would on these grounds also be disqualified from lecturing on either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would be absurd, as I am sure you agree.

This decision by the head of New York’s Department of Education reflects poorly on a city renowned for its willingness to embrace a rich diversity of people and opinion, and especially on a school system justly revered for its bounty of fine graduates. Chancellor Klein’s decision necessarily raises fundamental questions about freedom of speech in the New York City’s schools when issues concerning the Middle East are concerned.

As you know, the New York Civil Liberties Union, in a letter to Chancellor Klein, dated March 2, 2005, stated that the Chancellor was violating Professor Khalidi’s First Amendment right to free speech, and the Civil Liberties Union cited constitutional case law to that effect. Columbia’s President Bollinger called the decision, “wrong not only as a matter of constitutional law but as a matter of good policy and as a matter of the conduct of education.” He is reconsidering Columbia’s participation in any future teacher training programs.

We note that Chancellor Klein’s arbitrary decision was announced at a time when there appears to be a momentum toward a peaceful solution to the conflict that enjoys wide support among Israelis and Palestinians, not to mention many Americans. While public opinion should not be the criterion of free speech, it appears that the Chancellor of New York’s schools may have improperly allowed himself to be swayed by loud and unrepresentative voices of those determined to de-legitimize and suppress any thoughtful discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that includes criticism of Israeli policies. In some cases these have been the voices of individuals seeking to gain political advantage by their posturing vis-à-vis Professor Khalidi and his colleagues at Columbia University.

Therefore, we respectfully request that you review the Chancellor’s decision with him, with a view to restoring, protecting, and advancing the free exchange of ideas to education in the City. We would also be grateful for a prompt public statement by you making clear that New York City’s teachers, and the children that they teach, will continue to be exposed to a diversity of perspectives in the classroom rather than merely to what the Chancellor may deem politically expedient or find personally comfortable.

Sincerely,

Ali Banuazizi
President, Middle East Studies Association
Professor, Boston College

cc:
Chancellor Joel I. Klein, Chancellor of the Department of Education

November 5, 2004
Dr. Lee Bollinger
President
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027

Dear Dr. Bollinger,

I write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our concern regarding numerous public calls for Columbia University to suppress or infringe upon academic freedom. Recently these pressures have extended to demands for the dismissal of a professor in the Department of Middle East and Asian Language and Culture (MEALAC). We are heartened that the university administration has insisted on upholding the fundamental right of free expression in the university community. In this you have our unconditional support, and our encouragement to persevere.

[MESA is...]

The latest salvo against academic freedom at Columbia has come in reports of a film by a Boston-based organization containing allegations against Professor Joseph Massad. According to these allegations, Dr. Massad had expressed views of Israel that were tantamount to anti-Semitism, and had intimidated students who did not share his views. The film has not, as of this writing, been available for public viewing. Its allegations have nonetheless received prominent notice in several New York-area tabloids, assisted by a letter to you, dated October 21, from Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Brooklyn Congressman, publicly calling on you to “fire” Dr. Massad. Rep. Weiner’s letter also invoked earlier campaigns against Columbia’s appointment of Professor Rashid I. Khalidi to an endowed chair, and the appointment of former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson as Professor in the Practice of Public Affairs.

In the most thorough journalistic account of the controversy over Dr. Massad, in the November 2 issue of The Jewish Week, staff writer Liel Leibovitz interviewed four of the seven students who reportedly appear in the film, and several dozens others who have attended MEALAC classes over the last five years. According to the article, those who took classes with Dr. Massad, including Jewish and Israeli students, were strikingly positive about their experience.

We understand that you have asked the Provost of the university to look into the matter. This is certainly an appropriate step if there are any genuine grounds for concern regarding these allegations. Such a response, however, because it has been made public, may also suggest that the university is open to politicized pressure from the outside to silence debate and dissent on Columbia University’s campus. We therefore urge you to take every appropriate opportunity to reassert that Columbia University will continue to uphold the fundamental values of freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas, and that the campaign of defamation against Dr. Massad will find no resonance within your administration. We assure you of our full support in this endeavor.

Sincerely
,
Laurie Brand
President, Middle East Studies Association

cc:
Rep. Anthony D. Weiner, Member of Congress

August 30, 2004
The Honorable Colin Powell
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 2052
and
The Honorable Tom Ridge
Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Secretary Powell and Secretary Ridge:

We, the Middle East Studies Association of North America’s Committee on Academic Freedom and the Board of Directors for the American Academy of Religion, are writing to express our very grave concern regarding the decision of the Department of State, made public last week, to rescind the visa for the well-known scholar of Islam Dr. Tariq Ramadan. Dr. Ramadan was slated to take up an appointment in the religion department of the University of Notre Dame, beginning earlier last week. He had received his visa in April 2004, only to have it rescinded, without explanation, in early August. The Department of State’s decision was reportedly taken on the basis of information provided by the Department of Homeland Security. Neither department has made public any reason for the decision. We request that you take the necessary steps to reverse this decision as a matter of urgency, in order that Dr. Ramadan can lecture and meet with students.

[MESA is…]

The American Academy of Religion (AAR) is the major scholarly society and professional association of scholars and teachers in religion. With 10,000 members, the Academy fosters excellence in research and teaching in the field and contributes to the broad public understanding of religion and religions. The AAR publishes the flagship scholarly journal in religion and books in five series through Oxford University Press.

The decision to rescind Dr. Ramadan’s visa is particularly troubling on two grounds. First, he had already received his visa, going through the rigorous screening process that your Departments have implemented for foreign visitors. As far as we are aware, neither Dr. Ramadan nor the University of Notre Dame were consulted regarding any problems or new information that might give cause to rescind his visa.

Second, the lack of explanation for rescinding the visa raises serious questions about the cause of the decision. In the absence of any explanation, we fear that pressures were applied to reverse the granting of the visa by people who disagree with Dr. Ramadan’s views as a scholar and as a public intellectual. That fear is exacerbated by the unsourced comments in some media outlets about alleged “links” between Dr. Ramadan and terrorist groups. There is absolutely nothing in the public record regarding Dr. Ramadan, or in his scholarly production, that would indicate any basis whatsoever for such allegations—and Dr. Ramadan is a scholar very much in the public eye in Switzerland, where he resides and teaches, and in Europe more generally. To us, these allegations smack of a character assassination campaign designed to suppress Dr. Ramadan’s voice at a prominent American university.

Denying qualified scholars entry into the United States because of their political beliefs strikes at the core of academic freedom. On that basis alone the decision to deny Dr. Ramadan access to our country is unacceptable. We also find the decision profoundly counter-productive to the stated aims of our national policy. As our country tries to understand better the Muslim world and to encourage interpretations of Islam which reject violence and terrorism, we will have to be open to dialogue with Muslims who hold political opinions that do not espouse violence but do differ from the opinions of some Americans or are critical of U.S. policies. If controversy is cause enough to deny someone a visa, our prospects for reaching out to Muslims around the world are very dim. The decision to bar Dr. Ramadan from teaching and meeting students and other academics, if allowed to stand, will represent a very low mark with regard to the Bush administration’s commitment to the free exchange of ideas and freedom of expression.

We are aware of absolutely no evidence for allegations that Dr. Ramadan has advocated violence or been associated with groups which perpetrate violence. On the contrary, important scholars and reputable universities have testified to his academic credentials and his character as a researcher and teacher. If the U.S. government has evidence to the contrary, let it be made public, to reassure the American public that untoward political pressures are not affecting the government’s decisions. In the absence of such evidence we can only conclude that denying Dr. Ramadan permission to enter the country constitutes a direct attack on academic freedom and freedom of speech. We respectfully urge you to reconsider this unfortunate decision and reinstate Dr. Ramadan’s visa without delay.

Yours sincerely,

Amy W. Newhall
Executive Director
Middle East Studies Association of North America
and
Barbara DeConcini
Executive Director
American Academy of Religion

cc:
Hon. Paula Dobriansky, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Hon. Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Hon. William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Sen. Richard Lugar, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Sen. Joseph Biden, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Rep. Henry Hyde, Chairman, House Committee on International Relations
Rep. Tom Lantos, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on International Relations
The Rev. Edward A. Malloy, President, University of Notre Dame
Professor Scott Appleby, Director, The Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, The University of Notre Dame
Matthew V. Storin, Associate Vice President, Office of News and Information, The University of Notre Dame
Professor Tariq Ramadan

Reply received September 3, 2004
United States Department of State
Washington DC 20520

Ms. Amy W. Newhall,
Executive Director
Middle East Studies Association of North America
and
Ms. Barbara DeConcini,
Executive Director
American Academy of Religion
The University of Arizona
1219 North Santa Rita Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85721

Dear Ms. Newhall and Ms. DeConcini:

This is in response to your letter of August 30, to Secretary of State Colin Powell, expressing your concerns regarding the State Department's decision to prudentially revoke the visa of Dr. Tariq Ramadan. Secretary Powell asked that I reply on his behalf.

We appreciate your taking the time to express your concerns over the revocation of Dr. Ramadan's visa. We understand that a scholar of Dr. Ramadan's stature and prominence would be of great interest to your organization and that you question the decision to revoke his visa after it was already approved.

Mr. Ramadan’s visa was revoked prudentially based on information that became available after the visa was issued. If he chooses to apply for a new visa, that information will be reviewed in the context of his new application and a determination made about his eligibility for a visa. We cannot predict in advance the outcome of a visa application.

Due to the confidentiality of visa records, as provided for in the Immigration and Nationality Act, we are not able to provide any details concerning this matter.
.
Rest assured that the State Department has always and, will continue to, support academic freedom by encouraging students and scholars from all over the world to come to the United States. The revocation of Mr. Ramadan's visa is not an attempt to prevent him from sharing his ideas with students and scholars in the United States. We both appreciate and understand that the free exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks that make this country great.

Please fee free to contact me if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

June O’Connell, Chief
Public Inquiries Division
Visa Division