As such, please find below footage of our event, which took place on May 21, 2009. Our speakers included the following:

• Professor Geoff Raymond, who spoke on the mishandling of the case by the Academic Senate;
• Professor Lisa Hajjar, who spoke on the history, definitions of, and debates surrounding academic freedom;
• Professor Richard Falk, who placed the Robinson case within the historical context following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, where criticisms of said operation have been stifled;
• Professor Harold Marcuse, who spoke on how the Holocaust has been understood and deployed in the public sphere, as well as the analytical and pedagogical use of historical comparisons.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Please find the AAUP letter to Chancellor Yang, in its entirety, below:

Contact: cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – Nearly five months after opening an investigation of University of California sociology professor William I. Robinson for alleged faculty misconduct, university officials abruptly announced today that it has dismissed all charges and terminated the case.

In fact, an Ad Hoc Committee set up by the Academic Senate to investigate the allegations had already reached the conclusion on May 15 that the charges against Robinson were without merit.  The Committee is “unanimous in finding that his sending the email is in accord with the principles of academic freedom, especially when teaching a class whose content is the sociology of globalization,” stated the report.

Yet, remarkably, the top-level administration kept these results secret for six more weeks, dragging Robinson deeper into public scrutiny and further tarnishing the university’s own image.  It was only on June 24 that executive vice chancellor Gene Lucas informed Robinson, without any explanation for the delay, that he “accepted the findings of the Charges Committee” and terminated the matter.

“Why did the administration wait six more weeks before ending this case,” asked Yousef Baker, of the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom.  “The professor faced six more weeks of harassment and disruption of his teaching, and research, while the sense of intimidation among faculty and students only deepened.  They owe us an explanation.”

The case began when he introduced materials criticizing the Israeli invasion of Gaza into a course on global affairs last January. The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet juxtaposing images of Israeli abuse against Palestinians with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense at the images and withdrew from the course, prompting pro-Israel groups to pressure the university to pursue charges of “anti-Semitism” against Robinson.

According to Baker, “university officials might believe this case is closed, but we will pursue the matter until full justice is achieved. Unless those that violated university procedures and effectively politicized this case are held accountable and punished accordingly this episode will have set a precedent for impunity and will leave in place a chilling atmosphere of censorship on campus.”

The case against Robinson has attracted broad national and international attention and brought the University of California under increasing condemnation for violation of academic freedom and political retaliation against faculty members who introduce materials critical of Israel.

For his part, Robinson stated that he is awaiting “a public apology from the university as a first step in clearing my name after it has smeared my reputation and undermined my professional integrity.”  He added, “as my supporters and I have documented from the start, university officials have acted deceitfully and shamelessly.  It is now time for amends.”

Robinson said that he is in the process of filing a grievance with the Academic Senate for the violation of his rights as a faculty member.

The decision to prosecute Robinson generated an angry backlash on campus.  In April, students formed a Committee to Defend Academic Freedom (CDAF), and in may more than 100 professors and 20 department head signed a petition demanding that the Senate cease its investigation.

The petition charged that “procedural improprieties have already produced a substantive injustice with respect to Professor Robinson.”  It called on the Senate to “conduct inquires into the reasons why these mistakes were made” and to “take disciplinary measures against those responsible for them.”

On June 8, a Senate meeting took up the petition, approving motions to investigate mismanagement of student complaints and recommended changes in Senate procedures to avoid improprieties in the future.

Among those irregularities, according to sociology professor Geoffrey Raymond, the Charges Officer “bypassed relevant options for seeking an informal resolution of the matter before seeking to form an ad hoc committee.”

In an April memorandum to the Senate, Raymond wrote, “his [the Charges Officer] departures from steps laid out in the Faculty Code of Conduct effectively prevented the accused from meaningfully participating in the process.”

Moreover one member of the Academic Senate Charges Committee, Aaron Ettenburg violated confidentiality by discussing the Robinson case with Rabbi Aruthur Gross-Schaefer the interim director of the Santa Barbara chapter of Hillel, an organization that works with Jewish communities on college campuses.  Gross-Schaefer was a vocal public critic of Robinson in the local community and called for the university to punish the professor.

In a blatant conflict of interest, Ettenburg did not disclose that from 2006-2008 he served as president of the local congregation Bnai Brith, to which the Anti Defamation League belongs.  The Anti Defamation League was the driving force behind a national campaign launched by the Israel lobby to have Robinson prosecuted.

According to Baker, anyone who knew of Ettenburg’s conflict of interest and violation of confidentiality and yet said nothing is just as complicit.”

Beyond campus, as the case dragged on it generated increasing repudiation from free speech and civil rights organizations.  On June 10 the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education (FIRE) sent a letter to UCSB Chancellor Henry Yang saying that the charges against Robinson “make a mockery” of the first amendment and academic freedom, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was preparing to release a docket this week calling for the dismissal of the case as baseless.

For detailed information about the Robinson case, visit the CDAF Web site at www.sb4af.wordpress.com.
For media inquiries, email cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com.

Date: June 18, 2009

Contact: cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. – FIRE – a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit that works to protect student and faculty rights at college campuses nationwide – has demanded that the University of California at Santa Barbara cease its investigation of sociology professor William I. Robinson.

In a June 10 letter to Chancellor Henry Yang, FIRE said the Robinson case constitutes a “serious threat” to the rights of every faculty member at UCSB.

“Faculty members report a chilling effect is being felt across the campus, and every day that the investigation continues deepens the violation of their academic freedom and constitutional rights,” reads the letter, written by FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program director, Adam Kissel. “I urge you to protect UCSB from further embarrassment and restore freedom of expression to your campus by immediately calling an end to the investigation.”

The Academic Senate decided to investigate Robinson in March to determine if he violated the Faculty Code of Conduct by introducing materials critical of Israeli state policies in a class on global affairs last January.

The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet juxtaposing images of Israeli abuse against Palestinians with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense and withdrew from the course, prompting pro-Israel groups to demand that the university censor the professor.

The students filed complaints with the Senate Charges Committee, which, in turn, compiled a “summary of allegations” that accuses Robinson of sending a “highly partisan” e-mail with “lurid photographs” to students. The committee said the e-mail was unexpected, without educational content, and apparently unrelated to the course.

But FIRE says those charges “make a mockery” of the First Amendment and academic freedom.

“We urge UCSB to show the courage necessary to admit its error,” reads the letter. “Please spare the university the deep embarrassment of fighting against the Bill of Rights and the California Constitution, by which it is legally and morally bound. While we hope this situation can be resolved amicably and swiftly, we are committed to using all of our resources to see this situation through to a just and moral conclusion.”

FIRE sent its letter directly to the chancellor to encourage him to use his authority to end the investigation, said Kissel in an interview.

“Yang has said he doesn’t want to pre-judge the investigation by intervening in the Senate before the case formally arrives on his desk,” Kissel said. “But Yang needs to understand that this investigation, in and of itself, is a violation of the professor’s academic rights and freedom of speech. Each day it continues is a further violation with chilling effects on campus.”

Kissel said it’s the chancellor’s moral and legal duty to intervene.

“He can’t sit back and wait while the professor is dragged through this process for five to six months or more,” Kissel said.

FIRE, which formed in 1999, normally gives a university two or three weeks to respond when the organization intervenes to protect an individual’s rights.

“We give them a chance to reverse course and do the right thing, and in most cases, that’s what ends up happening,” Kissel said. “If not, then we publicize the story through our extensive media network to raise awareness about the abuse taking place. In cases where that doesn’t work, we can go further and use our legal network to assist in litigation.”

Kissel said its media campaigns are usually very effective, because FIRE is an entirely nonpartisan organization that strictly defends free speech and individual rights. That separates FIRE from the partisan political and ideological wrangling that surrounds many rights cases.

“It’s easy for university administrators to ignore news from either side because the issue is so highly charged, but our approach is very different,” Kissel said. “We don’t take a position on whether we agree or disagree with an individual, or whether a professor did or didn’t make a good choice pedagogically. We stand behind the individual’s rights and help the media and the public to see that as the key issue. That argument is much harder to ignore.”

In the Robinson case, pro-Israel groups have applied immense political pressure on university officials.

But Kissel said the administration needs to focus on free speech and academic freedom.

“It’s important that the administration not be distracted by the outside pressures that kind of led UCSB down this path in the first place,” Kissel said. “If they look at this strictly on the basis of academic freedom principles and freedom of speech, the case is clear.”

FIRE has given Chancellor Yang until June 24 to respond to its letter before mounting a media campaign.

You can view the FIRE letter in its entirety here. To learn more about FIRE, visit their web site at www.thefire.org.

For detailed information about the Robinson case, visit the CDAF Web site at www.sb4af.wordpress.com.

For media inquiries, email cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com.

Date: June 16, 2009
Please Distribute Widely

Contact: cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — Roz Rothstein, international director for Stand With Us, told the University of California at Santa Barbara’s student newspaper, The Daily Nexus, that the investigation against sociology professor William I. Robinson could set a precedent for more action against Israel critics at other universities.

In a June 4 article, the Nexus reported that Stand With Us sees the Robinson case as a potential model for the future.

“Her organization is particularly interested, Rothstein said, because this could be a major building point for academic freedom cases around the world,” wrote staff writer Elliott Rosenfeld.

Rothstein told the paper: “This could be a precedent setting case for other universities.”

The comments may shed light on why pro-Israel groups have taken such an active stance in the Robinson case.

Stand With Us and the Anti-Defamation League have spearheaded an aggressive campaign to push UCSB to investigate the professor for “anti-Semitism” after he introduced materials critical of Israeli state policies in a class on global affairs last January.

The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet juxtaposing images of Israeli abuse against Palestinians with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense at the images and withdrew from the course, prompting pro-Israel groups to demand that the university censor the professor.

Richard Falk, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories and a visiting scholar on global studies at UCSB, said Rothstein’s candid remarks indicate a “disturbing“ escalation in pro-Israel pressure on college campuses in general, and at UCSB in particular.

“Apparently, they have decided enough vulnerability exists in the university community for them to mobilize pressure campaigns,” Falk said. “They’re making this (the Robinson case) into a litmus test to silence criticism of Israel.”

Stand With Us set up a Web site to rally pro-Israel organizations and individuals to pressure UCSB officials. It launched a massive letter writing campaign, that includes threats by UCSB donors to withdraw support for the university.

Such efforts reflect Stand With Us’s founding mission to counter criticism of Israel on university campuses worldwide. Created in 2001, the group is headquartered in Los Angeles and maintains offices and chapters throughout the U.S., Canada, Israel, the UK and Australia.

It’s Web site openly calls college campuses a “modern-day battlefront” for Israel.

“Today Israel faces a new global threat, one that is fought in the media, on university campuses, and in the court of public opinion,” reads the Stand With Us home page.

The Web site for the Bay Area chapter of Stand With Us is even more candid: “Our mission is to stand up to anti-Israel speech wherever it may surface,” reads the site. “We are (unofficially) representing the state of Israel.”

It’s unclear if the pressure has affected university officials, but in late March the Academic Senate launched a formal investigation to determine if Robinson violated the Faculty Code of Conduct.

The Senate action generated an angry backlash on campus. In April, students formed a Committee to Defend Academic Freedom (CDAF), and in May, more than 100 professors and 20 department heads signed a petition demanding that the Senate cease its investigation. In fact, the petition led to a faculty vote on June 4 to form an ad hoc committee in the Senate to investigate the apparent mishandling of the Robinson case.

Nevertheless, university officials refuse to drop the investigation against Robinson.

Falk said the outcome of this case may directly impact future debate about Israel on college campuses.

“The stakes are high,” Falk said. “We need to keep open the discussion of American policy toward Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not let it be affected by externally generated pressures. That’s of fundamental interest to the American public and U.S. scholars.”

For detailed information about the Robinson case, visit the CDAF Web site at www.sb4af.wordpress.com.

For media inquiries, email cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com.

Contact: cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — The Academic Senate at the University of California at Santa Barbara approved motions to investigate evident mismanagement of student complaints against sociology professor William I. Robinson and recommend changes in Senate procedures to avoid improprieties in the future.

The Senate approved the motions in an open meeting on June 4, after more than 100 faculty members across campus, plus 20 department heads, signed a petition protesting the university’s handling of accusations against Robinson.

The professor is under investigation for alleged violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct after introducing materials critical of Israel in a course on global affairs last January.

The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet juxtaposing images of Israeli abuse against Palestinians with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense at the images and withdrew from the course, prompting the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other pro-Israel groups to pressure the university to pursue charges of “anti-Semitism” against Robinson.

More than 80 faculty members filled the June 4 Senate meeting, said emeritus professor of sociology Dick Flacks, who helped draft the petition in support of Robinson.

“The meeting was filled to overflowing with people from many departments across campus, but the motions passed without dissent,” Flacks said. “It indicates a general sentiment among faculty that something wrong happened in the treatment of the Robinson case. I’ve been here 40 years, but I can’t remember such a remarkably unified consensus. People clearly believe this case was wrongly handled.”

The Senate approved creation of two ad hoc committees, one to investigate the handling of the Robinson case and another to review Senate procedures for managing student complaints and recommend changes for the future, said Nancy Gallagher, history professor and chair of the Middle East Studies Program.

“We need answers about why the charges against Robinson were deemed serious enough to merit a Senate investigation when all he did was forward an e-mail to students in his global studies class,” Gallagher said. “The committee also needs to investigate external pressures in this case and conflicts of interest by faculty who processed the complaints against Robinson.”

The petitioners are concerned that the ADL and other pro-Israel groups pushed the Senate to pursue the case.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, for example, met with UCSB officials and faculty to demand that the Senate censure Robinson two weeks before the investigation formally began. The Israel advocacy organization “Stand With Us” also organized a massive letter campaign that includes threats by university donors to cut off funding.

Gallagher said the ad hoc committee that investigates Senate procedures should review how student complaints are processed.

“This case has gone on for months now with no end in sight,” Gallagher said “the university has a lot to answer for.”
The faculty also wants the Senate to reinforce the existing procedure in the faculty code of conduct that calls for student complaints to be handled by the relevant department chair, dean, or the ombuds before being accepted for consideration by the Senate, Gallagher said. In the Robinson case, the Charges Committee simply ignored the written procedure and went straight to a formal investigation.

Meanwhile, the Senate approved a separate resolution to sponsor a campus-wide conference on academic freedom next fall to turn the current situation into a learning experience, Gallagher said.

However, no formal discussion of the Robinson case occurred, because Senate Chair Joel Michaelsen said the case is ongoing and legal considerations prevented its public airing.

Even so, some spontaneous discussion erupted at the meeting, said French and Italian professor Claudio Fogu, another petition organizer.

“It was the elephant in the room that couldn’t be ignored,” Fogu said. “Participants were very critical of the entire investigation process and very supportive of Robinson.”

Flacks said the open discussion may make university officials more aware of faculty concerns.

“It sent a message about how faculty hope this case will be resolved,” Flacks said. “A lot of faculty expressed real regret about how Robinson has been hurt.”

For detailed information about the Robinson case, visit the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom Web site at www.sb4af.wordpress.com.

For media inquiries, email cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com.

In Defense of Academic Freedom: Some notes on the Academic Senate’s handling of the case against Professor William Robinson

Geoffrey Raymond
Department of Sociology
UCSB

Speech delivered 5/21 as part of a panel on Academic Freedom:

I have been asked here tonight to talk about the specifics of the Robinson case because I became involved in it through various departmental and senate positions I held when the complaints emerged. I am director of undergrad studies in Sociology, and a member of the Academic Senate’s committee on committees. I mention this because I think it is important to know from the start that I am active member of the academic senate, and a faculty member committed to the teaching mission of this university. I participate in the academic senate because believe it offers one of the few genuine instances of participatory democracy one can find in contemporary American life; and the shared governance in which participates has been vital the UCs success as a vibrant – and open – intellectual community. As I hope this brief statement makes clear, I believe in the work of the Senate, and it is my disappointment in its processes on this occasion that has prompted me to speak out.

As I also mentioned, I am also director of undergraduate studies in my department – I volunteered for this position because I am passionately committed to teaching and learning. As one might imagine, in a role such as this, one comes to know about the teaching of one’s colleagues. You learn who is a great lecturer, and who isn’t. You learn about lecturers who sometimes get in over their heads, and so on. And you learn who are the most committed, passionate, and open teachers. I count Bill Robinson on that latter group: students rave about his classes, they praise his passion, and they have universally praised his willingness to hear as many alternative viewpoints as students are willing to articulate. Great teaching does not require that one never reveals one’s own opinions regarding course content – and it does not even require that courses “cover all sides” or points of view.  But it does require one to be open – and I know Bill to be such an open person, and nothing in this case suggests any different. So as a backdrop to discussing this case, you should know that I am involved in it because of its direct connections to two of the most central preoccupations of my academic life: teaching and university governance.

At the center of this matter is the Faculty Code of Conduct. For those of you who do not know about this code, there a few a things you should know about it. First, its primary purpose is to PROTECT ACAMDEMIC FREEDOM of FACULTY – not students – because faculty have earned a right to independence and protection by virtue of their education, their scholarly research, and a vigorous peer review process.
Let me read a part of this pre-amble:
The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom. Effective performance of these central functions requires that faculty members be free within their respective fields of competence to pursue and teach the truth in accord with appropriate standards of scholarly inquiry… It is the intent of the Faculty Code of Conduct to protect academic freedom…
Following this pre-amble the code describes a set of principles that are deemed to govern how faculty relate to students, to each other, to the university at large, and to the community beyond.  These standards establish the basis for creating an intellectual community worth working and learning in. As such, it is, I think, universally respected by faculty on this campus, and by the campus community more generally.

So what is this case about – and how does it relate to the code of conduct?
As many of you will have heard, in the course of his sociology of globalization course last winter term professor Robinson forwarded an e-mail that was sharply critical of Israeli policies and practices in the Gaza to his students; 2 students objected to this e-mail and dropped the class. After doing so they contacted the ADL and the Simon Weisenthal center who apparently suggested that a formal complaint be submitted to the charges officer claiming that Professor Robinson’s e-mail violated the Faculty code of conduct.

It is these complaints, and especially the senate’s handling of them, that I want to discuss this evening. Regrettably this matter has been handled so poorly that there are too many issues for me to take up here in a reasonable amount of time – so I will focus on the most glaring failures that we know of so far.  As we hear of these problems, however, we should keep in mind the mantra we heard whenever we have them in the past: We are told over and over again by Senate leaders – and now by outsiders who side with the students – that since a process has begun, we must trust that process.

In most cases I would be inclined to follow this advice – indeed all to often I seem to be the one giving it.  But for that advice to be meaningful, we need a set of complaints relevant for the Charges Officer, a committee to hear those charges that has been fairly composed, and a set of procedures that is beyond reproach. Sadly, the current situation falls far short on all 3 counts.  So when we hear someone say trust in the process – we should respond with our mantra: give us a process we can trust.

As will become clear in the ensuing discussion, the irregularities in the procedures adopted by the Charges Officer are systematically biased against the accused faculty member; the failings of this committee cannot be excused as instances of mere sloppiness and neither can they be attributed to the officers efforts to find an “informal resolution” to the complaint (especially since none was even attempted). Now that the Academic Senate has been made aware of the Charges Officer’s repeated failures to fulfill his mandate the University and its faculty would be well served if the Chair of the Senate threw out the tainted findings produced through a process fraught with conflicts of interest, and possibly even outright duplicity.
Let’s consider what has happened in the case so far:

First, the Charges Officer’s departed significantly from the procedures he is mandated to follow in the faculty code of conduct;
According to it,
Before forming an advisory committee the charges officer should refer complainants to the Department Chair or the Dean (Faculty Code, revised, section 4 — on pg. 2) so that an informal resolution can be attempted; despite this, neither the Chair of Sociology nor the dean was contacted by the Charges Officer regarding this matter. In fact, the charges officer made no effort to resolve the complaint informally – or even seek the input of those most proximately responsible for the course and its content. For that matter the students never contacted Professor Robinson, the chair or the dean either  – they headed straight for the charges office to pursue their complaint in the most aggressive, confrontational manner possible.

These choices have considerable negative consequences.

Instead of approaching the matter as an educational one — as an occasion for teaching and learning  –with potential lessons for *all* concerned parties  — the students’ conduct and the charges officer’s decisions reinforced extant divisions by isolating the involved parties and setting them into direct conflict with one another, thereby making open dialogue and learning *less likely*. In every way the use of the Charges Officer as the primary venue for handling student complaints regarding course content undermines the educational mission of the university.

If the Academic Senate wants us to trust the process, they need to give us a process we can trust.

As an aside, let me respond to a charge made by Rabbi Gross-Schaefer; in today’s newspaper he chastised Professor Robinson for not reaching out to the offended students. He should know that the professor is virtually barred from doing so. Once a formal charge has been registered and an ad hoc committee has been formed no professor can contact the aggrieved students without fearing that the very fact they have done so will be treated as an admission of guilt, or as an effort to tamper with the process.

A second major set of concerns is that the charges Officer and his fellow committee members have failed to protect the rights of the accused both with respect to the presentation of actual charges and in their failure to maintain the confidentiality of the committees proceedings.

Professor Robinsons was virtually excluded from meaningfully participating the advisory committee’s process because no set of coherent charges were presented to him until after it had made its decisions.

After receiving the student complaints, the charges officer forwarded them to professor Robinson and solicited a written response from him. Given the character of these charges however, no such response was possible. The charges contained in the student letters were copied straight from the FCoC; they included a long list of charges copied from it  — including those against romantic relations with students, despite the fact that the professor had never met the students in question, charges against the use of university property for commercial gain, and even the bizarre claim that he violated his own academic freedom. Since these charges have no possible bearing whatsoever on the case, professor repeatedly requested that the charges officer clarify the specific nature of the charge. The Charges Officer’s failure to respond to these requests constitutes a direct violation of the Faculty Code of conduct.

Finally 50+ days later, did the Charges Officer did convey a specific set of charges to Professor Robinson — but then he claimed that Professor could no longer respond because he had passed on the opportunity to do so.

These actions create an almost Kafka-esque process for the accused. It is a basic principle of justice that a person can defend him or herself only after specific allegations or charges have been made public. To request a defense in anticipation of charges constitutes a fundamental perversion of even the most flexible and informal forms of due process insofar as it allows subsequent charges to be crafted that do not relate to the defense on offer. (It is worth noting in this context that this is not an unfounded fear: the Charges Officer has actually added a charge — regarding the “coercion of conscience” — that does not appear in any of the student complaints and so could not have been defended against had the professor responded to the laundry list initially presented in the letters.) In such a situation (where a risk of charges has been presented, but no specific or formal charges have been made) no reasonable person can or should offer a defense since any comments they provide can be used to facilitate the case against them. Because this sequence of actions (first charges, then defense) cannot be altered without undermining basic principles of fairness, they are encoded (in a numbered series of steps) within the faculty code of conduct itself.

As these facts make clear, this is not merely a case in which the Charges Officer departed from procedure in an effort to resolve the complaint informally. Rather, his departure from procedure in the case so substantially altered the process that the accused faculty member could not meaningfully participate in it. Moreover, even though the lack of transparency in the process and its consequences were made clear to the Charges Officer, he repeatedly refused requests by the faculty member to clarify the specific charges in the complaint and where in the process they were.

The kicker here is that while the Charges Officer and other Senate officials consistently ignored Professor Robinsons repeated requests for information, these same individuals managed to keep the university spokesperson fully informed every step of the way. In fact, Professor Robinson only found out about some steps in the process by reading the spokespersons accounts of them in the newspaper! When a campus spokesperson knows more about a committee’s actions than the accused does, we don’t have to wonder what this process is really about.

When the leaders of the academic Senate tell you to trust the process. You tell them: give us a process we can trust.

Third, and perhaps most troubling in my view: as has become clear in recent weeks, a faculty member who sat on the Charges Officers Advisory committee – the very committee charged with deciding whether the complaints were frivolous or not — had a substantial and direct conflict of interest. Despite a longtime alliance with one of the parties to the complaint, this person not only participated in the decision-making process of this committee, he also apparently communicated with interested parties about it in direct violation of the faculty code of conduct.

As a backdrop to my discussion of these events let me be absolutely clear: in my view, a university campus should be open, and the best universities are. In my view a university cannot be, and should not be, hermitically sealed off from the world at large – and that includes outside interest groups. Thus, I do not object, in principle, to groups communicating with university faculty or administrators regarding their concerns or virtually any other matter; such meetings are, and should be, a routine part of the public life of a university. Precisely because they constitute part of the basic fabric of university life, however, communications of this sort should be conducted much as they are in virtually every other context on campus – that is, in an open and transparent manner, consistent with the faculty code of conduct.

Our Academic Senate has fallen short of those principles. Since another of our panelists will discuss the March 9 meeting involving the Anti-Defamation League’s National Director Abraham Foxman – I will focus on the second.
According to newspaper articles quoting an interview by journalist Anthony Fenton: “Aaron Ettenberg, a UCSB psychology professor and member of the Academic Senate’s Charges Advisory Committee, has confirmed that he met with Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer prior to the committee’s recommendation to investigate Robinson.”

Let me point out here that Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer is the interim director of the local chapter of Hillel, an organization that played an important role in the student’s registering of the complaint in the first place. Despite this connection, the two men apparently discussed the case. According to Anthony Fenton — a reporter based in Vancouver who writes for the “Asia Times Online” and “The Dominion” of Canada – when he questioned both Ettenberg and Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer about their contact regarding the case, the Rabbi is quoted as having replied:
“I really didn’t discuss that with him very much.”

Obviously the issue is not how much they discussed the matter, the faculty code of conduct is absolutely clear.

“When a complaint has been made, all faculty members, campus officers and agencies shall treat the identity of the complainant and the faculty member against whom the complaint is made as a matter of the utmost confidentiality.” If these allegations are true, it would seem that Professor Ettenberg violated this basic tenant: by talking about this matter at all with an interested party, he violated the rights of the accused, and the academic Senate’s basic principles and ethics. For example, the Faculty code of conduct section D covers relations with colleagues. Among the types of prohibited conduct is: Breach of established rules governing confidentiality in personnel procedures.

Professor Ettenberg had a duty to disclose this discussion with the Charges Officer so that he could make an appropriate decision regarding Ettenberg’s continued participation in the advisory committee’s deliberations and decisions. If no such disclosure was made, then all subsequent deliberations of the committee were conducted under false pretenses; if these facts were disclosed, then we need to ask why the Charges Officer did not demand his immediate recusal.

While this alone might prompt us to question the decision arrived at by the Advisory Committee, these events brought to light an even more substantial violation of senate procedures in the case.

Professor Ettenberg, as the former president of the local Congregation Bnai Brith (a post he held until 2008) co-sponsored many events with the ADL during his tenure (these are spelled out in the congregation’s newsletters which are easily found via an online search). Insofar as the ADL has been a central actor in these complaints, Professor Ettenberg’s association with them constitutes a clear and direct conflict of interest. As a result Professor Ettenberg should have been asked – or should have volunteered – to recuse himself. (For what it is worth I was virtually forced to drop my participation in the academic senate’s handling of this case on the mere grounds that I was in the same department as Professor Robinson, never mind the fact that we know each other only through departmental meetings, and have mostly voted against one another in various committees.) If my tenuous connection to Professor Robinson meant that I could not participate in the mere choosing of an ad hoc committee without damaging the results that entirely different group of people would arrive at – then Professor Ettenberg’s direct conflict of interest, and his direct participation in the advisory committee’s deliberations and decisions suggest that we cannot trust the fairness and legitimacy of this most important stage in the process so far. Since this committee required only a single positive vote to forward charges to an ad hoc committee, the participation of even one person with a conflict of interest – which we now know to be the case – mandates that the Academic Senate reject its findings since they cannot be trusted or relied upon as a basis for subsequent action.

When the current leadership of the Academic Senate says: Trust the process. We must say: Give us a process we can trust.

In light of these failings  – the failures of process, the failures of communication, and the failure of Professor Ettenberg to live up to the standards that all other members of the academic senate hold themselves to  – it should come as no surprise that the charges themselves are beyond the pale. In fact, as soon as we consider the charges we are confronted by the fact that they cannot be separated from the process up to this point. This is in part because charges made by the students were literally incoherent, but is mostly a product of the charges Officer’s failure to fulfill the role granted to him by the academic senate.

When The Charges Officer received the students problematic complaints he could have quite easily paired them down; instead, however, the actual charges he has proposed forwarding to the ad hoc committee differ from the student complaints in their (1) basic claims and (2) the aspects of the code purported to have been violated. The Students complaints were premised on the claim that accused sent an e-mail that expressed anti-Semitic views and that doing so violated many (but not all) aspects of the FCoC.  The Charges Officer’s letter of April 3, however, contains no claim of anti-Semitism (or racism, or discrimination of any sort – because there was none) and specifies a different set of facts AND charges than were contained in the students’ complaint.

By (1) altering the substantive focus of the complaint (from a charge of anti-Semitism to a charge that the professor distributed “highly partisan materials in a class”) and (2) adding both a set of facts and a charge that do not appear in either of the students complaints – namely that the students were given no opportunity to respond, and the “coercion of conscience” charge –  the Charges Officer has, in effect, become a co-complainant (a party to the complaint itself).

I want to emphasize that this is not merely a matter of the Charges Officer helping the students to formulate more clearly what they meant to be saying all along by translating their concerns into a legalistic form required for the case to go forward. No act of translation can include the manufacturing of factual claims that have no basis in reality. No student has ever complained that Professor Robinson prevented open discussion on any matter; in the current case after getting the mail the students could have hit “reply all” and voiced their views to the entire class; they could have raised the matter in class discussion, or they could have talked with the professor in his office hours. In my experience students do all 3 of these things with great regularity. Moreover, it is simply not credible to claim that 2 students who videotape complaints for worldwide distribution on youtube are either too shy or too oppressed to present their views to a class of 80 students. One cannot stand atop such a large soapbox and simultaneously claim to be frightened to climb atop a much smaller one.

In considering these charges, then, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the very deliberative body that was to determine whether the charges were frivolous was actually a party to the complaint itself.

As I have said before: when someone tells you trust the process, we have to say: give us a process that we can trust.

Let us consider the charges – the ones forwarded by the charges officer – not the scattershot list provided by the students.
According to the Charges Officer, by sending what he described as a “highly partisan” e-mail, professor Robinson may have violated the following elements of the Faculty Code of conduct:

II, A. 1.b is “Significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course”;
II A. 4. is “Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal reasons”

1. The first of these codes – the significant intrusion standard – was adopted so to allow some discussion of unrelated materials, while ensuring that professors largely focused on the substance of their courses.  There are two elements to this standard: “significant” and “intrusion”. In the current case, the complaint fails on both counts.

Insofar as the course in question was the Sociology of Globalization, which is billed as a discussion of global affairs, including political, cultural, and economic matters of global significance, it is patently obvious that the Israeli Army’s invasion in Gaza – which was one of the main headline stories around the world at that time – fits the bill. Indeed, this is precisely the sort of event the class was conceived to discuss; if Professor Robinson had failed to discuss these events, he would not have been doing his job. So the claim that that the e-mail constituted an intrusion is plainly absurd.

(As an aside, let me address a matter I have seen raised by some who are plainly not familiar with teaching practices in the university. The fact that Professor Robinson described the e-mail as  “for your information” does not count as “proof” that the material is unrelated to the course. In fact professors commonly use this phrase indicate that a reading is optional. In my own classes I regularly distribute materials with “for your information” headlines. That does not mean the materials are unrelated to the course; it means students are not are not required to read it, but that those interested in additional information may find it useful. )

So the e-mail sent by professor Robinson is not an intrusion. But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that it was. Suppose we could develop a twisted logic in which a set of events with global significance would not be discussed in a course about global affairs: can a single e-mail, distributed as an optional reading, be counted as a “significant” intrusion? Not by any reasonable interpretation of that standard.

Though the term “significant” can have different possible meanings, in the Faculty code of conduct the context of its usage makes plain that it refers to the portion or volume of material that is “intrusive” relative to volume of material covered in the course as a whole.  The use of “significant” to modify “intrusion” is important because no course is hermetically sealed, and professors should be encouraged to make connections to current events and the like, so long as these do not overwhelm the course. As it happens, math professors are permitted to talk about China and Tibet, they are permitted to post abortion pictures on their office doors, and otherwise inform students of their views on matters completely unrelated to their courses so long as the intrusions are not “significant”. So can a single e-mail constitute a violation of this standard?

Given the number of hours the course met each week and the amount of reading material assigned  (100-200 pages per week) the e-mail constituted less than 1% of even 1 week of the course — and much less if one takes the course as a whole. Obviously this a portion that falls far below any reasonable measure or threshold of  “significant.”

So what of the other charge — the one suggested by the Charges Officer, but found nowhere in the student’s complaints – namely, that the sending of an e-mail constituted a “Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal reasons”

Such a charge is made in cases where a person in authority compels another to adopt a position or view that is at odds with their own – or face punishment. The essence of coercion entails the use of power, leverage or position to mandate that the coercee act or think in a manner determined by the coercer. In the context of faculty code of conduct, this typically means something like forcing students to adopt ones own point of view or receive a poor grade, or some other form of quid pro quo exchange.

Obviously nothing like that happened here: the professor sent out an e-mail, he did not require anyone to accept the opinions expressed in it, and in fact he did not even require anyone to read it. Moreover, that the students own behavior constitutes prima facie evidence that they had a range of options regarding what to do next: they chose to drop the course, and no one prevented them from doing so. But students cannot freely choose to drop a course, and then claim that their decision reflected intimidation on the part of Professor Robinson, especially since they did not even convey their concerns to him before doing so.

The sad irony here is that this case does involve the coercion of conscience – or at least an attempt to do so: the ADL, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center are using two students in an attempt to punish Robinson for expressing views critical of the Israeli government in an e-mail sent to his course. They are attempting to use the charges Officer and his compatriots – who appear to be willing participants, I must say – to stifle dissent, to control classroom discussions of Israeli policies, and thus to determine how professor Robinson teaches his courses by shaping what materials he can included in them.

This is made clear in statements offered by the students. In Associated Press reports, one of the complainants is reported to have said, “while Robinson has his own freedom of speech, he doesn’t have the freedom to send his students his own opinion that is so strong.” I am sorry but this student is just plain wrong. While it is perfectly reasonable for others to prefer less confrontational teaching styles, professors cannot  – and should not — be forced to present potentially objectionable materials in a “nonpartisan” manner so as to spare the feelings of those who might be offended; As the AAUP notes, nothing should prevent the vigorous presentation of ideas, viewpoints and positions, since “Vigorously to assert a proposition or a viewpoint, however controversial, is to engage in argumentation and discussion — an engagement that lies at the core of academic freedom. Such engagement is essential if students are to acquire skills of critical independence. The essence of higher education does not lie in the passive transmission of knowledge but in the inculcation of a mature independence of mind.”

As another professor put it: “No student has a right to have a professor that won’t offend them; They have a right to a professor who will grade them fairly.” By all accounts Professor Robinson is just such a teacher.

We must recognize that in defending him we are defending ourselves: We must stand up to this attack on our academic freedom. We can never forget that freedoms, privileges, and rights can only be achieved through our persistent efforts. In fact nothing guarantees this freedom other than our effort. There is no guarantee that academic freedom will survive at UCSB no matter how many times it is mentioned in various documents adopted by the university, no matter how many times administrators proclaim its virtues, and no matter how many times it is challenged by outsiders. We can only sustain academic freedom only through our sustained efforts on each occasion it is challenged. And since we can not know what outcomes our conduct will produce, or what others might try to do to us, we must ensure that the choices we make are both fair and ethical:  We must insist that the committees of our academic senate, and the procedures they adopt are also fair and open. We will trust the processes we have, just as soon as when we have a process we can trust. We are still waiting.

Geoffrey Raymond
May 21, 2009

THESE ARE THE REMARKS GIVEN BY PROF. WILLIAM I. ROBINSON FOR THE SEVENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL AL-AWDA CONVENTION, THE PALESTINE RIGHT TO RETURN COALITION.  IN HIS SPEECH HE ADDRESSES THE CURRENT CASE AGAINST HIM AT UCSB.  YOU CAN WATCH VIDEO EXCERPTS OF THE SPEECH  POSTED AT THE END OF THIS POST.

***

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS UNDER ATTACK AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.  I AM UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE UNIVERSITY – AND I FACE POSSIBILE SANCTIONS – BECAUSE OF MY VOCAL CONDEMNATION OF THE NEARLY ONE-MONTH LONG ISREALI INVASION OF GAZA THAT BEGAN LAST DECEMBER.

THIS CAMPAIGN AGAINST ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS NOT JUST AN ATTEMPT TO PUNISH ME.  MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT AIMS TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT OF FEAR AND INTIMIDATION IN WHICH ANY CRITICISM ON ISREALI POLICY IS SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS AND CENSORSHIP.

BUT SILENCE IN THE FACE OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE IS COMPLICITY IN THAT INJUSTICE.

LAST JANUARY 19 WAS THE BIRTHDATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.  WE HAD ALREADY BEEN FOLLOWING, WITH GROWING HORROR, THE ONE MONTH SIEGE OF GAZA — THE DESTRUCTION OF MOSQUES, SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, UNITED NATIONS SUPPLY CENTERS, FOOD WAREHOUSES, THE DOMOLITION OF CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, THE BLATANT TARGETING OF CIVILIANS, INCLUDING THE USE OF WHITE PHOSPHOROUS AGAINST THEM.

THAT MORNING I LISTED TO SOME OF THE SPEECHES DELIVERED BY KING SHORTLY BEFORE HIS DEATH.  THESE INCLUDED HIS FAMOUS CONDEMNATION OF THE U.S. WAR AGAINST VIETNAM.  IN THAT SPEECH HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME PEOPLE HAD WARNED HIM, IF HE SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE WAR, HE WOULD RISK LOSING THE SUPPORT OF SOME SECTORS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS COALITION.

HIS ANSWER WAS UNEQUIVOCAL: YOU CANNOT SPEAK OUT AGAINST ONE INJUSTICE AND NOT AGAINST ANOTHER, HE SAID.  YOU CANNOT COMPROMISE WITH FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, SUCH AS JUSTICE, TRUTH, AND SOLIDARITY WITH ALL OPPRESSED AND ABUSED PEOPLES.

THAT AFTERNOON AS I PREPARED TO GIVE MY EVENING COURSE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA, MY COURSE ON THE SOCIOLOGY OF GLOBALIZATION, I PUT TOGETHER TWO NEWS ITEMS FROM THE ON-LINE WORLD PRESS FOR CLASSROOM DISCUSSION ALONG WITH A COMMENTARY BY ME.

I DO THIS EVERY WEEK IN MY CLASS.  EACH WEEK I SELECT SEVERAL NEWS ITEMS FROM THE WORLD PRESS AND DISTRIBUTE THEM TO MY STUDENTS, SOMETIMES WITH MY OWN COMMENTARY, AS A WAY OF INITIATING CLASSROOM DEBATE ON CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL EVENTS AND CONTROVERSIES.

ONE OF THE ITEMS WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY A JEWISH AMERICAN JOURNALIST, JUDITH STONE, WHO HAD RECENTLY RETURNED FROM THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.  HER ARTICLE WAS CRITICAL OF THE OCCUPATION.  IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE KANSAS CITY JEWISH CRONICLE.  THE DAY AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED, THE EDITOR OF THE NEWSPAPER, ANOTHER JEWISH AMERICAN, DEBBIE DUCRO, WAS PROMPTLY FIRED BY THE MAGAZINE’S PUBLISHERS FOR HAVING PRINTED THE ARTICLE.

THE SECOND ITEM I INCLUDED IN THE MATERIAL FOR CLASSROOM DISCUSSION WAS A PHOTO ESSAY THAT HAD BEEN CIRCULATING IN THE PUBLIC REALM FOR WEEKS.  IT JUXTAPOSED NAZI ATROCITIES AGAINST JEWS IN WWII AND ISRAELI ATROCITIES AGAINST PALENSTINIANS IN GAZA.

I INTRODUCED THESE ITEMS WITH A COMMENTARY OF MY OWN THAT I WANT TO READ TO YOU NOW WITH JUST AS MUCH PASSION AND CONVICTION AS WHEN I WROTE IT:

IF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. WERE ALIVE ON THIS DAY OF JANUARY 19, 2009, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT HE WOULD BE CONDEMNING THE ISRAELI AGGRESSION AGAINST GAZA ALONG WITH U.S. MILITARY AND POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAELI WAR CRIMES, OR THAT HE WOULD BE STANDING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH THE PALESTINIANS.  I AM FORWARDING SOME HORRIFIC, PARALLEL IMAGES OF NAZI ATROCITIES AGAINST THE JEWS AND ISRAELI ATROCITIES AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS.  PERHAPS THE MOST FRIGHTENING ARE NOT THOSE PROVIDING A GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE CARNAGE BUT THAT WHICH SHOWS ISRAELI CHILDREN WRITING “WITH LOVE” ON A BOMB THAT WILL TEAR APART PALESTINIAN CHILDREN.

GAZA IS ISRAEL’S WARSAW – A VAST CONCENTRATION CAMP THAT CONFINED AND BLOCKADED PALESTINIANS, SUBJECTING THEM TO THE SLOW DEATH OF MALNUTRITION, DISEASE AND DESPAIR, NEARLY TWO YEARS BEFORE THEIR SUBJECTION TO THE QUICK DEATH OF ISRAELI BOMBS.  WE ARE WITNESS TO A SLOW-MOTION PROCESS OF GENOCIDE – DEFINDED BY WEBSTERS DICTIONARY AS “THE SYSTEMATIC KILLING OF, OR A PROGRAM OF ACTION INTENDED TO DESTROY, A WHOLE NATIONAL OR ETHNIC GROUP” – A PROCESS WHOSE OBJECTIVE IS 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.

THE ISRAELI ARMY IS THE FIFTH MOST POTENT MILITARY MACHINE IN THE WORLD AND ONE THAT IS BACKED BY A PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT RIVALS AND MAY WELL SURPASS THAT OF THE U.S., A MACHINE THAT DARES TO MAKE THE LUDICROUS AND OBNOXIOUS CLAIM THAT OPPOSITION TO THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE ISRAELI STATE IS ANTI-SEMITISM.  IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT A STATE FOUNDED ON THE NEGATION OF A PEOPLE WAS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL BACKERS OF THE APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICAN STATE NOT TO MENTION OF THE LATIN AMERICAN MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS UNTIL THOSE REGIMES COLLAPSED UNDER MASS PROTEST, AND TODAY ARMS, TRAINS, AND ADVISES MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY FORCES IN COLOMBIA, ONE OF THE WORLD’S WORST HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS.

WELL, WHAT HAPPENED AFTER I DISTRIBUTED THIS COURSE MATERIAL?

TWO STUDENTS OUT OF 80 ENROLLED IN THE COURSE, AND WHOM I DO NOT KNOW PERSONALLY, TOOK OFFENSE AT THE PHOTO IMAGES AND WITHDREW FROM THE CLASS.

THAT WAS JANUARY 19.  ON FEBRUARY 9, THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, OR ADL, SENT A LETTER OF PROTEST TO ME WITH C.C.’S TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE SANTA BARBARA CAMPUS AND TO OTHER UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS.

TEN DAYS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 19, THE TWO STUDENTS SUBMITTED A GRIEVANCE AGAINST ME WITH THE UNIVERSITY.  THEIR LETTERS WERE CLEARLY MODELED AFTER THE ADL LETTER, AND HAVE BEEN POSTED AT THE BLOG WWW.SB4AF.WORDPRESS.COM.

IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVEALED THAT FROM THE START, THE TWO STUDENTS HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE ADL, HILLEL, STAND WITH US, THE SIMON WEISENTHAL CENTER, AND OTHER GROUPS FROM THE ISRAEL LOBBY.

THEN ON MARCH 9, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADL, ABRAHAM FOXMAN, FLEW INTO SANTA BARBARA FROM WASHINGTON AND MET WITH 9-10 MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY AND WITH TWO DEANS.  SOME OF THOSE PRESENT WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE MEETING WAS TO BE ABOUT THE JEWIST STUDIES PROGRAM ON CAMPUS.  BUT FOXMAN OPENED UP THE MEETING WITH ONE SINGLE AGENDA ITEM – PROSECUTING ME – AN AGENDA ITEM THAT WAS THEN DISCUSSED FOR ONE HOUR.

THIS WAS ON MARCH 9.  TWO WEEKS LATER, ON MARCH 25, THE UNIVERSITY DECIDED TO INVESTIGATE ME FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE FACULTY CODE OF CONDUCT.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE DATES IN THIS SEQUENCE, FROM THE START, OUTSIDE GROUPS FROM THE ISREAL LOBBY FIRST BROUGH PRESSURE TO BEAR ON THE UNIVERSITY, AND THEN THE UNIVERSITY DECIDED TO TAKE MEASURES AGAINST ME.

IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS NEW DETAILS OF THIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST ME BY THESE IDEOLOGICALLY EXTREMIST GROUPS WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT.

FOR INSTANCE, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE GROUP “STAND WITH US,” APPARENTLY MET WITH THE CHANCELLOR IN MID MARCH – BEFORE I WAS BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES.  ACCORDING TO THE “STAND WITH US” WEBSITE, HE WARNED THE CHANCELLOR THAT FUNDERS MAY WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND HE CALLED ON THE CHANCELLOR TO INVESTIGATE ME.

MOREOVER, IT HAS NOW BEEN REPORTED THAT THE DIFFERENT PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY GROUPS MET WITH OTHER UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS BEFORE THE DECISION WAS MADE TO BRING ME UP ON CHARGES.

YOU WILL FIND ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN MY CASE, POSTED ON THE BLOG I MENTIONED.

AND WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE CHARGES AGAINST ME?  THERE ARE TWO:

THE FIRST CHARGE IS THAT I AM ANTI-SEMITIC.  THE CLAIM THAT CONDEMNATION OF ISRAELI STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES IS EQUIVALENT TO ANTI-SEMITISM IS AN OBNOXIOUS ATTEMPT TO STIFLE ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL.   IT HAS NO MORE MERIT THAN TO CLAIM THAT CRITICISM OF THE IRANIAN GOVT. IS ANTI-MUSLIM, OR CRITICISM OF THE ZIMBABWE GOVERNMENT IS ANTI-BLACK RACISM, AND SO FORTH.

IT IS A VICIOUS POLITICAL PLOY, INTENDED TO DEFLECT CRITISM OF ISRAELI STATE POLICIES AND PRACTICES, AND SHOULD BE EXPOSED AND DENOUNCED AS SUCH.

THE SECOND CHARGE AGAINST ME IS THAT I INTRODUCED INTO MY COURSE MATERIAL THAT WAS “SUBSTANTIALLY UNRELATED” TO THE COURSE.  HOW THE ISRAELI INVASION OF GAZA IS UNRELATED TO A COURSE ON CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL AFFAIRS IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS VERY CLEAR: I AM SIMPLY THE LATEST VICTIM IN THE CAMPAIGN BY THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND ITS BACKERS TO HARRASS AND ATTACK AND SILENCE CRITICS OF ISREALI STATE CONDUCT, INCLUDING ISRAEL’S BLATANT DISREGARD FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW, ITS ILLEGAL OCCUPATION, ITS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, ITS WAR CRIMES, ITS ETHNIC CLEANSING, AND ITS APARTHEID SYSTEM.

ISREAL MAY BE WINNING THE MILITARY BATTLES – GIVEN THAT IT IS THE 5TH MOST POWERFUL MILITARY MACHINE IN THE WORLD, AND THE RECIPIENT OF $3-4 BILLION IN U.S. MILITARY AID EVERY YEAR.  BUT IN THE WAKE OF THE INVASION OF LEBANON FOLLOWED BY THE BRUTAL INVASION OF GAZA IT HAS BEEN LOSING THE BATTLE OF LEGITIMACY.

THE DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN-ISRAELI PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (AIPAC), HOWARD KOHR, ACKNOWLEDGED THIS EROSION OF LEGITIMACY, WHEN HE OPENED THE AIPAC ANNUAL CONVENTION EARLIER THIS MONTH.  HE SAID, THERE IS A HUGE AND GROWING INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE POLICIES OF ISRAEL.

“NO LONGER IS THIS CAMPAIGN CONFINED TO THE RAVINGS OF THE POLITICAL FAR LEFT OR FAR RIGHT,” HE SAID, “BUT INCREASINGLY IT IS ENTERING THE AMERICAN MAINSTREAM.”

IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE ISRAEL LOBBY IS STEPPING UP ITS VICIOUS ATTACKS ON ANYONE WHO WOULD SPEAK OUT AGAINST ISRAELI POLICIES.  LAST YEAR, THE ADL ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD START TO TARGET THE BIG STATE UNIVERSITIES, BEGINNING WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

THIS IS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS POLITICAL APPARATUS HAS TARGETTED ME.  THE PERSECUTION I AM EXPERIENCING IS PART OF A LARGER – AND WELL DOCUMENTED – PATTERN THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA OF MACARTHYIST REPRESSION UNLEASHED ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES AGAINST FACULTY WHO DARE BRING UP FOR DEBATE ISRAELI POLICIES, MUCH LESS THOSE WHO WOULD COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF PALESTINIAN RIGHTS.

THESE CAMPAIGNS TO SILENCE DEBATE CONSTITUTE A GRAVE ATTACK ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM, ON FREE SPEECH, AND ON DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

WHY IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM SO IMPORTANT?

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS THE LIFE BLOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY.  ANY ATTACK ON SUCH FREEDOM EXERCISES A POTENTIALLY CHILLING EFFECT ON THE ABILITY OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY TO ENGAGE IN OPEN DEBATE AND EXCHANGE OF IDEAS OF CONTEMPORARY MATTERS, FREE FROM INTIMIDATION AND THE THREAT OF SANCTIONS.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS THEREFORE NOT NEGOTIABLE.  IT ENCOMPASSES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITION SET FORTH BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, AMONG OTHERS, THE RIGHT OF FACULTY TO FULL FREEDOM IN RESEARCH AND IN THE PUBLICATION OF RESULTS, FREEDOM IN THE CLASSROOM IN DISCUSSING THEIR SUBJECT, AND THE RIGHT OF FACULTY TO BE FREE FROM INSTITUTIONAL CENSORSHIP, DISCIPLINE OR OTHER FORMS OF RESTRICTIVE INTERFERENCE IN TEACHING, RESEARCH, SPEAKING AND PUBLISHING, WHEREVER THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING MAY LEAD.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS SUCH A THREAT TO THE ISRAEL LOBBY – &, INDEED, TO ANY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, AUTHORITARIAN, OR TOTALITARIAN PROJECT – PRECISELY BECAUSE IT PROSCRIBES CENSORSHIP AND PROHIBITS ANY ATTEMPT TO LIMIT WHAT IS AND IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO RESEARCH, TO TEACH, TO QUESTION & TO DEBATE, & PRECISELY BECAUSE ACADEMIC FREEDOM THRIVES ON CONTROVERSY AND CRITICAL THINKING.

IT IS NO WONDER THAT ACADEMIC FREEDOM WAS SUPRESSED IN NAZI GERMANY, IN APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA, IN THE MILITARY DICATORSHIPS OF LATIN AMERICA, IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION, AND IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER MCCARTHYISM AND AT OTHER TIMES IN US HISTORY.  AND IT IS CERTAINLY NO WONDER WHY ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS SEEN AS SUCH A THREAT BY THE ISREAL LOBBY AND ITS SPONSORS.

OUR MISSION AS EDUCATORS IS TO HELP DEVELOP CITIZENS WHO CAN THINK CRITICALLY AND INDEPENDENTLY ON THE BURNING ISSUES OF OUR DAY, AND WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN A MEANINGFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE WAY IN SOCIETY.

LET ME READ TO YOU ONE PASSAGE FROM THE STATEMENT ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS:

IT IS A MISTAKE “TO ASSUME THAT STUDENTS HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO HAVE THEIR MOST CHERISHED BELIEFS CHALLENGED.  THIS ASSSUMPTION CONTRADICTS THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, WHICH IS TO CHALLENGE STUDENTS TO THINK HARD ABOUT THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE, WHATEVER THOSE MIGHT BE.  IT IS NEITHER HARRASSMENT NOR DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF A STUDENT TO HOLD UP TO CLOSE CRITICISM AN IDEA OR VIEWPOINT THE STUDENT HAS POSITED OR ADVANCED.

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.  INSTRUCTION CANNOT PROCEED IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR THAT WOULD BE PRODUCED WERE A TEACHER TO BECOME SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION BASED UPON THE IDIOSYNCRATIC REACTION OF ONE OR MORE STUDENTS….CONTROVERSY IS AT THE VERY HEART OF FREE ACADEMIC INQUIRY…”

FROM BEGINNING TO END, THIS ATTACK ON ME CONSTITUTES A PATENT, OMINOUS, AND POLITICIZED VIOLATION OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM.

VERY SIMPLY, TWO STUDENTS SUBMITTED A GRIEVANCE WITH THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE THEY HAD A DIFFERENT POLITICAL POSITION THAN MINE AND BECAUSE MY COURSE MATERIAL DISAGREED WITH THEIR OWN POLITICAL POSITION.  AND IT HAS NOW BECOME CLEAR THAT THESE TWO COMPLAINANTS WERE PART OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY.  THEY WENT DIRECTLY TO THE ISRAEL LOBBY, AND THEN THE MASSIVE MACHINERY OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY’S REPRESSION CAME DOWN ON ME.

DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK THAT I WOULD BE FACING CHARGES RIGHT NOW IF I HAD INTRODUCED INTO MY COURSE READING MATERIAL THAT WAS PRO-ISRAELI AND TWO PALESTINIAN STUDENTS IN MY COURSE SUBMITTED A GRIEVANCE?

WHAT IS EVEN WORST THAN THE POLITICIZED NATURE OF THESE GRIEVANCES THEMSELVES, AND THE BLATANT INTERFERENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY’S AFFAIRS BY EXTREMIST OUTSIDE GROUPS WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA, IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN COMPLICIT IN ALL THIS.  THE UNIVERSITY’S PROCESS AGAINST ME HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY SYSTEMATICALLY VIOLATING UNIVERSITY PROCEDURES AND DENYING MEDUE PROCESS, AS IS DOCUMENTED ON THE BLOG, WWW.SB4AF.WORDPRESS.

LET US BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE SUPRESS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THE UNIVERSITY BECOMES AN INDOCTRINATION CAMP WHERE TRUTH IS SUBORDINATED TO IDEOLOGY AND POWER.  THAT IS THE THREAT WE NOW FACE.

NOW, IF THE UNIVERSITY ADMINSTRATION HAS ACTED IN SUCH A REPREHENSIBLE MANNER, HAS BROUGHT SUCH SHAME TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HOW HAVE THE STUDENT BODY AND THE FACULTY REACTED?

WELL, WHEN THEY LEARNED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST ME, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS ON MY CAMPUS, ESTABLISHED A “COMMITTEE TO DEFEND ACADEMIC FREEDOM” AND SET UP THE BLOG THAT I MENTIONED AND WHICH INCLUDES A PETITION.

FOR THEIR PART, MANY FACULTY MEMBERS ACROSS CAMPUS ARE ALSO OUTRAGED BY THIS ATTACK ON OUR ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ARE MOBILIZING IN A NUMBER OF WAYS TO DEFEND IT.

THE COMMITTEE TO DEFEND ACADEMIC FREEDOM HAS RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF LETTERS FROM FACULTY, FROM ACADEMIC ASSOCIATIONS, AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AROUND THE WORLD, DEMANDING THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST ME BE DROPPED.

MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY ON MY CAMPUS ARE AT THIS TIME CIRCULATING A PETITION WHICH STATES, IN PART:

SINCE FEBRUARY 25, OUR COLLEAGUE WILLIAM I. ROBINSON, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A SERIES OF ATTACKS FROM TWO STUDENTS AND A NUMBER OF OFF-CAMPUS INDIVIDUALS THAT REPRESENTS A SERIOUS BREACH OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND A THREAT TO THE AUTONOMY OF THE UNIVERSITY.

DISPLEASED BY THE CONTENTS OF AN EMAIL AND TWO ARTICLES FORWARDED BY PROF. ROBINSON ON JANUARY 19 TO HIS CLASS OPPOSING THE RECENT ISRAELI CAMPAIGN IN GAZA, TWO STUDENTS FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE SENATE ALLEGING “ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT” AND “ANTI-SEMITISM.”

ON FEBRUARY 25, THE UCSB ACADEMIC SENATE OPENED AN OFFICIAL INQUIRY INTO THESE ALLEGATIONS. THIS INQUIRY IS ONGOING AND HAS BECOME NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN. QUITE ASIDE FROM THE MERITS OF THE STUDENTS’ COMPLAINTS, OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS THE PUBLIC EXPOSURE OF THIS CASE HAS BROUGHT TO LIGHT APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF PROF.

ROBINSON’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS BY THE SENATE AND ITS COMMITTEES, ALONG WITH WORRISOME NEWS OF PRESSURES RECEIVED BY THE ADMINISTRATION FROM ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE TO ADMINISTER AN EXEMPLARY PUNISHMENT TO PROF. ROBINSON.

WE HAVE LEARNED THAT ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE ADL HAVE ORGANIZED A CAMPAIGN DIRECTED AT PRESSURING THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE ACADEMIC SENATE TO MAKE THIS CASE AN EXAMPLE TO PREVENT VOCAL OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND ITS POLICIES.

THE SITUATION DEMANDS DECISIVE, PUBLIC AND SWIFT RESPONSE BY THE UCSB FACULTY IN DEFENSE OF DUE PROCESS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM ON BOTH PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS.

MEANWHILE, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND EMAILS AND LETTERS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD.  MUCH OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE BUT THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A LOT OF HATE MAIL, SOME OF IT VIOLENT AND VULGAR.

CLEARLY, DRAWING HISTORICAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN ISRAELI STATE BEHAVIOR & NAZI BEHAVIOR IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR DEFENDERS OF ISRAEL TO SWALLOW.   IT TOUCHES A RAW NERVE, WHICH INDEED IT SHOULD.

ON THE ONE HAND, AS ONE READER OF A LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW WITH ME PUT IT IN A LETTER HE SENT TO THE EDITORS AND TO ME:  “IF YOU DO NOT LIKE NAZI COMPARISONS THEN URGE ISRAEL NOT TO COMMIT NAZI-LIKE ATROCITIES RATHER THAN CONDEMN AND OSTRACIZE THOSE WHO MAKE THE COMPARISON.”  THAT IS, ONE EVOKDES NAZIS TO POINT TO NAZI-LIKE BEHAVIOUR.

THIS MUCH SHOULD BE EVIDENT.  IN THIS REGARD, THERE IS A DEFINITE PARALLEL BETWEEN THE WARSAW GHETTO AND GAZA.  THE NAZIS UNDERTOOK FORCED POPULATION TRANSFER AND THEN SEALED OFF THE GHETTO, LOCKING THEIR VICTIMS IN, CONTROLLING ALL MOVEMENT, CONTROLLING WHAT FOOD, MEDICAL SUPPLIES OR ANYTHNG ELSE COULD GO IN OR OUT, GENERATING IN THIS WAY A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS, DISEASE, AND STARVATION, AND RESPONDING WITH DISPROPORTIONATE FORCE AGAINST THE SLIGHTEST SIGN OF RESISTANCE FROM THE GHETTO.

AS A RESULT OF THE ISRAELI BLOCKADE OF GAZA AND THE DESTRUCTION OF ITS FOOD SUPPLY SYSTEM, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS, ACUTE MALNUTRITION IN GAZA IS ON THE SAME SCALE AS THE POOREST NATIONS IN SOUTHERN SAHARA, WITH MORE THAN HALF OF ALL PALESTINIAN FAMILIES EATING ONLY ONE MEAL A DAY.

ON THE OTHER HAND, QUITE EVIDENTLY, THE COMPARISON BETWEEN NAZI ATROCITIES AGAINST JEWS IN WWII AND ISRAELI ATROCITIES AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN THE PRESENT IS NOT INTENDED TO SUGGEST THAT THE LATTER REPLICATES THE FORMER.  THE DIFFERENCES ARE NUMEROUS.  NO TWO HISTORIC EVENTS OR PROCESSES ARE EVER IDENTICAL.

DRAWING ANALOGIES OR COMPARISONS BETWEEN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY EVENTS OR PROCESSES IS NOT INTENDED TO SUGGEST THEY ARE IDENTICAL.

RATHER, SUCH COMPARISONS ARE A PEDOGOGICAL TOOL MEANT TO UNCOVER PATTERNS OF HUMAN CONDUCT – OR BETTER PUT, HUMAN MISCONDUCT – THAT MAY MANIFEST THEMSELVES IN A VARIETY OF HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES; TO IDENTIFY WHAT STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS MAY GIVE RISE TO THESE FORMS OF CONDUCT; AND TO REFLECT ON THE PAST, SO THAT COLLECTIVE AGENTS IN THE PRESENT MAY GAIN A GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OR MEANING OF SUCH CONTEMPORARY EVENTS THAT SHARE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS WITH THOSE OF THE PAST; AND THEN, HOPEFULLY, TO ACT UPON THAT UNDERSTANDING.

ZIONISTS AND DEFENDERS OF THE ISRAELI STATE TAKE GREAT OFFENSE AT ANY ANALOGY BETWEEN THE NAZIS AND ISRAELI STATE ACTIONS, IN PART, BECAUSE THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST IS USED BY THE ISRAELI STATE AND THE ZIONIST POLITICAL PROJECT AS A MECHANISM OF LEGITIMATION, SO THAT TO DRAW SUCH ANALOGIES IS TO UNDERMINE ISRAEL’S LEGITIMATING DISCOURSE.

IT IS CRUCIAL TO POINT THIS OUT, BECAUSE THAT DISCOURSE HAS GRADUALLY COME TO LEGITIMATE CURRENT OR PROPOSED ISRAELI POLICIES THAT DEMONSTRATE AN EVER MORE FRIGHTENING SIMILARITY WITH OTHER HISTORICAL INSTANCES OF GENOCIDE.  IN FACT, WHAT WE ARE SEEING AT THIS TIME IS PRE-GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES.

THE POLITICAL PARTY OF ISRAEL’S FOREIGN MINISTER, AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN RECENTLY PROPOSED A LAW TO IMPRISON FOR THREE YEARS ANYONE WHO COMMEMORATES THE NAKBA (WWW.HAARETZ.COM/HASEN/SPAGES/108588.HTML).

THIS PROPOSAL COMING FROM A PARTY IN ISRAEL’S GOVERNING COALITION SHOULD SET OFF ALARM BELLS THAT FASCISM IS EMERGING.  THE PROPOSED LAW AMOUNTS TO CRIMINALIZING ACTS OF MEMORY, OF COLLECTIVE IDENTITY, OF CULTURAL AND POLITICAL EXPRESSSION.

IMAGINE CRIMINALIZING BLACK COMMEMORATION OF SLAVERY, OR INDIAN COMMEMORATION OF GENOCIDE IN THE AMERICAS?  OR JEWISH COMMEMORATION OF THE HOLOCAUST?

LIEBERMAN HAS DESCRIBED ISRAELI ARABS AS A “DANGEROUS FIFTH COLUMN” AND HAS PROPOSED THEY BE REMOVED.  SUCH A RACIST PROJECT OF POPULATION TRANSFER IS ALL TOO SIMILAR TO OTHER HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY INSTANCES OF ETHNIC CLEANSING AND GENOCIDE, INCLUDING THE NAZI EXPERIENCE.  YET POLLS SHOW THAT A SOLID MAJORITY OF ISRAELIS – 60 PERCENT – NOW FAVOR SUCH FORCED RELOCATION.  THIS IS BUT ONE MORE WARNING BELL THAT A POPULATION WHO SUFFERED THE NIGHTMARE OF NAZI EXTERMINATION IS NOW ITSELF EMBRACING FASCIST PROPOSALS.

AND SO WE SEE IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS THE PEDAGOGICAL VALUE OF DRAWING ANALOGIES BETWEEN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY SITUATIONS, AS WELL AS THE ETHICAL IMPERATIVE THAT IS REVEALED THROUGH THE COMPARISON.

THE CAPACITY TO COMMIT THE ATROCITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAZI HOLOCAUST IS WITHIN US ALL.

THEREFORE, CONDEMNATION OF OPPRESSION AND DOMINATION CANNOT BE SELECTIVE.  EITHER WE CONDEMN IT IN EVERY INSTANCE OR WE LOSE THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN IT IN ANY INSTANCE.  IF WE CONDEMN THE NAZI HOLOCAUST WE MUST ALSO CONDEMN WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED AS SLOW-MOTIOIN ISRAELI GENOCIDE AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS.  THAT THESE TWO EVENTS ARE NOT IDENTITICAL IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PEDAGOGICAL PURPOSE OF THE ANALOGY OR TO THE MORAL IMPERATIVE THAT ADHERES TO THE COMPARISON.

THE NOTED JEWISH HISTORIAN BENNY MORRIS, WHO IS A PROFESSOR AT BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV, AND WHO CLOSELY IDENTIFIES WITH ISRAEL, GAVE A LENGTHY INTERVIEW TO THE ISRAELI NEWSPAPER HA’ARTEZ, AND PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 9, 2004.

IN THAT INTERVIEW, HE REFERRED TO THE GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS IN WHAT IS TODAY THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO SUGGEST THAT GENOCIDE MAY BE ACCEPTABLE.  HE SAID:

“EVEN THE GREAT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED WITHOUT THE ANNIHILIATION OF THE INDIANS.  THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH THE OVERALL, FINAL GOOD JUSTIFIES HARSH AND CRUEL ACTS THAT ARE COMMITTEED IN THE COURSE OF HISTORY.”

THEN HE WENT ON TO CALL FOR ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE PALESTINIANS, SAYING: “SOMETHING LIKE A CAGE HAS TO BE BUILT FOR THEM.  I KNOW THAT SOUNDS TERRIBLE.  IT IS REALLY CRUEL.  BUT THERE IS NO CHOICE.  THERE IS A WILD ANIMAL THERE THAT HAS TO BE LOCKED UP IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.”

SUCH A STATEMENT SHOULD CAUSE US TO PAUSE.  WE MUST CONSIDER VERY CAREFULLY WHAT MORRIS IS PROPOSING, AND THE HISTORICAL PROJECT IN WHOSE NAME HE MAKES SUCH A PROPOSAL.

THIS LEADS ME TO CONCLUDE WITH AN URGENT WARNING.

BEYOND PALESTINE AND ISRAEL, BEYOND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A GLOBAL CRISIS, THE WORST CRISIS IN DECADES.

AS THIS CRISIS UNFOLDS, THE MEANS OF VIOLENCE ARE MORE LARGE-SCALE AND MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN HUMANITY HAS EVER KNOWN, AND WE FACE AN ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE THAT THREATENS LIFE ITSELF ON THE PLANET.

IT IS AT TIMES OF CRISIS SUCH AS THIS THAT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL TENSIONS RISE AND THAT FASCIST AND TOTALITARIAN PROJECTS REAR THEIR UGLY HEADS.

THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO PREVENT SUCH PROJECTS, AND THAT IS THROUGH SOCIAL JUSTICE.  AND SOCIAL JUSTICE REQUIRES SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER.

IT IS TIME TO DRAW THE LINE.  WORLD WAR II BEGAN WHEN DEMOCRACY WAS OVERTHROWN IN SPAIN AND FRANCO CAME TO POWER.  THAT WAR LED US TO THE HOLOCAUST, AND AS WELL, OPENED UP SPACE FOR THE ZIONIST PROJECT TO EXERCISE ITS HEGEMONY OVER THE JEWISH COMMUNITY WORLDWIDE, IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE VICTORIOUS IMPERIALIST POWERS IN THAT WAR.  THAT IN TURN BROUGHT US THE TRAGEDY OF THE NAKBA, OF GAZA, OF THE OCCUPATION, AND NOW THE THREAT OF GENOCIDE AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS.

BY STANDING UP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN PALESTINE, BY DEFENDING DEMOCRACY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES IN THE UNITED STATES, WE DO MUCH MORE THAN ACT ON PRINCIPLE, ON ETHNICAL GROUNDS, AS MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. REMINDED US.

BY STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, AND DECENT, AND HUMAN, WITHOUT FEAR OF THE SANCTIONS WE MAY FACE FOR DOING SO, WE ALSO CLOSE THE DOOR ON A POSSIBLE FUTURE THAT IN THE 21ST CENTURY CAN ONLY BE MANY TIMES MORE TRAGIC THAN A TRAGIC PAST.

THANK YOU

CLIP I

CLIP II

CLIP III

Please Distribute Widely

Date: May 19, 2009
Contact: cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com.

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — A group of about 20 professors at the University of California at Santa Barbara have launched a campus-wide petition to get professors, department chairs and deans to join them in protesting the Academic Senate’s investigation of sociology professor William I. Robinson.

The petition, sent on May 16 to faculty throughout the university, says the Senate Charges Committee has directly violated Robinson’s rights by mishandling student complaints against him.

“These procedural improprieties have already produced a substantive injustice with respect to Professor Robinson,” reads the petition. “Moreover, we are concerned that external pressures may have influenced the way this case is managed.”

The case against Robinson began when he introduced materials critical of Israel in a course on global affairs last January.

The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet juxtaposing images of Israeli abuse against Palestinians with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense at the images and withdrew from the course, prompting pro-Israel groups to pressure the university to pursue charges of “anti-Semitism” against Robinson.

Those groups, which continue to pressure university officials as the case drags on, include the Anti-Defamation League, the Israel advocacy group Stand With Us, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

The faculty petition calls on the Academic Senate to explain its actions in the Robinson case, make public all communications that Senate leaders and university administrators have had with external organizations or individuals, immediately correct procedural mistakes, conduct inquiries into why those mistakes were made, and take disciplinary action if necessary against those responsible.

It also requests clarification of how student complaints about course content and materials are handled, and it asks the Senate to reaffirm the importance of academic freedom at UCSB.

The petition will be sent to Senate Chair Joel Michaelson before the next Senate meeting on June 6, said Nancy Gallagher, history professor and chair of the Middle East Studies Program.

“The administration has said to trust the system, but this process has stretched on with so many irregularities that it breeds distrust, and the professor has already been seriously damaged, as has the university itself,” Gallagher said. “I thought this case would immediately be dropped for lack of any legitimate cause, but it wasn’t, and frankly the campus is beginning to look like a laughing stock, or a place where one wouldn’t want to be.”

Gallagher said the student complaints should have been referred back down to the department level from the start.

“It should have gone straight to the chair of the department, but instead it went straight to the charges officer, and on that ground alone it should be dropped,” she said. “It sets a bad precedent. What if people decide they don’t like evolution being taught? Can they also censor the professor this easily?”

Lisa Hajjar, chair of UCSB’s Law and Society Program and an authority on the principles and practices of academic freedom, said students often get upset by material presented in classes because the educational process deliberately aims to challenge beliefs and generate debate.

“Contentious material is a legitimate and important part of the educational process,” Hajjar  said. “The intent is to provoke reactions, not shield students from things that might upset them in class.”

Academic freedom is a right enjoyed by faculty, not by students, Hajjar said.

“They are not on equal footing,” she said. “Students can’t dictate course material because they are not qualified to make those determinations. The professors have earned freedom in the classroom because they are experts in their field. In this case, bringing charges for disseminating relevant materials makes no sense.”

Emeritus professor of sociology Dick Flacks said the investigation against Robinson sends a profoundly intimidating message to all other professors.

“It has a chilling effect on what you can say in class,” Flacks said. “It says that if students don’t like what you’re presenting they can get you brought up on charges. That stops effective teaching dead in its tracks.”

Flacks said he expects Robinson to be exonerated by the Academic Senate, but at this point, that’s not enough.

“It’s the very fact that charges were brought that has upset people so much,” Flacks said. “We want an inquiry into why these charges were brought and an investigation of the outside pressures that may have influenced this case. We want to clarify how these kinds of grievances should be handled to avoid more situations like this in the future.”

For detailed information about the Robinson case, visit the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom Web site at www.sb4af.wordpress.com.

For media inquiries, email cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com.