ARE YOU STILL SHOCKED, SAMI? (liberal academics are still stupid!!)

Two updates in the story of Sami Al-Arian. Remember him? He's the University of South Florida computer science professor who helped gain an entry visa and a USF position for Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, a man who later returned to the Middle East to head up Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian's life changed after a September appearance on the "O'Reilly Factor," possibly because of his tepid performance professing to be shocked, shocked, when told about Shallah's work with Islamic Jihad. Or maybe it was the reference to another Al-Arian performance -- this one, no doubt, more convincing -- in which he declared, "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution! Revolution until victory! Rolling to Jerusalem!" (Or maybe it was Al-Arian's classic opener in response to the latter: "Let me just put it into context ... ")

Whatever it was, after the prime-time debut of Al-Arian -- who, not incidentally, used to run a pair of USF-affiliated organizations closed by the FBI in 1995 as terrorist fronts -- everything changed. As calls and threats besieged "Terrorism U," as donations and student applications fell off, Al-Arian was suspended with pay. Citing a contractual violation -- something about the professor's failure to stipulate he was not speaking for the university -- and safety concerns about his campus presence, USF President Judy Genshaft announced in December he would be fired.

Then nothing, or not much, as far as visible action. The Justice Department announced in February that Al-Arian was continuing to be investigated for links to terrorism, and the investigation continues. He remains suspended from the university, continues to draw a paycheck and still hasn't been fired. However, the American Association of University Professors has just called for Al-Arian to be reinstated. Concluding that Al-Arian's statements fell "well within" the boundaries of academic freedom, the AAUP urged Genshaft not to fire him -- or else face censure, an action best described as academia's equivalent of cooties.

Well worth pondering is the function of academic freedom's boundaries if even calls for "jihad" and "death to Israel" (and fundraising for both) are considered vital to the unfettered pursuit of excellence in computer science. But there's more. Citing "current and former senior Israeli intelligence officials," the Tampa Tribune reported last week that Al-Arian didn't just hang with people who -- voila -- turned into terrorists, or raise cash for groups linked to terrorism. He also "helped found the governing council of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and then served on it."

No more guilt-by-association -- or even checkbook. The guy was reportedly on the "Jihad board of directors." So where do the bounds of academic freedom lie in this scenario? Mary Burgan, AAUP General Secretary, told me that since the government hasn't brought charges against Al-Arian, AAUP's stance is unchanged by a news report. "You don't fire people because they're suspects," she added. Which sounds fair enough. But should a person suspected of being a booster, banker and director of terrorism be invited to hide out in the Ivory Tower as an exercise of "academic" freedom?

Speaking more generally about the AAUP, Burgan said, "Obviously, we don't agree that academic freedom includes incitement to riot, or incitement to terror," but she begged ignorance when reminded that the Al-Arian statements reported on the "O'Reilly Factor" were incitement. On hearing a reprise of the "jihad" soliloquy -- "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel!" etc., etc., etc. -- Burgan said she "would have to see the context. I'm not willing to make a generalization until I see the context."

The context? According to the Tampa paper, authorities are focusing on whether money Al-Arian raised in the United States went to finance Islamic Jihad terrorism in Israel -- "in particular," the paper reports, "an April 1995 bombing attack on a bus that killed eight people in the Gaza Strip," including Alisa Flatow, a 20-year-old American student. Stephen Flatow, Alisa's father, testified about his daughter's murder before a federal grand jury in Tampa in December.

I think that the scumbag's statements are within the reasonable limits of academic freedom: if academic freedom doesn't protect the ridiculously unpopular, it's meaningless.

That said, I also think it's perfectly proper for alumni, potential students and the state legislature not to be willing to fund this nonsense. Students should transfer, alumni refuse to give and the state legislature should zero out the budget and shut the place down. Start a new university on that campus in which Sami baby doesn't have a job.

I'm confused. Regardless of the context, this is what Sami says: "Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution! Revolution until victory! Rolling to Jerusalem!"

Ok, for the sake of argument about academic freedom and the 1st amendment, if we removed the word "Israel" and substituted "Palestine" so that we said "Death to Palestine!", exactly how long would any of us last on an American university campus?

I think that the scumbag's statements are within the reasonable limits of academic freedom: if academic freedom doesn't protect the ridiculously unpopular, it's meaningless.

There is something troubling about this statement even if on its face it appears "reasonable".

It may be that we have been anethecized to accept political correctness to the point of culturally shooting ourselves in the foot.

Or it may be that he has been secretely aiding the FBI, but the ineffectiveness of it argues against it.

Or it may be that we have drifted into the "Constitution is a suicide pact" territory

In any case the "solution" proposed should never be necessary. There comes a point when collective common sense needs to be at the forefront of the solution for a real and serious threat.
Although his effectiveness as a terrorist shill may be ended (what a bizarre exercise of academic freedom!), something does not feel right.

No, as long as the scumbag doesn't actually violate the law, academic freedom protects his right to say offensive things, if he does violate the law, then prosecute him (and throw the book at him, I say) for the violations of law, not his grossly offensive and misguided opinions. If Mahometan scumbags want to preach hatred of the US fine, but let them cross the line into advocacy of action or treason, and then I say lock 'em up and throw away the key. The opinion you think so bad it should be prohibited today, could be your opinion in someone else's view tomorrow.

Doesn't the comment "Death to Israel" advocate genecide or, at least, hate crimes? Isn't a "hate crime" against the law in the United States? Isn't it incitement to riot and to commit crimes?

It seems to me you are tying yourself in a knot to defend "academic freedom" while advocating a much more difficult, questionable, and expensive method to accomplish the same thing when you suggest that the university be closed and reopened just to get rid of an objectionable professor. Is that really "protecting acedemic freedom"? Why buy into moral relativity when it is much easier, courageous, and beneficial to say there is a difference between right and wrong and this professor is wrong? Your solution, again just a different way to get rid of the professor while maintaining a facade of "academic freedom", is deceptive and weaselly, rather than straight forward and honest. Acedemic freedom cannot be used as an excuse to advocate anything you wish just because you are involved with acedemia.

Supposedly, this guy is currently #2 at Islamic Jihad, and is currently living in Damascus.

Yet, he's apparently still drawing paychecks from Florida taxpayers.

Just lovely. Look at what unions have done to the public sector.

I have to disagree, Cato. I mean, if this guy were teaching Middle-East history, or some other topic where the concept of jihad were a part of the curriculum, then maybe he'd be within his 'academic freedom'. But the scumbag is a computer science professor, so why should his radical speech on an entirely different topic be protected by academic freedom?

'Out of the fullness of the heart does a man speak'

I hate protecting the maniac, but I have to side with Cato (what I mean is that Sami should have to spend 10 years in Vorkuta as it was circa 1949). We cannot preserve the Constitutional integrity of free speech in the public square by punishing folks for what's in their heart, so long as their speech does not cross the seditious cry-of-fire-in-a-crowded-theater threshold. If so, I would have been arrested during the reign of Bubba Rex.

The difference of the topic from his professional field is irrelevant methinks.

All that being said, common sense dictates that O'Reilly's comment in the original interview was spot on: The guardians of the state should have stuck to the guy like a wet T-shirt and nailed him the instant any terrorist link was demonstrable.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.