David French and Nathan Harden Debate Academic Freedom and Bassam Frangieh over at National Review Online

David French and Nathan Harden of Phi Beta Cons debated academic freedom and what should be done with Bassam Frangieh over on the education blog of National Review Online.

I have bolded the more salient points and ones with which I agree. I should note that I agree with David French on the point about academic freedom -- we don't criminalize thoughts, no matter how disgusting in America -- but one is making a statement and therefore taking an action when one endorses two terrorist organizations. When one is brought to a campus for one purpose, but works at loggerheads with that purpose, I think it ought to be grounds for dismissal. I am very troubled and disappointed that President Gann and her administration have chosen to say nothing on this topic. Anyways, here's the exchange:

Nathan, thanks much for highlighting the story of Bassam Frangieh, Claremont McKenna’s resident Hamas supporter. There’s little doubt that his comments are within the bounds of academic freedom. Radical professors make all kinds of radical statements, and we have no evidence at this point that he’s done anything more than pay lip service to the fashionable sympathy for — as you put it — “perpetrators of violence against Jews and Americans.” His comments are reprehensible, yes, but if he’s doing the job that Claremont McKenna hired him to do, then those statements do not — by themselves — disqualify him from teaching nor should they cause him to have to pack his cardboard boxes and “hit the road.”

There are, however, two important caveats to this assessment. First, because Claremont McKenna is a private university, it has its own quite substantial academic-freedom interests, and it can hire and fire professors based on the values the college itself wishes to endorse and project. If Dr. Frangieh’s speech is at odds with the private college’s desired message, the college can take action, much like Christian colleges can prohibit their professors from endorsing atheism or Islam. But if Claremont holds itself out as a school that embraces intellectual diversity and protects academic freedom at least to the extent public colleges must, then it cannot (or, more precisely, should not) punish Dr. Frangieh.

Second, if Dr. Frangieh’s words were accompanied by any actions in support of jihad, academic freedom wouldn’t protect him from his school, or from law enforcement. There’s a world of difference between praising Hamas and distributing bomb-making instructions over the Internet. Yet his statements may make him a person worth watching — after all, it would be hardly unusual if radical words signaled a willingness to engage in radical actions. During our long war against jihadists, we’ll need to respect the wide boundaries of the marketplace of ideas while also casting a watchful and wary eye towards those who so openly praise our hideously violent enemies.

Nathan Harden responds:

David: Good point. I think you’re right that we do have to make a distinction between words and deeds. I don’t believe in criminalizing thoughts. And I agree with you that it is important that we protect academic freedom, even if that means protecting someone’s right to express beliefs most of us view a reprehensible.

To build on one of your other points: I’m not so sure that a university, especially a private one, should be duty bound to keep any person in its employ whose activities and statements made outside the classroom could affect his ability to do what he was hired to do. In this case, Bassam Frangieh is being paid to implement a study-abroad program in the Middle East for Claremont students, with the hope of preparing some of them diplomatic service in the region. I question whether Dr. Frangieh is able to do that job, since his statements appear to endorse terrorism, rather than diplomacy, as a means of political change in the region.

William F. Buckley argued in God and Man at Yale that if alumni find the ideologies and morals advanced by their alma mater severely lacking, they should feel free to withdraw financial support. I see no reason why Claremont McKenna alumni should help pay Dr. Frangieh’s salary if they are offended by his beliefs and do not believe he is qualified to do the job he is being paid to do. I could live with it if Dr. Frangieh were limited simply to teaching the Arabic language. But I think Claremont McKenna would be wise to send him packing, at least from the study-abroad/international-affairs aspect of his job (something his degree in Arabic literature probably doesn’t really qualify him to do in the first place).

Either way, he’ll need an office change. Thus, while your point about academic freedom is important and right on point, I stick by my call for donating boxes rather than money to the school.

L.A. Times on Our Flabby, Entitled College Students

The Los Angeles Times recounts just how spoiled our generation is. Have a look at these paragraphs and weep for our republic as college becomes just another country club and becomes even more unaffordable for those poor souls who can barely afford entry. Apparently, while our parents' -- and grandparents' --generation dealt with the stresses of wartime draft, we have that great scourge: exams, which demand pampering.  

That was evident Wednesday afternoon at Pomona College as classes ended for the semester and a finals study period began. On a lawn at the Claremont campus, two fenced pens were set up, one with six bunnies and the other with 10 puppies. Over two hours, about 300 students took turns climbing inside and playing with the animals at the student-organized event.

Adam Griffith, a freshman at Claremont McKenna College, which is also a member of the Claremont University Consortium, said he had only seven hours of sleep over three days last week as he finished four papers for classes. "It was rough, but I got it done," said the government major from Danville, Calif. So, he said, he was taking a break from studying for a Spanish exam to romp with the dogs.That was evident Wednesday afternoon at Pomona College as classes ended for the semester and a finals study period began. On a lawn at the Claremont campus, two fenced pens were set up, one with six bunnies and the other with 10 puppies. Over two hours, about 300 students took turns climbing inside and playing with the animals at the student-organized event.

"Stuff like this is a really, really good idea, especially since it doesn't take too much time," said Griffith, 18. "I appreciate seeing that from the faculty and staff, acknowledging that we are under stress."

Standing by was Neil Gerard, Pomona College's associate dean of students, who said the school also provides late-night breakfasts and free massages at the semester's end. Seniors particularly feel "an aura of pressure," as many worry about the possibility of moving home after graduation and competing with older people for entry-level jobs, Gerard said. But most students cope well and just need a break from studying, he said.

Claremont Professors on La Dame Pelosi

Professor Pitney explains the tough go of it that Speaker Minority Leader Pelosi will have in the next congress. Gasp! She will soon be flying commercially!

At a dinner for the Claremont Institute in New York City, Professor Charles Kesler described the ex-Speaker as a "political dominatrix without parallel -- and her clients and colleagues apparently crave even more whippings."  

This is fitting because we have been whipped greatly these past few years. 

All of which makes me recall this most epic of SNL intros from 2007:

Good evening, I’m Nancy Pelosi. For the past 18 years, I’ve been a member of Congress from the 18th District of California, proudly representing the citizens of San Francisco. As of this January, however, I will, in a sense, represent all Americans, when I am sworn in as Speaker of the House.


Despite the efforts of this administration to frighten the American public about the Democratic party, and it’s alleged “San Francisco values,” last Tuesday, you went to the polls in record numbers, and you sent this White House a message that “Stay the course in Iraq” is not a plan; that our health care system should serve ordinary citizens, not pharmaceutical companies; that so-called rough sex can be a necessary and fulfilling adjunct to [inaudible], particularly when it involves fantasy role-playing scenarios, such as kidnapping or forced interrogation, providing of course that all participants are willing and disease-free, and have agreed on what we call a “safe word,” for example, “palomino”; that an increase in the minimum wage is long overdue;
 and, finally, that U.S. citizens do not surrender their constitutional rights the moment they engage in multiple
 partners and group sex, providing, once again, that all participants are willing, at least twelve years of age, and no peanuts or peanut products are used.

We Americans have always been a religious people, a member of my staff tells me, and whatever you have heard, the Democratic Party is not anti-religion, whether you’re a wiccan priestess, a druid, a tantric Buddhist, a servent of Moloch, the Lord of Fire, Presbyterian, or member of the cult of Kali, your faith will be respected, so long as no animals are harmed during your ceremonies, except, of course, gerbils.

And when the new, Democratic majority convenes in January, it will truly be a Congress as diverse as the nation it serves: sharing the Judiciary committee, John Conyers [a picture of the African-American congressman is shown]. At Ways and Means, Charles Rangel [a picture of the African-American congressman is shown]. At Homeland Security, Benny Thompson [a picture of the African-American congressman is shown]. At Government Reform, Ernesto Guevera, Jr. [the two-toned icon of Che is shown], at agriculture, this naked hippy [a guy sporting a guitar, thumbs-up, and very long, ratty hair], and his old lady [a very young hippy woman]. At Small Business, yet another black dude. At finance, the drummer from Rage Against the Machine. And at Intelligence, Al Qaeda Number Two man, Khallid Al-Zawahari. Truly, a Congress that looks like America.

[A man dressed in gay, leather, sex-fetish clothes come over]: Nancy, you need to OK this.
[Nancy, to audience]: Excuse me. [To man]: Dean, I’m kinda in the middle of something.
Man: I’ll come back. 
Nancy: Dean, and about your outfit, it’s alright now, but as of January, you may have to go with more of a business look for in the office.
Man: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know.
Nancy: No, no, it’s fine for now, but for after the transition…
Man: Sure, no problem.
Nancy: Who’s your friend?
Man: This is my slave; his name is Phil. He’s a human ashtray.
Nancy: Dean, this office is non-smoking.
Man: Just pot.
Nancy: Oh, OK. [To Phil}: How do you do?
Phil [unable to speak because of a horrid device shoved in his mouth]: Iff rear horror to reef roo. Rurarurashur ah reruming rea-rer.
Nancy: Thank you, I appreciate it. Dean, I better get back to…
Man: Oh, absolutely.
Nancy [back to audience]: With your votes last Tuesday, you have offered us your trust. I promise you, we will not betray you.
[Wretched noise like a drill from offstage, also offstage, Man shouts]: Palomino! Palamino!
Nancy [to offstage]: Palamino!

Some More on Bassam Frangieh's Views

Earlier today, Big Peace published an op-ed that I wrote about Bassam Frangieh and why I think his teachings are against both the mission and history of our college.

 Here's a graff:

While Claremont McKenna’s administration once stood up for its motto, “civilization prospers with commerce,” it now seems it supports those who support barbaric terrorism. Claremont McKenna’s president, Pamela Gann, has ignored requests for comment from alumni, parents, and students. But in some more private gatherings, she has even equated Professor Frangieh’s comments to that of Professor Miller, who testified on ballot initiatives in the federal litigation on California’s Prop 8. In so doing, Gann suggests that supporting California’s right to define marriage is equal to endorsing terrorism.

Gann has done that, I suspect, because she supports the creation of an Arabic study abroad program in the Middle East after a junket there last April where she met with royalty and Middle Eastern diplomats. Since that visit, Gann recently gave an honorary degree to Mohammed Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, who is deputy prime minister and foreign minister of Kuwait and one of the first non-board members, non-commencement speakers to be so honored. He is also a member of the Kuwaiti royal family and a source close to fund-raising tells me that the honorary degree was, he worries, meant to get the Kuwaiti royalty to fund that a CMC school abroad. The foreign minister administers the Kuwaiti Fund for Arab Economic Developments, a $15 billion slush fund, with projects in more than 100 countries.

First off, I apologize for that piece. I miswrote the name of Bassam Frangieh's wife, Ms. Aleta Wenger. (I incorrectly wrote "Wegner".) I have been wrongly accused of quoting Frangieh "out of context," as if there ever were instances in which supporting Hamas and Hezbollah were acceptable for someone who is teaching the next diplomatic corps.

I have not, but the onus now is on those who accuse me of it to show how I was wrong. They cannot, but let's give it the old college try.

I have made it much easier for you than it was for me for I have put up everything in the original Arabic. So have at it.

Of course I never said that I oppose Frangieh's teaching of Arabic. For all I know, he is quite good at it, though I would tend to suspect that anyone who has won an award for teaching on the vote of the students may have gotten it for reasons other than academic.

Nor can it be claimed that the reason the administrators are ignoring this story is that they defend Frangieh's academic freedom. If they do, why are they silent now? Surely someone making a principled appeal on defense of academic freedom would continue to make it. That they do not suggests to me, at least, that they do not think there is anything OK with his views.

That they have been silent also suggests that there is nothing wrong with the story I have written. The onus is now on my accusers to show where I have gotten things wrong. They haven't done it. I suspect they won't because they can't.