Statement on Don Laird Letter About Bassam Frangieh

"Don Laird" is a Canadian, an alleged member of "Trooper, Royal Canadian Dragoons, 8th Canadian Hussars." He reportedly sent a mass email warning the campus of inaction and comparing it to Ft. Hood. That allegedly prompted the campus to issue that aforementioned now-failed resolution earlier. 


Allow me to be very clear here. I don't really know who this "Don Laird" fellow is but he seems as if he hasn't got all of his facts together, and so it is ridiculous for him to compare this to Ft. Hood. This is so obviously not another Ft. Hood moment that I'm kind of embarrassed to have to write it out. A comment on a previous post wants me to condemn the Laird letter. I do so with gusto and unequivocally. I further condemn anyone who would compare Frangieh to the threat posed by the Ft. Hood shooter, whose jihadi motivations led him to massacre members of our armed forces. I denounce those who say such a thing and cause bedlam. It is the moral equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. It is wrong; it is alarmist; and it is hurtful to those of us who want this campus to be a better place. 


I don't think it is prudentially a good idea to draw attention to Mr. Laird; I only asked in light of the email that Richard Rodner sent out that he reveal what he sent. I asked that because Richard Rodner, who deleted mention of Bassam Frangieh's views off of Wikipedia, is probably the least trustworthy administrator I have ever encountered -- even for someone dealing in PR -- and so I wanted the straight story for myself and for my readers. When I got it from Mr Laird himself, I posted it so that people could evaluate it for themselves. (I think the statement's paranoid streak speaks for itself.) 


Of course all of this confusion, rumors, and intrigue would be solved if the college did one of two things -- asked Frangieh to explain his remarks vis a vis Hezbollah and Hamas or spoke up and denounced them. That way everything would be clear and we could proceed into a debate about what was to be done about someone who holds those pro-terrorist views running a department that is teaching the next generation of diplomats.


The college, in my view, has a moral responsibility to be forthright and honest with what has been released about Bassam Frangieh especially as this story continues to garner attention from alums and individuals around the world. 


I can understand why some professors want to stand in solidarity with their colleague after receiving such a letter from so far afield as Canada and knowing so little about the particulars of what I have been writing, but that does not excuse them attempting to issue a resolution out of ignorance. They should do everything they can to get informed before the next faculty meeting. 


That, I submit, is the only way to cast out the ignorance brought forth by the Laird letter. 

Faculty Motion in Favor of Frangieh Fails to Get Unanimity At Meeting

Reports from the faculty meeting have begun trickling in. Apparently it was a rather lengthy meeting and it was extended 30 minutes. All of this culminating in a rejection of the Marie Denise-Shelton resolution for unanimous consideration under the self-denying ordinance which makes it impermissible to pass a resolution submitted for consideration that was submitted within 72 hours. (Shelton's was sprung on the faculty less than 24 hours before.)

I'll spare you the back and forth of the faculty meeting, but suffice it to say, there were very serious arguments against a resolution put forth and two votes -- only one was necessary -- to stop the resolution from proceeding apace.


It will be taken up again at the next faculty meeting the date for which has yet to be determined.

Oddly enough, under one interpretation of the rules, I am not permitted to address a faculty meeting, even though members of the faculty allegedly  accused me of slander and the newspaper for which I write of peddling "slander". (Goodness Professors, it is libel!) Due process has regrettably been lost here...
 
Rest assured, I intend to submit an open request to Dean Hess to be permitted to be present and, if necessary, to speak.

Response from an Alum About Basam Frangieh Response

A number of alumni have sent me really long, really well argued emails. I have asked a few of them to post their emails here on this website. 


Here's one from Keefe Goldfisher CMC '75


Every academic may have his season as a revolutionary believing what youth or upbringing or passion informs him is right, and no harm done. The Claremont Colleges hosted Angela Davis when I went to school there, and there didn't seem to be any lasting side effect of her stay. Professor Hurley's sarcasm reads well by highlighting what universities are best at, exposing their students to diverse ideas, offered up by professors who are not in ideological lockstep, for vigorous debate... all praiseworthy. I like the touch especially of riding in the same cart to the guillotine by insisting that if Frangieh goes, well 'take me too'. So it might escape attention, that the reason Frangieh is controversial and should go is that he supports two terrorist groups, so designated by our State Department. A university is a great place to hide out one's outre views, because most teachers will have Professor Hurley's reaction, something like, 'If they can take him, how could they not take me as well. Better to resist.' So it is not surprising that a warm blanket of support surrounds Israel-bashing and terrorist-support in academia. The Academy has become, in America, the hideout of morally reprehensible views, and they are not merely the springtime antics of young people trying out their causes, but the reasoned out tactics of older folks who count on being included in the vote for what's tolerable, so that one day when all the votes have tipped enough their way, they can stop all the criticism of their 'cause' by fiat.


Maybe what happens to Frangieh will turn upon a vote that will be characterized as a referendum on free speech and the sanctity of the Academy, but as the shameful espousal of these views gains currency, it becomes harder to distinguish why some views are bad. It's left to others to explain, outside the ivied halls, why there cannot be a two-state solution, how Hezbollah has killed more Americans in terrorist acts than any other group, how Hamas is sworn by its charter to the destruction of Israel, how Islam is not only a religion but a means of political participation that at some point will insist upon Sharia.


The toehold for all of this is political correctness, on which Professor Hurley wants to cast his lot, as if the Academy is above the fray. I do not like my alma mater becoming the sanctuary for the view that it is acceptable to house supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah, the former the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the supporters of Nazis during World War II, and the latter the usurpers of Lebanon. The pattern has been that as Arab Studies departments come into being in various colleges around the nation, they gather a constituency that tries to enforce a newly amalgamated political correctness that says there is as much validity to their point of view as to the view contra. There is not. Common sense ought to inform us of the truth of this. How many times must it be said before the sense comes through. Look at the disturbances nearby, at UCI, where the Muslim Student Union has attempted to foist its views on everyone by disallowing speech that dares criticize it or even disagree. It may seem that Professor Hurley is bravely defying conformity by his tone. Haven't we seen how this story ends, many times.

A Response to Professor Marie Denise-Shelton, Or a Student's Lament for His Teacher

Professor Marie Denise-Shelton has decided to spring on the faculty tomorrow a resolution that purports to support Bassam Frangieh. 

She does this on the grounds that Claremont has always been home to people with controversial views and that somehow Claremont's 2007 policy on diversity somehow means we must accept someone who has hateful views about the Middle East.

I would counter...

1. Claremont has, throughout its history, been hostile to those who would advocate against America. George C. S. Benson was hostile to communists -- he and J. G. Boswell used to discuss how best to "clean out the pinkos" -- but he was very friendly to talent, however it presented itself. While Pomona College worried that appointing its first Jewish professor, Karl Kohn, was not paying sufficient "tribute to Christian Civilization," President Benson hired a Jewish professor, Everett Carter, in his starting faculty in 1946. That diversity risks being imperiled by Professor Bassam Frangieh's conspiratorial statements and petitions against Israel and against Israeli academics. Frangieh's belief that there is a "Zionist-Crusader plot" animating America's Middle East policy is frankly anti-Semitic. I think it is fair to say that George C. S. Benson would be aghast that someone with those views would be representing the institution he helped found. I submit to you also that the school's motto, "Civilization prospers with commerce" is not consistent with support for barbaric State Department-designated terrorist organizations.

2. Academic freedom is not applicable here. The ends of academic freedom are academic excellence, not hate. Moreover, as my colleague, Hannah Burak CMC '13 notes in her editorial, tenured faculty, according to the 1940 statement on academic freedom, "should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others." Professor Frangieh's subsequent refusal to be accountable shows that he is ill-fit to serve at Claremont.

3. Finally, if Professor Denise-Shelton is insistent on using the 2007 statement on diversity, she must grapple with the inherent incongruity of arguing for Bassam Frangieh. After all, his appeal to boycott Israelis violates the very text of the state which defines diversity to include "race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and cultures, geographic and national origin (both U.S. and international), socio-economics, life experiences, and intellectual viewpoints," CMC should continue to "recruit a faculty of increased balance and diversity." [Emphasis mine].  

Professor Frangieh has called for Israeli academics to be boycotted for no reason other than the fact that they are Israeli. His reluctance to bring balanced views on the Middle East to campus shows that he is the first violator of that statement. Had the college done appropriate vetting of his statements before he came to campus, it is doubtful he could pass muster. That Professor Frangieh is training the next generation of diplomats compounds the problem.

--Charles 

P.S. I have great respect for Professor Denise-Shelton as a teacher, but on this she is dead wrong. I previously had quite a bit of respect for her and still think she's among the best professors I have ever had.  Her class on colonialism and French literature has actually been enormously useful when talking with friends from West Africa and the Caribbean.

I direct Professor Denise-Shelton to that great French thinker, Voltaire, who wrote, "Le premier  des devoirs, sans doute, est d'être juste ; Et le premier des biens est la paix de nos coeurs." The first of duties, without a doubt, is to be just. And the first goods is the peace of our hearts. 

 It is up to Professor Frangieh to show us what is in heart now that his hate appears plain for all to see. It is up to us to be fair and just. 

A Response to Professor Hurley's Straw Man Letter

Professor Paul Hurley writes that he should be given the "boot too" because he allegedly agrees with what he perceives as  Professor Frangieh's views on the Middle East. The letter, which I posted here, is very clever, but it does nothing to address the real, substantive problems with the petitions that Frangieh has signed or the statements that he has made.

For a professor of philosophy, it's curious that Hurley doesn't seem to be concerned about matters of truth, preferring to engage straw men, rather have a substantive debate. And he accuses The Claremont Independent of peddling "ill-reasoned piece of fear-mongering sophistry." Projecting much professor?

In his statement, there is no mention by Professor Hurley of Professor Frangieh's support of terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, nor his dislike of life in America or of Americans, nor his willing of violence against Israel. There is no discussion of Frangieh calling for boycotts of Israelis, nor any discussion of his wanting to "foil the Zionist-Crusader plot" purportedly behind America's Iraq war policy. Though Profesosr Frangieh has maintained his silence on this matter and refused requests to distance himself from the terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, Professor Hurley purports to speak for him repeatedly in the letter.

I have a suggestion for Professor Hurley: Speak for yourself. If you really support Professor Frangieh's views on the Middle East, then sign the same petitions he did.

Of course, I suspect he won't, but if he is inclined, I can send him the contact information for the petitions. In fact, I'll even have it professionally translated into Arabic and sent to those promoters. Maybe then Professor Hurley will do what Professor Frangieh will not: defend the indefensible.