posted on February 25, 2004 01:28:56 PM new
Sleeping With The Enemy
I thought my wife was a teacher, now I find out she's a terrorist! You might want to check your own bed.
By Regis T. Sabol
I’m scared. I just found out that my wife is a member of a terrorist organization. So are my son and daughter-in-law. The whole bunch are teachers and members of the National Education Association.
I don’t know what to do. Should I contact the police? Call the F.B.I.? Get in touch with the Department of Homeland Security? Should I sleep with a pistol under my pillow? (On second thought, bad idea. My wife, during an act of love with the enemy, might discover it. Then I’d really be in trouble.)
How do I know my loved ones are members of a terrorist organization? Rod Paige told me so. He’s George Bush’s secretary of education. Actually, he didn’t tell me directly that my seemingly innocent family -- the mother of my children, the father and mother of my grandchildren -- are all involved in such a nefarious organization. He told an assembly of Republican governors gathered at the White House over the weekend.
Oh, sure. He later said it was just a bad joke and he should have used his words more carefully. But he said that to his fellow Republicans with a wink and a nod. I know what he meant. In the Bush White House, those who oppose his administration’s policies are obstructionists who represent a threat to the country, especially in the wake of, you know, 9/11. They’re unpatriotic.
Now I’m really worried. What if the government thinks I’m a fellow traveler with these terrorists? The evidence would look pretty damning. I’m living with one. I’m actually sleeping with her! The other two visit our house. We visit their house. What if the F.B.I. is watching? Will they suspect me? They might find out I was a substitute teacher for a few years. Damn! Why did I ever do that? I was desperate for money. I didn’t know I might be linked to a terrorist cell, I thought it was just the faculty lunch room. Then there were all those times my wife went to lunch with women she called her “teacher friends.” Yeah, I bet. Now I see. They were probably talking about how they could obstruct the president. The shame of it all! Those dastardly traitors!
This could be real dangerous. I remember what happened to Bill Mahrer. He made a joke on his late night TV show once. The next day, the attorney general warned all of us to be careful about what we say. The day after that Mahrer was out of a job. Then there was former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia. The guy lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, but then the Republicans put a picture of Osama bin Laden next to his in a whole bunch of TV commercials because he didn’t support the president and, bam, he’s out of a job.
What if they start asking me questions? Did your wife go to any union meetings? Did she say bad things about the president? Did you ever say bad things about the president? (Oh, why did I ever write those stupid letters to the editor? What was I thinking?) Do you know or have you ever been associated with any members of Al Qaeda? (I’m okay there; I don’t even know any Arabs. Or do I? I better think about that.) Have you ever known or been associated with any Democrats? (Oh, my God! I’m a Democrat!) Do you know or have you ever been associated with any member of the Communist Party? (Well, there were those crazy Lefties I hung out with in college, but that was so long ago. Surely, the F.B.I. doesn’t have those pictures any more. I hope not.)
Where is J. Edgar Hoover when we need him? Where is the House Un-American Activities Committee in this time of crisis? Where is Joe McCarthy? I’m sure if Joe were still alive, he’d come up with a list of names of known terrorists. That number might change from day to day, but at least there’d be a list. I’m sure J. Edgar and Joe would get along real well with John Ashcroft. Unless, of course, J. Edgar insisted on wearing one of those silly dresses. Next thing you know, Ashcroft would be throwing a drape over him. J. Edgar in a dress? That could really hurt the President’s idea for an anti-gay marriage amendment; hurt the reelection campaign. Good thing J. Edgar’s dead, maybe.
I better lay low, play it safe. Maybe I could send Ann Coulter some fan mail. Turn up the TV real loud so my neighbors (and the F.B.I.?) could hear that I’m watching Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, that I have my TV tuned to Fox News all the time. Maybe I could subscribe to “The Weekly Standard?” I know. I’ll get one of those Bush/Cheney bumper stickers for my car. Yeah, a bumper sticker. That’ll fool them.
posted on February 25, 2004 09:51:45 PM new
" On Oct. 21, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill that could require university international studies departments to show more support for American foreign policy or risk their federal funding."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/06/middle_east/index_np.html
Freedom of Speech!
ala'Ashcroft
I gues that's the law then,
If you don't trust in Bush, then you're anti-American.
[ edited by austbounty on Feb 25, 2004 09:54 PM ]
posted on February 26, 2004 05:57:10 AM new
austbounty,
That is an effort, to promote conservative's political agendas in universities by chipping away at academic freedom. Congress apparently doesn't have a clue.
"The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well."
"It follows that a university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views."
Yale University
posted on February 26, 2004 06:19:08 AM newThis is an effort, to promote conservative's political agendas in universities by chipping away at academic freedom.
It doesn't 'chip away' at anything. It creates a balance that's not in our universities now. Since 90% of the professors in our universities are liberals, and promote those same views, this adds the necessary balance so each student gets BOTH sides.
posted on February 26, 2004 06:32:50 AM new
Run along linda. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you can find someone else to rail against.
It appears that there is an exceeding number of such posters who want to chat with you. Have fun.
posted on February 26, 2004 08:36:15 AM new
And, linda....
If you have noticed, there are posters here that I ignore. I read their comments but simply don't respond because I have determined that those posters are either unable to communicate on a level higher than that of a juvenile playground insult or in cases like yours lack sufficient knowledge about a subject.
I have other problems with you including your refusal to document your questionable information and your unsubstantiated allegations. So, I have no interest in engaging in any kind of dialogue with you on a conventional basis. I will continue to point out errors and wrong allegations but I have no interest in you other than that. I have butted heads with you many times and after winning the battles, you simply ignore your lost arguments by returning to your first statements which were proved wrong.
I come here like most people to read and share opinions with other people and have a good laugh every now and then. Arguing with you requires so much maintenance that it is not worthwhile. By maintenance I mean review of history for you, researching your information for you, and dealing with your narrow minded conservative opinions.
posted on February 26, 2004 09:05:24 AM new
Hope you feel better now that you have all that off your chest.
---------
Yes, twelve - some here don't like the fact that there are at least two sides to the issues.
---------------
10-13-03: Historians/History
The Academic Bill of Rights: Not Exactly McCarthyism
By Thomas Reeves
Mr. Reeves is the author of A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy. His latest book is America's Bishop: The Life and Times of Fulton J. Sheen (Encounter, 2001).
One of the most obvious facts of life is that America's colleges and universities are dominated by the Left. This is easily documented by the examination of campus catalogues, lists of speakers invited to campus, studies on faculty political affiliations, positions taken by faculty governments, and by book lists. Some liberals even admit the bias on campus, arguing that there is a sort of necessary correlation between reason, justice, and leftist political, social, and moral positions.
What is less understood, at least by the general public, is the intolerance that haunts American campuses as the result of the partisanship, especially in the social sciences and humanities.
While more research is needed on this topic, examples abound of the persecution of conservative professors and students, the confiscation and destruction of conservative literature, and the harassment of the few conservative speakers invited to campus.
It is widely known that in many disciplines, such as history and literature, conservatives are rarely hired or granted tenure. Why most faculty in the social sciences and humanities are on the Left is a fascinating topic that can't be dealt with here. But it is sufficient to say that liberals virtually own higher education in America. Now preferring to call themselves "progressives" and "moderates," thousands of zealous faculty members see themselves on a mission to liberate the country from ignorance, fanaticism, and oppression. They see conservatives (especially the Christian variety) as the enemies of all that is good. Which means that the Right has no place in academia, at least outside the schools of business and engineering.
Activist David Horowitz, once on the Left and now on the Right, has recently upset the cozy consensus on campus by writing and defending what he calls the "Academic Bill of Rights." It should not be very controversial, for it is an endorsement of the venerable concept of academic freedom in America, for both faculty and students. It is a document that seeks to secure intellectual independence on campus by opposing ideological or religious tests for faculty hiring and promotion, calls for balanced courses and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences, advocates free speech on campus, and seeks the restoration of research free of ideological restrictions. (Have you read, say, the Journal of American History in the last two decades?)
posted on February 26, 2004 09:13:50 AM new
Just a little different view:
Ex-professor battles University
After nearly a year, discrimination case still in court
by Ronen Stein
August 23, 2003
When former UIC Political Science assistant professor, Juan Lopez, received a positive pre-tenure evaluation from the University, he never could have expected that nearly four years later he would be out of a job and involved in a major court-battle.
Lopez filed a federal suit against the University of Illinois last fall with the aid of Judicial Watch, a government watchdog organization. He alleges that the University denied him tenure due to his views on Cuban President, Fidel Castro. Lopez, who was born in Cuba, has advocated in favor of the current U.S. trade embargo against his native land.
These beliefs became less popular once former Illinois Governor, George Ryan, reopened relations with Castro during a heavily publicized visit to Cuba a few years ago. Ryan, who held the position of ex-officio member on the Board of Trustees, had campaigned for the lifting of the long-standing embargo.
Lopez alleges that he was well on his way to tenure at UIC, after a pre-tenure evaluation recognized his quality performance and encouraged him to write a top-notch scholarly book. Yet, even after his acclaimed book, "Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba," was released, Lopez was narrowly denied tenure at all levels.
While Lopez had originally attempted to sue the University of Illinois, the court instructed him to file suit against specific individuals, instead. Among those now being sued are Chancellor, Sylvia Manning, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Stanley Fish, and the departmental head of Political Science at UIC.
Lopez alleges that he faced discrimination during the tenure process and that these individuals violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, which guarantee freedom of speech and due process, receptively.
The suit is currently in the discovery phase, in which Lopez and his legal representation are obtaining documents and letters from the University.
Lopez believes that these documents will prove his side of the story. "The more we delve into the matter, the more we discover that we are, in fact, correct," Lopez says. When contacted last November, UIC News Bureau Director, Bill Burton, would not comment directly about the lawsuit, but did stand by the credibility of the tenure process at UIC.
"Tenure status is based on the scholarly and teaching productivity of the faculty member, both in the past and in potential for the future," Burton said.
While Lopez is, technically, still a faculty member at UIC, he is not slated to teach any classes at the University and will depart at the end of August. Lopez has been looking for a job in the field of academia, but so far has come up empty-handed. Due to his expertise in the fields of Political Science and Latin-American Studies, Lopez is surprised that his attempt to secure a position elsewhere has proven to be so difficult.
"Perhaps word has gotten around about my suit," Lopez suspects
posted on February 26, 2004 09:14:08 AM new
OPEN LETTER FROM PROFESSOR JUAN LOPEZ,University of Illinois at Chicago, TO RICARDO BOFILL"
The cost of being "politically incorrect" in American academia
Dear Ricardo:
I have paid a high cost for my book on Cuba. I am practically fired from my university.
In my book, Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba, I support the embargo and strongly criticize the dictatorship. A number of Cuba experts, and some other scholars, have read the book and think that it is an excellent path-breaking work. One objective indication of the high quality of the book is that it is being published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, one of the most prestigious scholarly presses. The book will come out in November of 2002. I compare Cuba with East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Romania under communist rule and analyze U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba, including the embargo. I explain why the dictatorship in Cuba has endured and indicate what has to be done to foster a peaceful transition to democracy now (without waiting for the death of Fidel).
I have four peer reviewed articles,a chapter, teaching awards and lots of service to the university, enough to get tenure at a place like the University of Illinois at Chicago. In an official evaluation of my performance, done three years ago, I was told that the only thing I needed for tenure was a book.
At the moment, I am practically dismissed from the university. I came up for tenure this year. My book was sent to outside reviewers (about five). Apparently, two of them criticized my book. It is a very mysterious process. I get practically no information about the arguments against me. Nor do I have any opportunity to defend myself. From what I have been able to learn, the criticisms are a very erroneous interpretation of my ideas. My guess is that some reviewers just do not like my political positions and have tried to find something to attack my work. The positive comments of my book from other reviewers have been disregarded. It seems that a group of faculty members in my department used the criticism to mount a campaign against me. The vote in the faculty was six in favor of my tenure and eight against. From that point on, my tenure case was mortally wounded. There is a new head in my department. She came to the department with a lot of opposition from the faculty. When she saw the vote on my case, she went with the slight majority (I think to play politics among the faculty) and recommended that I be denied tenure.
I feel that I have been victimized because of my strong pro-democracy, pro-embargo position. I have been frequently in the local news media advocating my positions, and criticizing George Ryan (the Illinois governor) for his anti-embargo campaigns.
God knows what conspiracy has transpired at UIC against me. To mention one suggestive incident, a professor (who is the husband of a Trustee of UIC - a powerful position) was strongly opposed to my bringing a Cuban-American from Miami to speak at the university after a "student" from Cuba was invited to speak here. I am pasting an e-mail that this professor sent me about this case:
Considering the 40 years of one-sided, negative, and frequently demented, U.S. propaganda against Cuba (both in the Anglo and Latino media and in classes taught by most professors), to speak and push for equal time for the anticastristas sounds surrealist. Were equal time a principle to be fairly honored we would have to invite Fidel himself for a long, long tour of universities, television, and papers, barrios, and public squares.
Otto
I think that my case should be of interest to those who follow our struggle for freedom in Cuba.
All the best,
Juan
Juan J. Lopez
Assistant Professor of Political Science
and Latin American Studies
Department of Political Science (M/C 276)
The University of Illinois at Chicago
1007 West Harrison Street
Chicago, IL 60607-7137
U.S.A.
Office: (312) 413-3783
Fax: (312) 413-0440
E-mail: [email protected]
posted on February 26, 2004 09:22:09 AM new
Sorry its so long, I have forgotten how to make a link.
Just another view that YES the left "strongarms" their view of balance.
VICTIM OF ACADEMIA’S DOUBLE STANDARD
by Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
An "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is taking place on American campuses today.
They are targeting our learning centers. There is a new generation of students being subjected to a reconditioning of their ideas and beliefs by way of an instructor selection process that insures one-sidedness. The free flowing of ideas is becoming outdated. Today’s students are systematically pressured into a uniform thought. The invaders, though well entrenched in the increasingly monolithic faculty, must make a conscious effort to take over the student bodies offered up to them, since their ideas have been proven to be obsolete by failing everywhere they have been used.
Apparently, these far-out invaders heard the Soviet Union’s radio broadcasts of the first half of the twentieth century. The theory sounded good so they believed in the propaganda and came to Earth to help destroy the thing that prevented that great sounding theory from spreading: American imperialism. But they must have been in hibernation for their long journey to Earth, because they obviously missed what happened afterward. They didn’t know about the complete failure and resulting fall of the communist theory and heroes.
This is a ridiculous explanation, but otherwise, how can you explain what is happening in the U.S. academic circles today?
For example, the University of Harvard has hired a Cuban, Mario Coyula-Cowley, an active member of the Cuban Communist Party and an active member of Fidel Castro’s totalitarian communist regime, to teach architecture and urban planning. The architecture of Castro’s Cuba can best be used an examples of what happens when architecture’s only purpose is glorification of a government in failure. And the urban planning is a disaster for the environment and the citizenry. What were they thinking?
According to a March 4, 2002 article by Ross G. Douthat titled "Albert Speer at Harvard" in the Harvard Crimson, Coyula-Cowley is "a high-ranking government official, the head of the island nation’s urban planning commission." And Coyula-Cowley "helped organize the 1959 rebellion that swept the bearded dictator into power, and has held numerous government appointments over the decades since. Among other things, he is a senior member of Cuba’s National Union of Artists and Writers; an organization, needless to say, to which anyone who disagrees with the government cannot apply."
In the same vein, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is, by all appearances, in the process of dismissing a Cuban American Assistant Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at the Department of Political Science, who is not a member of any communist or Nazi party because he is pro-democracy. Therefore, he is considered an enemy in the eyes of the university faculty – he is a threat to the one-sidedness effort. His name is Juan J. Lopez. The technique they are using is the highly revered process of determining professorial tenure.
Assistant Professor Juan J. Lopez is from a working-class family. He came to the United States with his parents as a child in 1967. He grew up in the Chicago area. He was the only one of his siblings to receive higher education. At considerable sacrifice, he attended the costly and prestigious University of Chicago, from which he earned a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D.
Dr. Lopez, has distinguished himself as a teacher, receiving a Teaching Excellence Award from the Council for Excellence in Teaching and Learning of The University of Illinois at Chicago in 1999. He also has done considerable service to the Department of Political Science, the Latin American Studies Program and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIC.
He says, "I have published four peer-reviewed articles, one book chapter, one co-authored monograph, and a book." Moreover, he is co-authoring his second book tentatively tiled Transitions and Non-transitions from Communism: Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa. In an official evaluation of his performance, done three years ago, he was told that the only thing he needed for tenure was to publish a book. But, he adds, "I have paid a high cost for my book on Cuba. I have been practically fired from my university."
In Lopez’s book, Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba, which is being published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, one of the most prestigious scholarly presses, he supports the embargo and criticizes Castro’s tyranny. Johns Hopkins used the evaluations of two reviewers, both of whom recommended publication. One reviewer was particularly laudative. According to the reviewer, the work offers a very timely, theoretically sound and plausible explanation regarding the continuity of communism in Cuba, integrating several themes from mainstream political science literatures.
The documentation Lopez presents in the book was described as impressive, with a proper balance between the author’s individual judgements and what the evidence will support. The reviewer calls it the first scholarly, empirically based comparison of Cuba and countries in Eastern Europe under communist rule. Other scholars, both experts on Cuba and on Eastern Europe, who have read the manuscript, consider it outstanding. Professor Irving Louis Horowitz, the "Dean" of Cuban studies has called the manuscript "rock solid," a first-rate piece.
In his book, Lopez describes how the United States could have, without military intervention, made a transition to democracy possible in Cuba. But, contrary to what many assume, the main objective of the Clinton administration concerning Cuba was to maintain stability rather than to attain democracy. The book thoroughly considers the effect of the controversial American embargo on the prospects of a political transition and concludes that the U.S. economic embargo helps, although by itself is not sufficient to cause political change in Cuba.
Collecting data on Cuba is difficult since the dictatorship makes it impossible for a scholar to visit Cuba to collect data on the democratic opposition, do free surveys in the population concerning controversial issues or otherwise collect data that places the regime in a negative light. Yet, the book presents a wealth of information on the political, social and economic conditions in Cuba. Lopez spent several years painstakingly collecting data from all sources available outside Cuba. His heritage puts him in a position to access sources not available to others.
But the fact remains that Lopez’s Democracy Delayed, is highly critical of the Castro government and provides a path-breaking explanation of the endurance of the dictatorship. In it, Lopez shows why previous accounts are wrong or inadequate. And he supports his arguments with an unprecedented amount of data on the political, social and economic circumstances in Cuba since the 1990s.
But, back to reality. Writing a book critical of Castro, no matter how serious the research and documentation, is a big no-no in the academic circles in the U.S.
So Lopez is being asked to resign for his democratic ideals while Coyula-Cowley is being hired for his alliance to a criminal and totalitarian communist tyrant who has murdered hundreds of thousands and denied human rights to millions.
If Coyula-Cowley had been a Nazi or a right-winger, Harvard would not have hired him, of course! According to David Horowitz, a former radical of the 60s, "the exclusion of conservatives from Harvard’s faculty, does not happen by accident, but by ideological design." That is why being a communist official from a brutal regime is O.K., admirable even. Apparently, in their sick and twisted minds, communists – who killed over 100 million people - are decisively harmless in relation to conservatives.
So, what is that highly revered process that’s being used to eliminate the threat to UIC’s singular thought?
Lopez came up for tenure this year and UIC sent his book to about five outside reviewers. (Note that he hasn’t even been told how many it was sent to, much less who they are.) He says, "Apparently, two of them criticized my book. It is a very mysterious process. I get practically no information about the arguments against me. Nor do I have any opportunity to defend myself. From what I have been able to learn, the criticisms are a very erroneous interpretation of my ideas. My guess is that some reviewers just do not like my political positions and have tried to find something to attack my work. The positive comments of my book from other reviewers have been disregarded.
"It seems that a group of faculty members in my department used the criticism to mount a campaign against me. The vote in the faculty was six in favor of my tenure and eight against. From that point on, my tenure case was mortally wounded."
Lopez has heard only limited, brief comments of what transpired in the closed meeting where his book was discussed from individuals who were present. He was told that politics was involved and that some faculty members attacked Lopez misinterpreting his arguments in the book, apparently reflecting on criticisms in letters from external reviewers.
Lopez has heard the rumor that faculty members in the Political Science Department often do not read the candidate’s work (especially if they don’t agree with its view?). How can they judge a book without reading it? These "scholars" are willing to forgo their honor and rely on the letters of outside reviewers, especially those that agree with their political view. If this is so, Lopez says, "it indicates flagrant professional irresponsibility in the department."
The unanimous vote against Lopez came from the Executive Committee of the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Stanley Fish. The unanimity of the vote appears very suspicious.
Afterwards, Lopez requested a meeting with Dean Fish. He showed the Dean a copy of the third-year review and the evaluations of his Cuba manuscript that The Johns Hopkins University Press had used to decide to publish the work. The Dean read the documents and said that he would not change his mind.
During that meeting, Dean Fish personally suggested to Lopez that he should resign from the university.
So, a committee, relying on the letters that were not shared with Lopez, determined that the book was so bad that not only should he be denied tenure because of it, but that he should be so ashamed of it that he should resign. A book hailed by others, professional and prestigious who are willing, to economically back the book by publishing it.
It sure lays a firm foundation for the possibility that the book made such a good case for the political opinion opposite to those voting at the university, that forcing him to resign is the only viable way to defend from critics of the embarrassing, highly un-academic process.
To illustrate what these academic professors have inside their minds and why they conduct their witch hunts; Lopez mentioned the curious incident of a professor who happens to be married to a former powerful Trustee of his university. This professor was strongly opposed to Lopez’ suggestion to bring a pro-democracy Cuban American to speak at the university. This Cuban American would present a contrasting point of view after the presentation by a communist "student" from Castro’s Cuba who was already invited to speak at the university. This type of one-sided presentation happens with alarming frequently on U.S. campuses. It is just simply censorship imposed by the far-left in Academia.
This opposing professor was so secure of his beliefs that he sent Lopez a revealing email. "Considering the 40 years of one-sided, negative, and frequently demented, U.S. propaganda against Cuba (both in the Anglo and Latino media and in classes taught by most professors), to speak and push for equal time for the anti-Castristas sounds surrealist." I have to interject here. Providing both sides of a controversial issue in an academic situation is "surrealist"? He continued, "Were equal time a principle to be fairly honored we would have to invite Fidel himself for a long, long tour of universities, television, and papers, barrios, and public squares."
These outrageous statements are baseless. They do not sound like they are coming from a university professor but from a hysterical and reactionary political fanatic who wants to censor information about Cuba. The opinion that opposes his own he dismisses by calling it surreal. Meanwhile, the facts are very different. The "Anglo and Latino media" are mostly controlled by the left and the balance of information reported is tilted in Castro’s favor and almost 100% against Cuban Americans.
Professors at American colleges and university are also notorious for their pro-Castro bias, even preventing Cuban American students from telling or writing about their experiences. And his final proposition to invite Fidel is utterly insensitive to his victims. Would he suggest inviting Pinochet, P. W. Botha or Hitler to present their side at the university?
Lopez’s tenure process continues as the decision goes on to the Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of UIC, who will make her recommendation to the Chancellor by April 8th. And the Chancellor makes the final decision.
The secrecy about details of the decision-making greatly hinders attempts to understand what has happened. But given Lopez’s strong record and the controversial nature of his book, it is likely that the main reason for his tenure denial is his position with respect to the issues of Cuba. Specifically Lopez’s position is not "politically correct" as determined by the majority of members of the American academia.
Lopez feels that he has been victimized because of his strong pro-democracy position for Cuba and advocacy for maintaining the U.S. embargo. He has widely expressed his views in the news media and in his writings. He has granted five interviews by local newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. And has written three solicited articles for Chicago newspapers.
He also has been a critic of the Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, for his campaigns in favor of lifting the embargo on Cuba. One of Lopez’s newspaper articles is titled "Cuba’s government, not people, will benefit from Ryan visit" (Daily Herald, October 24, 1999). Governor Ryan is Ex Officio Member of the Board of Trustees of UIC. Maybe some faculty members and high officials at the university do not want to add a politically controversial professor to the permanent faculty.
The article by Ross G. Douthat at the Harvard Crimson quote history professor James T. Kloppenberg saying "the quality of a person’s scholarly work, not his or her politics, should determine whether he or she teaches at Harvard."
Apparently, this principle is not always used, as the Lopez vs. Coyula-Cowley cases reveal. If you are from the far-left, you stay, if not, you go.
Douthat explains, "None of this should be terribly surprising. There has always been a tendency among America’s intellectuals to downplay the crimes of left-wing regimes, and Castro’s Cuba, in particular, has long been the darling of the American left."
Obviously, there is a double standard in Academia. They favor and give preferential treatment to the criminal communist system and his emissaries like Mario Coyula-Cowley, among others. But, they close their doors and dismiss the people who do not subscribe to the obsolete Marxist dogma, like Prof. Juan J. Lopez, among others.
They trample freedom of speech. This is unacceptable with the ideals of democracy and freedom in America.
Freedom in Academia unfortunately but surely is dying in the U.S. The tool they abuse to accomplish their goals in a would-be honorable one that has deteriorated to the point of being secretive in order to hide the shame of it.
With the recent scandals of pedophilia and other sexual abuses in the Church, "honorable" is becoming a relative term. If priestly honor has become relaxed to the point of horror, academic honor as well can no longer be assumed, but must be continuously earned to be maintained. We must do our part by demanding that all honor be maintained.
These "academics" are as out of touch as the alien invaders of the 1950s science fiction flicks.
We, the people, have to raise our voices and state our disapproval of these censure and brainwashing techniques being used in the learning centers of America. If this is allowed to continue, the result of this madness will be a new generation of single minded and confused people who will deviate from the concept of individual freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers intended for America.
The final decision-maker for tenure cases at UIC is the Chancellor:
Chancellor Sylvia Manning
Office of the Chancellor
2833 University Hall (M/C 102)
The University of Illinois at Chicago
601 S. Morgan Street
Chicago, IL 60607
phone: 312-413-3350
fax: 312-413-3393
email_to: [email protected]
posted on February 27, 2004 09:16:39 AM new
hey skylite - You ever going to answer my question about that guy who was listed as the contact person for your House Appropriations Committee article?
