Subject: Daniel Pipes
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:09:55 -0500
From: Kenneth Green
To: Lorna Marsden <presidnt@yorku.ca >
January 24, 2003
Dear Dr. Marsden,
I was surprised and rather dismayed to learn that York University has surrendered to a group of academic thugs and bullies (so-called students, but with faculty advisers who should know better?), who are trying desperately to prevent the distinguished scholar of the
Middle East and Islam, Dr. Daniel Pipes, from speaking to students and faculty at York University next Tuesday. I would have assumed that York University, as a great university, would show greater dedication to protecting the free search for truth, and to safeguarding fundamental democratic principles, than this seeming appeasement of the thugs and bullies suggests.
I would have thought your university, precisely as a university, would have devoutly wished to protect the freedom of speech of a renowned scholar and respected political analyst. Is this level of weakness and timidity—in the face of what can only be called hatred of
the free, frank, and open discussion of ideas—next to be applied to York University faculty members who do research in controversial areas? Are they too to be silenced once a group of academic thugs and bullies issues threats against the university, and uses the tactics of slander and blatant lies to smear the good name of a scholar and the sound results of research, just because someone issues threats and conceives lies?
It seems to me of high importance for institutions of higher learning like York University to make a stand and to be counted on behalf of the defense not just of free speech, but of the love of truth and its free discussion, in cases in which it is threatened by its declared enemies. Further, and to focus on the political side, surely it is not acceptable that what appear to be Arab (or is it just anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Western?) student groups be allowed
to vent their rage and to hold the university to ransom in an effort to block the friends of Israel from speaking, as in the Benjamin Netanyahu fiasco at Concordia, which brought shame and disgrace to the good name of this once-great university?
While York University is to be commended for its original plan to bring Dr. Daniel Pipes, who I was looking forward to seeing and hearing, on the other hand to allow him to be banned for no discernible reason other than concocted charges and false accusations brought against him is not be believed. This is to set a terrible precedent not just for future speakers at your university, but also for the free life of the mind at York University for all of your faculty members in the future.
If you surrender to these thugs and bullies, you might as well shut the doors of the university immediately and declare your commitment to the closed mind. Occasionally it requires great acts of courage in order to defend and maintain our freedoms. It seems to me that this is one of those moments.
Kenneth Hart Green
Department for the Study of Religion
University of Toronto
Subject: [Fwd: Daniel Pipes]
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 15:20:56 -0500
From: Kenneth Green
BCC: Mike Diamond
Dear Mike:
Thought you might be interested in seeing this letter that I sent to President Marsden of York University re Daniel Pipes.
Ken Green
Subject: [Fwd: Daniel Pipes]
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 10:21 PM -0500
From: Mike Diamond
To: David Dewitt <ddewitt@YorkU.CA>
I think you could argue that the same points made relative to having Pipes speak at York apply to having a dialogue with him.
Subject: Re: Fw: Daniel Pipes
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:49:47 -0500
From: David Dewitt <ddewitt@YorkU.CA>
To: "Mike Diamond" "Kenneth Green"
CC: Lorna Marsden <presidnt@YorkU.CA>
Dear Prof Green:
I take your points and they should be discussed.
For now, however, let me simply note that at no time did I or any of my colleagues at YCISS argue that Daniel Pipes should not be allowed to speak at York. Indeed, we made it clear from the outset of our concern which arose when we were informed of his connection to Campus Watch, that our problem was not with his scholarship but with his connection to CW. YCISS did not invite Pipes to York; we merely responded to an invitation to have our name noted as a co-sponsor. We've provided no material or logistical assistance in preparation for his visit. With the issue of CW came a serious discussion among colleagues—faculty, students and staff—about whether YCISS should continue to co-sponsor. Although I and a few others would have preferred that our co-sponsorship remain, many more felt otherwise. The analyses and discussions which led to that decision will be available on the YCISS website by tomorrow afternoon.
Prior to making the decision to withdraw co-sponsorship, we did meet with a representative of the Jewish student group that is sponsoring this talk and were assured that their commitment to that remained, and I think that that is as it should be and York should ensure a place for the talk. The point here is that YCISS was under no obligation to co-sponsor nor to remain as co-sponsor when, in the views of many, the circumstances had changed.
We recognized that whatever decision we would make would not be satisfactory to large numbers of people either from within or outside the university. Our discussions tried to focus on the issues at hand, also recognizing that we were caught in the midst of some conflicting principles. Though some of us argued for our continued involvement in the Pipes visit based on the over-riding norm of academic freedom, others (as you will see in the website materials) argued that CW and some of Pipes' more recent writing violated that and was meant to silence. Finally, in what was an open and serious engagement of the issues, a strong preference for disassociating YCISS from Pipes' visit was expressed.
I do not think that it is fair to suggest that YCISS or the York administration has been involved in trying to silence or to prevent Pipes from offering his lecture at York. There were no "thugs and bullies" involved either in our initial decision nor our decision to withdraw co-sponsorship. Unfortunately, some student organizations or other individuals and organizations now like to interpret it that way for their own political purposes, and this is not helped by some erroneous, perhaps even irresponsible, reporting.
I do not expect that my response will alleviate your concerns. I do hope that it conveys that the difficult process we undertook was in large part driven by concerns over academic freedom. YCISS was under no obligation to co-sponsor Pipes but did so on our initial information which was limited to his academic writing, and by so doing we were neither endorsing nor refuting his work but merely acknowledging the importance of having it examined and challenged. The decision to withdraw that co-sponsorship was due principally to the controversy and problems associated with CW which many of my colleagues sincerely feel have transcended the norms of the academy.
dbd
Subject: Re: Fw: Daniel Pipes
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:55:18 -0500
From: Kenneth Green
To: David Dewitt <ddewitt@YorkU.CA>
CC: Lorna Marsden <presidnt@YorkU.CA>
Dear Professor Dewitt:
Thank you very much for your response to my letter to President Marsden. I appreciate your detailed explanation of the motives and the considerations that went into the withdrawal of support by YCISS for Dr. Daniel Pipes's lecture, which he was invited to give at York University on Tuesday, January 28, and which lecture (one hopes) he will still be permitted to deliver. I am certainly happy to hear that neither you nor any of your colleagues in YCISS ever argued that Dr. Pipes should not be allowed to speak at York.
However, I cannot help but think that there is a kind of Orwellian logic at play in the withdrawal of support by YCISS for Dr. Pipes's lecture, based on the accusation that his website Campus Watch is an effort to suppress academic freedom of speech. Surely you know that one of the central purposes of Dr. Pipes' website, Campus Watch, is to ENSURE free speech, especially within the venue of contemporary Middle Eastern studies, where the freedom to speak honestly and accurately about dictatorial regimes, Islamist terrorism, tyrannical ideologies, religious oppression of women, etc., has been increasingly suppressed or denied. Thus, to describe as a suppression of free speech, the work of a man who has dedicated himself to the defense of free speech, is simply Orwellian. The withdrawal of YCISS support for a lecture by Daniel Pipes only seems to prove just how broadly based the stifling of academic free speech truly has become. That is not even to mention the insult to the reputation of Dr. Pipes, who is himself a highly respected scholar, and one of the foremost contemporary authorities on the history, politics, and religion of the Middle East.
It is disappointing that YCISS has apparently become another example of the growing intolerance for freedom of expression in the academy, which Dr. Pipes has been warning us about so assiduously.
Yours truly,
Kenneth Hart Green
Department for the Study of Religion
University of Toronto