|
Promoting Academic Freedom: |
| Reprinted from the Middle East Studies
Association Bulletin, July 1996 (with changes in orthography to HTML standards). Copyright 1999 |
|
AS WE GATHER for our annual conference that is held this year on the eve of International Human Rights Day, it is appropriate for us to reflect on our need to protect academic freedom. As members of MESA, we are part of a global community of scholars. We have a special responsibility to uphold the principle of academic freedom both at home and abroad. The freedoms to conduct research, to teach and to communicate are fundamental to our professional lives. Moreover, we--as academicians--have a special "obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom," as the American Association of University Professors (1966) emphasizes.
Aspirations for academic freedom are now supported by international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the two Covenants that were adopted in 1966 by the United Nations include provisions for
The Declaration insists that all people have "the right to education" and also urges that "education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" (Article 26). All of these provisions are essential in order to uphold academic freedom. Indeed, if we do not have freedom of expression, all of our human rights are diminished and our human dignity is impaired. At regional levels, the European Union, the Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity have all adopted conventions on human rights that reaffirm the basic freedoms articulated in the Universal Declaration and the Covenants (African Charter, Welch & Meltzer 1984: 317-29). These rights are beginning to be incorporated into national law, although that remains a serious problem in most countries. In the Middle East, the Charter of the League of Arab States lacks explicit provisions to support human rights. However, many independent human rights groups have been created in the past decade and academics play prominent roles in these associations. The Arab Organization of Human Rights has affiliates in most Arab countries, although some of them have been forced to be formed in exile because of restrictions on political and educational freedoms at home. Human rights societies are active in Turkey and Israel. It is important to realize that in many parts of the Third World, human rights have been "redomesticated" since the countries gained independence (Welch in Welch & Meltzer 1984: 11). African scholars, for example, find support for international principles in those norms and values of African societies that stress human dignity and mutual respect. (Lakshman Marasinghe in Welch & Meltzer 1984: 32-33) Similarly, Middle Eastern intellectuals argue that "the same values may be arrived at from different foundations" (Bassam Tibi in an-Na'im & Deng 1990: 131) and that "our task is to encourage people of different cultures to speak the language of human rights in their own tongue" (Ibid., pp. 114-115). In this vein, the National Charter of Human Rights signed by five Moroccan human rights groups in November 1990 places that Charter in the multiple contexts of "Islamic values and all the heavenly teachings, the liberating achievements of Moroccan civilization... and... the international declarations and charters which codified, organized and internationalized human rights principles." The distinguished Sudanese diplomat and scholar Francis Deng expressed this important relationship between universal principles and particular values when he stated, "Human rights are... inherent in the very notion of humanity... To argue for the principle of universality is not to deny the significance of the cultural context for th[at] definition..." (Deng in an-Na'im & Deng 1990: 261). Why should we be concerned about academic freedom? We should be concerned because academic freedom is at risk in many parts of the world. We should be concerned because academic freedom can only be promoted and upheld if we remain vigilant. In the United States, the Supreme Court maintains that academic freedom is "of transcendent value to all of us" (1967, cited by AAUP). But academic freedom has been violated--by the government, by universities and by partisan pressure groups. The government undermined academic freedom in the 1950s when it targeted scholars who analyzed the politics of China and the Soviet Union. The government labeled them security risks and forced many to sign loyalty oaths or else lose their jobs. Today, the counter-terror legislation that is pending before Congress could target not only overt violence but also freedom of speech. At the university level, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is the principal organization that upholds academic integrity and due process. The AAUP plays an essential role in protecting professors: in 1991, for example, the AAUP pursued 1,200 formal complaints filed by faculty who believed that their rights were violated by their university administrations. Partisan groups also pressure universities and individual faculty members. The continuing concern about such pressure was evident in a conference in June 1995 on "The Role of Advocacy in the Classroom," sponsored by the AAUP, the American Council of Learned Societies and several other academic associations. I attended that conference on behalf of MESA. Participants emphasized that scholars must be advocates in the sense that they are passionate about the subject that they teach and should feel free to dissent from prevailing orthodoxy. But several participants commented that even trying to teach certain subjects is seen by political partisans as evidence of intent to indoctrinate or proselytize, since intellectual openness and debate are threatening to many people. I am sure that you can readily think of the many ways in which this relates to research and teaching on the Middle East. At that same conference, Professor John Voll noted that, on issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Islamic resurgence, the sheer effort to explain the perspectives of an Arab politician or an Islamist movement can be interpreted as support for their views. Dr. Anne Betteridge added that her efforts to challenge prevailing stereotypes about women in the Middle East can often be perceived as biased. And Professor Ron Stockton commented that learning about the Middle East often consists of unlearning previously held views, which is a frightening prospect for many students and is totally rejected by partisan groups. In the past, such groups have even taken violent actions against professors whom they viewed as politically hostile. We can recall that militant groups harassed and then burned the cars of two professors at UCLA--Malcolm Kerr and Stanford Shaw. We can also recall the time when the American Jewish Committee (AJC) published a report on Middle East Centers at Selected American Universities (1981) which led the AJC to target the outreach programs of those Centers in order to control and censor their curricula and library holdings. And we can recall The AIPAC College Guide (1984), which used hearsay evidence to defame professors and intimidate Arab and Muslim student groups so that universities would not invite speakers that AIPAC found objectionable and would not retain faculty members whom AIPAC viewed as biased. Even though such crude attempts at censorship have decreased in recent years, "truth squads" still visit classrooms, examine professors' textbooks and attend public lectures on our campuses. They may claim that they want to "insure that all views are fairly presented" but their real intent is to pressure and intimidate.1 Accusations and pressures have a chilling impact: they can inhibit professors from addressing contentious issues in the classroom, cause departments or research centers to avoid inviting potentially controversial speakers and even result in the dismissal of faculty. Vigilance in defense of academic freedom therefore remains vitally important in Middle East studies today. Globally, the challenges to university autonomy and academic freedom continue to mount. Governments close universities, censor research and publications and dismiss or arrest professors with alarming frequency. A Brazilian physicist argued: "The refusal to accept authoritarian rule, [the] search for [scientific] evidence, [and] a disdain for myth are bound to trouble repressive governments" (Jose Goldemberg, quoted in Stover & Eisner 1982: 872). This insistence on critical thought makes educators a prime target of governments that violate the basic rights of their citizens. The execution in November 1995 in Nigeria of Ken Saro-Wiwa--a prominent poet, playwright, environmentalist and minority rights advocate--underlines the dangers faced by outspoken intellectuals in an authoritarian setting. In the Middle East, "academic freedom remains a rare commodity" (Stork & Niva 1989: 1). Education has been integral to building state structures and constructing national myths. Therefore, most governments maintain tight control over all levels of the educational system. They frequently restrict freedom of speech on university campuses and try to control the associations formed to represent university faculty and students. The detention of faculty, staff and students is all too frequent. Academics are rewarded for conforming to the ideology of their governments and are punished for dissenting. Altogether, these government actions inhibit the expression of views and impede efforts by intellectuals to foster an environment that promotes critical inquiry. I should add that these actions have also compelled many distinguished academics to leave the region and live in Europe or North America. This brain drain deprives their students at home of guidance and leads to the systematic impoverishment of intellectual resources and academic communities in these societies. What has been done to confront these problems? International concern for human rights and the rule of law has grown markedly in recent years. Pioneering organizations like Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists have been joined by a wide array of groups--among them "Article 19," the PEN Freedom-to-Write Committee, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and the network of Human Rights Watches. In the specific area of academic freedom, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences established programs in 1976 so that they could act on their "belief in the need for free exchange of scientific knowledge and [their] concern about infringements of that freedom or restrictions placed upon scientists [and other professionals] by governments" (AAAS 1989). They stress that there is a moral imperative for scientists and scientific societies in North America to take "the initiative to help colleagues in distress" (Ibid.). Both organizations research allegations of persecution, direct inquiries to relevant governments and even organize missions to document conditions and seek redress. In 1995, the AAAS documented 564 such cases. The AAAS has also encouraged its member societies to establish the capacity to respond to human rights abuses directed at foreign colleagues. By now, MESA is one of more than 40 professional associations that seek to document violations of academic freedom overseas.2 The results of such efforts may not be immediately evident. But, over time, these groups have found that inquiries and missions can lead to tangible improvements in conditions of detention and can even help to gain the release of imprisoned academics. In a case in the early 1980s, for example, staff at the American Political Science Association wrote numerous letters on behalf of a Filipino professor who was held incommunicado in prison. After many unanswered inquiries, they suddenly received a letter from him. He said that he had just been freed and that their letters had influenced the government and had been an important source of moral support. MESA's Responsibilities As the premier professional organization in North America for specialists on the Middle East, MESA has a particular interest in and responsibility for upholding academic freedom both at home and in the Middle East. In North America, MESA has been concerned to support the right to the free exchange of information, the autonomy of university programs and the integrity of research and researchers. When North American scholars have been threatened with violence (in the cases mentioned earlier) or have risked the loss of their jobs, MESA has asserted their "freedom to express their views without fear of threats, physical attacks, economic or career reprisals" (Resolution, MESA business meeting, 1982). MESA's Ethics Committee serves as a vehicle by which concerns related to academic freedom, plagiarism and professional conduct can be addressed. MESA lacks the legal standing to adopt cases in which tenure is denied or a contract is terminated. But MESA encourages its members to contact the American Association of University Professors, since the AAUP can investigate the situation and seek redress on behalf of the professor. Regrettably, we all know of instances in which such efforts have failed or in which colleagues have been fearful of even publicizing these pressures. Therefore, it is all the more imperative that we continue to be alert to the risk that hiring and tenure processes will be influenced by a colleague's political views. MESA is concerned that US government policy can inhibit academic interaction with Middle East scholars. An executive order in May 1995 added new restrictions on contact with Iran. The MESA executive director as well as a group of academics protested urgently to the White House that the additional sanctions could make it impossible for Iranian scholars to come to the US for conferences, could prevent US scholars from traveling to Iran and communicating with their Iranian counterparts and could block the exchange of scholarly materials. The group of experts declared that would "result in an unprecedented attack on a principle we all cherish: academic freedom" (Ramazani et al. 1995: 13). The White House has assured MESA that general licenses will be issued so Iranian scholars can attend conferences and so that publications can be sent to and from Iran. But we must remain vigilant to ensure that access remains unrestricted. MESA boards have consistently called for open and full disclosure of funding sources for research, conferences and teaching programs, since MESA has been concerned about the restrictions on academic freedom that can be imposed--explicitly or implicitly--by funders, whether American or foreign. In 1985 the Board criticized the then Director of Harvard University's Center for Middle East Studies for failing to disclose in advance the fact that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was funding his conference on Islamic fundamentalism. This funding caused acute difficulties for scholars who had agreed to participate without knowing that the CIA was financing the conference. Moreover, although the Board of Directors has warned against blanket accusations that funding by Middle East governments necessarily means that those governments control the academic content of the programs and the hiring of faculty, this issue is also one that should be of particular and continuing concern to us. Of immediate concern is the National Security Education Program, which provides scholarships for language study under the auspices of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the CIA. In 1992, the Board of Directors of MESA joined other area studies associations in deploring the structure of this program. The Board feared the connection would create "dangers for students and scholars by fostering the perception [abroad] of [their] involvement in military or intelligence activities." We are now even more alarmed. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 1996 (signed into law in December 1995) states that students who receive funds through this program "must be engaged in a course of study that is an identified critical shortage within the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community" and "the recipient must agree to serve at least two years with the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community or [else] reimburse the US Treasury for the total costs of the scholarship." It is now clear that Congress intends to use the program to recruit young people into the intelligence services by offering the tempting bait of fellowships at a time when scholarship funds are limited. The Board of Directors of MESA passed a resolution on December 6, 1995, that deplores this service requirement and calls on Congress to alter the terms of the scholarships. The resolution also continues to call on Congress to restructure the overall grants program in order to remove it from the control of DOD and the CIA. Committee on Academic Freedom in the Middle East & North Africa Members of MESA have been vitally concerned about the rights of their academic counterparts and colleagues abroad. However, until the formation of the Committee on Academic Freedom in the Middle East and North Africa in 1990, MESA did not have any means by which to monitor and uphold the rights of scholars from the region itself. The decision to form this committee underlined the Board's belief that, as scholars engaged in research in the region, MESA members bear a special responsibility toward their counterparts and should speak out when the latters' ability to speak, teach or conduct research is impaired or denied. Through the committee, MESA seeks to foster the free exchange of knowledge and to discourage governments from infringing on the rights of scholars. The committee uses the same standards of human rights and academic freedom in all its letters, irrespective of the nature of the government and the political views of the scholar who is at risk. Over the last five years, the committee has addressed a wide range of issues. These include firing and imprisoning faculty and students, restricting expression, publication and travel and closing universities. The full range of cases that the committee has addressed cannot be listed here. I will highlight certain examples, which are emblematic of the situations to which the committee has responded. The committee has protested the imprisonment and dismissal of professors and students in countries such as Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen. These include the long-term detention of professors in Libya and Syria and, in Saudi Arabia, the dismissal of six female academics in 1990 as well as more recent arrests of male professors in Riyadh and Jiddah. The committee has been concerned about the situation in Iran, where a leading intellectual, Ali Akbar Saidi-Sirjani, died in 1994 while under detention and Professor Homa Darabi committed suicide in February 1995, shortly after she was dismissed by the University of Tehran. These are extreme examples of the increasing pressure on intellectual life in that country. In Bahrain, Dr. Munira Ahmed Fakhro, an internationally known professor of sociology and social work, was suspended in October 1995 from her teaching position at the University of Bahrain. She had refused to retract her support for a petition--signed in April 1995 by more than 300 Bahraini women--that called for restoring the constitution and respecting freedom of expression. In the Sudan, many professors and students have been jailed in the past six years, and faculty and academic staff have been fired from universities in large numbers. Students have been injured and have died protesting the detention of fellow students, protesting coerced military training and protesting the constraints placed by the government on intellectual and associational life. In Egypt, the academic and legal difficulties faced by Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, professor of Arabic literature at Cairo University, have occurred in the context of threats by militant groups against leading intellectuals, notably the assassination of Dr. Farag Fouda, the attempt to kill the novelist Naguib Mahfouz and threats against the jurist Said El-Ashmawi. Dr. Abu Zayd and his wife, Professor Ibtihal Yunis, are currently in the Netherlands on a research fellowship, largely because of the threats against them (The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 24, 1995; EOHR, 1994). Attacks in the Egyptian press have inhibited free expression. For example, the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies transferred its conference on minorities in the Middle East from Cairo to Cyprus in 1994, as a result of a concerted press campaign against the conference's theme and its organizers. The government fosters an atmosphere that limits intellectual freedom when it bans books by Egyptian writers at the Cairo international book fair and places security forces on campuses. The recent wave of detentions, which include at least 60 students, and the severe sentences delivered by military courts against Islamist professors and professionals further undermine freedom of association and intellectual freedom. MESA's committee has been concerned about the closing of educational institutions by governments. This has a devastating impact on academic life and on the professional futures of young people. Such closures have occurred in Uzbekistan, where the Tajik University was closed in 1992 and several professors were dismissed and arrested. In Kosovo, Albanian educational institutions have been closed by the Serb-controlled government, and Albanian professors have been fired. In the Sudan, the government seized the Khartoum branch of Cairo University in 1993. And in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli military government has closed universities and exiled leading academics. Despite the Israeli-Palestinian accords, the Israeli authorities still create barriers to higher education on the West Bank for students from Gaza and they still detain student activists. The committee deplored the actions by the government of Iraq during its occupation of Kuwait, when its soldiers looted the university, research centers and the national museum. MESA subsequently criticized the government of Kuwait for not allowing Kuwait University to admit resident Palestinians and bidoon as students, despite their lack of alternative opportunities for higher education. And MESA has decried the destruction of educational institutions and cultural monuments in Bosnia-Herzegovina by Serb forces in an apparent effort to eradicate that country's Islamic heritage. I should mention that MESA does receive some responses to its letters. These indicate that, despite the uneven impact of its appeals, governments are concerned about the way human rights violations affect their images, and academics appreciate the moral support that MESA offers. Conclusion On the eve of International Human Rights Day, it is appropriate for us to reflect on our need to be vigilant in the protection of academic freedom at home and abroad. It is useful to remind ourselves of our responsibilities to our own communities in North America and to our scholarly colleagues in the Middle East. We have a mutual concern to uphold academic freedom and we are mutually interdependent in the realization of that freedom. We need to ensure that we can all teach and conduct research in an atmosphere free from coercion and fear. If we do not care about the fate of our own colleagues in the scholarly communities in the Middle East and North Africa, then we are allowing and even condoning the erosion of freedoms--freedoms that are vital to our own intellectual endeavors and to our own future. Ultimately, we cannot fully achieve academic freedom at home as long as academic freedom is violated abroad. Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Lisa Hajjar and Ann Elizabeth Mayer for their comments on earlier drafts of this address. They bear no responsibility for errors of fact or interpretation. Notes: 1 The point was made by John Voll at the June 1995 AAUP conference on "The Role of Advocacy in the Classroom." 2 AAAS affiliates with academic freedom committees include American Chemical Society, American Mathematical Society, American Philosophical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Statistical Association and Biophysical Society. References:
|
|
|
