Mr. Richard Judd, President
Dear Mr. Judd:
On
During our discussion, Ms. Bartelt advised that CCSU “never requires that all presentations be balanced.” She further stated that she does not have the authority to require balanced presentations, nor if she did, would she require panel discussions be arranged with speakers presenting opposing views. I responded that a balanced presentation of differing views would contribute to public enlightenment, and that an enlightened public is the forerunner of justice. A one-sided debate void of opposing views that challenges lies and distortions is an effective propaganda tool, and forums at universities that are not “balanced” are a springboard for advocating the biased position of a propagandist. Academic freedom must be free of any other interest other than the public’s right to know the truth. Truth should be the ultimate goal.
PRIMER is dedicated to “Promoting Responsibility in Middle East Reporting.” The unbalanced format of the teach-in event held at CCSU on
Sincerely,
Sidney Laibson, President
President
Mr. Richard Judd, President
Dear Mr. Judd:
Thank you for your prompt response to my letter of
I share your thoughts on truth and academic freedom so well expressed in your recent paper. I also agree with you, that requiring students and faculty to temper their freedom of expression would be chilling. But, would it not be equally chilling to arrange forums and teach-ins at public universities that exclude presenters with differing views? Would this not inhibit the propagation of intellectual truth and corrupt thought and reason?
I appealed to you in my letter of
As President of CCSU, you can encourage and lead progressive change through the development of Guidelines that would not infringe on academic freedom. It would, however, promote the exchange of diversified views through balanced multi panel debates.
Truth and freedom could then truly be served. Your response would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sidney Laibson, President
enclosure
Mr. Lawrence D. McHugh, Chairman
Board of Trustees, Connecticut State Universities
Dear Mr. McHugh:
Last summer CCSU sponsored a Middle Eastern Institute for Teachers. Some attendees of this Institute reported 1 a total imbalance in the presentation along with an infusion of distortions, inaccuracies, omissions, and unsubstantiated allegations.
Anti-Israel bias was blatantly transparent. To cite but a few examples of the faculty presentation:
• The ancient Hebrews were a “cross section of outlaws. . .of inferior social Status”
There was no factual substantiation to this degradation.
• Many Hasidim are anti-Zionists because one, the Messiah has not come, andtwo, they see the oppression of the Palestinians by
There was no mention that a tiny minority of ultra-orthodox Israelis believethat only the Messiah can recreate the State of Israel. Nor were there opposing presenters to challenge the incomprehensible and unsubstantiatedallegation that “many” Hasidim call
• There is a misconception that the UN created the State of
There were no opposing balanced presenters to challenge this falsehood that impugns the honesty and integrity of former President Truman.
•
There were no opposing presenters to challenge this insidious inaccuracy that ignored the 1948 and 1967 wars.
1. A complete text of the attendees’ report is available upon request.
2. On
The CCSU Middle Eastern Studies for Teachers this past summer and the all day teach-in on
On
On
In our reply to President Judd on
inappropriate to temper their (student and faculty) freedom of expression...(it) would be chilling.” But, we questioned, would it not be equally chilling for forums and teach-ins at public universities to exclude presenters with differing views? We suggested that perhaps balance can be achieved through the development of guidelines encouraging diversity of views without infringing upon academic freedom.
During the summer many questions were raised by the community and CCSU as to the meaning of academic freedom and whether or not faculty members have an unfettered right, in accordance with the principles of Academic Freedom, to determine who the presenters will be in study institutes, teach-ins, or “debates,” and ignore the presentation of opposing views.
In reviewing the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure; the 1940
Interpretations; and the 1970 Interpretive Comments of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP), we find no reference to infringement of academic freedom in the development of “guidelines” for members of the faculty who arrange for multi-presenters on controversial issues. Excerpts from the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1970 Interpretive Comments of the AAUP that relate to our concerns:
• “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of the individual teacher. . .the common good depends upon the free speech for truth and its free exposition.”
Arranging programs with multi-lecturers without diversity of opposing views could further the “interest of the individual teachers.”
• “The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is ‘controversial.’ Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster.”
This goes to the very heart of our concerns - that denial of opposing views discourages
controversy.
• “There special position in the community imposes special obligations. . .they should at all times be accurate. . .show respect for the opinion of others. . .”
Conducting programs without balance of opposing views denies “respect (for) opinion of
Others.” Also, as previously noted, inaccuracies were posited as fact.
Conclusion
Our grievance, that is shared by the community, is not the faculty’s selection of subject matter or presenters of their choice but rather the absence of appropriate competent opposing views, and the unchallenged statements of fact used to support either an argument or position are simply not true. Although most academics share our view, some do not. They were among the multiple presenters selected for “teach-ins” and The Middle Eastern Institute for Teachers - all sharing a similar biased view. They can, through the current unbridled selection process, exclude those with differing views. The only opportunity for opposing views to be heard would be a brief question or comment from the audience. The presenter, however, has the opportunity of delivering a lengthy presentation and will have the last word advantage when responding to questions/comments - a striking imbalance.
In a multi-panel presentation, effective challenge can only be realized in an atmosphere of a balance. In an environment of balance, presenters with opposing biased views will be selected - and that’s acceptable. Unacceptable bias containing inaccuracies, unsubstantiated false allegations, distortions, half-truths, and omissions can be appropriately challenged when there is an equal representation of opposing views. This balanced process is the foundation of truth B and truth is our ultimate goal. Denying opposing views nurtures untruths B and if lies are repeated frequently they will be accepted as truth - the ultimate goal of a propagandist.
We urge the Board of Trustees to formulate clear and concise “guidelines” for faculty members of all state universities sponsoring teach-ins, study institutes, and other programs that are politically controversial to include well informed and competent presenters representing diversity and an equal balance of opposing views. Guidelines would only apply to programs where multiple presenters are selected.
We will be happy to respond to any question or request you may have and meet with you at your convenience.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Sidney Laibson, President
cc: Board of Trustees
Dr. William Cibes, President
Connecticut State Universities
William J. Cibes, Jr., Chancellor
CCSU System Office
Dear Chancellor Cibes:
Thank you for your letter of
We are also enclosing signed reports from attendees of a teach-in and aMiddle East Studies sponsored by CCSU. The reports were referenced as footnotes in our
Having served as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association for thirty-five years, I have analyzed tens of thousands of documents.
After carefully reviewing the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments”, I have concluded that suggested “guidelines”, not demands, as outlined in our letters of
• “Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common goodand not to further the interest of the individual teacher...”
• "…they (faculty) should at all times be accurate - show respect for the opinion of others. . .”
• ‘The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is ‘controversial.’
Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry. . ".
• “Both associations. . .affirmed these responsibilities, in major policy statements providing guidance to professors (emphasis). . .”
A copy of the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” is enclosed and appropriately highlighted for your convenience.
William J. Cibes, Jr.
The teach-ins and Middle East Studies Institutes that were knowingly organized with multiple presenters without opposing and balanced views, propagate the “interests of the individual teacher” and “discourages what is controversial.” They deny challenge and truth - the very foundation of our democratic system. Suggested “guidelines”, not demands, on controversial political issues for faculty members organizing multi-presenter teach-ins, etc. will assure intellectual diversity and not infringe on their academic freedom. However, it would significantly reduce faculty violations of the document.
Your early response as to whether or not PRIMER’s suggested “guidelines” will be re-considered would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sidney Laibson, President
enclosures
Mr. Sidney Laibson, President
PRIMER
Dear Mr. Laibson:
As an attendee of “A Teacher’s Institute on Middle Eastern Studies” offered at
A sampling of the highly biased statements delivered by professors teaching this course:
• Statements and omissions made by Professor Norton Mezvinsky to invalidate the connection of the Jewish people to
Professor Mezvinsky neglected to mention why
By the rivers of
Where we sat down,
And wept, When we remembered
Our tormentors for their own amusement said “Sing us one of the songs of
How can we sing a song of the Lord on alien soil?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
Let my right hand whither... (Palms 137:1-5).
During and after Babylonian exile,
Professor Mezvinsky was questioned regarding his comments about Baghdad, but supported them with reference to the creation of the Babylonian Talmud, though there was no explanation as to why Jews were in Baghdad at that time, their miserable experience in Babylonia, or that they had written the Babylonian Talmud in order to preserve their heritage and maintain a spiritual connection to their homeland while living in captivity. Professor Norton Mezvinsky neglected to mention that the Jerusalem Talmud, parts of the Midrash, parts of the Siddur, and the entire Kabbalah were written in
• Statements by Professor Mezvinsky:
Many Hasidim are anti-Zionists for two main reasons: First, the messiah has not come and second, they are concerned about the oppression of the Palestinians by
All but several hundred Hasidic families, namely the Neturei Karta Hassidim clan, are Zionists. Ironically, most of the Neturei Karta clan lives in
• Statements by Professor Mezvinsky:
oppressed Palestinians since its birth.
This is simply not true. Democracy is at the heart of the state of
• Statement by Norton Mezvinsky:
There was no mention that the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by Arab nations when they attacked the newly established State of Israel in 1948 to
“drive it into the sea.” Nor was there mention that the Arabs rejected the 1947 UN partition plan that
• Statement by Norton Mezvinsky:
It is difficult to envision a fair end to the conflict so long as
There was no mention that Zionism is a peaceful ideology that wishes for a Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the
• Statements by Norton Mezvinsky:
Palestinians were pushed out of their homes due to the “Absent-Present Laws” that stated that if people who owned the land weren’t on it at a given time, the land was turned over to the JNF (Jewish National Fund); and
This is an untruth. In the 1967 defensive war
• Statement by Norton Mezvinsky:
Palestinians were never offered statehood, just autonomous rule.
This is a blatant inaccuracy. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Palestinians statehood at
• Statement by Norton Mezvinsky:
Look at the amount of money that goes to
There was no mention that aid to
• Statements by Norton Mezvinsky:
War for
There was no mention that the combined Arab forces of
• Other omissions committed by Norton Mezvinsky:
• Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees world wide since WWII, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples’ lands.
•
• The Arab nations initiated all five wars.
• The PLO’s charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.
• When
• Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites in and around
• The sources and organizations, including Jewish or Israeli sources he quoted from have been anti-Israel or critical of
• The PLO was born in 1964, 3 years before
Sincerely,
Lorie Zackin
Mr. Sidney Laibson, President
PRIMER
Dear Mr. Laibson:
As an attendee at the CCSU Middle Eastern Institute for Teachers in July 2002, it was my observation, that clearly the Institute lacked balance. The following is a sampling of statements made by Professor Norton Mezvinsky:
•
There is no substantiation to this aberration. The Palestinians (who are Arabs living in the
• Army officers and soldiers have refused to serve, because of the policies and treatment of Palestinians.
• A very small minority (a few hundred from the total army reserve of about 300,000) have
threatened not to serve. The overwhelming majority are committed to defend their people and country against murderous terrorism. (This only proves that
• It is a misconception that the U.N. created the State of Israel. The U.N. recommended the creation of
There was no mention that the U.N. partition was accepted by
•
• Why was there no mention of the 1948 and 1967 wars? Why only the 1973 war? Is it because all the wars were justifiable since
•
This statement is totally unsubstantiated and not true. There was no mention that land legally owned by the Palestinians in the disputed territories and had occasionally been purchased by
• In March and April of this year,
It was never mentioned that when Arafat rejected a
•
This is unsubstantiated information. It is completely distorted. It is a blatant lie. There is no mention that terrorists live and operate in residential areas, using their own people as shields. Although
Sincerely,
Joan Kadish
