University moves to fire 'disruptive' prof

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- A campus watchdog group has accused the University of South Florida of "betraying the rule of law" in its effort to fire a pro-Palestinian professor whose views have sparked widespread outrage.

The school defends its decision as necessary to protect students and staff.

Kuwaiti-born computer science professor Sami Al-Arian received a notice of intent to end his employment, governed by procedures of the school's collective bargaining agreement, R.B. Friedlander, the school's interim general counsel, said in a phone interview from Tampa.

"The decision will be made on the basis of what we think is protective of the University of South Florida and the people who ... are entitled to come to a place where they can get their work done and the university can function," she told United Press International.

But FIRE -- the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based non-profit that describes itself as concerned with due process, freedom of expression, and the rights of conscience on U.S. campuses -- charges that the university has given in to a "thug's veto."

On Sept. 26, Al-Arian appeared on the Fox television program "The O'Reilly Factor." According to FIRE, the host represented Al-Arian as sympathetic to (and possibly involved with) terrorist activity, despite the professor's repeated denials.

"In fact, no charges ever had or have been brought against Dr. Al-Arian for such alleged activity, after extensive governmental and university investigations," FIRE said Tuesday in a press release from its executive director, Thor L. Halvorssen.

"In the wake of the interview, the university claims that it began to receive hate mail, death threats, and negative media attention. On Dec. 19, with less than 24 hours' notice, USF President Judy Genshaft called a meeting of the Board of Trustees."

Immediately after the meeting, Genshaft said she intended to fire Al-Arian, FIRE said, claiming that his presence constituted an intolerable "disruption" to campus operations.

Thomas Gonzalez, another university counsel, told UPI that Genshaft has the responsibility to keep the campus as safe as she can. The university must take action when an employee does something that threatens its operation, he said.

"Who should bear the burden" Gonzalez asked, of the reaction Al-Arian provoked? "Should it be the students, the other faculty members, the alumni, the state of Florida?"

Asked about repercussions, Gonzalez said there had been death threats against Al-Arian as well as against the school.

"The College of Engineering had to be shut down ... because of the nature of the phone calls they were receiving. The dean (of that college) reported difficulty in attracting faculty."

The attorney also cited the "impact on alumni participation, in terms of their perception of the school," including their willingness to donate funds.

Gonzalez said, "Nobody suggests that Dr. Al-Arian should be on campus. In fact, the faculty senate voted to support the idea that he should be kept off campus, as it did in 1995, when he was kept off campus with pay for two years because of essentially the same thing."

At that time Al-Arian was allowed to interact with students by computer, which is not the case now, Gonzalez said.

"The choice is the university keeping him on an indefinite paid leave of absence or just saying, 'Look -- we can't have this relationship anymore'," Gonzalez said.

But FIRE's president, University of Pennsylvania historian Alan Charles Kors, sees things differently.

"This is not about Sami Al-Arian or his political views; this is about the devastation of free speech and academic freedom at USF and the destruction of constitutional protections at a public university," he said Tuesday.

University officials "apparently believe that they may overturn the Bill of Rights, fire a tenured professor, and end free speech on their campus because, as they proclaim, fund-raising has been affected and they have received angry phone calls."

"Holding unpopular or provocative views is not disruptive," Kors said. "Making death threats is disruptive. The administrators at USF should stand up for free speech. ... You call in the FBI and the Florida State Police; you don't reward thugs by punishing the object of their threats."

In a letter to Genshaft, Kors wrote: "The university cannot and must not remove a professor because some portion of the public demands it on the basis of his purported political beliefs, his protected associations, and other wholly unproven suspicions. To do so would allow a 'heckler's veto' and would open the floodgates to arbitrary firing of all professors when some individuals, especially individuals willing to portray themselves as criminals, decide that they do not like the way that a professor talks, thinks, or appears.

"Indeed, it would create a new category, the 'USF thug's veto,' which actively encourages the threat of violence to accomplish the dismissal of professors disliked by any portion of the public. This is not only unconstitutional, but, indeed, endangers the core of freedom at any institution of higher learning and the very rule of civilized law itself," Kors wrote.