-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Justin and other fellow Senators -

I'm confused by the GSSC resolution which was sent to me. In one
paragraph it affirms Prof. De Genova's right to free speech; in
another, it calls for his censure. It is a truly perverted form of
"free speech" which does not include the right to say unpopular
things.

In October 2001, the Senate passed a resolution[1] "Reaffirming Free
and Open Debate in the Aftermath of [then-]Recent Terrorist Attacks."
At the time, some argued that the resoluttion was unneccessary,
because no one's free speech had yet been officially threatened. Now,
as the US military launches a "new" war on Iraq, that right, so
important in our country and especially in a University, is under
serious strain.

In addition to the threats made by many parties against Dr. De Genova
and his department, there have been a number of other consequences of
the backlash against him. It now seems unlikely that De Genova will
get tenure, a result not of the quality or lack thereof of his
scholarship but of his unpopular political views. A friend and fellow
undergraduate who was quoted in the _Spectator_ as defending De
Genova's right to speak as he wished -- a friend who I know does not
even agree with De Genova's now infamous comment -- has received a
number of threatening phone calls and email messages, some even
including death threats.  Prof. Foner, who organized the teach-in at
which De Genova made his remarks has, I believe, suffered backlash for
merely offering De Genova a forum to express his views, despite the
fact that Prof. Foner immediately criticized those views. I, who have
pretty much no relation to the whole mess, have received two email
messages about the matter, one the email which was sent to the entire
Senate and has been reproduced here, the other which argues that "he
should be fired because he is ignorant and an institution of higher
learning should not employ an idiot as a professor." Neither email, as
far as I can tell, was sent by anyone with any direct connection to
this University or from a columbia.edu email account.

Dr. De Genova's statement (and I have heard no more than three words
of it quoted in any media outlet, so it is hard for me to judge for
myself my thoughts on it) may, indeed, be hateful to many who have
family and friends fighting in the American invasion of Iraq. I
personally think American soldiers, like any other human beings, ought
not to be killed. But, surely, it is no more outrageous than the
multitude of voices -- from the President of the United States all the
way down -- who have called, directly and indirectly, for the killing
of Iraqi civillians[2] and soldiers. Iraqis, like Americans, no doubt
have family and friends who care about them: why is it not outrageous
to call for their death?

Regardless, then, of your agreement or disagreement with De Genova's
comments, it is crucial that he be allowed to make them.

mike

[1] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/resolutions/01-02/Stu102601.htm

[2] According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ (which uses a number of
Western and other media as sources), between 569 and 725 Iraqi
civillians have been killed as a direct result of US and UK military
action. Anyone who calls for the attacks to continue is calling for an
increase in that number.

- -- 
mike castleman / mlc67@columbia.edu / http://mlcastle.net / (646) 382-7220
aolim: mlcastle / icq: 3520821 / yahoo: mlc000
please avoid sending me microsoft word, excel, or powerpoint documents.
see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for more info.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+iw0xrbXc6n5AevkRAhEDAKCrR9XBf28ChqjptO2l6D7/iwOovgCfZKXw
XHaT+X/qYUZtnf92SPT7Vag=
=2PNu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----