|
To: Professor Yehuda Hayuth, President
From: Professor G.A. Rosso, English
Re: Dr. Pappe Case
Date: May 26, 2002
Dear Mr. President
I am a professor at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, CT and a member of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). I heard about the Dr. Pappe case through a website devoted to Pappe, and from several colleagues at Southern and Yale University (also in New Haven). I am concerned about the issues of academic freedom and censorship in relation to the case. I urge you to honor the values of academic freedom and to refuse the request to expel Dr. Pappe from Haifa University.
In addition to reading Dr. Pappe's version of events, I studied with care the suit for disciplinary action against Dr. Pappe by Professor Ben Artzi. I find the suit's rhetoric to be angry and inflated and its logic inconsistent and (at times) trivial. Most importantly, Artzi's claims are directed primarily at Pappe's language or speech, which I would hope is protected by academic freedom, no matter how "rude" it appears.
Let me cite some particulars. Professor Artzi claims that Dr. Pappe's words "damage the reputation" of his colleague by insults, slander, and libel. But the language he quotes by Pappe, while at times caustic and angry, could be interpreted as simply "critical" in a sense that should be protected by academic freedom. Professor Artzi's main contention seems to be about Pappe's "rudeness." He is insulted by Pappe's views toward the Erezt Israel Studies department and gets angry about how much damage Pappe is doing to its scholarly reputation. Does Pappe have that much power? I feel that Professor Artzi turns Dr. Pappe into a caricature, exploiting Pappe's sarcasm to make him out to be more powerful than entire departments, councils, and universities. Artzi's rhetoric is as inflated and aggressive as he claims Pappe's to be.
Professor Artzi also states that Pappe calls the council ignorant of history or cowardly. "By doing that in public," says Artzi, "DP violated every possible and basic rule of collegial relationship and telling the truth." Every one? That sounds a bit exaggerated. Artzi also claims that Pappe "crossed every possible border of tolerance and mutual respect." Every possible border? Again, this sounds overstated. Professor Artzi does argue coherently that Pappe charges Haifa with ethical cowardice in the case of Katz, and as "ideologically biased," although "in every possible way" is, again, a sign of Artzi's rhetorical bluster. Pappe does say that the Rector and Council are one-sided and that they intimidated his student. But is that an unreasonable conclusion, considering the evidence?
Finally, Professor Artzi's claim about Dr. Pappe's "overt threat to
|
|
