The following is Dr. Sami Al-Arian’s chapter in the book.

Edited by Daniel Goldberg, Robert Greenwald, and Victor Goldberg Publisher: Akashic Books/RDV Books, 130 Fifth Avenue (7th Floor), New York, NY 10011

Academic Freedom and Free Speech in the Wake of September 11 by Dr. Sami Al-Arian

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

It wasn’t quite 9:30 yet on the morning of this dreadful Tuesday when someone approached me as I was speaking to a few students at a local Islamic school. He asked, “Did you hear about what happened in New York?” As we rushed to the nearest TV, our hearts sank as we saw horrifying scenes of planes crashing into buildings and people running for safety. Everyone in the room became suddenly speechless. Soon our shock turned to sadness, then to anger. Some were sobbing. It was an agonizing and solemn moment.

Soon after the media descended on our Islamic center, and before we realized it, we became part of the news. We expressed our deep sorrow and grief. We condemned this criminal act and supported the government in its call for justice against the perpetrators and their benefactors. We joined our fellow citizens in prayer services in many churches starting on the evening of that dark Tuesday.

On Wednesday-the day after the tragedy-seventy-five members of our mosque donated blood. We felt patriotic, but more importantly, part of a national mobilization for doing good. In addition, over $10,000 was collected for the victims’ fund of the Red Cross. On Friday, I gave a sermon in the mosque conveying the Islamic teachings in the Qur’an and from the prophet’s life that totally reject the logic of indiscriminate killing and hatred. “Whoever kills one innocent life is as though he killed the whole humanity, and whoever saves one life is as though he saved the whole of humanity,” the Qur’an teaches. I further reiterated the Islamic principles of cooperation, unity, and tolerance for all faith communities. Needless to say, in all of our interviews with the media, we expressed our heartfelt grief, sadness, and condemnation.

By the following Sunday our call to an ecumenical service in our mosque the previous day in a full-page advertisement brought over four hundred people-more than half non-Muslims. The service was beautiful. All three Abrahamic faiths were represented. We were united in our grief as well as in our determination to overcome this tragedy. I explained in this almost three-hour service how Islam not only condemned this crime but also called for justice. We said that whoever did this evil act could not invoke religion or use religious texts to justify their twisted logic.

While we were engaging in all of that, our community was suffering from the backlash of misguided people and some media outlets. A gun was fired at a mosque in the area. Several members were harassed with ugly words and acts. Women with their traditional Muslim scarves were especially easy targets for hate-filled comments and gestures. Arab-looking people were taken off airplanes. Others were fired from their jobs. The nonstop talk shows on the radio and television continued to attack the Islamic faith to the point that even some children questioned their parents about why they were Muslim. We had to heighten security at our mosque and school to the tune of $20,000. We felt it was unfair that the Arab and Muslim communities not only had to suffer because of the tragedy at the hands of the terrorists, but they also had to endure the hate, distrust, and threats from their fellow citizens. It must be said on the other hand, however, that we received as a community, as well as personally, many heartfelt expressions of love, support, and embrace. They represented the best of America. We made many new friends.

But the sense of inclusion would soon disappear. On Wednesday, September 26, almost two weeks after the tragedy, I was called by one of the producers of the O’Reilly Factor of the Fox News Network. She asked me if I would be a guest on the show and primarily explain the relationship between a think tank I co-founded called World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), established in 1990 and closed in 1995, and the University of South Florida (USF); what the purpose of WISE was; and the controversy that surrounded it six years ago. After much discussion it was agreed that because of the limited time, the show would only address WISE’s relationship with USF. I also told her that although I was on the faculty of USF, I wanted to be introduced as chairman of the coalition that was established to defend civil rights and political freedom. Unfortunately, this was never mentioned, because clearly the intent was to put pressure on the university.

Needless to say, the interview was anything but what it was purported to be. The host turned it into a guilt-by-association exercise. You knew A, B, and C. A, B, and C are bad people, therefore you are bad, and must be marked. This was yellow journalism and McCarthyism at its worst. Not only did the producers lie about the purpose of the interview, but also most of what the host said was old news, inaccurate, irrelevant, bigoted, and, most importantly, lacked time-frame and context. On their printed version they called the show “Professor or Terrorist?”

Three individuals were mentioned during this brief “interview.” The first topic was a seven-year-old situation that resulted in an extensive investigation by the government, as well as an investigation by USF conducted in 1996 by the former president of the America Bar Association, William Reece Smith, Jr. No wrongdoing was ever found. And certainly no charges were ever filed as a result of these investigations. Mr. O’Reilly never mentioned the time frame of this situation, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11 tragedy.

Another individual that was mentioned was Dr. Mazen al-Najjar, who is also my brother-in-law. He was never charged or implicated in any wrongdoing. A judge ruled in October 2000 that there was absolutely no evidence that he did anything wrong, and that he was not a threat to national security. Judge R. Kevin McHugh said in his ruling: “Although there were allegations that the ICP [another charity] and WISE were fronts for Palestinian political causes, there is no evidence before the Court that demonstrates that either organization was a front for the P[alestinian] I[slamic] J[ihad]. To the contrary, there is evidence in the record to support the conclusion that WISE was a reputable and scholarly research center and the ICP was highly regarded.”

It was simply irresponsible journalism for some media outlets to exploit the current tragedy and deflect the blame, looking for scapegoats so that they might increase ratings or serve their hidden agenda. After the program aired on the Fox news channel, I received death threats as well as numerous hate-filled emails. It was terrorism perpetrated by journalists against innocent civilians and public institutions. Because of these threats against me and the university, USF administrators put me on paid leave because of their “concern” about my safety and the safety of USF. I regretted the decision because over ninety of my students were affected by it. I was also disappointed that the administration did not forcefully defend academic freedom.

After the Fox network interview, many other media outlets started their own onslaught and attacks on me because of anti-Israeli positions or statements I made many years ago. For instance, as I was active during the first Palestinian uprising (intifada) between 1987 and 1993, the words “death to Israel” were uttered in one of the rallies in 1988. The reference to this slogan spoken fourteen years ago was in the context of a speech, given in Arabic, about the brutal and continuing occupation of the Palestinians by Israel. It simply meant death to occupation, to oppression, to the Israeli apartheid system instituted against the Palestinians. It certainly did not mean death to any Jewish person, as it was being portrayed. In this I am reminded of the early American revolutionary patriots such as Patrick Henry, Joseph Warren, and the poet John Trumbull. They called for the “burial of the British Empire,” and wished for the “Empire’s everlasting grave.” I’m sure that these early American patriots did not mean to bury the citizens of the British Empire, but rather to end the brutal British occupation of America. Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech during the American Revolution is probably one of the most admired speeches of all time. His words describing the American sentiments against the British then prophetically tell of the Palestinians’ plight and their predicament today. Nevertheless, the media attacks as well as an orchestrated campaign that was waged by pro-Zionist groups across the U.S. continued to pressure the university to terminate my employment, although I have been at the university since 1986. On December 19, 2001, the USF Board of Trustees met in an “emergency” meeting and recommended my termination. Later that day, USF president Judy Genshaft sent me a notice of her intention to terminate my employment despite the fact that I have been tenured for ten years. During all my USF years my record shows that I have always conducted myself professionally. I love the teaching profession and have always enjoyed the challenges of the classroom. I received the best-teacher award as well as the prestigious Teaching Incentive Award in the College of Engineering. I have over forty publications, including a chapter that just appeared in the Mechatronics handbook in early 2002.

The USF president gave three frivolous reasons for terminating my employment at a public institution. First, she maintained that I did not make it clear when I appeared on the Fox news program that I was not speaking on behalf of the university. Secondly, that I appeared on campus once in early October. And finally, she claimed that I caused disruption at the university because of the death threats against me, the hate mail that ensued, and supposedly the decline in financial contributions to the university and its alumni association.

Needless to say, I was invited on that program not because I was a USF faculty member, but because I was considered a leader in the American Muslim community, as well as a civil rights activist. Obviously, I do not speak, nor have I ever spoken, on behalf of the university. I have on many occasions made it clear to journalists and reporters that I speak as a leader of the American Muslim and Arab community and in my capacity as the president of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), a group of over forty organizations coming together to defend civil and constitutional rights. A July 16, 2001, article in Newsweek magazine about the participation of Arab-Americans in the 2000 campaign reported: “Al-Arian is one of the country’s leading advocates for repeal of secret-evidence laws.” I was not identified in that article as a USF professor, but as the country’s leading advocate in an important civil rights issue.

Furthermore, I came once to campus on October 5, 2001, to address a campus student organization that I advise. If I had thought that I was “banned” from coming to campus I certainly would not have attended. In fact, the USF provost told me that I could meet with my graduate students on nights and weekends during our conversation on September 27, 2001, when he placed me on paid leave for “safety.” When the police asked me if everything was all right on the day I talked to my students, they did not ask me to leave because they did not know that the purported ban was in effect. As for the disruption, it’s a classic “blame the victim” argument that defies logic and rationality. * * * *

I was eighteen when I took my first civics course during my sophomore year, in 1976. On the first day of class, the professor talked about the two Ds of American government, as he called them: due process and dissent. Ironically, a quarter of a century later, these two important concepts are at the center of my professional career. I was neither afforded any due process, nor was my right of political dissent respected or penalty-free as promised by the Constitution. This case is indeed about academic freedom and freedom of speech.

I did not choose to be the poster child for the debate about academic freedom in the post-September 11 world. Now that I am, however, some important questions in this debate must be raised and discussed by all academics:

* Are university administrators justified in terminating the employment of a sixteen-year-tenured faculty member because he did not accompany off-campus remarks with a disclaimer that he wasn’t speaking on behalf of the university?
* Should university administrators be able to fire a tenured faculty member because he attended a meeting on campus while on paid leave?
* Should university administrators be allowed to dismiss a tenured faculty member because his public pronouncements conflict with the political views of those in power?

Indeed, if the termination is allowed to stand, then all faculty across the nation will be vulnerable as to their job security and the professional compromises they may be required to make to keep their jobs. As someone who has lived in the U.S. for over a quarter-century, I value our freedom and openness. I believe the Islamic faith, which has been vilified in post-September 11 America, is not only compatible with democracy, but cannot be fully practiced without it. I believe in the American political system and in the Constitution. If I disagree with a governmental policy, I believe in working within the system to improve it. And this is what I have practiced and taught my children. For over four years, my wife and I have visited over 150 congressional offices in order to ban the use of secret evidence. I believe that we were very effective in bringing to the attention of many members of Congress the due process concerns associated with the use of secret evidence. I believe that our hard work paid off when President Bush and many political leaders spoke against it during the 2000 political campaigns.

Many people have pleaded with me to simply remain silent. This is exactly what my critics want. Some think that there are powerful groups that are out to get me. My answer is simple. I believe in freedom of speech now more than ever. I believe that people have the right to hear what some may consider “unpopular” views as much as I have the obligation to express my beliefs and opinions.

Sami Al-Arian, PhD, P.E., was born to Palestinian parents in Kuwait. He was a Professor of Computer Engineering at the University of South Florida. He is currently the President of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom.