The
JvL Bi-Weekly
James
van Luik
Publisher
& Editor & Compiler
Please
forward the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested
Friday,
April 30th, 2004
Volume
3, No. 8
8
Articles
2.
Nader Tells Youths to Brace for Draft
3.
New Reports on US Planting WMDs in Iraq
4.
An Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice
6.
Check the Facts Before Rushing to War
7.
How Big Business Evades Taxes
8.
Personal Voices: The End of Academic Freedom?
BY
ANDREA
ROCK
(Are the CDC, the FDA,
and other health agencies covering up evidence that mercury preservative in
children's vaccines caused a rise in autism?)
In
August of 2001, Rita Shreffler of Nixa, Missouri, sent her son's baby tooth to
a lab. A year earlier, nine-year-old Andy had been diagnosed with Asperger's
syndrome, a form of autism, and Shreffler had just read a report in the
journal Medical Hypotheses suggesting that such neurological disorders might
be the result of mercury poisoning associated with an additive in children's
vaccines.
Wayne
Middleton, of Middleton Microbiological & Environmental Testing
Laboratory, was so astonished at Andy's results that he even used his own
children's baby teeth as controls. Andy's tooth registered a mercury level of
3,040 parts per billion. By comparison, the Environmental Protection Agency's
limit for mercury in drinking water is 2 ppb, and the limit for mercury
content in waste going into a landfill is 200 ppb.
Wayne
asked me how on earth Andy could have been exposed to so much mercury,"
recalls Shreffler. When I explained that a vaccine preservative called
thimerosal had exposed babies to excessive levels of mercury, he said that
couldn't be true because he used to work for a lab
that made animal vaccines,
and thimerosal had been discontinued in vaccines for cattle back in the early
1990s. He was sure it wouldn't be allowed in children's vaccines."
He
was wrong.
The
Battle Lines
Did
the use of a mercury preservative in vaccines directly contribute to the
autism epidemic plaguing the country? And did federal health
officials—fearful of liability facing their agencies and vaccine
manufacturers, and loss of compliance with the federal vaccine program—put
such concerns above the health of millions of infants? Are the recent studies
discounting a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism
really rife with conflicts of interest and data manipulation? Or are the
parents, researchers, and members of Congress who make such claims seeing
conspiracies where none exist?
The
stakes in this debate are high indeed. In 2002, an estimated 1 in 250 American
children was diagnosed with autism, up from 1 in 500 in 2000, and 1 in 5000 in
the 1980s. If vaccine manufacturers and government agencies are found liable
for neurological damage to millions of infants, TCV litigation could rival
that of tobacco or asbestos. Currently, some 3,500 families of autistic
children are slated to go before a special federal vaccine court—a step that
Congress has required before they engage in any civil litigation, but one that
will probably be just the first in a long legal battle.
2. NADER TELLS YOUTHS TO BRACE FOR DRAFT
BY
STEVE
MILLER
Presidential
candidate Ralph Nader this weekend warned his constituents that a military
draft is pending, and asked younger voters to prepare.
The
independent candidate noted that the federal government is filling seats on
local draft boards as preparation for a reinstatement of the draft, which was
eliminated in 1973.
"The
Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the
machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly
put into place," Mr. Nader said in a press release sent out to
constituents and posted on his Web site during the weekend.
"Young
Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their
generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those
who came of age in the sixties."
Kevin
Zeese, a spokesman for the Nader campaign, said draft boards are being rebuilt
"right now" and that the demands on the US military are growing.
"I
don't think that Ralph feels that the draft is imminent, but we are looking at
the shortage of troops in Iraq and the calls from (Senator John) Kerry for
40,000 more troops. What Ralph is saying is that if students don't start to
organize right now, it will be too late," Mr.
Zeese said.
Rumors
of a draft reinstatement emerged in the fall when the Selective Service
announced that it was recruiting members for the nation's 2,000 local draft
and appeals boards. A Selective Service spokesman said yesterday that the
announcement was made to help fill spots on the boards, as many members'
20-year terms ended.
"It
was misread then," said the spokesman, Pat Schuback." Their terms
are expiring right now, and that's what is going on."
"We're
prepared to do our jobs here if needed," he said." And it is
important for us to be ready. The administration has been very clear about
wanting to keep this volunteer, and we understand that. We let the politicians
do the politics."
He
noted that Selective Service, a branch of the Justice Department, has seen
personnel numbers drop recently. The agency went for 166 fulltime staffers in
fiscal 2003 to 156 this year.
Another
third-party candidate, Libertarian Aaron Russo, has joined Mr. Nader in
warning Americans that a draft is a real possibility, despite denials form all
quarters of the Bush administration.
Mr.
Russo, one of three front runners vying for the Libertarian nomination, said
at a party forum in Virginia last month that "the draft is a bipartisan
effort between Republicans and Democrats that will start after the 2004
presidential election, for obvious reasons," a prediction he repeats on
his campaign Web site.
It
would take legislative action by Congress to reinstate the draft, which was
ended in 1973, about two months before the last US troops were withdrawn from
Vietnam. Registration with the Selective Service was halted from 1975 to 1980,
but was reinstated under President Carter after Russia invaded Afghanistan.
A
bill was drafted by South Carolina Sen. Earnest F. Hollings in January 2003,
putting in place the parameters for a draft. Its House companion legislation
was introduced simultaneously by New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel. Both
lawmakers are Democrats.
The
bills have gone nowhere, though, and nothing is expected come from them.
Young
men today are still required to register with the Selective Service within 30
days of their 18th birthdays. There are 15 million men ages 18 to
25 registered with the agency.
3.
NEW REPORTS ON US PLANTING WMDS
IN IRAQ
BY
THE
STAFF OF THE MEHR NEWS AGENCY
(one of
several similar reports)
BASRA
– Fifty days after the first reports that the US forces were unloading
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports about the
movement of these weapons have been disclosed.
Sources
in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq
to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the
country.
An
Iraq source close to the Basra Governor's Office told the MNA that new
information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly brought to
southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely
labeled as containers for the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments
bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in
order to disguise them as relief shipments.
The
source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Iraqi officials
including forces loyal to the Iraqi Governing Council stationed in southern
Iraq have been forbidden from inspecting or supervising the transportation of
these consignments. He went on to say that the occupation forces have ordered
Iraqi officials to forward any questions on the issue to the coalition forces.
Even the officials of the international relief organizations have informed the
Iraqi officials that they would only accept responsibility for relief
shipments which have been registered and managed by their organizations.
The
Iraqi source also confirmed the report about suspicious trucks with fake Saudi
and Jordanian license plates entering Iraq at night last week stressing that
the Saudi and Jordanian border guards did not attempt to inspect the trucks
but simply delivered them to the US and British forces stationed on Iraq's
borders.
However,
the source expressed ignorance whether the governments of
Saudi Arabia and Jordan were aware of such movements.
A
professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent
that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military,
chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during
the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various
programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment.
The
professor also said these people have been openly asked to confirm or deny the
existence of research or related WMD equipment. A large number of these
scientists, who are believed to be under the surveillance of US intelligence
operatives, have claimed that if they refuse to comply with this request, they
may be killed or arrested on charges of concealing the truth if these weapons
are found by the Bush administration the future.
He
said that the Iraqi believe their lives would be in danger if they decline to
cooperate with the occupation forces, especially when they recall that
senior US officer Michael Peterson once said, "Iraqi scientists are at
any case a threat to the US administration whether they talk or not."
A
source close to the Iraq Governing Council said, "In the meantime, many
suspect containers disguised as fuel supplies have been moved about by some
units of the US special forces. They move has been carried out under heavy
security measures. Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held
biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form. It is possible that the
news about the discovery of the WMDs would be announced later."
He
also said that such mixtures have been used by the Saddam regime in the 1990s.
The
source added that some provocative actions such as the closure of Al-Hawza
periodical by US administrator Paul Bremer, the secret meetings between his
envoys with some extremist groups who have no relations with the Iraqi
Governing Council, the sudden upsurge in violence in central and southern
Iraq, a number of activities which have stoked up the wrath of the prominent
Shia clerics, and finally, the spate of kidnappings and the baseless charges
against the Iranian charge
d'affaires in Baghdad are providing the necessary smokescreen for the
transportation of the WMD to their intended locations.
He
said they are quite aware that the White House in cooperation with the CIA has
directly tasked the Defense Department to hide these weapons. Given the recent
scandals to the effect that the US president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they
might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of
Bush's public opinion rating as the election approaches.
4. AN OPEN LETTER TO CONDOLEEZZA RICE
"YOU ARE A LIAR"
BY
CATHERINE
AUSTIN FITTS
Hon.
Condoleezza Rice
National
Security Advisor
The
White House
1600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,
DC 20500
April
9, 2004
Dear
Ms Rice:
I
am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday under
oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States.
Pont
# 1: You are a liar.
Attorney
General Ashcroft sits on the National Security Council. Warned by his FBI
security detail, the head of law enforcement for the United States knew to
avoid commercial airlines on September 11, 2001.
It
was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people who
flew on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United
Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 had the benefit of the same
warnings as those they paid to protect us.
You
knew. You kept silent. They died.
You
had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 – sufficient to let the American
people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect themselves from a
possible attack. It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure
that the people in the South Tower of the World Trade Center had the knowledge
they needed to evacuate their building upon seeing the North Tower hit by a
plane.
You
knew. You kept silent. They died.
Point
# 2: Your motives are transparent.
The
World Trade Center is in the heart of New York City – one of the great
financial capitals of the world. The Pentagon is in the heart of Washington
– the appropriation and accounting capital for the US federal budget and
credit and the US Treasury – the largest issuer of securities in the world.
Unlike
many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose family,
friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work. Victim
families, friends and the residents of the communities directly harmed can
calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace the flow of
money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the profits your
supporters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can calculate how 9-11
profiteering connects to the financing and silence of corporate media.
Those
personally impacted and the global researchers they network with have the
intellectual power and personal courage to ask and answer, "Cui
Bono?" (Who Benefits?) They understand that your success as National
Security Advisor is as a direct result of your failure to stop 9-11. They can
see how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicates that put
you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so richly
paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus and
the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.
All
the campaign ads in the world can not now convince the American people that
you have their best interests at heart.
Point
# 3: You are going down.
The
richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance. They pay
you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they use it to
centralize economic and political power. That means they need liars who are
better at lying than you.
The
myth that you had no idea that Americans deserved to be warned about the risks
of flying or planes being used as weapons is now in the dust heap with the
notion that the United States attacked Iraq and our soldiers are dying to
protect us from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Your
lies of 9-11 – like your lies about the Iraqi war – have been profitable
for the military-banking complex you represent. These lies, however, have not
misled the crowd. The American people and global citizens are looking for the
truth. We demand the changes that will give meaning and honor to those who
died on 9-11 and in the ensuing wars. We demand an end to further bloodshed.
We demand a refund of all that you and your backers have stolen from those of
us who remain alive.
Point
# 4: You are guilty of criminal gross negligence.
If
you want to catch a terrorist today, you need look no further than your own
mirror.
Many
Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our sins and
gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's crucifixion and
resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.
Sincerely
Yours,
Catherine
Austin Fitts
Former
Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I
BY
MARGARET
KROME
The
next time someone tells a smirking joke about irrational behavior of blondes,
adolescents or mothers-in-law, walk them gently out into any parking lot.
Point to the sport utility vehicle of your choice, and ask them whatever made
them think that adult Americans are rational.
The
United States consumes more oil than any other nation, two-thirds of which
goes to transportation. For every gallon of gas we consume we also thrust 24
pounds of greenhouse gas pollutants into the air in the form of smog, toxic
emissions and other additional environmental costs of the drilling, refining
and transporting of that gallon of fuel.
So
the usual socially responsible argument is that in the interest of our nation
and the environment, consumers should buy cars that don't consume too much
gas, At the least, I would have thought that a serious pocketbook issue would
affect people's car purchasing decisions.
Yes,
increasing that fuel efficiency not only reduces our dependence on foreign
oil, cleans up our air and reduces toxic pollutants in the nation's
environment, but it also saves money at the gas pump. Wouldn't you think that
the increasing gas prices of the winter and spring, and prospects for even
high prices in the summer, would significantly reduce our nation's passion for
gas guzzlers?
Oddly,
industry reports last week showed no decline whatsoever. In fact, SUVs, pickup
trucks and other fuel-inefficient vehicles are more popular than ever.
People
buy SUVs because they like the sense of power, the fantasy of living in rugged
conditions, the sense of safety. But most owners don't have miles of rugged
ranchland to cover, and SUVs have a rotten safety record. According to the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, SUVs roll over in 37
percent of fatal crashes compared to a 15 percent rollover rate for passenger
cars. In tests of how well vehicles protect the driver and passengers in a
crash, none of the 13 SUVs tested was rated "good" or better. Five
were rated as "acceptable," three as "marginal," and five
as "poor." Further, SUVs have been shown to substantially compromise
the safety of passengers in other cars on the road.
When
consumers' irrational decisions jeopardize the nation's well-being, they
shouldn't be left to individual choice. Car manufacturers should be obligated
to increase SUVs' fuel efficiency and design them for improved safety.
There
was a time when federal standards steadily helped our nation's cars gain fuel
efficiency. Those Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards increased new car
and truck fuel economy by 70 percent between 1975 and 1988. Since the
mid-'80s, when they were left stagnant, the nation's fuel efficiency has ended
its promising increase. Car manufacturers don't pursue such efficiencies on
their own and clearly, consumers aren't pursuing them either.
A
couple of years ago a bipartisan amendment to the Senate Energy Bill,
sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would have
reintroduced fuel efficiency standards in cars and light trucks.
Unfortunately, it was undercut and sidetracked. The Bush administration has
steadfastly avoided supporting such standards, equally matched by
congressional unwillingness to insist that car manufacturers take the lead in
doing the right thing.
Every
horror story I read about people killed in the fight in Iraq raises questions
in my mind about more than terrorism and the quality of information informing
our military actions. It also illustrates the great cost of our nation's
dependence on a resource that is overwhelmingly obtained from other countries.
And because it is a national security issue, conservation of that resource
should become a national security issue also.
The
next time you see an SUV with an American flag waving from its antenna, think
of the worst blonde joke you've ever heard. The driver of that SUV deserves a
louder snicker than the dopiest blonde for waving a patriotic flag but driving
the most antisocial and unpatriotic kind of vehicle on the road.
6. CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE RUSHING TO WAR
BY
HOWARD
ZINN
After
a year of fighting in Iraq and an occupation fraught with violence, surely it
is not rash to suggest, given the debacle over missing "weapons of mass
destruction," that it is a good general rule to treat any official
rationale for war with skepticism.
This
conduct would be a healthy departure from the tendency of both Congress and
the major media to assume, as was clearly done on the eve of this war in Iraq,
that the government is telling the truth. And such skepticism would certainly
be a prudent approach to any supposed candor coming from presidential press
conferences, such as last night's, during an election campaign.
If
one human being on trial can only be given a death sentence on the basis of
certainty beyond "a reasonable doubt," then surely this criterion
should be applied where the lives of thousands are at stake. The decision to
go to war in Iraq should have been challenged on two grounds.
First,
that the fearsome weapons claimed to be in Iraq's possession had not been
found despite months of inspection by a United Nations team given unrestricted
access throughout that country. Second, common sense suggested that a nation
with 25 million people, devastated by two wars and 10 years of economic
sanctions, without a single nuclear weapon, surrounded by enemies far better
armed, could not be an imminent threat to the most powerful military machine
in history.
Not
only did the president deceive the public, and take the country into war with
a rationale that defied common sense, but Congress and the media, by going
along, became accessories to that deception.
A
bit of history might have suggested skepticism. It might have been recalled
that President James Polk took us into war with Mexico in 1846, and William
McKinley took us into war with Spain in 1898, and Congress authorized war in
Vietnam in 1964, all based on deceptions.
Another
suggested principle: When a calamity occurs – such as the killing of
soldiers on the Mexican border, or the sinking of the battleship Maine, or the
blowing up of the Twin Towers should Congress, the media and the public not be
wary that the calamity might be made an excuse for going to war, with the real
reasons concealed from the country?
Should
we not, after the terrible events of Sept. 11, have acted more intelligently,
in a more focused way, against terrorism, seeking fundamental causes, rather
than striking out blindly at whatever seemed easy targets – Afghanistan,
Iraq? Should we not have considered whether military action might not inflame
terrorism rather than diminish it?
When
the evidence for war is shaky, should we not ask: What is the real reason for
military intervention?
History
might be useful here. Is it too embarrassing to suggest that oil is the real
reason for virtually anything the US has done in the Middle East? The real
reason for war with Mexico was to take almost half of its territory. The real
reason for war in Cuba was to replace Spanish control of that island with US
control. The real reason for war in the Philippines was the markets of China.
The real reason for the Vietnam War was to take another piece of [oil] real
estate in the Cold War game of Monopoly with the Soviet Union.
Another
general principle, buttressed by history: Military interventions and
occupations do not lead to democracy. I would cite the long occupations of the
Philippines, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. Also: the military action in
Vietnam on behalf of an [American installed] corrupt and dictatorial
government, and the many covert actions – Iran, Guatemala, Chile – leading
brutal dictatorships.
More
conclusions, from both history and our experience in Iraq: that all wars have
unintended consequences, usually bad ones; that military occupation is
corrupting to the occupied country and also to the occupiers; that the
causalities of a military adventure are not just the immediate ones, but
continue far beyond. Think of the tens of thousands of suicides of Vietnam
veterans, the 160,000 medical causalities of the Persian Gulf War.
A
final lesson from past and present: The American public cannot depend on our
much overrated system of "checks and balances" to prevent a needless
and costly war. Congress and the Supreme Court have proved to be no check for
an executive branch hell-bent on combat. Only an aroused citizenry can provide
the check on unbridled power that a democracy requires.
7. HOW BIG BUSINESS EVADES TAXES
BY
LUCY
KOMISAR
Were
you stunned by the revelation, days before your taxes were due, that nearly
two-thirds of companies operating in America reported owing no taxes from 1996
through 2000? That over 90 percent of large corporations – with at least
$250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts – reported owing
taxes of only 5 percent or less.
The
law requires firms to pay 35 percent tax on US profits. Had big business
complied, corporate income taxes in 2002 would have been $300 billion instead
of only an estimated $136 billion. Do you wish you knew the corporate secret?
Is
your town or state suffering from service cutbacks because tax revenues are
down? Would you like to cut your tax bite from the current 15 to 35 percent to
5 percent or zero? How do corporations do it?
The
General Accounting Office report, commissioned by Senators Carl Levin D-MI and
Byron Dorgan D-ND and released April 5, gave a clue to how. It's called
"transfer pricing," or improperly shifting income to lower –tax
countries.
Firms
set up offshore "subsidiaries" which, on their books, perform
functions that let them cut onshore taxes. They may sell their own
"logo" to the subsidiary and then pay a high price to
"rent" it back, deducting "rent" as expense. They may move
money to the subsidiary and "borrow" it back, deducting interest
payments. If several of their subsidiaries are involved in a deal, the firms
may grossly inflate profits assigned to those in offshore tax havens, which
levy no or minimal taxes on "profits" claimed there.
The
US firm may "trade" with an offshore "shell" it owns – a
phony company set up in a tax haven – pretending it's buying goods or
services at a high price or selling its product low, to create deductions.
Because the tax haven keeps owners' names secret, the IRS won't know the
company is "trading" with itself.
Professor
Simon J. Pak (Penn State University) and John S. Zdanowicz (Florida
International University) examined the impact of over-invoiced imports and
under-invoiced exports on 2001 US tax revenues. Would you buy multiple
vitamins bought from China at $850 a pound, plastic buckets from the Czech
Republic for $973 each, tissues from China at $1,874 a pound, a cotton
dishtowel from Pakistan for $154, and tweezers from Japan at $4,896 each?
By
contrast, US companies, on paper, were getting very little for their exports.
If you were in business, would you sell multiple vitamins to Finland at 61
cents a pound, bus and truck tires to Britain for $11.74 each, color video
monitors to Pakistan for $21,90, missile and rocket launchers to Israel for
$52,03 and prefabricated buildings to Trinidad for $1.20 a unit.
Comparing
claimed export and import prices to real world prices, the professors figured
the 2001 US tax loss at $53.1
billion.
We
all know that Enron cheated investors by using offshore firms to pretend that
money it borrowed was money it earned. We later found it also used shells to
hide income from the IRS. Enron had 881 offshore subsidiaries: 692 in the
Cayman Islands; 119 in the Turks and Caicos; 43 in Mauritius and 8 in Bermuda.
Enron had no office in the Cayman's but Box 1350 there received mail for 500
affiliates. Enron 1996 through 2000 pretax US profits were $1.8 billion, but
it paid no tax in four of those five years. It even got a rebate! Because of
fancy paperwork that invented tax losses even while it was boasting of profits
to investors, Enron got back $381 million from the IRS.
Bob
McIntyre, who heads the Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, says that
in 1996-2000, Goodyear's profits were $442 million, but it paid no taxes and
got a 23-million rebate. Colgate-Palmolive made $1.6 billion and got back $21
million. Other companies that got rebates in 1998 included Texaco, Chevron,
PepsiCo, Pfizer, J.P. Morgan, MCI WorldCom, General Motors, Phillips Petroleum
and Northrop Grumman. Microsoft, run by the world's richest man reported $12.3
billion US income in 1999 and paid zero federal taxes. In the past two years,
Microsoft paid only 1.8 percent on 21.9 billion pretax US profits.
There
are some 55 "offshore" zones including legendary Switzerland; the
Caribbean with money-laundries Grand Cayman, Antigua, Aruba and the British
Virgin Islands; European favorites Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco. Austria,
Cyprus; and British Channel Islands Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man. Many banks
in "offshore" centers are subsidiaries of major international banks,
including Citibank, Bank of New York and Credit Suisse.
Why
does Washington tolerate the offshore tax evasion system? Because powerful
people benefit. With President Bush on its board, Harken Energy set up an
offshore network that cut its taxes. White House spokesman Dan Bartlett
defended Harken for seeking "tax competitiveness,"
the preferred euphemism. When Vice President Cheney ran Halliburton, it
increased its offshore subsidiaries from 9 to at least 44.
8. PERSONAL VOICES: THE END OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM?
BY
Beshara
Doumani
The
most ominous threat to academic freedom in decades looms in a seemingly
innocuous Senate bill expected to come up for vote shortly. A short but
critical clause would rob our society of the open exchange of ideas on college
campuses that is vital to our democracy.
House
Resolution 3077 passed last fall. It included a provision to establish an
advisory board to monitor campus international studies centers in order to
ensure that they advance the "national" interest. While the law
would apply to all federally funded institutes with an international focus,
the target is clearly the nation's 17 centers for Middle East studies. The
driving force behind this provision is the same group of conservative
ideologues who have long promoted the war on Iraq and who support the extreme
right-wing politics of the Sharon government in Israel. Their aim is to defend
the foreign policy of this administration by stifling critical and informed
discussion on US campuses.
The
Senate vote comes at a time in which conservative activists walk the corridors
of power in Washington, D.C. They include Education secretary Rod Paige, who
in a moment of failed but revealing levity, recently described the National
Education Association, with 2.7 million member teachers, as a terrorist
organization.
For
professors like me, entrusted with teaching facts as well as critical thinking
and the ability to analyze all sides of an issue, the pending legislation must
be viewed against the backdrop of other recent and chilling developments.
Be
careful what books you buy or check out of the library. You could be monitored
under the terms of the US Patriot Act. A further provision of that law
threatens criminal prosecution of anyone alerting you to government inspection
of your selections.
Be
careful what readings you assign. The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill was sued by the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy for
assigning a book on Islam for incoming freshman students. The university held
firm, and fortunately the court of appeals dismissed the suit.
Be
careful what you say in or out of class. Campus Watch and other hawkish,
pro-Israeli right-wing organizations have launched campaigns to pressure and
discredit professor judged to be "un-American" for questioning US
policy in the Middle East. Some organizations openly recruit students to
inform on their teachers.
Students
and faculty connected academically or culturally to Muslim and Middle Eastern
countries have been especially targeted. Some have been subjected to hate mail
blitzes and their institutions pressured to short-circuit their careers. Sen.
Rick Santorum, R-Penn, announced his intent last April to introduce
legislation cutting federal funding to institutions of higher learning where
students or faculty criticize Israel, labeling such criticism – regardless
of its content or basis in fact – as anti-Semitic.
All
of this will seem like child's play, though, if the attempt to stifle academic
freedom is formalized through Congress.
If
the legislation before the Senate passes, an advisory board would monitor area
studies programs that receive money from the US government under the Title VI
program. The Association of American University Professors, the ACLU and most
professional organizations have raised alarms about this unprecedented
government invasion of the class room. Among their concerns are the board's
sweeping investigative powers, lack of accountability and makeup, which would
be composed in part from two agencies with national security responsibilities.
Should
such a government-appointed board be allowed to police the classroom by
deciding what constitutes a diverse or balanced lecture or if a teacher's
research is in the national interest? Yes, if HR 3077 is passed, because it
will replace the professional standards of the academy with arbitrary
political standards.
These
are dangerous times indeed when politicians and private interest groups are
willing to sacrifice academic freedom in order to achieve their domestic
partisan or foreign policy goals. A key supporter of the current Senate
legislation, Campus Watch founder Daniel Pipes, shared his thoughts with
Salon.com. In discussing MIT linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky – recipient
of numerous honorary degrees and scientific awards – Pipes said, "I
want Noam Chomsky to be taught at universities about as much as I want
Hitler's writing or Stalin's writing. These are wild and extremist ideas that
I believe have no place in a university."
Should
academic freedom be effectively shelved in order to pursue a war against
terror without end? Are these dark clouds hanging over US campuses a passing
storm or the harbinger of fundamental changes in the freedom to teach, learn,
question, discuss and debate? How will universities and colleges respond when
they are starved for resources and more dependent than ever on the funding
that would be withdrawn if a professor were deemed out of line?
At
stake is the continuation of the academy as the bastion of informed,
independent and alternative perspectives crucial to a better understanding of
the world we live in. If teachers and students cannot think and speak freely,
who can?