Father Dease, the president of the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, has reversed himself and invited Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at UST. Dease had been misled by a smear campaign against Tutu launched by the Zionist Organization of America, which was angered by the archbishop's criticism of Israel for its mistreatment of the Palestinians. ZOA falsely charged that Tutu had compared Israel to Hitler and the Nazis, which was a bald-faced lie. Some Israeli newspapers were taken in by the propaganda and some Jewish community leaders in Minneapolis are continuing to spread the falsehood.

Father Dease's letter is remarkable for its intellectual humility and ethical high-mindedness. You have a sense of a man of God trying to do the right thing, in a very complicated world, and his powers of moral reasoning are humbling.

He writes:

'Dear members of the St. Thomas community,

One of the strengths of a university is the opportunity that it provides to speak freely and to be open to other points of view on a wide variety of issues. And, I might add, to change our minds.

Therefore, I feel both humbled and proud to extend an invitation to Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at the University of St. Thomas.

I have wrestled with what is the right thing to do in this situation, and I have concluded that I made the wrong decision earlier this year not to invite the archbishop. Although well-intentioned, I did not have all of the facts and points of view, but now I do.

PeaceJam International may well choose to keep the alternative arrangements that it has made for its April 2008 conference, but I want the organization and Archbishop Tutu to know that we would be honored to hold the conference at St. Thomas.

In any event, St. Thomas will extend an invitation to Archbishop Tutu to participate in a forum to foster constructive dialogue on the issues that have been raised. I hope he accepts my invitation. The Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas has agreed to serve as a co-sponsor of the forum, and I expect other organizations also to join as co-sponsors.

Details about issues to be addressed will be determined later, but I would look forward to a candid discussion about how a civil and democratic society can pursue reasoned debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other emotionally charged issues.

I also want to encourage a thoughtful examination of St. Thomas’ policies regarding controversial speech and controversial speakers. In the past, we have been criticized externally and internally when we have invited controversial speakers to campus – as well as when we have not. Rather than just move from controversy to controversy, might there be a positive role that this university could play in fostering thoughtful conversation around difficult and highly charged issues? We also might explore how to more clearly express in our policies and practices our commitment to civility when discussing such issues.

I have asked Dr. Nancy Zingale, professor of political science and my former executive adviser, to oversee the planning for the forum. If you have suggestions regarding either the topic or other participants, please contact her at nhzingale@stthomas.edu.

I sincerely hope Archbishop Tutu will accept our invitation. I continue to have nothing but the utmost respect for his witness of faith, for his humanitarian accomplishments and especially for his leadership in helping to end apartheid in South Africa.

Sincerely,

Father Dennis Dease

President'

KPFK: Threats to Academic Freedom

A podcast from KPFK on the threats to academic freedom emanating from the Israel lobby, including comments from Laurie Brand (chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom at the Middle East Studies Association); and a firsthand account of what happened to Desmond Tutu at the University of St. Thomas.

If you have your own blog, it would be a service if someone would type out a transcript of the segment concerning Tutu and post it. Please don't send me transcripts, since a general appeal like this to thousands of people will produce too many responses. But I'll link to the first URL I get with a transcript.

Richard Silverstein in The Guardian on "preemptive censorship" in the US of public comment critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

Silverstein's Blog is here.

See also Mitchell Plitnick and Cecilie Surasky, "A Disservice to Jews,", which also corrects the disinformation in the Zionist Organization of America's misrepresentation of what Tutu said about the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians.

For more on the smear issue see Suraski here.

A kind reader writes:

'A transcript of the Desmond Tutu speech which caused his invitation to speak to be be rescinded by the University of St. Thomas is available in document format here.

An html version from a Google archive is here.

The Associated Press writeup of the University of St. Thomas incident is online at the International Herald Tribune site here. '

I know about the smear technique myself. When I was being considered for a job at Yale, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal charged that I had called Israel "the most dangerous country in the Middle East." I had never said anything like that. And how would you convince people that the WSJ was just making things up?

University of St. Thomas Law School Protests Exclusion of Desmond Tutu

University of St. Thomas Law School faculty weighs in on the refusal of a speaking invitation to Archbishop Desmond Tutu (pacifist, anti-Apartheid activist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize), on grounds that his criticisms of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians are hurtful to Jewish feelings and therefore anti-Semitic. (See also Colleen Rowley at Huffington).

From "Mirror of Justice".

October 8, 2007

Dear Father Dease and Dr. Rochon,

We are members of the School of Law faculty with a variety of political and religious perspectives. We write in our capacity as faculty of the University of St. Thomas and with respect for the leadership you provide the University. We are concerned by the recent decision to veto an invitation to Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at St. Thomas. We urge you to reconsider this decision and to join in inviting Abp. Tutu to speak in the Twin Cities.

In general, the appearance at UST of a Nobel-Peace-Prize winner, a major figure in the nonviolent movement against apartheid, would be a magnificent opportunity for the University community. Although the conference at which Abp. Tutu would speak is sponsored by an outside group, without a doubt his appearance here would benefit UST students, faculty, and staff, and enhance the University’s reputation as a place engaged in dialogue with figures of international distinction.

We are distressed at the rejection of this opportunity, and especially at the rationale that the administration has publicly asserted: that the University should not host a speaker who, in comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has said things that are offensive or “hurtful to members of the Jewish community.”

At the outset, we note that the asserted rationale here is not that Abp. Tutu has been invited to speak directly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his appearance at UST. Rather, the administration’s rationale, that he has made statements that are hurtful to some on other occasions, reflects a far more restrictive attitude toward hosting speakers who are distinguished but in some way controversial.

To reject a distinguished speaker based on worries that his words may cause hurt or offense to some is entirely at odds with the search for truth that should characterize a Catholic university. Speech taking positions on controversial subjects will often be offensive or hurtful to some people. Nevertheless, a Catholic university should be willing to open itself to such speech – and criticisms of that speech – in order to learn the truth. Only with such an approach can a university carry out its mission of “consecrat[ing] itself without reserve to the cause of truth” (Ex Corde Ecclesiae ¶4 (our emphasis)). To give controlling weight to worries about hurt or offense cannot be reconciled with the University’s charge to pursue “all aspects of truth . . . without fear but rather with enthusiasm, dedicating itself to every path of knowledge” (id.). We could easily cite secular academic norms as well, for in this case they harmonize with Catholic norms.

That an otherwise distinguished speaker should be rejected because he has made statements on disputed political issues that hurt or offend some people is a principle of breathtaking scope. Under this rationale, it appears, the University would refuse to invite former President Jimmy Carter or Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to speak on any matter of human rights or public affairs. Proposals for speakers who have worthwhile ideas but are less well known might fare even worse under this calculus.

We recognize that Abp. Tutu has spoken on a broad range of issues, and that his opinions do not always comport with the views of the Catholic Church. However, Abp. Tutu was to receive no award, honor, or generalized endorsement from the University; and his views on issues other than those he has been invited to address simply are not relevant in this particular case.

We urge that the administration issue Abp. Tutu an invitation in connection with the Peacejam conference, and in the absence of an invitation, that the University issue a statement acknowledging that it was a mistake to reject the invitation on the ground that has been offered.


Respectfully,


Ann Bateson
Thomas Berg
Elizabeth Brown
Teresa Collett
Robert Delahunty
Neil Hamilton
Robert Kahn
Joel Nichols
Julie Oseid
Charles Reid
Elizabeth Schiltz
Gregory Sisk
Susan Stabile
Scott Taylor
Robert Vischer
Fr. Reginald Whitt
Virgil Wiebe
Jennifer Wright