To speak: perchance to be expelled—ay, there's the rub!
Greg Felton
mediamonitors.net
July 8, 2004
Now is the winter of discontent for one glorious student at the
University of York. The cloud of intellectual and political conformity
that hangs o'er the campus has unleashed its fury upon the head of
Daniel Freeman-Maloy. Because of what? Words. Words. Words.
To hear university president Lorna Marsden tell it, Freeman-Maloy
twice disrupted classes this year by leading protests and using a
megaphone—what she generically called "an unauthorized sound
amplification device." The second one, on March 16, marked the
anniversary of the murder of Rachel Corrie.
For his rabble-rousing, the third-year political science student has
been denied the right to re-register for three years, effectively
denying him the right to finish his degree. Not only that, he is
banned from campus under penalty of trespass, which means he cannot
even find work as a research assistant.
Marsden cited as her authority Section 13.2 (c) of the York University
Act 1965, which grants the president power "to formulate and implement
regulations governing the conduct of students and student activities,"
but this is hogwash. However much of a nuisance Freeman-Maloy may have
been, three years' banishment is gratuitously punitive, and contrary
to established procedures in which students have a right to appeal
disciplinary decisions. That right is set down in the New Students
Handbook.*
Presidential involvement in a complaint, after which there is no
appeal, is only the last stage after all appeals have been exhausted.
Freeman-Maloy never had the chance to make his case. Moreover, Marsden
as president had no arbitrary right to ban Freeman-Maloy from campus.
That decision can only be made by the Provost, according to Section F
of the Handbook, and then only for reasons of security and order.
Freeman-Maloy's expulsion came only after Marsden found out that
Professor David Noble had hired him to assist with a research project.
Security risk? Disruptive influence?
The only way to make sense of this absurd scenario is to look into the
political motives driving it. You see, Freeman-Maloy is a righteous
Jew who proudly and publicly champions Palestinian human rights.† As
such, he is an embarrassment to zionist lobby groups and Marsden,
whose pro-Israel bias is shamefully conspicuous. Freeman-Maloy's
banishment must be seen as an abuse of power by a university president
more interested in pandering to Toronto's Jewish community than in
upholding academic freedom and intellectual honesty.
In September 2003, Freeman-Maloy condemned as "racist" Marsden's
introduction of the odious Israeli diaspora Minister Natan Sharansky,
as "a symbol of the struggle for human rights." Obviously, Marsden is
unaware that Sharansky is primarily responsible for promoting the
theft of Arab land for Jewish "settlers."
Marsden's zionist credentials really shone when she overruled the
management of York's Student Centre and allowed U.S. anti-Muslim
zealot Daniel Pipes to deliver a lecture "Barriers to Peace in the
Middle East." The centre refused to hold the event because of security
concerns, which, given the animosity between zionist and Palestinian
groups, was understandable. Pipes is notorious for his bigoted rants
about Arabs and his apologetics for Israeli terror. He is also
responsible for engendering neo-McCarthyite intimidation on university
and college campuses through his website campus-watch, which targets
professors and students who do not hew to the officially prescribed
zionist line.
Marsden overruled the centre, not out of a highly place sense of
academic duty or principle, but after she was prodded by Bernie Farber
of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "She was concerned for the security
of the students and the university itself, but, I believe, was very
committed to ensuring that the talk went on and was looking for a way
to bring that about."§
After Marsden approved Pipes's lecture, over the objections of the
Middle Eastern Student Association, zionist organizations chanted the
mantra of how this was a victory for free speech, and how it's
important for all sides of an argument to be heard, yadda, yadda.
These same groups, of course, opposed the entry of a Saudi Arabian
speaker on the grounds he was "anti-Semitic."
At York, free speech for zionist speakers and free-speech for
anti-zionist speakers is not the same thing, which brings me back to
the subject of student security. Marsden overruled the concerns of the
student centre on this issue, but here's what chief media flak Nancy
White had to say:
"Was three years too much? We made a judgment call. Our message is we
will continue to take actions of this kind to ensure the academic
functioning of the university and security of our students."**
There you have it—Freeman-Maloy is a greater security threat than
Pipes! How did the Jewish community at-large react to his three-year
sentence? B'nai Brith Canada, which is always good for a rant, said
virtually nothing. It labeled Freeman-Maloy as a "pro-Palestinian Jew"
(thereby denying him legitimacy in zionist eyes) and ran a perfunctory
blurb that contained not a single word of condemnation. It didn't
mention that Marsden's conduct violated York's established
disciplinary procedures and denied him the right to appeal.
Freeman-Maloy's banishment has also earned Marsden universal
condemnation from within academia. York's political science faculty,
the York University Faculty Association, and the National Canadian
Association of University Teachers have all demanded Freeman-Maloy be
reinstated. The York Senate has even asked Marsden to rescind her
decision.††
Despite the condemnation, Marsden is stonewalling and her office is
refusing to return media calls. It's fitting that this issue should
involve the Middle East, though. Gross abuse of authority, hypocrisy,
and disregard for legitimate criticism are all hallmarks of Israel.
As we know, Israel ought to be expelled from the UN, especially since
it has repeatedly violated its terms of admission, but the servile
U.S. won't let that happen. The good news for students at York is that
Marsden can be removed under Section 13.1 of the Act, which states
that the president serves at the pleasure of the Board of Governors.
No matter how irritating or vocal Freeman-Maloy may have been, the
magnitude of his banishment is indefensible. "Those who deny freedom
to others, deserve it not for themselves," said Abraham Lincoln. In
this spirit, Freeman-Maloy must be readmitted, or else the university
should replace the "o" of York with the Star of David.
-------
* New Students Handbook
<www.arts.yorku.ca/advising/handbook_archive/handbook2001/conductofstudents.html>
† See my May 27 article "Righteous Jews--Israel's uncomfortable voices
of dissent."
§ Frances Kraft, "Pipes to speak at York despite earlier veto,"
Canadian Jewish Times, Jan. 30, 2003.
•• NOW Magazine online, VOL. 23 NO. 37, May 13–19, 2004, cited at
<www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=001203>
†† See Professor David F. Noble, "Prof calls for York president to be
replaced," <www.uwatch.ca/?postid=32>
.
|
