Victim of Academia's Double Standard
Dana
Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
Thursday, March 28, 2002
An "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is taking place on American campuses
today.
They are targeting our learning centers. There is a new generation of
students being subjected to a reconditioning of their ideas and beliefs by
way of an instructor selection process that insures one-sidedness. The free
flow of ideas is becoming outdated.
Today's students are systematically pressured into uniform thought. The
invaders, though well entrenched in the increasingly monolithic faculty,
must make a conscious effort to take over the student bodies offered up to
them, since their ideas have been proven to be obsolete by failing
everywhere they have been used.
Apparently, these far-out invaders heard the Soviet Union's radio broadcasts
of the first half of the 20th century. The theory sounded good, so they
believed in the propaganda and came to Earth to help destroy the thing that
prevented that great-sounding theory from spreading: American imperialism.
But they must have been in hibernation for their long journey to Earth,
because they obviously missed what happened afterward. They didn't know
about the complete failure and resulting fall of the communist theory and
heroes.
This is a ridiculous explanation, but how otherwise can you explain what is
happening in U.S. academic circles today?
Harvard Hires a Communist
For example, Harvard University has hired a Cuban, Mario Coyula-Cowley, an
active member of the Cuban Communist Party and an active member of Fidel
Castro's totalitarian communist regime, to teach architecture and urban
planning.
The architecture of Castro's Cuba can best be used as examples of what
happens when architecture's only purpose is glorification of a government in
failure. And the urban planning is a disaster for the environment and the
citizenry. What were they thinking?
According to a March 4, 2002, article by Ross G. Douthat titled "Albert
Speer at Harvard" in the Harvard Crimson, Coyula-Cowley is "a high-ranking
government official, the head of the island nation's urban planning
commission."
And Coyula-Cowley "helped organize the 1959 rebellion that swept the bearded
dictator into power, and has held numerous government appointments over the
decades since. Among other things, he is a senior member of Cuba's National
Union of Artists and Writers; an organization, needless to say, to which
anyone who disagrees with the government cannot apply."
The Case of Dr. Lopez
In the same vein, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is, to all
appearances, in the process of dismissing a Cuban American Assistant
Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies in the Department
of Political Science, who is not a member of any communist or Nazi party,
because he is pro-democracy.
Therefore, he is considered an enemy in the eyes of the university faculty -
he is a threat to the one-sidedness effort. His name is Juan J. Lopez. The
technique the school is using is the highly revered process of determining
professorial tenure.
Assistant Professor Juan J. Lopez is from a working-class family. He came to
the United States with his parents as a child in 1967. He grew up in the
Chicago area. He was the only one of his siblings to receive a college
education. At considerable sacrifice, he attended the costly and prestigious
University of Chicago, from which he earned a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D.
Dr. Lopez has distinguished himself as a teacher, receiving a Teaching
Excellence Award from the Council for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at
the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1999. He also has done considerable
service to the Department of Political Science, the Latin American Studies
Program and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIC.
He says, "I have published four peer-reviewed articles, one book chapter,
one co-authored monograph, and a book." Moreover, he is co-authoring his
second book, tentatively titled "Transitions and Non-transitions from
Communism: Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa."
In an official evaluation of his performance done three years ago, he was
told that the only thing he needed for tenure was to publish a book. But, he
adds, "I have paid a high cost for my book on Cuba. I have been practically
fired from my university."
'Democracy Delayed'
In Lopez's book, "Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba," which is
being published by the Johns Hopkins University Press, one of the most
prestigious scholarly presses, he supports the embargo and criticizes
Castro's tyranny.
Johns Hopkins used the evaluations of two reviewers, both of whom
recommended publication. One reviewer was particularly laudatory. According
to that reviewer, the work offers a very timely, theoretically sound and
plausible explanation regarding the continuity of communism in Cuba,
integrating several themes from mainstream political science literature.
The documentation Lopez presents in the book was described as impressive,
with a proper balance between the author's individual judgments and what the
evidence will support. The reviewer calls it the first scholarly,
empirically based comparison of Cuba and countries in Eastern Europe under
communist rule.
Other scholars, both experts on Cuba and on Eastern Europe, who have read
the manuscript consider it outstanding. Professor Irving Louis Horowitz, the
"Dean" of Cuban studies, has called the manuscript "rock solid," a
first-rate piece.
In his book, Lopez describes how the United States could have, without
military intervention, made a transition to democracy possible in Cuba. But,
contrary to what many assume, the main objective of the Clinton
administration concerning Cuba was to maintain stability rather than to
attain democracy.
The book thoroughly considers the effect of the controversial American
embargo on the prospects of a political transition and concludes that the
U.S. economic embargo helps, although is not by itself sufficient to cause
political change in Cuba.
Collecting data on Cuba is difficult since the dictatorship makes it
impossible for a scholar to visit Cuba to collect data on the democratic
opposition, do free surveys in the population concerning controversial
issues, or otherwise collect data that place the regime in a negative light.
Yet the book presents a wealth of information on the political, social and
economic conditions in Cuba. Lopez spent several years painstakingly
collecting data from all sources available outside Cuba. His heritage puts
him in a position to access sources not available to others.
But the fact remains that Lopez's "Democracy Delayed" is highly critical of
the Castro government and provides a groundbreaking explanation for the
endurance of the dictatorship. In it, Lopez shows why previous accounts are
wrong or inadequate. And he supports his arguments with an unprecedented
amount of data on the political, social and economic circumstances in Cuba
since the 1990s.
But back to reality. Writing a book critical of Castro, no matter how
serious the research and documentation, is a big no-no in academic circles
in the U.S.
The Persecution of Juan Lopez
So Lopez is being asked to resign for his democratic ideals, while
Coyula-Cowley is being hired for his alliance to a criminal and totalitarian
communist tyrant who has murdered hundreds of thousands and denied human
rights to millions.
If Coyula-Cowley had been a Nazi or a right-winger, Harvard would not have
hired him, of course! According to David Horowitz, a former radical of the
'60s, "the exclusion of conservatives from Harvard's faculty does not happen
by accident, but by ideological design."
That is why being a communist official from a brutal regime is O.K.,
admirable even. Apparently, in their sick and twisted minds, communists -
who killed over 100 million people - are decisively harmless in relation to
conservatives.
So, what is that highly revered process that's being used to eliminate the
threat to UIC's singular thought?
Lopez came up for tenure this year and UIC sent his book to about five
outside reviewers. (Note that he hasn't even been told how many it was sent
to, much less who they are.)
He says: "Apparently, two of them criticized my book. It is a very
mysterious process. I get practically no information about the arguments
against me. Nor do I have any opportunity to defend myself. From what I have
been able to learn, the criticisms are a very erroneous interpretation of my
ideas. My guess is that some reviewers just do not like my political
positions and have tried to find something to attack my work. The positive
comments of my book from other reviewers have been disregarded.
"It seems that a group of faculty members in my department used the
criticism to mount a campaign against me. The vote in the faculty was six in
favor of my tenure and eight against. From that point on, my tenure case was
mortally wounded."
Lopez has heard only limited, brief comments of what transpired in the
closed meeting, where his book was discussed, from individuals who were
present. He was told that politics was involved and that some faculty
members attacked Lopez, misinterpreting his arguments in the book,
apparently reflecting on criticisms in letters from external reviewers.
Lopez has heard the rumor that faculty members in the Political Science
Department often do not read the candidate's work (especially if they don't
agree with its view?). How can they judge a book without reading it? These
"scholars" are willing to forgo their honor and rely on the letters of
outside reviewers, especially those who agree with their political view. If
this is so, Lopez says, "it indicates flagrant professional irresponsibility
in the department."
The unanimous vote against Lopez came from the Executive Committee of the
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Stanley Fish. The
unanimity of the vote appears very suspicious.
Afterward, Lopez requested a meeting with Dean Fish. He showed the dean a
copy of the third-year review and the evaluations of his Cuba manuscript
that The Johns Hopkins University Press had used to decide to publish the
work. The dean read the documents and said that he would not change his
mind.
During that meeting, Dean Fish personally suggested to Lopez that he should
resign from the university.
So, a committee, relying on letters that were not shared with Lopez,
determined that the book was so bad that not only should he be denied tenure
because of it, but he also should be so ashamed of it that he should resign.
A book hailed by others, professional and prestigious, who are willing to
economically back the book by publishing it.
It sure lays a firm foundation for the possibility that the book made such a
good case for the political opinion opposite from those voting at the
university, that forcing him to resign is the only viable way to defend from
critics of the embarrassing, highly un-academic process.
Academic Witch Hunts
To illustrate what these academic professors have inside their minds and why
they conduct their witch hunts, Lopez mentioned the curious incident of a
professor who happens to be married to a former powerful trustee of his
university.
This professor was strongly opposed to Lopez's suggestion to bring a
pro-democracy Cuban American to speak at the university. This Cuban American
would present a contrasting point of view after the presentation by a
communist "student" from Castro's Cuba who was already invited to speak at
the university.
This type of one-sided presentation happens with alarming frequency on U.S.
campuses. It is simply censorship imposed by the far left in academia.
This opposing professor was so secure in his beliefs that he sent Lopez a
revealing e-mail:
"Considering the 40 years of one-sided, negative, and frequently demented,
U.S. propaganda against Cuba (both in the Anglo and Latino media and in
classes taught by most professors), to speak and push for equal time for the
anti-Castristas sounds surrealist."
I have to interject here. Providing both sides of a controversial issue in
an academic situation is "surrealist"?
He continued, "Were equal time a principle to be fairly honored we would
have to invite Fidel himself for a long, long tour of universities,
television, and papers, barrios, and public squares."
These outrageous statements are baseless. They do not sound like they are
coming from a university professor but from a hysterical and reactionary
political fanatic who wants to censor information about Cuba. The opinion
that opposes his own he dismisses by calling it surreal.
Meanwhile, the facts are very different. The "Anglo and Latino media" are
controlled mostly by the left, and the balance of information reported is
tilted in Castro's favor and almost 100 percent against Cuban Americans.
Professors at American colleges and universities also are notorious for
their pro-Castro bias, even preventing Cuban American students from telling
or writing about their experiences.
And his final proposition to invite Fidel is utterly insensitive to his
victims. Would he suggest inviting Pinochet, P.W. Botha or Hitler to present
their side at the university?
Lopez's tenure process continues as the decision goes on to the interim
provost and vice chancellor for Academic Affairs of UIC, who will make her
recommendation to the chancellor by April 8. And the chancellor makes the
final decision.
The secrecy about details of the decision-making greatly hinders attempts to
understand what has happened. But given Lopez's strong record and the
controversial nature of his book, it is likely that the main reason for his
tenure denial is his position with respect to the issues of Cuba.
Specifically, Lopez's position is not "politically correct" as determined by
the majority of members of the American academia.
Lopez feels that he has been victimized because of his strong pro-democracy
position for Cuba and advocacy for maintaining the U.S. embargo. He has
widely expressed his views in the news media and in his writings. He has
granted five interviews to local newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune
and the Chicago Sun-Times, and has written three solicited articles for
Chicago newspapers.
He also has been a critic of the governor of Illinois, George Ryan, for his
campaigns in favor of lifting the embargo on Cuba. One of Lopez's newspaper
articles is titled "Cuba's Government, Not People, Will Benefit From Ryan
Visit" (Daily Herald, Oct. 24, 1999). Gov. Ryan is an ex officio member of
the Board of Trustees of UIC. Maybe some faculty members and high officials
at the university do not want to add a politically controversial professor
to the permanent faculty.
Academia's Double Standard
The article by Ross G. Douthat in the Harvard Crimson quotes history
professor James T. Kloppenberg saying "the quality of a person's scholarly
work, not his or her politics, should determine whether he or she teaches at
Harvard."
Apparently, this principle is not always used, as the Lopez vs.
Coyula-Cowley cases reveal. If you are from the far left, you stay. If not,
you go.
Douthat explains: "None of this should be terribly surprising. There has
always been a tendency among America's intellectuals to downplay the crimes
of left-wing regimes, and Castro's Cuba, in particular, has long been the
darling of the American left."
Obviously, there is a double standard in academia. They favor and give
preferential treatment to the criminal communist system and his emissaries
like Mario Coyula-Cowley, among others. But they close their doors and
dismiss the people who do not subscribe to the obsolete Marxist dogma, like
Prof. Juan J. Lopez, among others.
They trample freedom of speech. This is unacceptable with the ideals of
democracy and freedom in America.
Freedom in academia, unfortunately but surely, is dying in the U.S. The tool
they abuse to accomplish their goals is a would-be honorable one that has
deteriorated to the point of being secretive in order to hide the shame of
it.
With the recent scandals of pedophilia and other sexual abuses in the
Church, "honorable" is becoming a relative term. If priestly honor has
become relaxed to the point of horror, academic honor as well can no longer
be assumed, but must be continuously earned to be maintained. We must do our
part by demanding that all honor be maintained.
These "academics" are as out of touch as the alien invaders of the 1950s
science fiction flicks.
We, the people, have to raise our voices and state our disapproval of these
censure and brainwashing techniques being used in the learning centers of
America. If this is allowed to continue, the result of this madness will be
a new generation of single-minded and confused people who will deviate from
the concept of individual freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers
intended for America.
--
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to
grant public monies for charitable means, 1794
Donovan Rebbechi
Newsgroups trimmed.
> The Case of Dr. Lopez
>
> In the same vein, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is, to all
> appearances, in the process of dismissing a Cuban American Assistant
> Professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies in the Department
> of Political Science, who is not a member of any communist or Nazi party,
> because he is pro-democracy.
This does not appear to be supported by the facts put forth in the article.
What actually happened is that he did not get tenure. Getting tenure is
difficult, and publishing 4 articles is not terribly impressive, especially
when you're trying to get tenure at what is a fairly good school.
A *lot* of people do not get tenure. Getting tenure is *hard*, because it's
basically a blank check, and the presence of those who already have tenure
tends to make it more difficult for younger faculty to get such positions.
I fully sympathise with this guy, not because he didn't get tenure, but because
he's going to have to work like a dog, moving from place to place in temporary
positions for quite a while. The tenure system is the problem, not the
solution.
> Therefore, he is considered an enemy in the eyes of the university faculty -
There is no evidence to support this claim.
> Dr. Lopez has distinguished himself as a teacher, receiving a Teaching
> Excellence Award from the Council for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at
> the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1999. He also has done considerable
Unfortunately, while these factors may make someone valuable as a faculty
member, it is more important to publish in journals, as far as tenure review
is concerned.
> So Lopez is being asked to resign for his democratic ideals, while
This is simply false.
What is really at fault here is the academic tenure system. It's not really a
partisan issue, though it comes as no surprise that slobbering idealogues on
the right are trying to make it into one.
--
Donovan
StevenM135
>active member of the Cuban Communist Party and an active member of Fidel
>Castro's totalitarian communist regime, to teach architecture and urban
>planning.
Is this illegal?
>And Coyula-Cowley "helped organize the 1959 rebellion that swept the bearded
>dictator into power, and has held numerous government appointments over the
>decades since.
As did many who now reside in Maimi.
>Therefore, he is considered an enemy in the eyes of the university faculty -
>he is a threat to the one-sidedness effort. His name is Juan J. Lopez.
What is noticable is that you fail to state WHY he is being dissmised. Why not?
Hell, he could be being dissmised for screwing toddlers.
>his professor was strongly opposed to Lopez's suggestion to bring a
>pro-democracy Cuban American to speak at the university.
Like the folk who tried to steal Elian?
>Would he suggest inviting Pinochet, P.W. Botha
Like the Reagan era did?
Get a grip