My grandfather was a member of the first four-year graduating class of Brandeis University. For as long as I can remember, he told me stories about his fond memories of his time in Waltham. Beyond the welcoming Brandeis family and friends, he highlights the quality and integrity of the professors on campus as a focal point of his experience.  

I too share his feeling of admiration for so many of the faculty, and consider it a privilege to learn from such qualified and passionate academics. It is unfortunate that so many of the faculty campaigned against women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali this past April. It is also troubling that certain faculty members have made repugnant remarks on the “Concerned” Listserv. 

Faculty and students quickly mobilized to start the “disinvite Ayaan Hirsi Ali” campaign shortly after her honorary degree was announced. Rather than allowing students to even listen to the words of someone with whom faculty members took issue (in other words, to expand their minds), Hirsi Ali was quickly labeled an “Islamophobe” by both students and prominent professors. A petition signed by 87 of those professors, alongside other demonstrations, eventually resulted in the rescinding of Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree. 

Those who sided with Hirsi Ali were deemed morally repugnant by implication. The moral axis on which the debate was hoisted was not about the women’s rights activism which she champions, but about whether one was for or against an “Islamophobe” speaking to the Muslim students. Herself a terror victim, Hirsi Ali has been vocal about her critiques of Islam, due to its extreme adherents causing her forced genital mutilation.

Prevented from entering the discourse was the very idea that freedom of thought means also hearing an opinion that some find offensive, or that an individual could be welcomed and honored without the community agreeing with everything the person had ever thought or said. It seemed that in the eyes of the petitioning professors, any political discourse with even slightly intolerant language was grounds for immediate, automatic censorship.

In announcing the revocation of the honorary degree in April, University President Frederick Lawrence wrote “we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” At the urging of faculty members and the student petition, Lawrence ultimately concluded Hirsi Ali’s line of work is incompatible with a modern liberal arts education.

Last week in this section, Profs. Harry Mairson (COSI) and Mary Baine Campbell (ENG) expressed their outrage at the fact that Lawrence highlighted some of the intolerance on the “Concerned” Listserv, a Listserv on which faculty talk generally about politics. Lawrence reacted to some of the Listserv’s leaked emails, which in his words “include anti-Semitic epithets, personal attacks, denigration of the Catholic faith, and the use of crude and vulgar terms in discussions about Israel.” Lawrence claimed these emails “do not represent the Brandeis community,” before saying “I condemn these statements in no uncertain terms.” It is important to note that the Listserv is restricted in access, but not private—it uses a Brandeis resource, the server.

In response, Mairson and Campbell raised the idea that Lawrence’s condemnation of certain obscene emails on “Concerned” might infringe on academic freedom of expression and thought. They failed to mention that Lawrence strongly demarcated that as a University, “we maintain our staunch support of freedom of expression and academic inquiry.”

In the same way that Mairson, Campbell and others who stood against Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree exercised their right to free speech, many members of the Brandeis community spoke out about how they considered comments on the “Concerned” Listserv to be repugnant and incompatible with Brandeis values. One of these people was Lawrence. His responses, correct in analysis or not, have been consistent in both cases—speech that is deemed offensive at Brandeis is to be condemned.

Mairson and Campbell ironically take issue only with Lawrence’s response to the “Concerned” Listserv. The irony is blatant: that Campbell, who herself organized and lobbied to shut down the voice of someone whom she accused of being “shockingly vocal in her hatred for Muslim culture and Muslims,” is now complaining that the actual hate speech of certain faculty, such as Prof. Donald Hindley (POL), has been exposed. She is defending the same practice—alleged hateful rhetoric—which was previously worthy of condemnation.

The intolerance of the select radical faculty on “Concerned” to differing views represents an affront to academic inquiry and real intellectual discussion. For example, one professor shared a petition on “Concerned” which aimed to “DeFox America,” hoping to undo the news network due to claims that its pundits “badgered Congress into passing unconstitutional measures to defund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now” in 2009. Prof. William Flesch (ENG) even responded on “Concerned,” “I hate FOX, but I don’t see how this could possibly be unconstitutional.” Just last week Campbell shared a petition asking the editors of the Boston Globe to silence any editorial page article that contains alleged misinformation about climate change, though the science is far from settled.

These trends are troubling. They go beyond mere political incorrectness, and into silencing the political views of anyone with whom the professors disagree. It is one thing to use offensive language, and quite another to actively work to block the free flow of information and stifle debate 

As Hirsi Ali said she was planning to say to the Class of 2014, “We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged.” The motto of Brandeis University is “Truth even unto its innermost parts” and the revelation of the “Concerned” Listserv exposed a dangerous innermost part of some of the Brandeis faculty. It’s concerning to say the least.

My grandfather often tells of the integrity and compassion of many of his professors—the sense that those employed by Brandeis University cared about the education of each individual student. In the interest of the student body and academia as a whole, Mairson and Campbell should lead by example and encourage real and thorough academic discussion.

—Daniel Mael ’15 is a writer for truthrevolt.org, and leaked the correspondence on the “Concerned” Listserv in July.