Academics like Erwin Chemerinsky deserve better.The internationally renowned professor of law at Duke University was hired as the inaugural dean of the University of California, Irvine's new Donald Bren School of Law Sept. 4, only to be fired from the position a week later. Irvine chancellor Michael Drake justified his decision on the grounds that the appointment was "too politically controversial."

Chemerinsky is a liberal, and while Drake insists that Chemerinsky's firing was a "management decision," additional evidence suggests that prominent conservatives lobbied heavily for his dismissal. Particularly noteworthy were e-mails sent by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich to about two dozen Republicans urging them to work to prevent the appointment and brazenly declaring that appointing Chemerinsky as dean "would be like appointing al-Qaeda in charge of homeland security."

After firing Chemerinsky, Drake, in the face of significant disapproval from voices across the political spectrum, ultimately reoffered Chemerinsky the position, and Chemerinsky is now on board. But Drake's blunder is an unfortunate symptom of a wider, more dangerous problem facing American educational institutions-an assault on the foundations of academic freedom and open discourse.

There is no singular culprit here. Both liberals and conservatives are fighting for the ideological souls of America's college students. But when an attempt is made to silence someone on the basis of "political controversy," it reveals that the intellectual warfare going on behind the scenes is a gross violation of the principles of academic freedom that we should value in our institutions of higher learning.

Academic freedom requires that academics be permitted to express themselves regardless of their political beliefs. Politics should not influence the hiring of a dean or other official any more than that official should use his position to impose his beliefs upon others. So long as the individual can work in or-in Chemerinsky's case-create an environment open to differing opinions, then his political or ideological histories should be effectively unimportant. As Chemerinsky himself asserted, "Everyone benefits from the free exchange of ideas."

Brandeis has done well in this regard. Last year's visit to campus by former President Jimmy Carter was viewed by many as controversial, but the school ultimately chose to allow him to express his beliefs openly and unabashedly. Columbia University also deserves praise for the appearance last week of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at its World Leaders Forum, an action that demonstrates perfectly what academic freedom represents-the opportunity for minorities to make their case regardless of how remarkably outlandish they may seem.

Unfortunately, there is still much left to be done. In another point against the University of California, the UC Board of Regents recently withdrew an invitation to former Harvard University President Larry Summers to speak at a board dinner under pressure from faculty members at the University of California, Davis, where the dinner was to be held. The withdrawal was ostensibly the result of comments Summers made in 2005 that were characterized as sexist-and for which Summers very quickly apologized. That Summers' talk at the dinner was to have nothing to do with biological differences between the sexes is immaterial-his stonewalling is the result of the growing influence of academics who feel they must promote a particular political agenda, even over their duty to convey knowledge.

This possibility of censorship and suppression of academics for their politics, whether it is threatened or realized, is unacceptable. If Ahmadinejad is invited to speak in an academic setting, those who oppose him should think twice about attempting to block his appearance. Allowing him to speak does not give a "platform to hate" so much as highlight his own warped views-and ideally, it gives those who disagree with him the specifics of his position. In Carter's case, perhaps his opponents could glean from his speech valid points they had not considered. But ignorance of something leads to fear of it, which in turn leads to intimidation, misunderstanding and even hatred. We must not allow irrational fears to stifle the uninhibited expression of differing beliefs.



The writer is a member of the Class of 2011.