On Fascism: For Your Consideration.

[Zeb_Carter]

That's funny. I actually think she has a pretty good idea of what it means. The thing is that fascism is always morphing, always becoming more insidious.

See "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib," a recent documentary now available on DVD and see that American fascism is alive and well.

I prefer the standard dictionary definition...

fas·cism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by
Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

[Origin: 1915–20; < It fascismo, equiv. to fasc(io) bundle, political group (see fasces) + -ismo -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

A. often Fascism
..... 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
..... 2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
B. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

As far as I can see America if far from being a fascist state. We are however closer to becoming a socialist state.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

OMG, I didn't know Samuel Johnston was still alive. How have you been? That dictionary is handy, but the definitions get out-moded so fast that I rarely see the point of consulting them, particularly in matters of ideological discourse.

Thanks for your two bits, though, Sam. The 18th century is over now though. Sorry.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

OMG, I didn't know Samuel Johnston was still alive. How have you been? That dictionary is handy, but the definitions get out-moded so fast that I rarely see the point of consulting them, particularly in matters of ideological discourse.

Thanks for your two bits, though, Sam. The 18th century is over now though. Sorry.

And I bet you're a Democrat? Right? Admit it, you are?

 

[Recidiva]

And I bet you're a Democrat? Right? Admit it, you are?

Dirty pool, old man.

 

[Recidiva]

OMG, I didn't know Samuel Johnston was still alive. How have you been? That dictionary is handy, but the definitions get out-moded so fast that I rarely see the point of consulting them, particularly in matters of ideological discourse.

Thanks for your two bits, though, Sam. The 18th century is over now though. Sorry.

So...let's chuck the constitution 'cause old thoughts are wrong?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Oh, now, this is getting good.

Anyway, here's one of the 14 points of fascism that seems appropriate now more than ever.

"Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to[fascists]. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities are tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they have no right to exist."

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Constitution?

"So...let's chuck the constitution 'cause old thoughts are wrong?"

How on earth did you make that deductive leap from what I was saying? I was talking about the dictionary, I believe. I was also being sarcastic, or aren't you familiar with that kind of commentary? Geez.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Oh, now, this is getting good.

Anyway, here's one of the 14 points of fascism that seems appropriate now more than ever.

"Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to[fascists]. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities are tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they have no right to exist."

And who or what in the US is expounding this point?

 

[Recidiva]

Oh, now, this is getting good.

Anyway, here's one of the 14 points of fascism that seems appropriate now more than ever.

"Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to[fascists]. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities are tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they have no right to exist."

So far you don't accept the dictionary definition of fascism, you tell anyone who doesn't agree with you that they're mindless and obviously under the fascist thumb.

I hate to break it to you, but you're not the first person to decide that in a game of rock/paper/scissors, you are going to be something other than a rock, a paper, and a scissor, and that you're always going to win...because.

This isn't new thought. It isn't even thought that complies to factory standard definitions.

What we gots here is a point of view that's incontrovertable to the point of the person who is professing it. And guess what? That's a lot closer to fascism! So congratulations!

That's right up there with "God exists 'cause this book says so."

"But..."

"THE BOOK SAYS"

"Um...kay."

 

[Recidiva]

"So...let's chuck the constitution 'cause old thoughts are wrong?"

How on earth did you make that deductive leap from what I was saying? I was talking about the dictionary, I believe. I was also being sarcastic, or aren't you familiar with that kind of commentary? Geez.

I am completely unfamiliar with sarcasm and I have no sense of humor.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Dirty pool, old man.

Who you calling old?

 

[flavortang]

Oh, now, this is getting good.

Anyway, here's one of the 14 points of fascism that seems appropriate now more than ever.

"Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to[fascists]. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities are tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they have no right to exist."

It is kind of weird that whenever a college professor speaks dissenting words against the President or the country it becomes national news. But, whatever. Freedom of Speech. Take it or leave it.

 

[Recidiva]

Who you calling old?

C'mon, admit you're a Republican, you know you wanna.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Hmmmmm. Now, this is interesting to me. Your argument is absolutely looney. I have not suggested that anything I say is or is not right. I am merely participating in a discourse, which is suggestive of free expression of viewpoints, and respectful interest of other views.

I have made no statements to the effect that anyone here is fascist, or anything to that end. I have not inferred it either.

If you're going to pick a fight, at least make sure you actually understand what someone is saying. Your claims are ludicrous and incorrect, though their absurdity is mildly entertaining.

When a person's arguments are lame or weak, they usually start attacking. I am not attacking you or anyone on this thread. In fact, I have found some of the most illuminating material from others here today. Wonderful stuff, thought-provoking.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

C'mon, admit you're a Republican, you know you wanna.

Sorry, no. Libertarian. Wanna see my card?

 

[Recidiva]

Sorry, no. Libertarian. Wanna see my card?

I have no card. I am unbound and untrammeled by cards. Cards are evil.

Fascist.

 

[flavortang]

Sorry, no. Libertarian. Wanna see my card?

I want to register as Libertarian, Zeb.

 

[rgraham666]

How can you be a Libertarian and have a card saying so? Isn't the point of libertarianism that you are an individual unattached to any group, completely free of outside influences?

Anyway Libertarianism is just anarchy remarketed with a catchy new product name. Anarchy, like rapeseed, can't be used any more because of bad connotations. So it was renamed libertarianism because who can be against liberty?

As far as politics goes I use Jefferson to divide the various facets of it up. There are "those who distrust the people and so seek to gather all power to themselves. And those who trust the people and regard them as the most honest, if not always the most wise protectors of the body politic."

He was talking about white men with money and/or land of course, but the idea holds as far as I'm concerened.

 

[SlickTony]

I was a card-carrying LIbertarian when I lived in Texas. No, it's not the same as anarchism.

I've felt for a long time that my country was slipping into Fascism. I've been saying it for at least 3 years. I was talking with my husband the other night, asking him what we would do if say, BushCheney used some pretext to quash the coming election, on the grounds of a national emergency, and then maybe declared themselves President for Life, as has happened in some other countries. It seems to me that this is the worst possible thing that could happen, bar something like a wide-spread natural disaster, or one of my kids dying. And there's probably no place we could go, although, theoretically he could get a transfer to somewhere in Canada through his job. But America was always supposed to be the place to go to. What happens if you can't go there and you can't stay here?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was a card-carrying LIbertarian when I lived in Texas. No, it's not the same as anarchism.

I've felt for a long time that my country was slipping into Fascism. I've been saying it for at least 3 years. I was talking with my husband the other night, asking him what we would do if say, BushCheney used some pretext to quash the coming election, on the grounds of a national emergency, and then maybe declared themselves President for Life, as has happened in some other countries. It seems to me that this is the worst possible thing that could happen, bar something like a wide-spread natural disaster, or one of my kids dying. And there's probably no place we could go, although, theoretically he could get a transfer to somewhere in Canada through his job. But America was always supposed to be the place to go to. What happens if you can't go there and you can't stay here?

Back in the sixties my parents were planning to run the family to French New Guinea, if leaving proved necessary.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh, now, this is getting good.

Anyway, here's one of the 14 points of fascism that seems appropriate now more than ever.

"Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to[fascists]. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities are tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they have no right to exist."

So, when has this all happened? Do you know of any universities that have been tightly controlled or any faculty members who have been harassed. Individuals have expressed disagreement with certain faculty members, but that is ordinary Freedom of Speech.

By the way, do you want to be like that character in "Through the Looking glass" that says that words mean what he says and neither more nor less than that? If you are going to discuss something, you should have some kind of understanding of what it is you are discussing.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]
I don't have to get involved in the rest if I step carefully. And anyone who expects a completely clear path where you don't have to step carefully is in trouble. It's not a pretty world. But if freedom CAN exist, and I believe it does in my case, it is possible. It's just hard. And it includes not buying into politics or media at all.

I understand your desire not to care much about politics, but sooner or later, politics cares about you. Ignore that fact at peril of your freedoms - that seems to be the lesson of history, anyway.
How carefully do you want to have to step?
It just appears to me that yours is the attitude of the "Good German". So long as you can live outside the system to the degree it pleases you, the system is not of your concern. Fair enough, but then why do seem to take a contrary position in this thread?

 

[Huckleman2000]

So, when has this all happened? Do you know of any universities that have been tightly controlled or any faculty members who have been harassed. Individuals have expressed disagreement with certain faculty members, but that is ordinary Freedom of Speech.
[snip]

Perhaps "ordinary Freedom of Speech" to you, but harrassment nonetheless. There's such a thing as 'Academic Freedom' as well as 'Freedom of Speech', and one does not always trump the other. See the recent "Bong Hits for Jesus" SCOTUS ruling as one example where student's speech freedoms were restricted on the basis of meaning imparted by the court. And on the same day, where SCOTUS ruled in favor of the free speech rights of corporations to influence elections. Look at the activities of several chapters of the College Republicans or Creationist groups to try and restrict or otherwise influence academic curriculae on political or religious bases, and their efforts to influence elections and academic hires.

 

[Pure]

note to rec

Originally Posted by Pure
Rec said, [We]pay little attention to those doing the actual work of getting on with their lives, doing what's right, and being decent human beings.

Pure replied: I'm sure there are lots of these 'common men' or 'common women.' But larger issues necessarily affect them, e.g. their son in the national guard gets held over in Iraq for another year. When they are 'apolitical', they are essentially swept along with whatever tide there is.

Rec: Their kids weren't forced to join the national guard. I have lots of people in my family voluntarily in the military. I think that the point is that if you join voluntarily at the legal age, you should be adult enough to be aware of the risks. If you make an unreasoned judgment with some logic like "I'm going to count on the idea that the army doesn't go to war" I don't have all that much sympathy. It's a bit like starting smoking and being surprised at cancer. It wasn't mandatory. Totalitarian and fascist states make things like that mandatory.

----
No force, no. But offer a BIG signing bonus and a minimal job in a poor area of the country, and --surprise-- you've got 'volunteers.'

Second, I said "held over" in Iraq; that means forced to stay an extra year. They did not volunteer for that, though it was in the 'fine print.'

Surely you agree it's a kind of backdoor draft.

As far as fascist states go, the actively imperial ones do make armed service mandatory. But the US is wealthy enough to hire lots of mercenaries-- numbering, I believe, in the tens of thousands. Those plus those 'held in service' (of whatever the term is) are enough--so Rummy thought-- to get the jobs done. Brits and Canada helping.

Would you agree that, going by Mussolini's definition there are fascist-like trends in the US, some I've mentioned like the doctrine that the "commander in chief" does what he pleases accountable to no one, and not necessarily following inconvenient laws; that he can arbitrarily detain whomever, for whatever length of time he (and VP and Sec Def. decide upon.)

If not 'fascist' surely it's trending toward dictatorial powers?

 

[Pure]

Reply to Box,

Box challenged lesbia regarding her suggesting that academic freedom was under assault. While not at all at the level of Hitler's Germany, there are disturbing incidents in the wake of 9-11. Look in particular at the second incident where radio talk shows caused a prof to be fired (for lack of patriotism, treason, spying, whatever.)


Tariq Ramadan: Committee on Academic Freedom on the Middle East and North Africa (CAFMENA) Protests His Visa Denial

Source: MESA (10-3-06)

Dear Secretary Rice:

We, the Middle East Studies Association of North America’s Committee on Academic Freedom, are writing to express our grave concern and dismay over the Department of State’s denial of a visa for a second time to a world-renowned scholar of Islam, Professor Tareq Ramadan. It is apparent that this decision was made on purely political grounds, in clear violation of the principles of academic freedom and free speech, both of which are critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy. We urge you in the strongest terms to review and reverse this decision without delay.

The Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the International Journal of Middle East Studies and has more than 2600 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere.

On August 30, 2004, we wrote asking for clarification regarding the Department of State’s then-recent decision to revoke the visa Dr. Ramadan had already been granted so that he could take the prestigious Luce Chair at the University o Notre Dame. As specialists in the region familiar with Ramadan's record, we stated that there was absolutely no evidence for the allegations then circulating in some media outlets claiming that Dr. Ramadan had advocated violence or had been associated with groups that perpetrate violence. On the contrary, numerous reputable scholars from prestigious universities had testified to his academic credentials and his character as a researcher and teacher.

In response, in a letter dated 3 September and addressed to MESA’s Executive Director, Dr. Amy Newhall, the State Department stated that the visa had been revoked “prudentially based on information that became available after the visa was issued” and that “Due to the confidentiality of visa records, as provided for in the Immigration and Nationality Act, [the Department of State] was not able to provide any details concerning this matter.”

Following the June 2006 ruling by a federal court which ordered the State Department either to grant the visa to Dr. Ramadan or provide an explanation for not doing so, Department spokeswoman Janelle Hironimus stated that Dr. Ramadan was denied a visa “for providing material support to a terrorist organization.” This charge is apparently based on the fact that he made donations between 2000 and 2004 in the amount of 600 euros to French and Swiss organizations that provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians – donations which Dr. Ramadan himself disclosed in his visa application. Thus, in denying him a visa, the US government is apparently using Section 411(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Patriot Act, related to excluding individuals believed to have provided “material support” for terrorism.

That contributions to European organizations seeking to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians living under Israeli occupation is viewed by the US government as constituting support for terrorism, already speaks volumes about the administration’s lack of understanding of the region and the quality of its stated concern to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East. It is also unreasonable to expect that Dr. Ramadan should have had advance knowledge that the United States would at a future date put the organization to which he was contributing on its list of groups supporting Hamas; it figured on no such list at the time he made his donations.

Dr. Ramadan is a leading scholar and public intellectual whose writings and statements make clear his opposition to violence and terrorism. Indeed, the basic concern that motivates much of his work is one of reconciliation and interfaith coexistence. It seems clear that Dr. Ramadan’s charitable contributions in fact have nothing at all to do with the visa denial: its origins lie elsewhere.

By his own account of the visa interviews conducted at the US embassy in Switzerland, the focus of the questioning was his positions on Palestine and Iraq. On these questions, like many others, Muslims and non-Muslims, Americans and non-Americans, scholars, intellectuals, and average citizens, Tareq Ramadan has been a critic of US policy in Palestine/Israel and Iraq. It appears that this visa denial has nothing whatsoever to do with his donations, but instead is punishment for his political views.

As we stated in our letter of 2004, “denying qualified scholars entry to the United States because of their political beliefs strikes at the core of academic freedom. On that basis alone, the decision to deny Dr. Ramadan access to our country is unacceptable.” We also find the decision profoundly counter-productive to the stated aims of US policy, which is to develop a better understanding of Muslims and the Muslim world. It is clearly in US interests to encourage dialogue and exchange with Muslims, particularly prominent and highly regarded members of Muslim communities who do not espouse violence, regardless of what their positions on US foreign policy may be. How does it serve the interests of the United States, which is currently seeking to improve its ties with and image in the Arab/Islamic world, to exclude from entry one of that world’s most highly regarded thinkers and scholars?

===


st petersburg times
http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/TampaBay/USF_will_fire_Al_Aria.shtml

USF will fire Al-Arian

USF's president ties the firing to breach of contract and insubordination, not academic freedom.


[AP photo]
Suspended USF professor Sami Al-Arian violated his contract by failing to make clear that remarks in off campus speeches reflected personal views, persident Judy Genshaft said.
By BARRY KLEIN, Times Staff Writer


© St. Petersburg Times
published December 20, 2001

TAMPA -- University of South Florida president Judy Genshaft said Wednesday she will move immediately to fire suspended professor Sami Al-Arian, a controversial figure whom federal authorities have linked to terrorists.


Genshaft

Genshaft said the firing, a rarity in higher education, has nothing to do with academic freedom because Al-Arian's public comments were unrelated to his academic specialty of computer engineering. She said her decision was based on insubordination and breach of contract.
Al-Arian violated his employment contract by failing to make clear that remarks made in off-campus speeches reflected personal views and not those of the university, Genshaft said. He violated an agreement with USF administrators by returning to campus after being put on paid leave, she said.

Al-Arian was banned from campus after he appeared in late September on the Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor. The show's report on his ties to terrorists -- allegations he has vehemently denied -- elicited hundreds of angry phone calls to USF and at least a dozen death threats.

"The Constitution guarantees his right to speech, but it doesn't insulate him from the consequences of that speech," Genshaft said. "With academic freedom and freedom of speech comes academic responsibility and duty. He has not fulfilled his obligations or duties."

Genshaft made her decision several hours after USF's board of trustees met in an emergency session and recommended Al-Arian's firing.

An attorney hired by the university to assess its legal options told board members they had ample grounds to fire the professor.
"The university is under no obligation to ignore Dr. Al-Arian's disregard for the university's policies and the lawful directives of its administrators," said Thomas Gonzalez, a Tampa lawyer.

He said Al-Arian's continued employment compromises campus security and disrupts the university's orderly operation. It also alienates alumni and damages fundraising, he said.
"Corporate donors report pressure from peers and clients to curtail involvement with the university," Gonzalez said. "Direct mail solicitation have been returned with angry and negative comments."

That was enough for most of the trustees, who voted 12-1 to recommend his immediate dismissal. The faculty union said it may not have grounds to fight the decision.

"This is not about academic freedom. It's about what he has done to the university," said board chairman Dick Beard.

"I have been called unpatriotic because of this professor's actions," said trustee Gus Stavros, who lost the use of his left hand when he was wounded in World War II. "This university has been hurt badly. It is important that it do the right thing."

Trustee Patrick Swygert, the president of Howard University in Washington, D.C., and the board's only academic, cast the lone dissenting vote. He proposed that Al-Arian be suspended without pay.
Al-Arian, a tenured professor, earns $66,175 annually.

Former U.S. Sen. Connie Mack also had reservations. What if another, less controversial, professor said something that was completely unacceptable to the community?

"Would we not find some way to protect that individual?" Mack asked.
The question was never answered. And in the end, Mack also voted for termination.

Al-Arian has been sent a letter notifying him of Genshaft's decision. He could not attend Wednesday's meeting because he is barred from setting foot on campus.

Al-Arian did not return phone calls Wednesday seeking comment. He has 10 days to respond to Genshaft's action. He also has the right to have an independent arbitrator review his dismissal and to take the university to court in a lawsuit.

USF's faculty union chapter could file a grievance on Al-Arian's behalf if it thinks Genshaft's decision violates the university's collective bargaining agreement. But that is by no means certain.

"At the moment, I don't see any obvious grounds for filing," chapter president Roy Weatherford said.
That doesn't mean he thinks the university's treatment of Al-Arian is appropriate. If academic freedom wasn't broken Wednesday, it was at least bent, Weatherford said.

"The purpose of academic freedom is to see that faculty are not punished for the content of their ideas," he said. "The real harm to the university was not done by Professor Al-Arian, but by the right-wing yahoos who threatened the professor's life."

Genshaft's action was highly unusual. In a normal year, about 50 tenured professors are fired nationwide, according to the American Association of University professors.

Al-Arian has denied supporting terrorism and has condemned the Sept. 11 attacks. But he has been a controversial figure for the past 15 years, speaking often in support of Palestinians who are fighting what they consider to be Israeli occupation.

"Victory to Islam. Death to Israel," he said in a speech he gave more than a decade ago.

Al-Arian was born in Kuwait and educated in Egypt. He moved to North Carolina in 1975 where he earned a doctorate in engineering. He came to USF in 1986.

A few years later, Al-Arian helped found the World and Islam Studies Enterprises, an Islamic think tank that was based at USF until 1995, when it was raided by the FBI.

While he has never been detained or charged with a crime, Al-Arian was a focus of a federal investigation in the mid 1990s, when agents suspected his think tank was a front for Middle Eastern terrorists.
A former head of the organization, Ramadan Abdulah Shallah, left it in 1995. He resurfaced soon after as the head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a terrorist organization.

Al-Arian's brother-in-law is Mazen Al-Najjar of Tampa, who was jailed for 31/2 years on secret evidence alleging membership in Islamic Jihad. Al-Najjar was freed last year when a judge ruled the evidence was not sufficient to continue holding him.

But he was arrested again in November for overstaying his visa. He is now being held in maximum security at a federal prison.
Federal officials would not say Wednesday whether Al-Arian is under any kind of investigation.

Several leaders in the local Muslim community said they think he is being treated unfairly.

"He has never been charged with anything. It's just accusations," said Noor Salhab, a member of Islamic Community of Tampa.

Imran Ismail, a leader in the Muslim Student Association at USF, said he doesn't think it is a coincidence that Wednesday's meeting was held after finals week, when most students were gone.

"We would have had 100 students at the meeting in protest," Ismail said. After Al-Arian was placed on paid leave, he said many students were going to demonstrate but Al-Arian told them to calm down.
"A lot of students -- Muslims and non-Muslims -- feel that he has been treated unfairly," he said.

On his show Wednesday night, Bill O'Reilly criticized Genshaft's decision to fire Al-Arian, calling it "cowardly." Although he said in September that federal agents should follow Al-Arian wherever he goes, O'Reilly said he did not think the professor's alleged terrorist ties were grounds for dismissal.

-- Times staff writers Babita Persaud and Mary Jacoby contributed to this report.

USF's case against Al-Arian

The university has received so many threats involving Al-Arian that it cannot guarantee his safety or that of students, faculty and staff.
He violated his employment contract by failing to make clear that remarks made in off-campus speeches reflected personal views and not those of the university.

He violated an agreement with USF administrators by returning to campus after being put on paid leave.

Fundraising, student recruitment and faculty grants have been hurt by the controversy surrounding his continued employment.
The ongoing security concerns make it impossible for him to fulfill his teaching obligations.
===


Here is a text from Dr. Judy Bird, a prof. serving as provost at the time, who quite her provost post, in protest,

Bird, the Provost's resignation explanation.

http://w3.usf.edu/~uff/AlArian/January/BirdResignation.html