State of the Profession: A Knock at the Door
By Martin Snyder
Around midnight on June 30, as many Americans were beginning to enjoy the Independence Day weekend, there was a knock at the door. The Egyptian police had come to arrest Saad Eddin Ibrahim, professor of sociology at the American University in Cairo and director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Developmental Research. The police searched Ibrahim's home and confiscated his records and personal computer. They also closed down his research center and arrested his colleagues there. The state security prosecutor accused Ibrahim of tarnishing the reputation of Egypt by producing a get-out-and-vote film with funds he received from the European Union.
After more than five weeks of detention, Ibrahim was released on bail. No formal charges were filed.
Ibrahim, who earned a Ph.D. from the University of Washington and holds dual American and Egyptian citizenship, has written or edited some thirty books. He has been intermittently vilified in the Egyptian press for his liberalism, his intellectual inconsistency, and his insensitivity to nationalist issues. He has tried to deal with such criticism as part of an honest debate on matters of public concern.
A particular bone of contention has been Ibrahim's convening a series of conferences on minorities in the Arab world. (Egypt's Christian Copts are on the list of conference minorities.) The sixth and most recent conference was held earlier this year. At one session, a statement was distributed dealing with incidents of sectarian strife in Egypt since 1971. The press charged that the statement contained the same poisons that ignite sectarian strife. As Ibrahim has learned, questions of diversity and the rights of minorities are more than merely academic.
The AAUP and other higher education organizations in the United States and around the world protested the arrest of Ibrahim and his colleagues. Since its founding in 1915, the Association has defended the freedom of faculty members in their teaching, research, and publication. It is the Association's fundamental responsibility to safeguard the rights of academics to speak as scholars and citizens. The basis for the action against Ibrahim and his colleagues was their criticism of government policies. The AAUP categorically rejects the premise that displeasure with what a professor says about his or her government is an appropriate basis for arrest or punitive action of any kind.
Ibrahim's case raises several issues. First, the defense of academic freedom is part and parcel of the ongoing struggle to protect democracy. This fact was clear to the drafters of the 1940 Statement of Principles, who linked freedom of expression in the classroom and research with the larger freedoms of citizenship. The infringement of the one always has ramifications for the other.
Second, not all parts of the world, even those that imitate the structures of Western institutions of higher education, fully appreciate or accept the concept of academic freedom. Often they fail to see the intimate connection between academic freedom and the maintenance of a free and open democratic society. Cultural contexts differ, and inevitably academic freedom will be variously defined. But the core concepts-the freedom to teach or do research and the freedom to speak out on intra- as well as extramural issues without fear of retribution-are fundamental. These concepts may be uncomfortable, particularly in cultural settings riven by sectarian strife, but they are inextricably bound to the fabric of academic freedom and to the AAUP's cherished notions of higher education.
Third, virtually every educational institution in this country is engaged in global education, to a greater or lesser extent. There is wide agreement that international contact among professors and students benefits all parties. Yet too often we have focused almost exclusively on the disciplinary content of the educational exchange. We have an obligation to bring to the table fundamental principles as well. The ideal of academic freedom and its connection with the larger civic freedoms of a democratic society need to be part of our global initiatives too. Otherwise, the plight of Ibrahim will be played out over and over again throughout the world.
Finally, it has become all too common throughout the world for independent civic institutions and activists to come into conflict with governments and social forces intolerant of dissenting opinions. States that would prefer not to live with opposing views must come to understand that there is a high price to pay for intolerance and suppression of dissent. For Egypt, the arrest of Ibrahim and his colleagues has damaged the reputation of the government far more than any words he might have spoken, or any documentary he might have produced.
Martin Snyder is AAUP program director for academic freedom and professional standards.
|