http://www.tenc.net/
 
Emperor's Clothes

Philadelphia Inquirer covers U. of Penn's attempted firing of EC Deputy-Editor Prof. Gil-White, but omits key evidence

Today (11 February) the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article on U. of Penn's attempted firing of Prof. Francisco Gil-White, Deputy Editor of Emperor's Clothes. We'll be publishing a refutation of serious errors/omissions in the Inquirer article later this evening. For now, here's a summary.

The Inquirer article presents Prof. Gil-White's charges against U. of Penn officials and their responses. We applaud this. Unfortunately, it omits the hard evidence that Gil-White has been telling the truth. This evidence - and it is irrefutable evidence - was given to the Inquirer. Instead of publishing the sensational proof that the main university in Philadelphia is engaging in grotesque political suppression, and doing it at the apparent orders of a member of the US intelligence establishment, the Philadelphia Inquirer has  withheld the evidence. In addition, the Inquirer misrepresents the timeline of the conflict at U. of Penn even though a) Prof. Gil-White explained the timeline to Patrick Kerkstra, who is listed as the article's author and b) Gil-White's webpage on the attempted firing documents the chain of events based on emails from professors pressuring him to recant. I regret to say that by withholding some facts and lying about others, the Inquirer has produced an apologia for U. of Penn.  

The main evidence that the Inquirer suppressed is Prof. Ian Lustick's letter appraising Prof. Gil-White's performance, an appraisal solicited by the committee on Gil-White's reappointment.

This letter was the only negative appraisal of Gil-White from any professor. It was the only appraisal that Psychology Department Chairman De Rebeis solicited from any teacher at U . of Penn. Obviously Lustick's letter of appraisal was seen as important. As the Inquirer knows, and as you will see when we post it, the Lustick letter is also outrageous. 

Lustick's letter of appraisal was meant to be confidential. However a copy was leaked to Prof. Gil-White, possibly by a senior faculty member with a conscience. The letter devastates the University's position that, "We are baffled by Professor Gil-White's assertions about the role of his politics in our review..." (Quoted in the Inquirer.) The letter demonstrates the hypocrisy of Psychology Department chairman Prof. De Rubeis's statement, quoted in the Inquirer article, that, "My colleagues believe that academic freedom is essential in the university."

Yes, essential, as long as Prof. Ian Lustick approves the views that are freely expressed. Because in his letter of appraisal, Prof. Lustick, whose CV states that he is a high-powered consultant to US Intelligence, a) states that he has been asked to evaluate Prof. Gil-White; b) states that he "more or less stopped reading" Prof. Gil-White's scholarly work "a year ago" and has never seen him teach; c) faults Gil-White for his views on Serbia, Israel and Sri Lanka (Gil-White had condemned the Tamil Tigers); and d) virtually orders the re-appointment committee to use their leverage to force Gil-White to recant. Truly, it is a remarkable document.

I will post a photocopy of Prof. Lustick's letter of appraisal with comments relevant to the Inquirer article as soon as possible. Please check back here or make a note that this material will be posted at www.tenc.net/phil.htm

And sign up for the Emperor's Clothes Newsletter. On February 12th we'll send you the full critique of the Inquirer article along with the text of Prof. Lustick's unwittingly revealing letter of appraisal.

Jared Israel, Editor
Emperor's Clothes
11 February 2005

Reply via email to