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
