|
Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton.
Thursday, March 28, 2002. NewsMax.com
An "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is taking place on American
campuses today.
They are targeting our learning centers. There is a new generation of
students being subjected to a reconditioning of their ideas and beliefs by way
of an instructor selection process that insures one-sidedness. The free flow of
ideas is becoming outdated.
Today's students are systematically pressured into uniform thought. The
invaders, though well entrenched in the increasingly monolithic faculty, must
make a conscious effort to take over the student bodies offered up to them,
since their ideas have been proven to be obsolete by failing everywhere they
have been used.
Apparently, these far-out invaders heard the Soviet Union's radio broadcasts
of the first half of the 20th century. The theory sounded good, so they believed
in the propaganda and came to Earth to help destroy the thing that prevented
that great-sounding theory from spreading: American imperialism.
But they must have been in hibernation for their long journey to Earth,
because they obviously missed what happened afterward. They didn't know about
the complete failure and resulting fall of the communist theory and heroes.
This is a ridiculous explanation, but how otherwise can you explain what is
happening in U.S. academic circles today?
Harvard Hires a Communist
For example, Harvard University has hired a Cuban, Mario Coyula-Cowley, an
active member of the Cuban Communist Party and an active member of Fidel
Castro's totalitarian communist regime, to teach architecture and urban
planning.
The architecture of Castro's Cuba can best be used as examples of what
happens when architecture's only purpose is glorification of a government in
failure. And the urban planning is a disaster for the environment and the
citizenry. What were they thinking?
According to a March 4, 2002, article by Ross G. Douthat titled "Albert
Speer at Harvard" in the Harvard Crimson, Coyula-Cowley is "a
high-ranking government official, the head of the island nation's urban planning
commission."
And Coyula-Cowley "helped organize the 1959 rebellion that swept the
bearded dictator into power, and has held numerous government appointments over
the decades since. Among other things, he is a senior member of Cuba's National
Union of Artists and Writers; an organization, needless to say, to which anyone
who disagrees with the government cannot apply."
The Case of Dr. Lopez
In the same vein, the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) is, to all
appearances, in the process of dismissing a Cuban American Assistant Professor
of Political Science and Latin American Studies in the Department of Political
Science, who is not a member of any communist or Nazi party, because he is
pro-democracy.
Therefore, he is considered an enemy in the eyes of the university faculty –
he is a threat to the one-sidedness effort. His name is Juan J. Lopez. The
technique the school is using is the highly revered process of determining
professorial tenure.
Assistant Professor Juan J. Lopez is from a working-class family. He came to
the United States with his parents as a child in 1967. He grew up in the Chicago
area. He was the only one of his siblings to receive a college education. At
considerable sacrifice, he attended the costly and prestigious University of
Chicago, from which he earned a B.A., M.A. and Ph.D.
Dr. Lopez has distinguished himself as a teacher, receiving a Teaching
Excellence Award from the Council for Excellence in Teaching and Learning at the
University of Illinois at Chicago in 1999. He also has done considerable service
to the Department of Political Science, the Latin American Studies Program and
the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at UIC.
He says, "I have published four peer-reviewed articles, one book
chapter, one co-authored monograph, and a book." Moreover, he is
co-authoring his second book, tentatively titled "Transitions and
Non-transitions from Communism: Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa."
In an official evaluation of his performance done three years ago, he was
told that the only thing he needed for tenure was to publish a book. But, he
adds, "I have paid a high cost for my book on Cuba. I have been practically
fired from my university."
'Democracy Delayed'
In Lopez's book, "Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba,"
which is being published by the Johns Hopkins University Press, one of the most
prestigious scholarly presses, he supports the embargo and criticizes Castro's
tyranny.
Johns Hopkins used the evaluations of two reviewers, both of whom
recommended publication. One reviewer was particularly laudatory. According to
that reviewer, the work offers a very timely, theoretically sound and plausible
explanation regarding the continuity of communism in Cuba, integrating several
themes from mainstream political science literature.
The documentation Lopez presents in the book was described as impressive,
with a proper balance between the author's individual judgments and what the
evidence will support. The reviewer calls it the first scholarly, empirically
based comparison of Cuba and countries in Eastern Europe under communist rule.
Other scholars, both experts on Cuba and on Eastern Europe, who have read
the manuscript consider it outstanding. Professor Irving Louis Horowitz, the "Dean"
of Cuban studies, has called the manuscript "rock solid," a first-rate
piece.
In his book, Lopez describes how the United States could have, without
military intervention, made a transition to democracy possible in Cuba. But,
contrary to what many assume, the main objective of the Clinton administration
concerning Cuba was to maintain stability rather than to attain democracy.
The book thoroughly considers the effect of the controversial American
embargo on the prospects of a political transition and concludes that the U.S.
economic embargo helps, although is not by itself sufficient to cause political
change in Cuba.
Collecting data on Cuba is difficult since the dictatorship makes it
impossible for a scholar to visit Cuba to collect data on the democratic
opposition, do free surveys in the population concerning controversial issues,
or otherwise collect data that place the regime in a negative light.
Yet the book presents a wealth of information on the political, social and
economic conditions in Cuba. Lopez spent several years painstakingly collecting
data from all sources available outside Cuba. His heritage puts him in a
position to access sources not available to others.
But the fact remains that Lopez's "Democracy Delayed" is highly
critical of the Castro government and provides a groundbreaking explanation for
the endurance of the dictatorship. In it, Lopez shows why previous accounts are
wrong or inadequate. And he supports his arguments with an unprecedented amount
of data on the political, social and economic circumstances in Cuba since the
1990s.
But back to reality. Writing a book critical of Castro, no matter how
serious the research and documentation, is a big no-no in academic circles in
the U.S.
The Persecution of Juan Lopez
So Lopez is being asked to resign for his democratic ideals, while
Coyula-Cowley is being hired for his alliance to a criminal and totalitarian
communist tyrant who has murdered hundreds of thousands and denied human rights
to millions.
If Coyula-Cowley had been a Nazi or a right-winger, Harvard would not have
hired him, of course! According to David Horowitz, a former radical of the '60s,
"the exclusion of conservatives from Harvard's faculty does not happen by
accident, but by ideological design."
That is why being a communist official from a brutal regime is O.K.,
admirable even. Apparently, in their sick and twisted minds, communists –
who killed over 100 million people – are decisively harmless in relation to
conservatives.
So, what is that highly revered process that's being used to eliminate the
threat to UIC's singular thought?
Lopez came up for tenure this year and UIC sent his book to about five
outside reviewers. (Note that he hasn't even been told how many it was sent to,
much less who they are.)
He says: "Apparently, two of them criticized my book. It is a very
mysterious process. I get practically no information about the arguments against
me. Nor do I have any opportunity to defend myself. From what I have been able
to learn, the criticisms are a very erroneous interpretation of my ideas. My
guess is that some reviewers just do not like my political positions and have
tried to find something to attack my work. The positive comments of my book from
other reviewers have been disregarded.
"It seems that a group of faculty members in my department used the
criticism to mount a campaign against me. The vote in the faculty was six in
favor of my tenure and eight against. From that point on, my tenure case was
mortally wounded."
Lopez has heard only limited, brief comments of what transpired in the
closed meeting, where his book was discussed, from individuals who were present.
He was told that politics was involved and that some faculty members attacked
Lopez, misinterpreting his arguments in the book, apparently reflecting on
criticisms in letters from external reviewers.
Lopez has heard the rumor that faculty members in the Political Science
Department often do not read the candidate's work (especially if they don't
agree with its view?). How can they judge a book without reading it? These "scholars"
are willing to forgo their honor and rely on the letters of outside reviewers,
especially those who agree with their political view. If this is so, Lopez says,
"it indicates flagrant professional irresponsibility in the department."
The unanimous vote against Lopez came from the Executive Committee of the
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Stanley Fish. The unanimity of
the vote appears very suspicious.
Afterward, Lopez requested a meeting with Dean Fish. He showed the dean a
copy of the third-year review and the evaluations of his Cuba manuscript that
The Johns Hopkins University Press had used to decide to publish the work. The
dean read the documents and said that he would not change his mind.
During that meeting, Dean Fish personally suggested to Lopez that he should
resign from the university.
So, a committee, relying on letters that were not shared with Lopez,
determined that the book was so bad that not only should he be denied tenure
because of it, but he also should be so ashamed of it that he should resign. A
book hailed by others, professional and prestigious, who are willing to
economically back the book by publishing it.
It sure lays a firm foundation for the possibility that the book made such a
good case for the political opinion opposite from those voting at the
university, that forcing him to resign is the only viable way to defend from
critics of the embarrassing, highly un-academic process.
Academic Witch Hunts
To illustrate what these academic professors have inside their minds and why
they conduct their witch hunts, Lopez mentioned the curious incident of a
professor who happens to be married to a former powerful trustee of his
university.
This professor was strongly opposed to Lopez's suggestion to bring a
pro-democracy Cuban American to speak at the university. This Cuban American
would present a contrasting point of view after the presentation by a communist
"student" from Castro's Cuba who was already invited to speak at the
university.
This type of one-sided presentation happens with alarming frequency on U.S.
campuses. It is simply censorship imposed by the far left in academia.
This opposing professor was so secure in his beliefs that he sent Lopez a
revealing e-mail:
"Considering the 40 years of one-sided, negative, and frequently
demented, U.S. propaganda against Cuba (both in the Anglo and Latino media and
in classes taught by most professors), to speak and push for equal time for the
anti-Castristas sounds surrealist."
I have to interject here. Providing both sides of a controversial issue in
an academic situation is "surrealist"?
He continued, "Were equal time a principle to be fairly honored we
would have to invite Fidel himself for a long, long tour of universities,
television, and papers, barrios, and public squares."
These outrageous statements are baseless. They do not sound like they are
coming from a university professor but from a hysterical and reactionary
political fanatic who wants to censor information about Cuba. The opinion that
opposes his own he dismisses by calling it surreal.
Meanwhile, the facts are very different. The "Anglo and Latino media"
are controlled mostly by the left, and the balance of information reported is
tilted in Castro's favor and almost 100 percent against Cuban Americans.
Professors at American colleges and universities also are notorious for
their pro-Castro bias, even preventing Cuban American students from telling or
writing about their experiences.
And his final proposition to invite Fidel is utterly insensitive to his
victims. Would he suggest inviting Pinochet, P.W. Botha or Hitler to present
their side at the university?
Lopez's tenure process continues as the decision goes on to the interim
provost and vice chancellor for Academic Affairs of UIC, who will make her
recommendation to the chancellor by April 8. And the chancellor makes the final
decision.
The secrecy about details of the decision-making greatly hinders attempts to
understand what has happened. But given Lopez's strong record and the
controversial nature of his book, it is likely that the main reason for his
tenure denial is his position with respect to the issues of Cuba. Specifically,
Lopez's position is not "politically correct" as determined by the
majority of members of the American academia.
Lopez feels that he has been victimized because of his strong pro-democracy
position for Cuba and advocacy for maintaining the U.S. embargo. He has widely
expressed his views in the news media and in his writings. He has granted five
interviews to local newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago
Sun-Times, and has written three solicited articles for Chicago newspapers.
He also has been a critic of the governor of Illinois, George Ryan, for his
campaigns in favor of lifting the embargo on Cuba. One of Lopez's newspaper
articles is titled "Cuba's Government, Not People, Will Benefit From Ryan
Visit" (Daily Herald, Oct. 24, 1999). Gov. Ryan is an ex officio member of
the Board of Trustees of UIC. Maybe some faculty members and high officials at
the university do not want to add a politically controversial professor to the
permanent faculty.
Academia's Double Standard
The article by Ross G. Douthat in the Harvard Crimson quotes history
professor James T. Kloppenberg saying "the quality of a person's scholarly
work, not his or her politics, should determine whether he or she teaches at
Harvard."
Apparently, this principle is not always used, as the Lopez vs.
Coyula-Cowley cases reveal. If you are from the far left, you stay. If not, you
go.
Douthat explains: "None of this should be terribly surprising. There
has always been a tendency among America's intellectuals to downplay the crimes
of left-wing regimes, and Castro's Cuba, in particular, has long been the
darling of the American left."
Obviously, there is a double standard in academia. They favor and give
preferential treatment to the criminal communist system and his emissaries like
Mario Coyula-Cowley, among others. But they close their doors and dismiss the
people who do not subscribe to the obsolete Marxist dogma, like Prof. Juan J.
Lopez, among others.
They trample freedom of speech. This is unacceptable with the ideals of
democracy and freedom in America.
Freedom in academia, unfortunately but surely, is dying in the U.S. The tool
they abuse to accomplish their goals is a would-be honorable one that has
deteriorated to the point of being secretive in order to hide the shame of it.
With the recent scandals of pedophilia and other sexual abuses in the
Church, "honorable" is becoming a relative term. If priestly honor has
become relaxed to the point of horror, academic honor as well can no longer be
assumed, but must be continuously earned to be maintained. We must do our part
by demanding that all honor be maintained.
These "academics" are as out of touch as the alien invaders of the
1950s science fiction flicks.
We, the people, have to raise our voices and state our disapproval of these
censure and brainwashing techniques being used in the learning centers of
America. If this is allowed to continue, the result of this madness will be a
new generation of single-minded and confused people who will deviate from the
concept of individual freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers intended for
America.
© 2002 ABIP
The final decision maker for tenure cases at UIC is the
chancellor:
Chancellor Sylvia Manning
Office of the Chancellor
2833 University Hall (M/C 102)
The University of Illinois at Chicago
601 S. Morgan Street
Chicago, IL 60607
Agustin Blazquez is producer/director of the
documentaries COVERING CUBA, COVERING CUBA 2: The New Generation, and the
upcoming COVERING CUBA 3: Elian, and author with Carlos Wotzkow of the book
COVERING AND DISCOVERING.
Related site
Juan J.
Lopez Assistant Professor / Department of political Science - University of
Illinois
| 
