Academic freedom or brain washing?

Recently an UCLA alumni group called the Bruin Alumni Association made headlines by coming out with a list of liberal professors at UCLA that the BAA considers too radical to be teaching at a public university. The group is willing to pay students to bring in tapes or lecture notes from these professors so that it can be demonstrated that they indoctrinate students. Of course the liberals are complaining about interfernce with academic freedom and that it is mean spirited to single out certain professors. Well, this is the same argument I made last year when a group of liberal called for the firing of John Woo, a law professor at Berkely, who was an apologist for the Bush administration. I did not see any liberal group coming to the defense of Woo then. As usual, I feel both sides just want their views to be heard and not the others.

I checked out the BAA website and frankly I was impressed with the length Andrew Jones, the writer of the site, goes to give a biography of each of the professors. I don't know if everything in the biographies are true but Jones does put out a lot information and references. I would have to say some of the views of these professors are way out in left field. The only thing is that Jones has not proven in these biographies that these professors are indoctrinating students with their views in class. For example, being an Asian American, I have heard of Jerry Kang. He is a law professor whose view on affirmative action I strongly disagree with. Jones made a point that Kang felt affirmative action was partly responsible for his being at UCLA. Kang had said that UCLA needed an Asian American law professor when the only one it had left for Georgetown and so he was hired. I think Kang was just showing his Asian upbringing which calls for humblenes. Kang graduated from Harvard with a degree in physics and then got his J.D. from Harvard. He graduated magna cum laude in both instances. He hardly needed affirmative action to get a job at UCLA. I believe his view on affirmative action is wrong but I did not see anyone come out with any evidence that he tried to indoctrinate students with his views.

The same goes for John Woo. I don't think much of the Bush administration especially its handling of the war. Woo is one of Bush's apologists on the torturing and unending detention of prisoners of war. The liberals at Berkeley called for firing. Again there was never any evidence of poor teaching or indoctrination in his classroom. I am not defending Kang and Woo because they are Asian Americans. I am defending them because having some knowledge about them I see where both liberals and conservatives are just trying to get people they disagree with.

You don't have to agree with anybody just because he is a so-called intellectual. But it would be beneficial if everybody listens to both sides of the argument before making up his mind. I don't agree with John Roberts on many of his views but if I have an opportunity to listen to one of his lectures, I would do so. The same with Ruth Ginsburg. Keeping an open mind is the best way to prevent indoctrination. If a student at a law school like Berkeley or UCLA can be indoctrinated by a bias professor, then that student wasn't qualify to be admitted in the first place.

Many Congreesmen are scrambling to return money donated by Jack Abramoff or his clients. It is nice that some of the money ended up in charities but the whole thing is rather silly. If you accepted money from the mob and committed a crime in exchange, would giving back the money absolve you of the crime? A Congressman who voted according to his conscience should not have returned the money. A Congressman who was bought by the money would still be guilty even if he returned every cent. The problem is that even money that is contributed legally may influence a politician to do the wrong thing. If a lobbyst contributed money legally to a Congressman which causes him to change his vote, wouldn't that be a bribe also? There are too many loop holes in the law because the lawmakers like it that way. Campaign reform will unlikely be able to solve this problem.

Ideally voters should be the ones making judgments on this. If voters feel their representatives are being bought, they can voted them out. Unfortunately, unless there is a situation like with Abramoff, the voters will have no idea who is bribing their representatives. Even now, do most voters check to see if Abramoff contributed money to their Congressman? Voters are unlikely to be able to figure out who contributed to their Congressman and more unlikely to know if he/she was influenced by the money. The only time the voters will hear about their politician being influenced by special interests is during election when negative advertising is all over the place. Nobody can sort out what is true or false during those times.

I advocate an ombudsman system for the federal and state governments. The system will hire people who are nonparisian and have no ties with any business or union. They will investigate to see whether there is a connection between a large donation and how a politician votes. Periodically, a report will be sent to each voter in the district of a particular politician. Of course, the voters may like the politician even if he gets a negative report. This is because many politicians bring "pork" home to his districts. If the voters do not read these reports or ignore them then they deserve what they get.

As Ariel Sharon lies comatose, struggling for life, sad thoughts come to my mind. Recemtly, an article in my local newspaper suggested that the U.S. learn from Israel's experience with terrorism. Among the lessons was that one must use force against your enemy. The following is part of my reaction to that article:

"Force was necessary when Israel had to defend herself against the Arab armies in 1967 and 1973. Force, however, is obviously not the best answer against terrorism. Israel has used force for many years in her fight against terrorism but she has never been secured. For every Israeli killed by Palestinians, Israel has killed two or three Palestinians in retaliation. After so many years of two eyes for an eye, is Israel feeling safer? Was it worth it for Israel to go into Lebanon and then refuse to withdrawl when the situation became a quagmire? Eventually Israel had to withdraw after thousands of lives on both sides were lost.

If you want to learn from Israel, look at Ariel Sharon. Sharon was probably the most hawkish of all Israeli leaders. He was responsible for the invasion of Lebanon and the entanglement of Israel there. He was the godfather of the settlements of West Bank and Gaza. His visit to Temple Mount in 2000 was calculated to draw a Palestinian response that led to the Al Aqsa intifada and thus strengthened his own power. Somehow Sharon has seen the light. He has finally realized that aggressive and brutal tactics will not bring peace to Israel. He has left the conservative Likud Party to pursue peace as the leader of a new centrist party. It won't be easy to obtain peace, but it can be done. Israel's peace with Egypt has held. I think Sharon has finally learned that being the strongest nation in the region may mean survival but it does not mean security. This is a lesson that the strongest nation in the world should learn from Israel."

Unfortunately Sharon will not be able to teach the strongest nation in the world how to achieve peace and security. Even if Sharon survives this stroke, his condition will never allow him to lead Israel again. If someone would have suggested three years ago that Ariel Sharon was Israel's best hope for peace, I would have sent this person to a psychiatrist right away. Sadly, this is the truth today. There is basically nobody in Israel who can replace him. Many politician from the Labor Party want to negotiate a peace but they are dismissed by the public as too liberal and too weak. The Likud Party has no interest in negotiating and that's why Sharon left. The Israel public trusted Sharon's strength and charisma. His remarkable transformation from an extreme hawk to a possible dove gave peace a chance. Unfortunately, this chance is disappearing into the vaccum of Israeli leadership.

Having just finished watching the fourth season of the show "24", I thought about President Bush's problems with tortures and spying on American citizens without warrants. Watching shows like "24" gives the impression that torturing and eavesdropping on suspects' conversations are absolutely necessary. If someone is trying to hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, we must do everything possible to prevent it. This is the argument the Bush administration has been giving.

Of course, in real life torturing do not usually bring about critical information. Most of the time even if the right person is in custody, he will not say the truth. He may say something that you want to hear and it may cause a wrong turn in the investigation. However, I am not so naive to say that torturing is never necessary. I am sure it has been going on in all countries, including the U.S. I have not seen anyone convicted for torturing in an attempt to get critical information. The convictions as the result of the disgrace treatment of prisoners in Iraq had nothing to do with security. I think Senator McCain's torture law is right. It may stop people from acting irresponsibly. If you believe that a situation where torturing is absolutely necessary, like in "24", then you should also believe the government would cover it up so that the person who did prevent a castastrophe would not be prosecuted. Bush should have accepted the torure law because in reality it would not have stopped torturing totally but would make commenders think about it carefully before ordering it.

By writing an executive order allowing spying on Americans without a warrant was something Bush did not have to do. In the past the court has given the government authority retroactively for listening conversation without getting a warrant before hand. (We are talking about national security situations, not routine criminal investiagations.) Courts understand that in national security situations, the government must be given some leeway. The government, however, should have to explain later why they had to listen to a conversation. I don't have any problem with that if a court is given the opportunity to determine whether the explaination is adequate. By signing this executive order the Bush administration bypasses the courts altogether. This is not acceptable in a democracy with checks and balances.