The Tripod

I write to commend Vanessa Holguin, Class of 2007, for taking the initiative to respond to the article by Fatima Jafri, Class of 2008, with its incendiary attack on Professor Schub. Unlike Jafri's polemic, Holguin's article is fair-minded, moderate in tone, and, perhaps most significantly, substantive in content. Thanks to Holguin and others who have endeavored to clarify the situation, Jafri's diatribe is beginning to come into clearer focus. Alas, the developing picture is not very flattering: Jafri's article is more than just a flimsy personal attack on a professor with whom she disagrees. It is a crude assault on intellectual freedom and free speech on our campus.

As Holguin points out, Jafri offers nothing of substance to justify her claim that Schub is unfit to teach in his field. One would expect such incendiary charges to rest on evidence of some kind - perhaps a syllabus containing bigoted readings, or instances of biased grading, etc. But Jafri gives us nothing but a vague reference to a film screened in class - an unfortunate choice because, as Holguin illustrates, the film is nothing if not exculpatory. If, as Jafri suggests, Schub was preaching anti-Islamic hate in his class, why then would he show such a film to his students?

Considering that Jafri has accused Schub of bias, bigotry, and abuse of power, shouldn't the Trinity community demand that she produce at least a shred of substance to support such charges?

Furthermore, Jafri's choice to cite mere fragments of Schub's private e-mails to her should raise serious questions about both her motives and the veracity of her claims. What prompted Schub's remarks? In what context were they written? Why might Jafri deliberately conceal her own words to Schub while revealing his? Indeed, the quotations Jafri attributes to Schub are pithy, fragmented, and devoid of context.

At best this is very dubious stuff. At worst it looks like the work of a character assassin, cunningly picking only the most poisonous cherries from the tree.

But, for the sake of argument, let's for a moment accept without question Jafri's heavily edited and abridged version of her correspondence with Schub. What does it tell us about him?

Beyond a jaded view of Islam and a prima facie interpretation of the Koran, it offers neither evidence that he is a bigot nor proof that he is unfit to teach in his field. The opinions expressed in these e-mails, while certainly controversial, remain within the bounds of tolerant, civil discourse.

In the final analysis, however, there is no doubt that Jafri feels free to express her own opinions, no matter how vitriolic and poorly reasoned - even at the expense of a man's career and reputation. Yet she apparently also believes that Professor Schub should be denied that same freedom. I will leave it to others to further unravel the many layers of irony and hypocrisy wrapped tightly around Jafri's story.

In the end, it is useful to remember that a liberal arts college has many prerogatives, but perhaps none more important than protecting and nurturing a culture that values academic freedom, earnest inquiry, and respectful dissent.

Attempting to smear the reputation and ruin the career of a man simply because one might not share his politics is malicious, small-minded, and dangerous. Despite our ideological differences, the Trinity community must stand united behind the banner of free inquiry and expression, and against those who wish to tear it to shreds.

Article Tools