Letters to the Editor

Freedom of expression To the editor: It irks me to read college students like David Copley in his column ("A colleague who does not deserve support," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 3/3/03) self-righteously deriding the freedoms that allow institutions like Penn to thrive. Sami Al-Arian was by all reports an excellent professor who never mixed politics with his teaching when he was fired, so it is beyond me what "abuse of academic privilege" Copley wants me to condemn. His firing came in the wake of media publicity so sensational that even Copley calls it a lynching -- I can only hope that Penn would not bow to such crass public pressure. I am in no position to say whether there is any truth in the government's accusations, but so far, the only evidence on display proves only that Al-Arian is stridently pro-Palestinian and a champion of Islamic causes. Copley doesn't bother mentioning that his damning "Death to Israel" quote is over 12 years old; that before Bill O'Reilly's ilk made Al-Arian their whipping boy, the government had dropped its investigation against Al-Arian; that Al-Arian's brother Al-Najjar was illegally detained on secret evidence for over three years; or that Al-Arian was afterwards held in such good faith that he was invited to the White House as recently as 2001. If anything, it is a wonder that this formerly stateless Palestinian refugee isn't as bitter against the West as many of his countrymen. But perhaps Copley doesn't want us to take him seriously. After all, the worst person he can find to compare Al-Arian to is Bill Clinton. Everyone in the academic community should be concerned for our freedoms of expression and minority viewpoints. Nathan KennedyEngineering '05 A misleading identity To the editor: There's a very good reason why Neal Barnard and his immodestly self-named Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is trying to convince Americans to go vegetarian ("Veggie regime trumps meats," DP, 3/4/03). And it has nothing to do with health. Readers should know that PCRM is not a legitimate medical organization, but rather a front group for the animal rights movement. Neal Barnard isn't even a nutritionist -- he's a psychiatrist, and a non-practicing one at that. PETA (yes, that PETA) has already funded PCRM to the tune of over $850,000. The two groups share offices, staff and financial accounting as well. The animal rights watchdog newspaper Animal People News wrote in December that PCRM and PETA should be considered "a single fundraising unit" and accused the groups of attempting to "evade public recognition of their relationship." Ninety-five percent of PCRM's members never graduated from medical school. The American Medical Association has called PCRM's recommendations "irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans." And PCRM has been formally censured by the AMA. Most Ivy Leaguers are too smart to take dietary advice from animal-rights zealots. But when activists put on the sheep's clothing of the medical profession, it becomes more and more difficult to tell who's credible. David MartoskoThe author is a Dartmouth College alumnus and director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.