http://indymedia.org.il
Haifa University RespondsTuesday 14 May 2002
author: Omer Ori ([email protected])
I sent an email regarding DR Pappe to the rector of the university, and I'm posting the reply I got, for the sake of fair discussion:
Herewith is a reply from the Academic Secretariat in response to Dr.
Pappe's letter sent to you, regarding his "expulsion" from the University
of Haifa.
A Response to Dr. Pappe's Claims
The Academic Secretariat, which is in charge of the disciplinary
authorities at the University of Haifa, finds it unfortunate that Dr.
Ilan Pappe has published a complaint against it and represents himself
as being hounded for his political views.
We wish to clarify the situation. The Dean of the Faculty of
Humanities, Prof. Yossi Ben-Artzi, lodged a complaint against Dr. Pappe
to the academic disciplinary court because of the latter's behavior,
which was contrary to "all accepted rules of ethics at an academic
institution." The complaint was transmitted to the president of the
court, who will decide whether to accept it in full or in part, and in
light of that decision whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
According to University regulations, discussions of the academic
disciplinary court are confidential (apparently the intention of the
legislation was to protect the privacy of the lecturer against whom a
complaint was lodged). Because Dr. Pappe has made public, and in a
distorted manner, the content of the complaint lodged against him, we
are forced to relate to it openly.
It is important to note that in doing so, we are not taking any stand
insofar as the substance of the complaint itself-that must be clarified
in the academic disciplinary court. Until then, Dr. Pappe must be
presumed innocent of any charge.
Contrary to Dr. Pappe's claim, the complaint does not bear on his
political views or his position on other matters. The complaint is
about Dr. Pappe's alleged unethical behavior.
There are two fabrications in Dr. Pappe's public announcements:
(1) Dr. Pappe claims that the academic disciplinary court has never been
convened. Contrary to this claim, the court has convened a number of
times. In fact, the last time was two years ago. Dr. Pappe knows this
well, since he was the pleader who represented one of the litigants in
the complaint lodged with the court. (Thus, for example, Dr. Pappe
appeared as a party to the suit when the court sat on 3 December 1999.)
(2) Dr. Pappe describes a prior complaint against him and claims that it
was an attempt to throw him out of the University. Because of the
privileged nature of the discussion, that complaint was not made
public. Since, however, Dr. Pappe has distorted the description of what
happened, the matter has to be set straight. The chairman of Dr.
Pappe's department, and later the dean of his Faculty, proposed bringing
Dr. Pappe before the academic disciplinary court for his having gone
abroad three times in the course of one semester without the permission
of the department chair. He therefore missed no small number of classes
in so doing. After the complaint was checked, the Rector decided to
bring him up for a disciplinary hearing in the Rector's office, and not
before the academic disciplinary court. At that hearing, Dr. Pappe
admitted his guilt and received the only punishment that was within the
Rector's authority to impose: a warning in writing. The department
chair expressed anger at what he considered lenient hearing in the
Rector's Office and demanded that Dr. Pappe be brought up before the
academic disciplinary court, whose authority to punish was much stronger
than the Rector's. He then resigned in protest that the Rector did not
do so. The department chair went public with his own protest and wrote
a letter critical of the Rector that was sent to every member of the
University Senate. In contrast to Dr. Pappe's declaration, it is
impossible to view that case as an unsuccessful attempt by the
University to get rid of him. On the contrary, the University acted
with utmost fairness and, in fact, very leniently.
An ethical question arises here in regard to the immunity of members of
the faculty who face charges against them involving sensitive aspects,
such complaints against academic office holders or lecturers with
non-conventional ideas. The assumption lying at the foundation of the
principle of equitableness and fairness in disciplinary and legal
hearings is that any person-whether a senior political figure, a judge,
or a person with unacceptable views-against whom charges are raised of
exhibiting behavior that appears to be unethical or illegal has no
immunity when these charges are brought up for clarification. No
position and no political opinion impart any permission to engage in
unethical behavior. Rejection of this opinion will place at risk the
foundations of morality and justice.
We would like to note that the complaint that was lodged involves not
an iota of negation of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is
important to all of us, and its preservation must be done impartially.
We also wish to stress once again that everything that is written above
should imply no opinion about the content of the specific complaint
lodged against Dr. Pappe.
The Academic Secretariat
Riva Friedman
Secretary to the Rector
University of Haifa
Haifa 31905, Israel
Tel: 972-4-8240405
Fax: 972-4-8342101