Harvard Faculty Fires Economics Professor over Political Article Published in India

Can someone in academic arena in US reach out to all University faculty on this?  We
need to pass this information to every faculty member in academia.
Associated Press just said they are writing an article.  That will have snow ball affect
because other media will take it from AP.  We are looking into sending PR Newswire to
every single media.
Please keep the pressure and send to every single source, news media, radio station,
TV.   Fox News, CNN, AP , Reuters, Boston Globe as well as conservative think tanks are
contacted.
Regards,
satya
For more information contact:  contact@SaveIndiaFromCorruption.org.
=============================================================
Contents
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) write on Harvard firing of Dr.
Swamy  1
Diversity USA writes to Dr. Faust. 4
Harvard Cosmopolitans Gone Wild.. 7
Save India From Corruption writes to Dr. Faust. 9
Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0  By Charlotte Allen. 12
Misrepresentation by Harvard Faculty Members Diana Eck and Saugata Bose to Harvard
Administration. 15
Does Free Speech Exist at Harvard? The Case of Economist Subramanian Swamy  by
Jerry Gordon from New English Review.. 21
Richard Benkin,  Independent Human Rights Activist writes to Dr. Faust. 25
Harvard, please explain?  By Sekhar Vemula. 27
APPENDIX. 28
Subramanian Swamy's column in DNA.. 28
Harvard Org,  “Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard’  Demand that Harvard end its
association with religious extremist Subramanian Swamy. 31
Harvard’s ‘Coalition against Bigotry’ Statements on Dr. Swamy Op-Ed, Dec 7, 2011 and
Aug 5, 2011. 32Harvard Stands By Swamy, Writer of 'Distressing' Op-Ed, Aug 6, 2011. 33
Harvard Faculty Debates Free Speech,  Harvard Magazine,  Nov-Dec 2011. 35
A Summer School Instructor and Speech. 36
Harvard Crimson report, Dec 7, 2011. 40
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) write on Harvard firing of Dr.
Swamy
http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
Harvard Faculty Fires Economics Professor over Political Article Published in
India
December 8, 2011
by Adam Kissel
Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has effectively fired a controversial economics
professor by canceling all of his courses due to an op-ed he published in India in the wake of
the July 13 Mumbai terrorist bombing. Although Harvard's administration had defended
Professor Subramanian Swamy's rights after intervention by FIRE, FAS blatantly and
shamefully violated them in its meeting on Tuesday. Anyone reading the op-ed will have no
trouble detecting why it was controversial, but this action by the Harvard faculty places speech
and academic freedom in danger at Harvard.
On July 16, 2011, Swamy published an opinion piece in the Indian newspaper Daily News &
Analysis in response to series of terrorist bombing in Mumbai on July 13 that killed 26 and
injured 130 people. The column makes several suggestions about how to "negate the political
goals of Islamic terrorism in India," advocating that India "[e]nact a national law prohibiting
conversion from Hinduism to any other religion," "[r]emove the masjid [mosque] in Kashi
Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites," and "declare India a Hindu
Rashtra [nation] in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their
ancestors were Hindus."
In response, a group of Harvard students began a petition against Swamy, demanding that
Harvard "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his association with the University" on the
ground that he is "a bigoted promoter of communalism in India" whose column "breaches the
most basic standards of respect and tolerance." The petition concludes that "Subramanian
Swamy can have no place in the Harvard community." Harvard Summer School Dean Donald
H. Pfister reacted to the controversy by stating, "We will give this matter our serious attention." FIRE wrote President Drew Gilpin Faust on July 27, stating that "students certainly have the
right to request that Harvard violate its own promises of free expression, but Harvard must not
accede to such demands." Indeed, we wrote, Harvard is obligated to uphold the promises of
free speech contained in the "Free Speech Guidelines" adopted by FAS in 1990:
Curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom that defines our purpose.
It also deprives some individuals of the right to express unpopular views and others of
the right to listen to unpopular views.
Because no other community defines itself so much in terms of knowledge, few others
place such a high priority on freedom of speech. As a community, we take certain risks
by assigning such a high priority to free speech. We assume that the long-term benefits
to our community will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious
views. Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational processes, we
do not permit censorship of noxious ideas. We are committed to maintaining a climate in
which reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea.
Members of the University do not share similar political or philosophical views, nor
would such agreement be desirable. They do share, however, a concern for the
community defined in terms of free inquiry and dissemination of ideas. Thus, they share
a commitment to policies that allow diverse opinions to flourish and to be heard.
Although President Faust did not respond directly to FIRE's letter, Harvard released
a statement around August 1 defending free speech in line with the promises made by
FAS:
It is central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including that of Dr.
Swamy and of those who disagree with him. We are ultimately stronger as a university
when we maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the robust
exchange of ideas.
It seemed that Harvard and FIRE were in agreement on this issue. After all, how would the
situation presented here be any different in principle from the firing, say, of a communist
professor for his beliefs, which might include the violent overthrow of the U.S. government?
Both the U.S. and Harvard have had experience with what we now call McCarthyism, and few
are eager to return to that. Harvard's admirable promises now stand in sharp and unflattering contrast to the action by FAS
on Tuesday, led by Professor Diana C. Eck, as reported on Wednesday by The Harvard
Crimson. (Disclosure: I once worked for Professor Eck as a nonresident tutor at Harvard's
Lowell House.) According to Crimson journalists Radhika Jain and Kevin J. Wu:

"Swamy's op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community
and calling for violence against their sacred places," Eck said, adding that Harvard has
a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a
minority group. "There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political
views."
Did Professor Eck really say, "There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political
views"? How exactly would one objectively define that difference?
This hypocritical action by FAS was made worse by Eck's faulty rationale for punishing a
professor who had expressed his views. The Crimson article adds that "[m]any faculty
determined Swamy's article was not a product of free speech-but of hate speech." This
assertion has no meaning from a rights perspective. There is no exception for "hate speech"
either at Harvard (a private university bound by its own promises) or in the First Amendment,
and there can be no agreement on what constitutes "hate speech" since it cannot be
determined objectively.
Equally indefensible is the contention that Swamy's article was an incitement to violence. Yet,
this is exactly what the chair of the Philosophy Department, Sean D. Kelly, said, according to
the Crimson:
"I was persuaded ... that the views expressed in Dr. Swamy's op-ed piece amounted to
incitement of violence instead of protected political speech," he wrote in an email to The
Crimson.
Yet the op-ed comes nowhere near the careful definition of unprotected "incitement"
announced by the Supreme Court in 1969. According to the Supreme Court, for speech
to be considered "incitement," it must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent
lawless action and [be] likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio,
395 U.S. 444 (1969). See also Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) (holding that a
protestor who shouted, "We'll take the fucking street later" was not guilty of incitement
because his "threat" "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some
indefinite future time.").
There are permissible reasons to cancel a professor's courses, but the Crimson article
suggests that FAS did not act on any of them. Instead, FAS broke its own promises. Harvard must reverse FAS's violation of its moral obligation to uphold freedom of
speech. It would be most preferable for FAS to remedy its own mistake. Failing that,
higher-ups at Harvard must act to protect Harvard's integrity. Harvard has already
embarrassed itself far too much over free speech issues in recent years.  
Diversity USA writes to Dr. Faust

DIVERSITY-USA
A National Democratic Think Tank on Minority Issues
3145 Gilbert Ave., Roseburg, OR 97471
Ph & Fax 541-957-8414
Dr. Drew Faust, President, Harvard University
Office of the President    , Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138                                                    Dec. 9, 2011
Dear Dr. Faust,
Sub: A Hero, Victim of Harvard Bigotry.
When I checked my mail last night and found that Harvard University, one of the leading Ivy League
educational institutions in the world, had decided to drop economic courses taught by Dr. Subramanian
Swamy, a world renowned economist, I was simply stunned. How could one of the top educational
institutions in our country go so wrong is beyond me? In view of the fact that only a few months back the
University had upheld the right of freedom of expression of Dr. Swamy and rejected the pleas of his
biased and distortionist opponents, the reversal of the initial decision raises many troubling questions.
We firmly believe that the initial decision by the University was right, pragmatic, based on justifiable facts.
Its reversal on the grounds of hatefulness, communalism, narrow mindedness, anti-Indianism and antiHinduism demonstrated by some of the faulty zealots is simply reprehensible. These fellow travelers have
seriously ruptured the credibility of a prestigious educational institution and tarnished its good name.
Please note that a billion plus Indians worldwide particularly Hindus have noted this “backward and
regressive step” by the University with utter disappointment and disdain. To say the least it has
irreparably damaged the good reputation of your institution.
In paragraph 2 of his original article under reference Dr. Swamy has clearly stated that “Islamic
terrorism is India’s number one national security problem….and already the successor to Osama
bin Laden as the al-Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist
organization and not the USA” (see attachment A). It should be obvious that Dr. Swamy’s imaginary
hatred of Muslims is not the issue. But Muslims must face the reality of their civilizational war against
Hindus and their aim of creating a Caliphate in Asia with India as its major constituent that is at the root of
the conflict. Towards the concluding portion of his analysis Dr. Swamy has summarized the goals of the
Islamic terrorism in India. He believes that their number 1 goal is to overawe India on Kashmir. To
combat this goal of terrorists Dr. Swamy proposed removal of article 370 of India’s national
constitution and creating Panun Kashmir for the exiled Hindu Pandit community and look for an
opportunity to liberate the portion of Kashmir which was illegally occupied by Pakistan. And
if Pakistan continues to back terrorists, India should assist the Balauchis and Sindhis to get their
independence.
Clearly the central issue raised by Dr. Swamy in his so called objectionable analysis (which became the
reason for cancellation of his courses) is the “abrogation of section 370 of the Indian Constitution so the national constitution and the body of laws built under it became applicable to Jammu & Kashmir State like
other states and union territories of India. That would considerably improve the law and order situation
and afford protection to disenfranchised ethnic minorities. Needless to say that section 370 (which was
supposed to be a temporary section) gives special status to this state and therefore, the Indian
Constitution and the laws framed there under are not applicable in it. Dr. Faust, abusing the current
communally shaped state authority the 20% Sunni Muslims of the Kashmir valley, mostly followers of
Wahabi Islam and Osama Bin Laden, who enjoy a monopoly of political, economic, legislative and
administrative power, have turned this state in to a virtual “Talibanistan” and have imposed “Sharia” as
the law of the state. Thousands upon thousands of non-Muslims have been killed in Muslim induced
ethnic cleansing, genocide, massacres, kidnappings and forcible occupation of their movable and
immovable properties. More than 75,000 Kashmiris have lost their lives in this civilizational crusade
unleashed by radical Islam. In their  quest for wholesale Islamization of the state, more than a million nonMuslims have been driven out of the state courtesy of Wahabi crusaders and their supporters in the
establishment.  These oustees have become homeless refugees in various parts of India and the globe.
Dr. Faust, I am myself a Kashmiri American and the lives of seven members of my family were
prematurely cut short during the avalanche of the Islamic terrorism. It was Dr. Swamy who raised his
voice against this human tragedy but alas the policy makers at Harvard failed to see it.
You must know that Kashmir is progressively assuming the status of
another Kabul, Kandahar, Peshawar and Islamabad as a center of Islamic Jihad. Recognizing the fast
deteriorating conditions on the ground the Obama Administration has also warned the Indian
authorities about the spread and linkage of Indian Taliban with Pakistani Muslim terrorist outfits.
In the US itself a Pakistani agent, G.N.Fai, of Kashmiri origin who has admitted to having accepted
instructions and millions of dollars from the Pakistani spy agency, ISI, for influencing the US policy
towards Kashmir and Pakistan, was recently arrested in Virginia. All these indicators reveal that unless
speedy and preventive measures are taken Kashmir may be developing in to yet another radical Islamist
volcano ready to explode.
By demanding the abrogation of section 370 of the Indian Constitution Dr. Subramanian Swamy has been
trying to reverse the dangerous advance of Wahabi Islam in the Indian sub-Continent and in the process
saving the US from having to deal with one more nasty, bloody and complex development in the world. It
will be foolhardy on any body’s part to ignore the fact that India, despite being known as a Hindu country,
has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the Indian Republic borders Pakistan, the
epicenter of Islamic terrorism with multi-continental reach. How unfortunate and regrettable it is that Dr.
Swamy is being banished because he showed the wisdom, fortitude and guts for doing the right thing by
fighting the Jihadis before it was too late. The UN, US, UK, NATO and the rest of civilized world are
following similar policies towards the Jihadis and the radical Islam. But Harvard seems to be adopting a
negative policy for extracting a price from Dr. Swamy for following their lead.  We must not ignore the fact
that it was these Johnnies ( Pakis and Arab Sunnis ) who plotted and executed the first ever attack on
mainland USA on 9/11 killing more than 3,000 innocent Americans.
Dr. Faust, I hope you understand the basis of our anger, frustration and disappointment
against Harvard University’s decision to exclude Dr. Swami’s courses from your summer offerings. In our
opinion the latest decision of Harvard has provided the greatest boost, encouragement and authentication
to the forces of Islamic Jihad every where particularly in the most volatile Indian sub-continent. By this
thoughtless action, your decision makers have not only violated the University’s covenant of free speech
and academic freedom, the University has clearly appeared to have taken the side of the soldiers of the
civilizational conquest who have taken everything from us and are now threatening the very integrity and
sovereignty of India – the largest democracy of the world.
Honoring the sacrifices of a million non-Muslim humans who were driven in to exile from Kashmir by the
followers of Osama Bin Laden and Wahabi Islam and more than 75,000 Kashmiris whose lives were
consumed by the Islamic terrorism, we request you to kindly re-examine the matter dispassionately and
reinstate the summer courses taught by Dr. Swamy. How shameful and unfortunate it would be if the promoters of Wahabi Islam, radical Jihad, the Bin Laden doctrine and the decision makers of the world
famous Harvard University stood side by side as comrades-in-arms against the free and democratic
world. That is exactly what your University’s decision about cancelling the courses taught by Dr. Swamy
conveys. Let better sense prevail and let the decision making process of your University not be allowed to
be hijacked by some radical individuals acting under foreign influences.
I would appreciate if you kindly inform me of the actions taken in this regard and inform me of your
decision. I can be reached atdrjagankaul@rosenet.net and/or via phone at 541-957-8414.
Sincerely yours
Dr. Jagan Kaul, (Rtd) Prof Int’l Law; Chairman Diversity-USA
Attachment A
Dr. Swamy article in DNA (Indian news media)
APPENDIX
Subramanian Swamy's column in DNA
(DNA has removed this from their website)
Harvard Cosmopolitans Gone Wild
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/12/13/harvard-cosmopolitans-gone-wild/
By Carl L. Bankston III
Harvard economics Professor Subramanian Swamy has become the center of controversy at
the university. Professor Swamy left teaching at Harvard during the regular academic year to
enter politics in his home country, but continued to return to Cambridge to teach summer
courses. Earlier this year, Professor Swamy published in the Indian newspaper Daily News &
Analysis. In reaction to the Mumbai bombing by Muslim terrorists, Professor Swamy advocated
declaring India an officially Hindu country and taking steps to enforce its Hindu identity.
Although Swamy did not identify himself as a Harvard Professor or link his ideas in any way to
that institution, the ever-vigilant and concerned Harvard community soon learned of his
publication of objectionable views. Students and parents petitioned the university to end its
connection with the wayward academic, professing their adherence to the free expression of
ideas, but asserting that Swamy had gone beyond the limits of acceptability. I have often noted
that advocates of censorship in this country generally proclaim loudly their belief in the principle
of free expression and then exclude whatever they don’t like from this principle because it “goes
too far.” The petitioners also raised questions about Swamy’s ability to treat all students equally
(another common strategy by enforcers of conformity), even though there is no evidence at all
of his ever discriminating against non-Hindu students at Harvard.
This past week, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences responded to the controversy by
cancelling Professor Swamy’s two summer courses. Diana L. Eck, the Harvard professor who made the proposal to cancel the classes reiterated the view that the university had to cut its ties
to Swamy because his ideas involved limiting human rights and denying freedom of religion.
The admirable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has asserted Professor
Swamy’s right to advocate radical social change, a right that he shares with Communists or
adherents of other ideas that many might see as “going too far.”
Summer courses are assigned at the pleasure of the university and the university does have the
right to cancel courses it does not want to offer. Nevertheless, Harvard’s faculty body clearly
made a very bad decision here. At the most basic level, an employer is making a decision about
the continuation of an employee on the basis of political activities completely unrelated to the
job, there being no support whatsoever for the claim that Swamy “might” be unfair to some
students. Beyond that, FIRE is correct that the university is a special kind of employer, one that
has a moral obligation to protect and promote intellectual pluralism. In a university, ideas that
someone finds objectionable should be rebutted, not silenced or excluded. But this case actually
goes beyond the open expression of views on campus. Harvard’s Arts & Sciences faculty, in the
U.S. state of Massachusetts, is taking action to officially repudiate an article published in a
newspaper in India about politics in India by an Indian citizen.
Anyone aware of my own paper trail should expect me to uphold the right of individuals in
Massachusetts or anywhere else to hold informed, semi-informed, and utterly uninformed
opinions and judgments about everything under and beyond the stars. While we cannot extend
the protections of the U.S. Constitution to people outside the U.S., as human beings we can
certainly be certainly be concerned about how our fellow human beings treat other humans
everywhere and at all times. But I cannot see why the organization of the faculty at Harvard, as
an institutional entity, should have any business taking positions on what are acceptable or
unacceptable opinions for Indians on political and social questions in India.
The Moral Liberal Sociology Editor, Carl L. Bankston III is Professor of Sociology at Tulane
University in New Orleans, LA.  He is the author and co-author of a number of books and
numerous articles published in academic journals. An incomplete list of his books
includes: Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United
States (with Min Zhou, 1998), Blue Collar Bayou: Louisiana Cajuns in the New Economy of
Ethnicity (with Jacques Henry, 2002), and A Troubled Dream: The Promise and Failure of
School Desegregation in Louisiana (2002), Forced to Fail: The Paradox of School
Desegregation (hardback, 2005; paperback, 2007), and Public Education – America’s Civil
Religion: A Social History (2009) (all with Stephen J. Caldas). View Professor Bankston’s full
bio, here.  He blogs at Can These Bones Live?
Save India From Corruption writes to Dr. Faust
Save Indian Democracy
Save India From Corruption
Web:
http://SaveIndianDemocracy.org
http://SaveIndiaFromCorruption.orgDr. Faust
President
Harvard University
Harvard, MA
Dear Dr. Faust,
It is deeply troubling Harvard chose to drop Dr. Subramanian Swamy courses from summer offerings due
to pressure from few faculty members who might be ideologically opposed to Dr. Swamy.   You had
initially stood for his free speech rights and we are concerned that you have not intervened to address
this.  There is enormous indignation in the community to such action by Harvard.   Please take few
minutes to consider the following:
a) It does not appear that anyone from Harvard approached Dr. Swamy to give his response?  As a
premier institution standing for free speech rights, is this not the basic thing to do?
b) Crimson article (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/) mentions,
“[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying Jewish Americans and African Americans should
not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said
History Professor Sugata Bose.    
Here is what Dr. Swamy wrote in the article (http://www.dnaindia.com/ analysis/analysis_how-to-wipeout-islamic-terror_1566203-all):
India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus.
Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration,
can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected
representatives).
How is, 'accepting the ancestry' be same as 'acknowledge the supremacy'?   How can
someone teaching in Harvard twist the point so poorly.   This cannot but be a deliberate
distortion.  There are several such deliberate distortions not only from viewpoint of Dr.
Swamy article, but also from the view point of protection of free speech by Harvard,
engaged by Diana Eck and others, that is enumerated in separate letters.
c) Let us take how Harvard conducted itself in similar such past incidents.   In March 2002, Dr. Alan
Dershowitz published an article in 'The Jerusalem Post', entitled 'New Response to Palestinian
Terrorism", where he write that in response to terrorism from Palestine, after due notice, Israel should
bulldoze all of the buildings in the village.  In spite of major protests,  Harvard stood by Dr Alan's right to
free speech.   How about the publishing of Danish Cartoons in student newspaper.   Is there anything in
Dr. Swamy's article close to this?   Is it because he is a brown person, he can treated this manner so
unceremoniously?   Is this not a blatant case of racism?  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz ).
Is Harvard anymore a champion of free speech?
Maybe someone can explain Harvard acceptance of 20 million dollar from Saudi prince, who part of the
ruling dynasty without any democracy,  where women has little rights, not even to drive, where there is no
freedom of religion whatsoever and conversion invites apostasy.
Note:  Those who are reacting to Dr. Swamy article has little knowledge of India's history or chose to ignore it and posing themselves as Human Rights activists.   Before any statement be made on Dr.
Swamy article, it is imperative to understand the context of his article.
 India is facing relentless home grown terrorism that just between 2004 to 2008 the number of terror
victims and incidents is next to war torn Iraq
(http://www.slideshare.net/truthaboutsoniagandhi/sonia-and-terrorism ).  Security agencies
have extreme difficulty apprehending the culprits because they are harbored by the Muslim community.
 The tragedy is even after more 3400 deaths, India did not catch a single terrorist!!  This is compounded
by the vote bank politics in India.   Relentless illegal immigration from Bangla Desh into north eastern
state of West Bengal created a mini-pakistan where non-Muslims are leading a daily battle of survival, for
their property, for their live and honor of their women.
According to famous American historian, Will Durant, the period of Islamic Conquest as the 'bloodiest
story in the history of mankind' (http://opposemosqueatgroundzero.wordpress.com/911-sioa-rally/) .
d) Dr. Swamy is close to his two daughters and one of his two daughters is married to an Indian Muslim
and from what we learnt they live in same house.  In Aug 1987 Dr. Swamy undertook a fast unto death
(http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/hashimpura.html) to demand inquiry into
illegal killing of Muslim youth by Police.   It is travesty of justice to call him anti-Muslim and shows the
ignorance and bigotry of those in Harvard who supported this action.
e) Has those who took this decision look at the context of this article?   'Article 370 abrogation, restoration
of temples that were demolished during Islamic rule' are being debated for many decades in India from all
sides.  Dr. Swamy has every right to express his views as Indian citizen.
f) What Dr. Swamy wrote about is about events in India and his views are published in India.   It is not
about economy.   How can this be of concern to Harvard?   Let us say, if tomorrow a Harvard scholar
expresses some views on any topic, would it be appropriate to persecute that person in India.
g) Dr. Swamy is the unparalleled champion of India today fighting the corruption against enormous
odds risking both his and his family's lives.  Freeing India from corruption is paramount to even US
interests.  For e.g. a recent multi-billion dollar defence deal that is mired in controversy is estimated to
cause loss of 22,000 high tech jobs in US.   US laws does not allow for paying bribes and US is believed
to lost the contract because of these restrictions.  It is so shameful that Harvard chose to take such unfair
action at such a time hurting interests of both nations.
h) Many times it has become a habit of some left minded faculty members labeling those who express
their protest as fanatics and fundamentalists.   This will do no good just as it would if Harvard is
categorized as bigoted and racist.  We need to view this together dispassionately.  
As mentioned, there is indignation and deeply hurt feelings pertaining to this action of Harvard.   It does
not help if administration is not involved in this action, because if mistakes are committed anywhere,
administration has responsibility to repair.   We have to ensure this does not happen again.  We sincerely
hope you will take corrective actions immediately.
Several members of community from various organizations would like to meet you in person.  Please
respond to SaveIndiaFromCorruption.org@gmail.com or call 732 939 2060.  
 Thanking you.
Sincerely yours,
Satya Dosapati
For Save India From Corruption,  Save Indian Democracyhttp://SaveIndiaFromCorruption.org,  http://SaveIndianDemocracy.org

Harvard Faculty 1, Free Speech 0
 By Charlotte Allen
From Minding the Campus, Reforming Our Universities

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/12/Harvard_Faculty_1_Free_Speech
_0.html

The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has done it again. This is the group that
effectively drove former Harvard president Lawrence Summers out of office over a 2005 remark
of his about possible differences between the sexes that didn't sit well with hard-line feminists
on the Harvard faculty. The FAS voted its "lack of confidence" in Summers's leadership, and he
tendered his resignation in 2006. Last week the FAS maneuvered another forced departure on
political grounds. It voted to eliminate two Harvard Summer School courses taught by
Subramanian Swamy, a former economics professor at Harvard who now lives in India but who
has regularly traveled to Cambridge to teach in the university's summer school.
The reason? An anti-Muslim op-ed article that Swamy wrote for an Indian newspaper three days
after the July 13 bombings by Muslim terrorists that killed at least 21 people in Mumbai. Harvard
has a set of guidelines, adopted by the FAS in 1990, that are supposed to protect the freedom
of speech of the university's students and faculty members. But the FAS decided that Swamy's
op-ed, which included a call to get rid of more than 300 Indian mosques, "crosses the line by
demonizing an entire religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places,"
in the words of Harvard Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck, who proposed the
amendment excluding Swamy's courses at the Dec. 6 FAS meeting.
Under Harvard's governance system a faculty vote on curriculum offerings is final and does not
require the approval of Harvard's administration. Eck's amendment, carving out an exception to
an otherwise routine approval of the summer school curriculum, and passed by a reportedly
overwhelming faculty vote (FAS meetings are closed to the public), neatly bypasses Harvard
President Drew Gilpin Faust and other top Harvard officials who have stood by Swamy up until
now. In September a petition spearheaded by Eck and bearing at least 457 signatures, 68 of
them from Harvard undergraduates, called on Harvard to "repudiate Swamy's remarks and
terminate his association with the University." The university issued a statement declaring that it
is "central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and
of those who disagree with him." The statement continued: "We are ultimately stronger as a
university when we maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the robust
exchange of ideas." Harvard's economics professors voiced no objection to Swamy's continued
presence on the faculty of the summer school, where the two courses he was to teach covered
elementary economics and the economics of the Indian subcontinent. No students had
complained about political bias in Swamy's classrooms.
An Op-Ed That Would Not Allow All Hindus to Convert Nonetheless, even the most committed free-speech advocates would likely find Swamy's op-ed,
published in India's Daily News and Analysis, disturbing to say the least. It is a call for India to
rename itself "Hindustan." In Swamy's blueprint not only would hundreds of mosques be closed,
but non-Hindus would be stripped of their voting rights unless they acknowledged "that their
ancestors were Hindus," as Swamy wrote. Those who refused, as well as "those foreigners who
become Indian citizens," could remain in India, but without the right either to vote or to hold
elective office. Swamy's op-ed also argued that India "[e]nact a national law prohibiting
conversion from Hinduism to any other religion," and that non-Hindus who "re-convert" to
Hinduism be required to belong to a Hindu caste.
Swamy's outrage at Islamic terrorists was understandable. The July 13 bombings had been
preceded by another series of Muslim-linked bombings in Mumbai in 2008 that had left 173
people dead. Muslims had conquered and ruled large sections of India beginning in the twelfth
century, and from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century the Muslim Mughul empire covered
most of the subcontinent. The 300 mosques that Swamy slated for destruction in his op-ed were
apparently built on the sites of Hindu temples destroyed by Muslims during their long reign over
India. Although the overwhelming majority of today's Indians practice Hinduism, Muslims have
made significant demographic inroads during recent decades, at Hinduism's expense. In 1961
about 83 percent of India's population was Hindu, compared with 80 percent right now. Islam's
share of India's population has grown from 11 percent to more than 13 percent during the same
period, thanks to high birthrates and illegal immigration from neighboring Bangladesh. India
shares a border with Pakistan, refuge of the slain Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Although
technically a U.S. ally, Pakistan is currently in peace negotiations with the terrorist Taliban. With
militancy on the rise among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, it is not surprising that India's Hindus
fear becoming the targets of escalating violence in the future. In his op-ed Swami wrote: "Islamic
terrorism is India's number one problem of national security."
Still, the "Hindustan" that Swamy envisioned in his op-ed is essentially a Hindu mirror image of
the Muslim Brotherhood's blueprint to replace secular-democratic societies in Muslim countries
with an all-Islamic societies to be governed by the Koran and sharia law. Radical Hindu
nationalism is now a major force in Indian political life. A Hindu-nationalist political party,
Bharatiya Janata, has swiftly grown to become the second-largest in India. (Swamy is president
of a different party, Janata, from which Bharatiya Janata split off in 1981). Some Indian states
already forbid conversions from Hinduism. Hindu-nationalist mobs have bashed mosques and
killed hundreds of Muslims. They have also targeted India's 24 million Christians, since Hindu
nationalists regard Christianity as a foreign colonialist import--even though some of India's
Christian communities date back to Christianity's earliest centuries. There have been murders of
Christian missionaries, burnings of churches and Christian-owned stores, and waves of antiChristian violence in 2007 and 2008 that included an attack on Mother Teresa's religious order,
the Missionaries of Charity. India's 17 million Sikhs have also been sporadic targets of Hindunationalist bloodletting.
Despite Swamy's strong support for the Hindu-nationalist agenda, his July 16 op-ed did not
endorse attacks against non-Hindus or their places of worship, Diana Eck's reference to inciting
"violence" at the Harvard FAS meeting notwithstanding. Nor did Swamy call for future violence
against Muslims by India's Hindus. His op-ed was instead a call for radical political changes in
India to be brought about by democratic processes, in which mosque removal would be carried
out by the government. Those contemplated political changes might be controversial (as they
were, even in India) and repugnant to those who believe in religious freedom, but Swamy had
as much right to make them as the communists who have joined forces with the Occupy movement in America to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. One might hope that
India never turns into "Hindustan," while refraining from penalizing a Harvard professor for
hoping that it will, in a newspaper opinion piece published thousands of miles away from his
Cambridge classroom in the aftermath of a series of fatal bombings.
No Censorship of Obnoxious Views
It was for this reason that Faust and other top Harvard administrators apparently supported
Swamy's right to continue teaching at Harvard after the initial effort in July to have him removed.
They might have been spurred to steadfastness by a July 27 letter to Faust from Adam Kissel, a
1994 Harvard graduate and vice president of programs at the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education (FIRE). Harvard FAS had written, "We assume that the long-term benefits to our
community will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious views.
Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational processes, we do not permit
censorship of noxious views."
But that was the Harvard administration, and Harvard's FAS seems to have a way, as it did with
Lawrence Summers's presidency in 2005, of having the last word. There was, as might be
expected, an element of selectivity in the FAS's righteous indignation. Diana Eck's remarks
focused entirely on the "demonization" of India's Muslims, while pointedly ignoring the
consequences for India's Christians under Swamy's blueprint--even though Swamy's op-ed had
included a disparaging reference to India's Christian president, Sonia Gandhi, as "semi-literate."
Muslims are a fashionable victim group in today's academia, while Christians are not. Contrast
the FAS's harsh treatment of Swamy to the reluctance of faculty and administrators at the
University of Colorado-Boulder to take any action against former ethnic studies professor Ward
Churchill for blaming the U.S. for the 9/11 Muslim terrorist massacre, and for calling the
thousands of 9/11 victims who worked at the World Trade Center towers "little Eichmanns."
Churchill was fired from the university in 2006--but for scholarly plagiarism (he subsequently
sued the university, and his appeal is pending before the Colorado Supreme Court).
Regarding the Swamy matter, it is tempting to say, "A plague on both your houses," and focus
sympathy on a more appealing victim of an ideological witch hunt. But one must remember that
Swamy was effectively fired from Harvard because some people didn't like something he said
outside his classroom--and that ought to chill the bones of anyone who regards freedom of
expression as an important academic value.
One quote of Charlotte Allen's article was misattributed:  "Kissel had written, 'We assume that
the long-term benefits to our community will outweigh the short-term unpleasant effects of
sometimes-noxious views. Because we are a community united by a commitment to rational
processes, we do not permit censorship of noxious views.'" Those were the words of the
Harvard FAS, not Adam Kissel." The mistake has been corrected. --Ed

Misrepresentation by Harvard Faculty Members Diana Eck and Saugata Bose to
Harvard Administration  Please find below detailed misrepresentations made by Dr. Diana Eck and Dr. Sugata
Bose on Dr. Swamy article to Harvard administration.   There is also concern of India
corrupt Indian political administration against which Dr. Swamy is fighting with
enormous risk to his life and that of his family,  could have influence on Harvard in this
matter.  Who is the loser?  Harvard or Dr. Swamy?
Diana Eck wrote to Dr. Faust  (per article below):
"Freedom of expression is an essential principle in an academic community, one that we fully support.
Notwithstanding our commitment to the robust exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the
line into incitement by demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their
disenfranchisement, and calling for violence against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s National
Commission for Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy, whose incendiary speech carries
the threat of communal violence. When Harvard extends appointments to public figures, it behooves us to
consider whether the reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case, Swamy's wellknown reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly advocates violence against religious
minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism and civic equality."
Item 1:
What Diana Eck is saying:
 
Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into incitement by demonizing an entire religious community,
What Dr. Swamy said:
We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist.The Muslims of India can
join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge
with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus.
Misrepresentation
If Dr. Swamy is demonizing the entire community, why would the article say that Muslims of India
can join Hindus in fight against Islamic terrorist.  Did Diana care to read the article carefully before
making such blanket allegations?
Item 2:
What Diana Eck is saying:
...   demanding their (Muslims) disenfranchisement,
What Dr. Swamy said:
If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of
the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan
is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this,
or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives).
Misrepresentation:
Dr. Swamy is saying those who do not accept their ancestry of Hindus, they should be disenfranchised.  
Ancestors of all Muslims in India are Hindus and unless they want to associate with Wahabbi intolerant
version of Islam, they should not have problem with this.  In fact, Muslim leaders in India are now crying
loudly to their community for not to be influenced by Wahabbi versions which is causing their young to
take up to terrorism.   Please read this
articlehttp://twocircles.net/2011oct16/deoband_wahabi_ideology_encouraging_islamic_extremism_india_
sufi_groups.html.  
NOTE: Sadly, people like Diana living in comfort of Harvard and America should live in certain parts of
India,  more so as minorities in Islamic countries.   They have no clue what it is that non Muslims face
where Muslims are majority.   In 1989, overnight 350,000 Hindus were driven away at threat of murder
and rape calling loudly over the Mosques throughout the state from the only majority Muslim state of
India, Kashmir and 20+ years later they are living in make shift camps as refugees in their own nation,
sometimes several families in a single room.   (Read the heart breaking account in Hindu American
Foundation report endorsed by leading congressmen and
senatorshttp://www.hafsite.org/sites/default/files/HHR2010.pdf ).   Between 2004 to 2008, just 4 years,
3400 were killed and not a single terrorist was caught because they are harbored by Muslim community.  
Does Diana know that Pakistan had 25 % of Hindus in 1947 and today less than 1% and there is an
ongoing genocide in Bangla Desh where 30% was reduced to less than 10% since 1947.   Even a 8 year
old girl has to live under threat of a rape.  Does she know that in the name of Love Jihad in Indian state
Kerala,  many thousands of Hindu and Christian girls are encouraged by Mosques with amenities like
cash and car  to allure and marry as many as possible, impregnate them and even use them as terror
bombs in areas like Pakistan?  Read it here http://opposemosqueatgroundzero.wordpress.com/911-sioarally/.   The tragedy of last few years where not a single terrorist was caught and 3400 Indians
(overwhelmingly Hindus) were killed (and many thousands were maimed and living life of a vegetable) is
here http://www.slideshare.net/truthaboutsoniagandhi/sonia-and-terrorism .  
ITEM 3:
What Diana Eck is saying:
...  calling for violence against their places of worship.
What Dr. Swamy said:
Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites.
Misrepresentation:
This is total lie and I question Diana's scholarship and intentions. Masjid is place of
prayers and NOT a place of worship.   Even Saudi Arabia says a Masjid can be
removed if necessary.   These Masjids were build right across the temple wall, at
times right inside the temple grounds to force the Hindus to convert during brutal 800
year Islamic rule.  During Islamic rule of India, 80 million Hindus perished and literally, I
mean literally hundreds of thousands of temples were simply demolished and Mosques build on them or the material is used as foot steps for Mosques build to insult
Hinduism.   Diana should do some reading of  famous American historian Will Durant
who called the Islamic conquest of India is the 'bloodiest story of mankind'.     This is
utterly insane for someone being a Harvard professor indulging in such
misrepresentation.
ITEM 4:
What Diana Eck is saying:
..... whose incendiary speech carries the threat of communal violence...... who publicly
advocates violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment
to pluralism and civic equality."
What Dr. Swamy said:
His speech is given at http://www.dnaindia.com/ analysis/analysis_how-to-wipe- outislamic-terror_1566203-all (also given below).  Diana should point out what are
incendiary (in addition to above three points)
Misrepresentation:
Not a single disturbance was seen in India due to his article.  If there is any
disturbance and raking up the issue, it is not India or Indian Muslims, it is so
called Human Rights activists of Harvard.   Dr. Swamy's own daughter is married
to a Muslim to whom he is very close to and even believed to live in same house.
In 1985, he undertook fast unto death for demanding inquiry into illegal killing of
Muslim youth by Police (http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Humanrights/2006/hashimpura.html).   This kind of statements are not just hollow, but an
attempt to outright lies and misrepresentation.
ITEM 5:
What Diana Eck is saying:
...  it behooves us to consider whether the reputation of the university benefits from the
association(of Dr. Swamy).
How did Harvard conduct itself in similar such past incidents?
Let us see how Harvard conducted itself in the past.  In March 2002, Dr. Alan
Dershowitz published an article in 'The Jerusalem Post', entitled 'New Response to Palestinian
Terrorism", where he write that in response to terrorism from Palestine, after due notice, Israel should
bulldoze all of the buildings in the village.  In spite of major protests,  Harvard stood by Dr Alan's right to
free speech.   How about Danish cartoon reprinted in Harvard student newspaper.   Is there anything in
Dr. Swamy's article close to this?    Is it possible because he is a brown person, he can treated this manner so unceremoniously?  Or is it
possible the donation from Saud Arabia or even pressure from corrupt Indian administration that Dr.
Swamy is fighting against at great risk to his life and that of his family.   Is there a blatant case of racism?
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz ).   Did Diana Eck speak against Alan Dershowitz,
Danish cartoons (even if she was not in Harvard at that time)?
What Sugata Bose said per Harvard Crimson:
What Bose is saying:
“[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying Jewish Americans and African
Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of
white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said History Professor Sugata Bose.
What Dr. Swamy said:
India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors
were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become
Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights
(which means they cannot be elected representatives).
Misrepresentation:
How is, 'accepting the ancestry' be same as 'acknowledge the supremacy'?   Sadly this
speaks poorly of an Harvard professor.
What Ali Asnani said per Harvard Magazine
What Ali Asnani is saying:
Ali Asani—professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic religion and cultures; chair of Near
Eastern languages and civilizations; and director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
Islamic Studies Program—asked whether anyone had queried Muslim students about
their comfort level with a teacher who had, in print, expressed Islamophobic views. His
question went unanswered.
(In a subsequent conversation, Asani said, “If students know a professor is
Islamophobic, how are you going to guarantee that the person’s prejudices are not
going to be reflected in grading and evaluating student work?”—a problem that has
been studied in other contexts, he noted. Swamy’s views do matter, Asani maintained:
“He’s in a classroom before students with a lot of backgrounds, some of them perhaps
Muslim.” What safeguards are there? he asked. If this question about student
perceptions and comfort had not been pursued, he said, it was important for the faculty
to know that: such teachers’ views are not separate from the classroom context.) Ali Asnani, need to explain:
 Ali Asnani is funded by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Suadi Arabia, a prince of a
kingdom that practices absolute intolerance of religions where one not just cannot build
places of worship of other religions, but cannot even engage in worship, sometimes
even in private places,  where women has no rights, even to drive.   Billions of dollars
are pumped from Saudi Arabia funding the terrorism worldwide and Saudi practices the
most intolerant of Islam.  On what basis Ali Asnani is making such statements. If Dr.
Swamy article will be an issue in teaching, then what about his position being funded by
such Saudi establishment?   How would that make his students feel about his courses?
 Then let us take the case of Diana Eck, who is believed to be a lesbian.  There may be
some students who are not comfortable with it.  Would that be a criteria.
Did Indian Government exert pressure on Dr. Swamy to undermine his fight
against enormous corruption in India at a great risk to himself and his family?
There are also many rumors that the corrupt administration of India against which Dr.
Swamy is relentlessly fighting at the risk to his life and that of his family, has exerted
pressure on Harvard for two reasons.  
1) To undermine Dr. Swamy efforts against rampant political corruption in India that
according to well known intellectual Brahma Challaney, threatening the very existence
of India as a nation.  Dr. Swamy is making enormous progress and the whole country is
with him on this war.
2) To use this incident as an occasion to get minority votes. (The same vote bank
politics Government used not to apprehend a single terrorist in 4 years even after 3400+
terror related deaths).
View the heart breaking story of India corruption below where 80% of India earn
less than 2$ a day due to massive political corruption, which Dr. Swamy is the
leading champion of India today. (This had 160,000 hits across different
versions).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giAqjxvyRLw
(Slides for the
presentation:  http://www.slideshare.net/whattrulyhappened/corruptioninindia2010andbefore)
What should Harvard (Dr. Faust) do?
Dr. Faust need to look closely at the misrepresentations, study the whole matter dispassionately and decide the further action.   Saying that the decision was taken at
the Department level does not help in a matter of such significance. Dr. Faust also need
to look at other activities of those like Dr. Witzel whose representation of Hindus and
Hinduism in many occasions showing at best lack of scholarship and at worst outright
bigotry.    
Who is undermined by this action?  Harvard or Dr. Swamy?
Dr. Swamy is highly respected individual in India today fighting the relentless war on
rampant corruption.   He is considered a hero of India.  By undermining Dr. Swamy,
Harvard undermined itself.  
We leave it to Dr. Faust to take time to study the material and take the right decision.
==========================================
The Iconoclast
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Does Free Speech Exist at Harvard? The Case of Economist Subramanian
Swamy  by Jerry Gordon from New English Review
Indian Economist Subramanian Swany
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449
With thanks to Judy B.
I received this article from a friend in Connecticut that appeared in today’s edition of Inside
Higher Education it confirmed that some of the faculty and students at Harvard University in
Cambridge, Massachusetts are self appointed monitors supporting the OIC agenda of punishing
blasphemy.  That translates to any criticism of Islam is grounds for dismissal.

The Inside High Education article, “Over the Line: Harvard kills courses by controversial
summer school instructor” is indicative of how dhimmified the groves of academia at elite
American universities can be when the subject of Islam comes up.  In Prof. Subramanian
Swamy’s case it is because he has nationalistic views on how to deal with Muslims in his native
India.   The Harvard Faculty, while professing support for freedom of speech, doesn’t think it
applies in the Swamy case, because he is “destructively” attacking another of India’s great
faiths, Islam.  This despite the fact that the Economics faculty at Harvard thought him eminently
qualified to teach his courses. It was left to the Harvard faculty Indian religious expert to press
for a faculty vote to cancel Swamy’s summer school courses. Note these aspects of the controversy as reported in theInside Higher
Education article:
In an unusual move, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted this week to
eliminate two summer school courses in economics because of anti-Muslim statements
the instructor made in an op-ed published in India.
When word about the op-ed spread in July, some Harvard students demanded that
Subramanian Swamy be fired. At the time, Harvard pledged to look into the situation, but
noted that it is "central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including
that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with him." But faculty members this week
cited the nature of his statements as justifying the move to kill his courses rather than
permit him to return to Cambridge.

The op-ed ran in Daily News & Analysis (and while that newspaper no longer has the
piece online, it can be readhere). The piece, a response to a bombing by Muslim
terrorists in Mumbai, said that India could wipe out terrorism by taking certain steps,
such as declaring India a Hindu state where "non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly
acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus," or demolishing mosques, or banning
conversion from Hinduism to any other faith. Swamy was once an economics professor
at Harvard, but he returned to his home in India, where is an outspoken nationalistic
politician. But he has come back to Harvard each year to teach in the summer school.
        [. . .]
An account of the meeting in Harvard Magazine said that the economics department
chair, John Y. Campbell, told the faculty that his economics colleagues considered
Swamy to be "competent" to teach the courses, and that none of the students who took
his courses last summer had complained about him. The only student who mentioned
the op-ed in a class evaluation rated the course favorably. The department had
"expressed its view that it would not take a collective position on academic freedom or
on matters of speech, hate speech, or Harvard’s reputation -- issues on which there were
a wide range of views, in this case, within the department," Campbell was quoted as
saying.

The proposal that eventually carried -- to decline to authorize Swamy's courses -- was
made by Diana L. Eck, a scholar of India's religions. According to the Harvard
Magazine account, she stressed that this was much more than an issue of a professor
having some controversial views. She called Swamy's views "destructive" and said that
his ideas involved limiting the human rights of others and denying freedom of religion. In
light of the nature of his comments, she also wondered why his courses hadn't been
"quietly dropped," rather than included in the proposed offerings for the coming
summer.  
She also quoted from a letter she and other Harvard faculty members sent to President
Drew Faust last summer. The letter said in part: "Freedom of expression is an essential
principle in an academic community, one that we fully support. Notwithstanding our
commitment to the robust exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into
incitement by demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their
disenfranchisement, and calling for violence against their places of worship. Indeed,
India’s National Commission for Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy,
whose incendiary speech carries the threat of communal violence. When Harvard
extends appointments to public figures, it behooves us to consider whether the
reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case, Swamy's wellknown reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly advocates violence
against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism and
civic equality."

At least one American group, Philadelphia-based Freedom for Individual Rights in
Education (FIRE) has risen to Prof. Swamy’s defense.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has spoken out against Harvard's
taking any action against Swamy on the basis of his op-ed. The organization's blog noted
that Swamy's op-ed calls for radical social change in India, but FIRE noted that American
principles of free expression extend to calls for radical social change. As an example, it
cited the legal right for people to call for the United States to become a communist
country.
"We tolerate the widest possible range of political, social, cultural, and religious views
because, for one thing, we trust in the marketplace of ideas to eventually sort it all out,"
the blog post said.

Unfortunately at Harvard, that marketplace of ideas has been censored by philo Islamic
dhimmis like Professor Eck. In effect, she and others like her are violating traditional
faculty department control over curricula and appointment of scholars to teach based on
their credentials and evaluations.
Sic ignominy dhimmitude in American academia.
 Tags: Subramanian Swamy, Indian economist, Hindu nationalist, Harvard
University Faculty, criticism of Islam,Inside Higher education, Harvard
Magazine, Economics department versus Indian religious scholars, Freedom
for Individual Rights in Education, BlasphemySubmit Your Comment
Posted on 12/08/2011 8:04 AM by Jerry Gordon
Richard Benkin,  Independent Human Rights Activist writes to Dr. Faust
December 10, 2011

Dr. Drew G. Faust
Office of the President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
http://www.interfaithstrength.blogspot.com/
 
RE: TERMINATION OF DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
 
Dear Dr. Faust,
As a human rights activist who spends are great deal of time in South Asia, a friend,
colleague, and admirer of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and someone who actually has read
the article that led to his termination by a committee of faculty of Arts and Sciences; I
vigorously protest, one, that culturally-biased decision and, two, the university’s failure
to enforce its own standards of free speech and academic freedom by not overturning or
otherwise neutralizing it.  There are numerous methods by which this can be done, but
the university has chosen to let stand the committee’s culturally biased and agendadriven decision.
 
Dr. Swamy’s relationship with Harvard goes back to his student days; his faculty
relationship since 1964.  Over that period, he has established a clear track record of
academic excellence and intellectual acumen that the University has acknowledged with
ongoing appointments that dwarf those of faculty who overturned them.  Yet, the
university has acquiesced in throwing that record of excellence aside and deprived
Harvard students of a non-Western perspective.
 
At least two of Harvard’s faculty have published and stood by “unwelcome political
views,” to use the words of Dr. Diana Eck who instigated this great leap backward.  Dr.
Stephen Walt famously co-authored an anti-Jewish slander, The Israel Lobby that still
commands the attention of bigots despite vast evidence exposing its flaws and
underlying bias.  Professor Michael Witzer was widely accused of hate-speech toward
Hindus through his academic writings and statements in connection with his opposition
to attempts to remove anti-Hindu references in California schoolbooks.  Their ideologydriven and ongoing efforts to denigrate specific ethnic groups and their representatives, including the Hindu American Foundation, have never been sanction by Harvard faculty.
This is the sort of inconsistency contributes to a growing perception in the United States
and elsewhere that many academics and through them academic institutions prefer
ideology over fact, agenda above principle.  And in fact that is what it appears to be.
 
I strongly urge Harvard to redeem its reputation by instating Dr. Swamy and sanctioning
the faculty committee for its actions that fly in the fact of principles of academic freedom.
Dr. Richard L. Benkin
President, Forcefield
Independent Human Rights Activist
Harvard, please explain?  By Sekhar Vemula
nteresting?  Dr. Swamy wrote an article that according to Harvard professor Diana
Eck emphasized the “destructive” nature of the positions Swamy advocated in India, and
characterized the proposals as going well beyond free speech to the advocacy of abrogating
human rights, curtailing civil rights, and intruding on freedom of religion.     I read the article too,
but if I found objectionable, it is his position that Muslims should be disenfranchised if they do
not acknowledge their Hindu ancestry.   Excuse me, I find it so laughable all the esoteric
debates of protection of free speech, human rights, protection of religion,  civil rights engaged in
the cozy halls of Harvard rooms by faculty living in their little world with little or zero knowledge
of the happenings across the world.  Nay, ignorance of what is occurring in their own backyard.  
Human rights, women rights,  religious diversity and let us not forget democracy, all this are
mouthful words.   Let us see.   Harvard happily accepted a donation of 20 million dollars from
Saudi prince S Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz in 2005  to establish a center for Islamic
Studies.      Saudi prince is part of the Saudi ruling establishment that enacted laws that give no
rights to women,  even to drive, sadly even if raped they need four male witnesses,  where a 5
year old girl is allowed by law to be given in marriage to a 50 year old for settling financial
disputes,   where every little Saudi child is being taught,  'Jews and Christians are pigs'  and
contributed 15 out of 17 well educated Saudi's who perpetrated 9/11 attack on US due to such
education, a country which allowed hundreds of girls die in fire because the girls are not wearing
a hijab, .   "Protection of religion",  Saudi rules which Saudi prince is part of would just not allow
any build places of worship of other religions, a Church, a Synagogue, a temple but have curbs
on even worshiping at your home.    I guess the color of the green wipes out all the so called
high sounding principles.  
Now what is 'Islamic Studies' I imagine.   Well there it is, Shariah Law.  Wait, does not US have
its owns laws for which many thousands have given and continue to give their lives to protect
what is enumerated by our forefathers and has withstood the test of time for last more than 200
years.   Has this 'Harvard Sages' looked at what Shariah Laws are?   Death Penalty to Gays
and Lesbians (Diana, be aware, under Shariah law you will get death sentence),  women to be
stoned,  death sentence for apostasy,  Jizya tax on non Muslims, women genital mutilation,
cutting of hands and limbs for even small robbery, no music, no art, and it goes on and on.     I
see it now,  one hundred years from now, Harvard, the all male institution of Islam creating
students who will go out to the wide world to create a Dar Ul Harab, if  it had  not been already,
creating a world of peace and tolerance where there is only Islam.    Talking about free speech versus hate speech?  As FIRE indicated, is there something to
distinguish free speech versus hate speech and who would make such a distinction. Diana?  All
these people, while they  sit and ruminate the high sounded ideals, worrying about violence in
India due to Dr. Swamy article and shooting down Dr. Swamy courses, there was not a single
ripple in India for something written widely in India.  Mind you every small thing that happened
across the world would create an uproar, burning of buses, stoning Government buildings etc
etc but this did not cause a single ripple.   If there is anyone talking about this is Harvard, the
great institution that protects the human rights of all people of all religions.   Sadly, little did this
'Harvard sages' protecting 'human rights' know about Swamy's own personal life (who has a
Muslim son-in-law) or his political life (when he fast unto death for justice to Muslims).   Little do
they know India and its history or even the current developments.
Alan Dershowitz is free speech,  Danish Cartoons is free speech,  Saudi prince money is
acceptable, but Dr. Swamy is hate speech that he does not even deserve a chance to explain
his position.  Harvard, enough is enough, do not embarrass yourself.   You will have more
respectability if you at least acknowledge your shortcomings and move on.   If Dr. Swamy
decides to sue, not only you lose 20 million Saudi gave, but more importantly your respect.
Sekhar Vemula
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Save India From
Corruption <contact@saveindiafromcorruption.org> wrote:
APPENDIX
Subramanian Swamy's column in DNA
(DNA has removed this from their website)
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------
-------------
http://www.dnaindia.com/ analysis/analysis_how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror_1566203-all
Analysis: How to wipe out Islamic terror
Published: Saturday, Jul 16, 2011, 8:00 IST | Updated: Sunday, Jul 17, 2011, 18:23
IST
By Subramanian Swamy | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires decisive soul-searching by the Hindus
of India. Hindus cannot accept to be killed in this halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day
till the nation finally collapses. Terrorism I define here as the illegal use of force to overawe the
civilian population to make it do or not do an act against its will and well-being.Islamic terrorism
is India’s number one problem of national security. About this there will be no doubt after 2012.
By that year, I expect a Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee Afghanistan. Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to “complete unfinished business”. Already the successor to
Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for that
terrorist organisation and not the USA.
Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India “an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”.
All other countries conquered by Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the
Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic
rule. That is jarring for the fanatics.
In one sense, I do not blame the Muslim fanatics for targeting Hindus. I blame Hindus who have
taken their individuality permitted in Sanatan Dharma to the extreme. Millions of Hindus can
assemble without state patronage for the Kumbh Mela, completely self-organised, but they all
leave for home oblivious of the targeting of Hindus in Kashmir, Mau, Melvisharam and
Malappuram and do not lift their little finger to help organise Hindus. If half the Hindus voted
together, rising above caste and language, a genuine Hindu party would have a two-thirds
majority in Parliament and the assemblies.
The first lesson to be learnt from the recent history of Islamic terrorism against India and for
tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being
programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against
Hindus. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create the fear of civil war that terror attacks
are organised.
Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated
or, worse, be complacent because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies merely
because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is an essential mental
attitude, a necessary part of a virat (committed) Hindu.
We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. The Muslims of
India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they
acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus. If any
Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part
of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is
Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse
to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain
in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives).
Any policy to combat terrorism must begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming a virat
Hindu. For this, one must have a Hindu mindset that recognises that there is vyaktigat charitra
(personal character) and rashtriya charitra (national character). For example, Manmohan Singh
has high personal character, but by being a rubber stamp of a semi-literate Sonia Gandhi and
waffling on all national issues, he has proved that he has no rashtriya charitra.
The second lesson for combating terrorism is that we must never capitulate or concede any
demand, as we did in 1989 (freeing five terrorists in exchange for Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s
daughter Rubaiya) and in 1999, freeing three terrorists after the hijack of Indian Airlines flight IC-
814. The third lesson is that whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must
retaliate massively. For example, when the Ayodhya temple was sought to be attacked, we
should have retaliated by re-building the Ram temple at the site.
According to bleeding heart liberals, terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty,
oppression, and discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of
these four disabilities in society should be removed. This is rubbish. Osama bin laden was a
billionaire. In the failed Times Square episode, failed terrorist Shahzad was from a highly placed
family in Pakistan and had an MBA from a reputed US university.
It is also a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational and
willing to die. Terrorist masterminds have political goals and a method in their madness. An
effective strategy to deter terrorism is to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by
counter-terrorist action.Thus, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of
Islamic terrorism in India.
Goal 1: Overawe India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370 and resettle ex-servicemen in the valley. Create Panun Kashmir
for the Hindu Pandit community. Look for or create an opportunity to take over PoK. If Pakistan
continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to get their independence.
Goal 2: Blast temples, kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple
sites.
Goal 3: Turn India into Darul Islam.
Strategy: Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande
Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if
they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename India Hindustan as a
nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.
Goal 4: Change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt
family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Reconversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline.
Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code
of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country
staying in India. At present, the northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle
illegal migrants.
Goal 5: Denigrate Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and
churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for capitulation.
Strategy: Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset.
India can solve its terrorist problem within five years by such a deterrent strategy, but for that we
have to learn the four lessons outlined above, and have a Hindu mindset to take bold, risky, and
hard decisions to defend the nation. If the Jews could be transformed from lambs walking
meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years, it should not be difficult for Hindus in
much better circumstances (after all we are 83% of India), to do so in five years. Guru Gobind Singh showed us how just five fearless persons under spiritual guidance can
transform a society. Even if half the Hindu voters are persuaded to collectively vote as Hindus,
and for a party sincerely committed to a Hindu agenda, then we can forge an instrument for
change. And that is the bottom line in the strategy to deter terrorism in a democratic Hindustan
at this moment of truth.
The writer is president of the Janata Party, a former Union minister, and a professor of
economics.
Harvard Org,  “Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard’  Demand that Harvard end its association
with religious extremist Subramanian Swamy.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~slam/petitions/swamy.php
We the undersigned members of the Harvard community are outraged to learn that
Subramanian Swamy, an Indian politician whose recent editorial shows him to be a bigoted
promoter of communalism in India, also teaches economics at Harvard University Summer
School. We demand that the Harvard administration repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate
his association with the University.
Swamy proposes a truly shocking set of "strategies" for "deter[ring] terrorism" in an op-ed
appearing in the July 16th edition of the Daily News & Analysis, an Indian newspaper. These
include "declar[ing] India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly
acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus"; "[r]emov[ing] the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath
temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites"; "[e]nact[ing] a national law prohibiting
conversion from Hinduism to any other religion"; and "[p]ropagat[ing] the development of a
Hindu mindset."
Writing in the wake of the July 13, 2011, bombings in Mumbai, Swamy has exploited this event
not only to promote a vision of Indian society based on Hindu supremacy, but to disparage and
cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community in India. "Muslims of India," he states, "are being
programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against
Hindus."
While free expression and the vigorous contest of ideas are essential in any academic
community, so, too, are respect and tolerance for human difference. By advocating measures
that would grossly violate freedom of religion and the unqualified right to vote for different
religious groups, and by aggressively vilifying an entire religious community, Swamy breaches
the most basic standards of respect and tolerance.
More specifically, Swamy's comments cast doubt on his ability to treat a diverse community of
students with fairness and respect. The highly insulting and stereotypical nature of his
comments suggest that he cannot be trusted to regard Muslims -- and no doubt other groups--
with anything but a jaundiced eye.
Swamy's views are deeply offensive; they are also dangerous. The measures he proposes--far
out of step with the everyday secularism and tolerance embodied by most Indians--would
threaten to tear apart the basic fabric of India's pluralist democracy. And, as Indians know too
well, the brand of rhetoric that he employs has fueled violence against religious minorities in the
past. In short, we the undersigned condemn Subramanian Swamy and the views that he has
expressed in the strongest terms. Someone who voices such ideas while continuing to teach at
Harvard seriously compromises the University's integrity, undermining its commitment to
diversity and tolerance.
Subramanian Swamy can have no place in the Harvard community.
Harvard’s ‘Coalition against Bigotry’ Statements on Dr. Swamy Op-Ed, Dec 7, 2011 and
Aug 5, 2011
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~slam/cabh/index.html
December 7, 2011
The Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard welcomes the vote of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
to remove Dr. Subramanian Swamy's courses from the Summer School catalog. Members of
the faculty recognized that this matter was not about free speech, but Harvard's association with
someone who engages in hate speech and advocates acts of religious violence. Challenging
such speech is important in any community, but emphatically so in an academic community that
aims to foster inclusive civil discourse.
August 5, 2011
On August 1, 2011, a group of Harvard graduate students submitted to university administrators
a petition calling on Harvard to dissociate itself from Summer School professor Subramanian
Swamy. The petition was a response to a July 16, 2011, op-ed published in the Indian
newspaper Daily News & Analysis, in which Dr. Swamy denigrated all Muslims and advocated
acts of hate against them.
As of August 5, 2011, the petition has been signed by more than 400 individuals from Harvard
and beyond — this despite the fact that many in the Harvard community are currently away from
campus for the summer.
In a statement issued the day before the petition was delivered, a Harvard spokesperson
acknowledged the concerns of petitioners but defended Dr. Swamy's right to free speech.
However, the petition is not aimed at silencing Dr. Swamy. Rather, it calls on Harvard to
dissociate itself from someone who engages in hate speech, grossly stereotyping all Muslims
and advocating the destruction of 300 mosques in India. Dr. Swamy's comments stand in
opposition to the goal of fostering reasoned civil discourse at Harvard.
The strong support for the petition is a call for Harvard's administration to further address this
matter.

Harvard Stands By Swamy, Writer of 'Distressing' Op-Ed, Aug 6, 2011
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school/
By Leanna B. Ehrlich, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Saturday, August 06, 2011
Unknown Author
Subramanian Swamy, seen above, is accused of penning an op-ed that is inflammatory towards Muslims.
Harvard is standing by Summer School instructor Subramanian Swamy in the aftermath of his op-ed
controversy, admitting that the article he wrote is "distressing" to some but affirming its commitment to
free speech principles.
With the stated goal of addressing terrorism in India, Swamy's article called for the removal of hundreds
of mosques, the revocation of voting rights from non-Hindus, and a ban on conversion from Hinduism.
The article provoked controversy, and more than 400 people signed a petition calling on Harvard to fire
him.
In a statement, Division of Continuing Education spokesperson Linda A. Cross called the article
"distressing" to many Harvard affiliates.
"As an institution of research and teaching, we are dedicated to the proposition that all people, regardless
of color or creed, deserve equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal protection,” Cross said. “Recent
writings by Dr. Swamy therefore are distressing to many members of our community, and understandably
so.”
But Harvard is choosing to stand by Swamy, an economics instructor at Harvard Summer School and
political leader in India."It is central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those
who disagree with him,” Cross said in the statement. “We are ultimately stronger as a university when we
maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas."
The group that started the petition, which calls itself the Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard, echoed its
support for the University's endorsement of free speech but clarified in a statement that "the petition is not
aimed at silencing Dr. Swamy.”
“Rather, it calls on Harvard to dissociate itself from someone who engages in hate speech, grossly
stereotyping all Muslims and advocating the destruction of 300 mosques in India," the statement said. "Dr.
Swamy's comments stand in opposition to the goal of fostering reasoned civil discourse at Harvard.”
At the Summer School, Swamy teaches Economics S-110: “Quantitative Methods in Economics and
Business” and Economics S-1316: “Economic Development in India and East Asia.” The upcoming week
is the final week of the summer term.
The article was published in the July 16 edition of the Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis.
Controversy erupted over a week ago when the petition gained momentum.
At the time, Summer School Dean Donald H. Pfister said that the school "will give this matter our serious
attention."
—Staff writer Leanna B. Ehrlich can be reached at lehrlich@college.harvard.edu.

Harvard Faculty Debates Free Speech,  Harvard Magazine,  Nov-Dec 2011
A seemingly routine, even boring agenda for the December 6 Faculty of Arts and
Sciences (FAS) meeting at University Hall—three memorial minutes for deceased
colleagues, approval of the Harvard Summer School courses, a report on information
technology—in fact yielded some of the most vigorous discussions in recent years.
Photograph from the Janata Party  Subramanian Swamy
Then came an extended exchange on Subramanian Swamy, a long-time economics teacher in
the Summer School, whose opinion essay in an Indian newspaper last summer, titled “How to
Wipe Out Islamic Terror” (no longer available at the newspaper website, but reproduced
elsewhere) provoked controversy worldwide. In the end, the faculty decided overwhelmingly that
Swamy had crossed the line between free speech and hate speech—that the actions he
advocated (restricting Muslims’ right to vote, razing mosques, and more) rose to the level of
inciting violence and deprivation of others’ rights—and his courses were stricken from the
catalog of offerings for this coming summer.
[Note: Under FAS rules, faculty members who speak at faculty meetings may not be identified,
cited, or quoted without their express permission. In the following account, identifications are
provided where permission has been granted; this account will be updated if other identifications
are forthcoming.]
A Summer School Instructor and Speech
Subramanian Swamy, Ph.D. ’65, whose residence is listed in the alumni directory as New Delhi,
has regularly returned to Cambridge to teach Economics S-110, “Quantitative Methods in
Economics and Business,” and Economics S-1316, “Economic Development in India and East
Asia,” for Harvard Summer School. The school’s course listing for 2012 came before the faculty
for approval; Swamy’s courses were included.
While teaching at Harvard last summer, Swamy—who leads the Indian political party Janata—
wrote an op-ed article for Daily News and Analysis, just after three terrorist bombings in Mumbai
on July 13. He advocated, among other measures, that India “remove the masjid in Kashi
Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites” (i.e., tear down mosques at
presumed Hindu sacred sites); “declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote
only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus” (disenfranchising Muslims
and others); and “[e]nact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other
religion” and “[a]nnex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that
country staying in India. At present, the northern third…can be annexed to re-settle illegal
migrants.” In the context of the December 6, 1992, razing of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar
Pradesh—and the ensuing riots that cost more than 2,000 lives across India, 19 years to the
day before the FAS debate—Swamy’s language had explosive political consequences in his
country.
As the Crimson reported then, students petitioned the University to sever ties with Swamy. That
July 27 article noted, “In a statement sent by a spokesperson, Donald H. Pfister, the dean of
Harvard Summer School, said that the school will examine the issue. ‘At this point we have only
a basic awareness of the situation and have not been contacted by the organizations involved,’
Pfister said. ‘Professor Swamy is a long-time member of the Harvard Summer School faculty
who previously was a member of the Department of Economics here. We will give this matter
our serious attention.’” In a follow-up article, the Crimson reported, a Summer School
spokesperson acknowledged that the article had been “distressing” to many members of the
community, but that Swamy’s right to free speech was protected. (Inside Higher Education also
reported on the controversy, and on issues raised in the student petition, such as whether
Swamy could teach objectively.)Because course approvals and appointments of outside instructors, such as Swamy, are
annual, the time for examining the issues raised last summer naturally fell to the December 6
faculty meeting, where the vote on the summer school courses was scheduled.
Accordingly, the summer school list of courses was presented for approval, with Swamy’s
courses included.
Diana L. Eck, Wertham professor of law and psychiatry in society and Master of Lowell House—
a scholar of India’s religions, among other fields—then rose to propose an amendment to
exclude Swamy’s two courses from the faculty’s approval. She noted that it was unprecedented
for the faculty even to discuss the course listing, but felt compelled to vote against approval if
the two courses were permitted to proceed. She cited a letter she and 39 other faculty members
had sent to President Faust and Dean Pfister last August concerning (as the letter put it)
“comments made by Subramanian Swamy, an economist and former Minister of Parliament in
India who has been teaching at the Harvard Summer School for many years.” The letter went on
to note:
Swamy used the recent blasts in Mumbai to cast suspicion on India’s entire Muslim population.
Swamy went on to advocate a shocking series of “counter-terrorism” strategies including the
destruction of mosques in India and a denial of basic voting rights to religious minorities unless
they “proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus.”
We wish to bring it to the attention of the University administration that a member of our faculty
has expressed these extreme views, in a social context that has witnessed episodes of
collective violence. We understand that Harvard occasionally benefits from the public profiles of
those who teach at the institution, whether they work in business, government, or media.
However, we feel that Swamy’s public profile is a detriment to Harvard. Freedom of expression
is an essential principle in an academic community, one that we fully support. Notwithstanding
our commitment to the robust exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into
incitement by demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their disenfranchisement,
and calling for violence against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s National Commission for
Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy, whose incendiary speech carries the threat
of communal violence. When Harvard extends appointments to public figures, it behooves us to
consider whether the reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case,
Swamy’s well-known reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly advocates
violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism and
civic equality.
We trust that you share our dismay that someone who purveys inciteful speech in this way is
teaching in Harvard’s diverse classrooms. We believe that it would be prudent for the Harvard
Summer School to be willing to review its appointment procedures in order to ensure that the
teachers employed enhance, rather than detract from, the reputation of the university.
In her remarks, Eck emphasized the “destructive” nature of the positions Swamy advocated in
India, and characterized the proposals as going well beyond free speech to the advocacy of
abrogating human rights, curtailing civil rights, and intruding on freedom of religion. She
wondered why the courses had not been “quietly dropped,” rather than submitted for approval in
2012. Swamy’s positions crossed the line to “incitement” and to “demonizing” Indian minorities,
and were therefore sharply at odds with Harvard’s pluralism, Eck said. Given President Faust’s planned trip to Mumbai and New Delhi in January, it would be important for people in that
country to know where the faculty stood on the views Swamy advocated.
The discussion on the amendment began with a review of how the summer school vets courses.
The substantive review depends, in essence, on each department’s view of the merits of a
course and the qualifications of the instructor. Although the summer school might view a
teacher’s views (as in the case of Swamy) as reprehensible, it had a duty to offer courses as
departments determined they were suitable.
A faculty member rose to support the amendment, and asked that the vetting of the course and
instructor by the economics department be explained. He noted that Swamy had not published
in an economics journal for decades, and that there were surely other qualified teachers for the
courses. The speaker agreed with Eck’s characterization of Swamy’s article, and noted, further,
that Swamy had proposed annexing one-third of Bangladesh; he further noted the anniversary
of the December 6, 1992, mosque razing and riots, and put Swamy’s advocacy for razing 300
more mosques in that context. Swamy’s proposed disenfranchisement of non-Hindu minorities
would be comparable to disenfranchisement of American Jews and blacks unless they
acknowledged America as an Anglo-Saxon nation. Coming as it did just days after the Mumbai
bombing, the speaker said, Swamy’s article crossed the line from free speech to hate speech.
John Y. Campbell, Olshan professor of economics and chairman of the department, rose to
explain that within the economics department, the chair takes primary responsibility, with one
other person, for reviewing summer courses, and presents them to the department for approval.
It is not easy to find summer teachers, he said, and so there is a bias to continue with teachers
who have experience with a course and who receive satisfactory course ratings from students.
Swamy had been at Harvard in the 1960s; was a legitimate, published economist; and received
satisfactory ratings for his summer courses. Only one student even mentioned the op-ed article
in reviewing Swamy’s course, and that student rated it favorably. The department had
concluded that Swamy was a competent summer teacher, even if a younger and more
academically current alternative might be preferable. The department, Campbell said,
expressed its view that it would not take a collective position on academic freedom or on
matters of speech, hate speech, or Harvard’s reputation—issues on which there were a wide
range of views, in this case, within the department. [Note: This paragraph updated December 7,
5:10 p.m.]
Sean Kelly—professor of philosophy and chair of the department—rose to explain the Faculty
Council’s 14-0 vote to approve the summer courses of study and bring the list before the faculty.
His statement included these views:
Some Council members felt strongly that under no circumstances should an otherwise qualified
candidate’s political views be a factor in deciding whether to hire him or her to teach. They felt
this was especially true in circumstances in which we were given strong assurances, as we had
been both by Chairman Campbell and Dean Pfister, that the political views in question in no way
played a role in the candidate’s teaching or the substance of his courses. There was some
dissatisfaction from these Council members that we were even having a discussion about the
issue. Other Council members felt that this universal principle was too strong, and that there
were circumstances in which it is appropriate to use judgment in deciding such cases. In any
event, all members agreed that the principle of free speech is one to which a University must be
strongly committed, and that it sets a dangerous precedent to fire or refuse to re-hire someone
on political grounds alone. Many Council members agreed nevertheless that there are circumstances in which one might naturally be inclined to find so-called political speech
disqualifying—such as when it amounts in fact to incitement of violence or perhaps to hate
speech, or when it compromises the teacher’s ability to cover course material responsibly. But
given the materials available to us [emphasis added], we did not judge any of these to be a
factor in the case at hand.
Many Council members agreed that the issues here are delicate. We must balance the
University’s identity as a protector of free speech, especially in a political context, with the
University’s identity as a protector and promoter of diversity and tolerance. In the end, we felt it
was more dangerous for the University to take action against someone on the basis of
unpopular or unwelcome political views than it was to run the risk of seeming to be endorsing
those views by hiring him for a position unrelated to the expression of them. But we also
expected and welcomed a vigorous debate about these issues at the faculty meeting.
(In the subsequent poll, Kelly—and insofar as could be determined, other Faculty Council
members present—reversed his vote; as he explained in an e-mail, “For the record, I changed
my position on the issue after the discussion at the faculty meeting. I was persuaded, by the
addition of new evidence and new context for the interpretation of existing evidence, that the
views expressed in Dr. Swamy’s Op-Ed piece amounted to incitement of violence instead of
protected political speech. I therefore voted, with the majority of faculty members, not to
approve his courses.”)
Arthur Kleinman—Rabb professor of anthropology in FAS, and professor of medical
anthropology and professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School—rose in his capacity as
Fung director of the University Asia Center to offer an “Asianist” perspective on Swamy. He
understood the economics department’s judgment of Swamy’s competence as a teacher. But in
the context of contemporary India, Kleinman said, Swamy’s article amounted to hate speech
and the incitement to violence—matters that would certainly arise in a normal review of a
prospective regular faculty appointment. He hoped that the faculty would draw some line. As
important as free speech in such instances, Kleinman said, was weighing other evidence:
imagine a 1938 appointment, for example, in which a prospective faculty member stood up for
Nazism and advocated killing Jews—in which case, he hoped, the faculty would have voted to
restrain free speech as it evaluated the candidate. In considering the appointment of Swamy to
teach his courses in 2012, Kleinman said, the faculty could choose to use free speech as a
cover, or it could address expressed hatred of a minority and incitement to violence.
Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer professor of science and technology studies at the Harvard
Kennedy School, who had known Swamy as a graduate student, said that in teaching about
India’s development, his teaching was surely touched by his wider vision of the country, its
inequalities, and its ethnic diversity. In fact, students had objected last summer—witness their
petitions—and expressed their unease. FAS’s decision, she said, affected the reputation of
other Harvard schools and faculties as well.
Ali Asani—professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic religion and cultures; chair of Near Eastern
languages and civilizations; and director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Islamic Studies
Program—asked whether anyone had queried Muslim students about their comfort level with a
teacher who had, in print, expressed Islamophobic views. His question went unanswered.
(In a subsequent conversation, Asani said, “If students know a professor is Islamophobic, how
are you going to guarantee that the person’s prejudices are not going to be reflected in grading and evaluating student work?”—a problem that has been studied in other contexts, he noted.
Swamy’s views do matter, Asani maintained: “He’s in a classroom before students with a lot of
backgrounds, some of them perhaps Muslim.” What safeguards are there? he asked. If this
question about student perceptions and comfort had not been pursued, he said, it was important
for the faculty to know that: such teachers’ views are not separate from the classroom context.)
After further debate, Eck reiterated her amendment, and noted that the faculty faced not
“unpopular” views, rightly protected as free speech, but those that “commend an abrogation of
human rights.”
With that, the faculty took a recorded vote on the amendment, but it was passed
overwhelmingly, with only a handful of votes against, and so a tally was not reported. The
Swamy courses having been stricken, the summer school courses of study were approved—
and President Faust could prepare for her initial visit to India with the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences having dissociated itself from an instructor who advocated highly incendiary views of
that nation’s peoples and politics.
Read the Crimson reports on the meeting here and here.

Harvard Crimson report, Dec 7, 2011
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
SUMMER SCHOOL TROUBLE
A subsequent vote for the approval of the 2012 Summer School course catalog, which faculty
acknowledged would normally take no more than one minute, generated a heated debate when
Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck proposed an amendment to exclude Swamy’s Economics
S-110 and Economics S-1316 from the catalog.
Swamy received significant criticism for an op-ed he wrote last summer in the Indian newspaper Daily
News and Analysis, in which he called for the destruction of mosques, the disenfrachisement of nonHindus in India who do not acknowledge Hindu ancestry, and a ban on conversion from Hinduism.
“Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community and calling for
violence against their sacred places,” Eck said, adding that Harvard has a moral responsibility not to
affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group. “There is a distinction between
unpopular and unwelcome political views.”
Although Harvard chose to stand by Swamy in August in an effort to affirm its declared commitment to
free speech, faculty members shot down his two courses, effectively removing him from Harvard’s
teaching roster. Many faculty determined Swamy’s article was not a product of free speech—but of hate
speech.
“[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying Jewish Americans and African Americans should
not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said
History Professor Sugata Bose.Dean of the Summer School Donald H. Pfister explained that courses included in the catalog are chosen
by individual departments.
“I find [Swamy’s] position reprehensible, but on the other hand, it is our duty to support departments and
their offerings,” he said.
Philosophy Department Chair Sean D. Kelly, who also serves as vice-chair of the Faculty Docket
Committee, initially defended the unanimous decision of Harvard’s Faculty Council to keep Swamy on the
teaching roster as an effort to preserve free speech at the school and kick the vote to the faculty-wide
meeting.
Kelly ultimately voted—as did an overwhelming majority of faculty members—for the amendment to
remove Swamy’s courses. The revised catalog was consequently approved.
“I was persuaded ... that the views expressed in Dr. Swamy’s op-ed piece  amounted to incitement of
violence instead of protected political speech,” he wrote in an email to The Crimson.


Source:www.janataparty.org