|
What
Dean Nasr did not know
By Hussain Abdul-Hussain---
The story that Dr. Nasr presented in this issue of Outlook is
nice, civil, logical, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth (with one mistake in the sequence of facts however).
Probably in his capacity as Acting Chairperson of Outlook, he
should have known that Outlook has adopted a system in which
the final approval for the printing of Outlook does not come
from students, but from Mr. Ibrahim Khoury. In his capacity
as Responsible Director of Outlook, Mr. Khoury receives a weekly
pre-publishing print-out of Outlook to make sure (according
to the Outlook bylaws) that the published material is in conformity
with the Lebanese press law. Mr. Khoury, however, has delegated
his responsibility to the Outlook faculty adviser Professor
Muhammed Ali Khalidi except on certain occasions when he thinks
that certain issues are sensitive (such as the interview Outlook
did with Dr. Robert Betts which was forwarded to Provost Peter
Heath who read it and Outlook published his reply). The system
then changed, as follows: whenever Dr. Khalidi gives us final
approval we automatically proceed to print. That was what happened
with the last issue of Outlook. Dr. Khalidi gave us his final
approval on Sunday with a few journalistic tips. He did not
censor.. The meeting of the committee for the selection of next
year's editor was held as told by Dr. Nasr the next day. To
my surprise in that meeting for selection, Dr. Nasr held a copy
of the pre-print, which, to my knowledge, had never been forwarded
to him in the case of previous issues. Dr. Nasr showed us the
Board of Deans' decision and ordered that we cut the identification
of political affiliations of students in the student party debate.
As I left Dr. Nasr's office, I rushed to call our new printers
to see whether the issue had been printed or not. As I learned
that the issue was printed, I e-mailed Dr. Nasr and President
Waterbury, asking the president to waive the BOD's decision.
Mr. Khoury also helped me try to convince both the president
and the provost to waive the decision, but to no avail. After
waiting for almost eight hours without getting the response
that we waited for, the Outlook team had to choose one of two
options: either to challenge the BOD's decision and circulate
the uncensored Outlook, or to cut out the problematic page and
to abide by the said decision. Apparently, we took the second
choice, which still seemed to bother the administration. The
lovely part of Dr. Nasr's account is that he communicated the
BOD's decision without, it appeared, noticing that it violates
the Outlook bylaws and steps on the toes of its editorial board,
which is supposed to be the one that decides on Outlook's editorial
policy. Feeling that Outlook has gone back to the days of direct
monitoring by the dean, and feeling that the University Student
Faculty Committee's unanimous vote to undermine the BOD's interference
in Outlook's editorial policy was nothing more than a vote,
Outlook went off campus to the local press. The worst part of
the story is that Dr. Nasr accused Outlook, even though he had
nothing to do with Outlook at the time of the censorship examples
cited in Annahar, of making up stories. Let's take one of the
examples that were cited in Annahar about censorship: the censorship
of the July 2000 article, "Should Dean Bitar Resign?" Last June,
Outlook took an interview from its 1997 archives. The interview
was with the then newly appointed dean of the Faculty of Arts
and Sciences, Khalil Bitar. Plus, Outlook talked with one of
23 American professors who had come from the US to assess AUB's
academic situation. In addition Outlook recorded several quotations
of faculty members interviewed in AUB Today. After reading the
June 2000 pre-print issue of Outlook (of course to make sure
that it conforms with Lebanese law), Khoury forwarded the issue
to President Waterbury. A meeting was then set up at which the
president, the provost, Mr. Khoury and myself were present.
The bottom line of the president's recommendation was: either
kill it or write, "Should John Waterbury resign?" Of course,
the second option was not feasible since it needed more research,
so the article was killed. My question is as follows: why was
the article forwarded to the president? Was the president giving
Outlook journalistic or legal advice? After this incident, I
went to then Dean of Student Affairs Dean Kevlin. the administrator
most keen to defend Outlook's freedom. He refused to read any
pre-print of any issue. After he read the Dean Bitar article,
he thought that the article was journalistically and legally
acceptable, and he expressed his concern about the administration's
interference. Kevlin then told me that he wouldn't raise the
issue lest the deans think that he was behind the criticism
of his colleague Bitar. Kevlin was also bothered that Khoury
forwarded articles to the administration behind his back. So
in which part did I make up a story and send it to Annahar?
Didn't I meet the president? Isn't f meeting the president to
discuss an article in Outlook in itself an act of violating
the Outlook bylaws? Still, the administration thinks that there
has never been any censorship of Outlook. Dr. Nasr told half
of the story. Whenever the administration disagrees with any
of Outlook's articles, it preaches to us rules, regulations,
and responsible journalism. In many instances, we take these
"irresponsible" articles to journalist experts (some of them
AUB faculty members), lawyers, and judges and they find nothing
wrong with them. It seems that only Dr. Nasr, Mr. Khoury, and
College Hall fifth floorers know about responsible journalism.
A week ago, Mr. Ibrahim Khoury escorted a young lady who works
in the AUB New York Office to the Outlook office. The lady was
obviously happy to meet us, and she told us that they in the
New York office wait for Outlook to read about the AUB inside
news since it's their only means to learn about what goes on
at AUB. That flattering statement made us proud of our work
and made us insist on reflecting the truth as we see it, not
as the BOD or any other board or committee sees it. We refuse
to report in the official BOD language. We refuse to distort
facts. If student political parties exist, then we will say
so. We will not put our heads in the sand and pretend, as they
do, that these things never happen on campus. If you read Outlook,
you are not supposed to feel that everything on campus is wonderful,
or feel that everything is unpleasant. You are supposed to learn
what actually happens, and that can never happen with the official
language imposed. One last notice: there might have been a misconception
that Muhammad Ali Khalidi and Mr. Ibrahim Khoury censor Outlook.
Well, they never do. Outlook owes Professor Khalidi a lot. He
gives the team journalistic advice. Mr. Khoury is also supportive;
he never censors, but he never decides for himself. He sends
sensitive issues to "higher authorities" that do the censorship.
In Annahar, Ibrahim Khoury was never accused of censoring, but
of forwarding articles to their final censor. Had it been for
him alone, he would probably have let all the articles be published.
|
|
