On Monday, the UCLA faculty passed an antiwar resolution--and became the first university faculty to do so since the war began. In a closed meeting, assembled faculty first debated whether enough of UCLA's thousands of faculty members were present for a vote to be valid (they determined that just enough were). Then they voted 180 to 7 to pass a resolution condemning the war, thus indicating utter contempt for debate, total disregard for the potential validity of differing viewpoints, stunning imperviousness to the fact of the war's success thus far, and pure arrogance about their own moral and intellectual superiority to, well, everyone else.

Some priceless out-takes:

"There's a terrible irony here," said Michael Rodriguez, a professor of family medicine who offered a medical professional's perspective on health implications of the war.

"The U.S. claims military measures are preventative, so (it) deploys weapons of mass destruction that will lead to disease and hunger on a massive scale," he said.

Some speakers opposed to the idea of the Academic Senate making a statement about the war were received by sparse applause and even booing.

"These are people who arrogantly purport to speak for me when I am unable to unjoin my organization," law school professor Grant Nelson said to the assembly.

The strongest applause of the afternoon was for physics professor Karoly Holczer, who took issue with those denouncing the senate's authority to make a statement about the war.

"The few academic senates in the country are the only organizations who should take a stand on human morals. It's more than our right, it's our obligation," he said.

Yes, they did make themselves look like a pack of grandiose fools. But even more to the point, they've also effectively voted to chill academic freedom on campus. If the UCLA faculty's official political position is anti-war, what does that say to students who support the war--particularly those whose courses touch on the issues involved? What does it say to the (probably very few) untenured faculty who support the war--particularly those whose scholarship touches on the issues involved?

As the University of California works to revise its statement on academic freedom with the express purpose of validating politicized instruction and ideologically motivated scholarship, such measures as the one taken by the UCLA faculty stand to become the norm rather than the exception.

Thanks to Fred R. for the link.

"The few academic senates in the country are the only organizations who should take a stand on human morals."

Self-importance doesn't begin to describe this. Megalomaniacal, maybe.

I hope it's a misquote.

Forgot the totally expected anti-war rhetoric, here's the interesting news for watchers of academia.

First, the faculty senate mechanism here is typical. Over the past years/decades, parliamentary procedures in such bodies have steadily been "deconstructed" to allow a minority to make decisions in the "name of the faculty." It's a non-lethal version of the Stalinist practice (shoot everyone who opposes you and then you can get any vote you want). Practically speaking then, a "faculty" vote on a university campus is essentially meaningless. Remember that the next time you hear how an academic "senate" or some such body has voted for something, or you hear someone mouthing off about "faculty governance."

Second--and this is the truly hilarious part, which so far no one has commented on that I've seen--is that they couldn't get organized enough to vote until after the war was essentially over. Nice lesson, eh?

"[T]hey've effectively voted to chill academic freedom on campus."?! Erin, get a grip. 180 out of thousands voted for this resolution. That's not even bringing things down to room temperature.

Sure, I agree wholeheartedly they had no business debating and voting on such a silly-ass resolution, but it'll always be cast similarly -- free speech, democracy, moral obligation, whatever -- and so you'll never eliminate it. And what about faculty who feel otherwise? Either they didn't attend (to their credit) or they were outvoted -- I don't see why this has to mean any more than that, or will necessarily "chill" academic freedom, or affect students who may hold a contray view. I hope the personal integrity of everyone at UCLA will ensure no such untowardness unfolds. But I could be wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.

180 to 7. Interesting. Completely the reverse of the population at large who support the war 75% to 25%. Another example of how the academy is completely out of touch with the rest of America.

Here's something from Eugene Volokh, a member of the UCLA faculty on the irrelevance of the vote:
http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_volokh_archive.html#200152933

This quote is just embarrassing:

"There's a terrible irony here," said Michael Rodriguez, a professor of family medicine who offered a medical professional's perspective on health implications of the war.

"The U.S. claims military measures are preventative, so (it) deploys weapons of mass destruction that will lead to disease and hunger on a massive scale," he said.

..........Isn't that what they said before Afghanistan????? Since then, we've vaccinnated millions saving thousands of lives. Also, does he actually know what a weapon of mass destruction is?

According to the LA Times blurb on this vote, there are over 3000 on the UCLA faculty. I don't how many of this number are eligible to vote in something like this, but I am sure there is an activist "cadre" (one of their favorite words) that ensured there would be a lopsided outcome.

Pathetic. I hope they will also vote to reject all public financing for the university, so that the majority of us taxpayers who happen to support the war don't have to pay to support these self-important poseurs.