A press release from the ACLU alerts us to the University of Rhode Island's failure to defend the academic freedom--and First Amendment rights--of one of its faculty members:

The ACLU of RI has called on URI President Robert Carothers to intervene and correct "a very disturbing issue of academic censorship" at the University. It involves Women's Studies Professor Donna Hughes, an expert on the international trafficking of women and children.

Last October, prompted by a London law firm's letter threatening a defamation suit against URI and Professor Hughes, university officials removed from her university website two articles she had written in her area of expertise. At the time, the professor reluctantly agreed to the action because URI officials indicated that the removal was a temporary measure while they examined the legal ramifications of the threat. Seven months later, however, the articles still have not been reposted.

In a letter sent yesterday to President Carothers, RI ACLU executive director Steven Brown expressed concern about both the University's censorship and the "lackadaisical manner" in which the matter has been handled. Following the initial "temporary" removal of the article, Professor Hughes heard nothing further from the university until March, when she advised the school's legal counsel, Louis Saccoccio, of her intent to repost the articles. Mr. Saccoccio responded that Professor Hughes could not publish her work using the university's resources "until a final decision has been made on this issue." No decision has been forthcoming. Thus, said the ACLU's Brown in his letter, "some seven months after this incident first arose, two articles written by a distinguished professor remain censored by the University."

Calling the ramifications "enormous," Brown's letter noted the great cost to URI "when it allows the mere threat of an action by an individual overseas to result in removal of speech of public importance on the university's web site. The University's failure to quickly deal with this threat to academic freedom sends an extremely poor message to Professor Hughes's colleagues and the institution as a whole. In an age when so much information is transmitted, read, researched and stored electronically, the University's unilateral decision to remove the articles and force Professor Hughes to fend for herself if she wishes to defend her academic work is extremely troubling."

The ACLU's letter concluded by urging Carothers to "reverse course and show support for academic freedom by agreeing to represent Professor Hughes should any action be taken against her. Only in this way can the true mission of the University be fulfilled."

Professor Hughes said today: "Academic freedom is essential to my work on sexual slavery and exploitation of women and children. My scholarly work includes researching and writing about organized crime, corruption, and harmful government policies. The University of Rhode Island's capitulation to intimidation threatens the progress of my work and the work of other scholars in the future." Dr. Frank Annunziato, executive director of the URI Chapter of the AAUP, added: "Professor Hughes is one of the leaders in the fight against the trafficking of women and children. This University should extend to Professor Hughes, and to the women and children whose horrible lives she is struggling to bring to the light of day, all the support necessary for her work to succeed."

Here's to URI getting embarrassed enough by bad publicity to do something other than censor controversial faculty work by way of eternal cowardly deferral.

If the spirit of freedom--or outrage--moves you, you might want to write a reasoned, civil note to URI President Robert Carothers. The ACLU already did so, and you can read it online here.

It is hard for me to pass judgment on this issue until some information about the content of the articles becomes available. The ACLU press release states only that the articles covered her area of expertise. My initial questions are: 1) on whose behalf was the threatening letter sent? 2)what are the specific 'objectionable' statements or allegations contained in the articles? and 3) assuming the objectionable statements refer to an individual or group and makes allegations or assertions about that individual or group does the professor have any support for those assertions.

Also keep in mind the fact that even though the professor may have written the articles in the U.S. and even though the situs of the URI web site is (presumably) in the U.S. this does not mean necessarily that U.S. libel law would be applicable here or that URI would not be subejct to the jurisdiction of U.K. courts in the event of a lawsuit.

The 'law' governing matters distributed on the internet is a rapidly evolving and fascinating subject. There is a burgeoning amount of case law - one including Yahoo running afoul of French anti-hate legislation because it hosted anti-semitic e groups on its U.S. site that were linked to Yahoo.fr - in which web-sites that have a situs in the U.S. find themselves subject to foreign laws because the information is widely distributed overseas. The URI site may be considered a passive site - in which case people viewing the site are reaching into the U.S. for access rather than an active site that actually reaches out into other jrusdictions. For example if these articles and web-sites are distributed in alumni e-mails (which must include some foreign residences) it may be considered active rather than passive. This may be what URI is concerned about.

Also keep in mind that libel laws in the U.K. (where an action would presumably be brought) are far more plaintiff-sided than in the U.S. It may very well be that URI is being well advised here.

It also may very well be the case that the ACLU is jumping into the breach prematurelyand is premising its arguments solely on its understanding of U.S. law. URI cannot afford to be so myopic nor can it expect to rely on the First Amendment if it is subject to a suit in the U.K.

Last, I have only skimmed the surface with regard to the legal issues I raised. It is fairly complex and I have not attempted to address all the possibilities, variances, exceptions.

So - before we all jump to conclusions here I think some more information about the actual articles and the nature of the demand letters is in order.

Stolypin--
Thanks for such a thoughtful and detailed comment. I agree that it's not possible to pass judgment on Hughes' articles wirthout more information about what is in them and what the nature of the complaint is. But I think we can pass judgment on URI's apparent failure to address the legalities that may or may not surround Hughes' work in a timely and responsible way. The university told her to take her work offline last October--and she has had no word from them since on the status of her situation. What looked like mutual good faith in October--advising the professor to remove the articles in question until the university could assess the claims against them--is starting to look like stonewalling. That, in turn, is becoming censorship by default.

Stolypin,

I share your reservations. The "white slavery" issue has been a fount of phony morality campaigns, including within the U.S.

And, in this arena of purported "abuse," feminists have been remarkably free and easy with the truth, and also remarkably willing to make specific accusations minus any evidence other than their own theories.

A crusade mentality often sets in. Remember those posters of "potential rapists" posted so often in the bathrooms of college dorms? The purported crime is alleged to be so damaging that overlooking facts and fairness becomes almost a virtue to the crusader. After all, the "abuse" is maining the psyche of the "victim". All is, thus fair in pursuit of the evil villain.

Before you start screaming "censorship," look at what has actually happened here: first the professor agrees (albeit reluctantly) to have her articles removed, then she sought approval to repost them. Was she obligated to do either of those things? Clearly not. By doing them, she becomes complicit in silencing herself.

If Professor Hughes had wanted to make this a clearcut issue of censorship and academic freedom, she should have reposted the articles and waited until the university *forcibly removed them from her website without her permission*. She is a full professor with tenure and an endowed chair; what doe she have to lose by standing up for her rights?

This may be a duplicate - but it never seemed to find it way into the comments section. (If it was removed intentionally due to content, which I doubt, I am sorry about re-posting it.)

Erin, thanks for your kind and thoughtful response to my initial comment. URI has a problem here - but I am not sure what it is. They may be excessively cautious and have used the threat of a lawsuit as a pretext for keeping controversial material off their site. They may have been advised that they were on thin ice (at least in the U.K.) and are acting on advice of counsel. If the former, shame on them for not being honest and forthright with Professor Hughes. If the latter, shame on them for not (presumably) sharing the information they have with Professor Hughers and keeping her in the loop. A forthright explanation of why they continue to keep the articles off the site may have gone a long way towards a cooperative resolution of the problem. Simple professional courtesy - if nothing else.

As to the issue of international trafficking in women in children: it is, to me at least, an important and verifiable issue. I can understand why some may use this issue to advance other agendas but that does not dminish the original problem.

International trafficking [sic] in women and children (both boys and girls) is not limited to the issue of "white slavery". Far from it. The biggest issue today in sexual trafficking originates in Asia. Cambodia is a prime example. It is considered by many in the sex industry to be the 'new Thailand'. It is a haven for pedophile-based tourism. Typically, young peasant girls and boys are purchased from their parents and removed from their villages. They are then placed in the sex business by their new "owners". This problem has attracted the attention of the Cambodian government - which I do not believe to be a hot bed of radical feminism - and the have created a cabinet position devoted to the problem. Some U.S. visitors now find themselves being prosecuted for their overseas conduct. (That's a full length memo of law on its own.)

Trafficking in Asian women impacts the U.S. as well. Asian "massage parlors" are not uncommon in cities on the east and west coast of the U.S. (Check out the ads in the Washington Post sports section - they appear right next to the ads for impotency. If you are in NY - read the NY Observer. Quite frequently these places are raided by INS (for immigration reasons) or by local police (for prostition related violations) and it is revealed that the working women were illegal aliens smuggled in from China, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand. They are forced to work off the cost of the smuggling in the massage parlors.

On the European side of things: the dissolution of the Soviet empire has resulted, as one unintended side effect of a free market economy, in a fast growing prostitution empire operated by the Russian and Romanian mafias. Russian and Romanian women are tempted by ads about employment oversees and find themselves drugged and sent to brothels throughout Europe. They were particularly prevalent in Bsnia - where they did a lively business entertaining U.N. peacekeeping forces.

Last, it is more than a bit ironic that Africa has seen a dramatic resurgence in slavery. (Sudan is the main player here). It is not necessarily sex-related - but it is a major problem.

I have no reason to assume (in the absence of reading her work) that Professor Hughes is pursuing any sort of agenda other than an exploration of a legitimate academic and humanitarian issue.

Stolypin,
Continued thanks for lending your legal mind to the URI situation. Don't know what happened to your first attempt to post your comment--certainly it wasn't nixed at this end.

Erin, thanks. Didn't think it was nixed of course - but didn't want to look like I was forcing my comments on you!
Ivan

Stolypin,

Took a quick look at Ms. Hughes' publications, and the college website.

This woman is a committed feminist ideologue. I am inclined to believe nothing that she writes or says. She has an agenda a mile wide, beginning with the typical feminist belief that women cannot possibly choose to be feminists, and ending with the refusal to consider that women might prevaricate about their motives when confronted with a journalist or academic.

I thought I knew everything about those issues until my Filipino wife, in our first year of marriage said:

"Why do you assume that sexual injuries are so much more important than other kinds of injuries?"

The insistence that sexual injuries supercede all other types of injuries got its ultimate send-up during the Bosnian conflict. Western reporters routinely reported that rape camps inflicted an especially awful injury on women, and most often failed to report that the husbands and sons of those women were summarily executed with a gunshot to the head. The New York Times was particularly pithy in this regard, often just suggesting that in some sort of vague way the men were taken away.

I am extremely dubious about your assertions about drugging and kidnapping. Take a look at our own porn industry and accept the rather startling fact that tens of thousands of young women in the U.S. volunteer eagerly. This does not square with conventional morality or with feminist wisdom, but it is true. So, where is the equivalent moral outrage over male immigrants who die in containers in port, or who are worked to death in mines or factories? The indignation here is clearly limited to Prof Hughes' obvious agenda. I don't know enough about here, but I would conjecture that the villification of men is her over-riding motivation.

The real issue here is whether Professor Hughes' zeal to save the world leads her to make accusations that cannot be proven in court.

"She has an agenda a mile wide, beginning with the typical feminist belief that women cannot possibly choose to be feminists,"

Whoops!

That should say: "choose to be prostitutes." Interesting Freudian slip.

Steven,
I have no problem with people that choose to work in porn or prostitution whether its here in the States or anywhere else. The fact that thousands of adults enter the sex trades willingly is fine with me as it does not implicate any strongly held beliefs on my part. That does not mean that the problem of coerced prostitution of both boys and girls or young women and men does not exist. I may not necessarily agree with what may be Professor Hughe's ideology (and I can't be sure until I look into her work) but that does not mean that the underlying facts about which she writes do not exist. I may disagree with her conclusions but that fact, standing alone, does not mean she is making up everything out of whole cloth. I have read enough and heard enough about the issue independent of ideologues to believe that this is a problem. As I noted above, I do not think the Cambodian government is a hot-bed of radical feminst thought. Yet they seem to think this a serious issue and have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and atention to protect their country's children - both boys and girls.

As to people dying in containers - that is an issue I am familiar with from my work in the container shipping industry. It is of course outrageous and people familiar with the problem are outraged as can be. Interstingly, Romania has been 'the leader' in the smuggling of people in containers in the Atlantic trades. This dovetails nicely in many respects with their involvment in the sex trades as much of the smuggling involves women being brought into the country (willingly or unwillingly) for purposes of sexual commerce.

There aren't just males dying in shipping containers though. Men and women die in poorly ventilated containers all the time although incidents of smuggling in this fashion has declined dramatically since 9/11. IMHO the use of males dying in containers is not particularly appropriate in setting up a moral inequivalency counterweight to the women in sex trafficking argument advanced by Professor Hughes. Both sexes are implicated on both sides.

The Following is from Peter Landesman, "The Girls Next Door," The New York Times Magazine, January 25, 2004:

"Donna M. Hughes, a professor of women's studies at the University of Rhode Island and an expert on sex trafficking, says that prostitution barely existed 12 years ago in the Soviet Union. "It was suppressed by political structures. All the women had jobs." But in the first years after the collapse of Soviet Communism, poverty in the former Soviet states soared. Young women -- many of them college-educated and married -- became easy believers in Hollywood-generated images of swaying palm trees in L.A. "A few of them have an idea that prostitution might be involved," Hughes says. "But their idea of prostitution is 'Pretty Woman,' which is one of the most popular films in Ukraine and Russia. They're thinking, This may not be so bad."

Does Donna Hughes believe that the world's oldest profession was successfully eradicated (for the most part) in the old Soviet system? To say that before 1992 the Soviet Union did not have a prostitution problem is comepletely ridiculous - and inaccurate - as the NYTimes' own reporting on that issue in the late 1980s attests...

Remember: truth is the only complete defense when it comes to libel. There are other defenses, but they all become more problematic if the statement that is printed is provably inaccurate.

Much of the controversy about this article (the NYTimes was forced to issue a mammoth correction) can be found here:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094646

All this is to say that this case is certainly not cut-and-dried. I am not saying that Hughes' articles are actionable - but I am saying that the University of Rhode Island might have a good case here.

The underlying issue is: should universities be forced to allow tenured professors to place actionable material - that, perhaps, can be proven inaccurate in the court of law - on University websites? I'm not saying I know whether Hughes's articles fit that standard, by the way. I have no idea....

URI is being poorly advised. While English libel law is relatively pro-plaintiff, no English court has jurisdiction over activities at URI and certainly not over something posted by a URI professor on a website maintained at URI. Should some English court grant a default judgment against URI, it would not be enforceable in the US. And it's highly unlikely that a libel suit could successfully be prosecuted in the US given the First Amendment limitations on libel actions here. My advice to URI: grow something between your legs.

Professor Hugues could publish her articles away from URI's web site (e.g. in a blog), thereby providing the public with an opportunity to evaluate her research.

Let's give the professor the benefit of the doubt relative to the soundness of her research, even if tinted by what someone else would dub ideology. And let's grant that if URI said it was going to do "x" (make a decision in a timely fashion) and did not, shame on the lot of them.

But I still am having a problem seeing a direct connection between the concept of "academic freedom" and the use of an institutional website to publish an article. Academic freedom to me is the freedom of the individual scholar/teacher to engage in unfettered intellectual inquiry without fear of retribution. Seems to me the university's obligation is clear with respect to all of that stuff: firings, pressure to alter research findings, promotions, favoritism, harassment. But where is it written that an individual faculty member's intellectual freedom extends to an obligation for the institution to provide free web hosting for one's findings?

Writing letters to Carrothers may well be a sound idea politically or even, in a general way, ethically, if one assumes the research is dealing with a significant public problem in a responsible fashion. But hanging the argument on the university's obligation to intellectual freedom seems to me rather weak.

Thanks M [he says trying his best to sound like James Bond]. The link(s) you posted were very helpful. I remember reading the Landesman article and can understand that flurry of activity that followed its publication.

The professor's field of interest is not important to the particular issue as far as I can gather. A claim of "academic freedom" is hardly a defense of a (potential) libel, which from what I gather IS the issue. Jurisdictional matters aside, it doesn't strike me that URI is censoring the professor as much as it is declining to be her publisher (albeit on the web) on a matter they have apparently concluded might well involve them in a lawsuit. That's not censorship, it's prudence. That said, I do agree at a minimum URI should advise the professor that its last answer was indeed its final answer. My guess is that the delay in responding more directly to her has to do with finalizing a policy to prevent the same thing from happening again, probably by legally distancing the institution from the comments made by its professors on their websites hosted by the institution. Just a guess and I am not a lawyer.

I am extremely dubious about your assertions about drugging and kidnapping. Take a look at our own porn industry and accept the rather startling fact that tens of thousands of young women in the U.S. volunteer eagerly.

Yep, we can always count on Stephen to dismiss any and every atrocity suffered by women, simply because of his great big axe — or, should I say, tiny little axe — to grind against "the feminists."

I certainly don't endorse Hughes' agenda wholesale. If I did, I wouldn't be reading Critical Mass. That doesn't mean she's wrong on this issue. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes.

And sure, forced sex isn't as bad as being shot in the back of the head. I wonder if the families of the abducted women and girls would agree, though; quite a few are shunned if they ever manage to return to their homes. In the case of Bosnian Muslim women, it wouldn't surprise me if there have been a few "honor killings" over this sort of thing.

Your wife is entitled to her opinion, but she is only one woman and she doesn't speak for all women. I can tell you, Stephen, from the experiences of several friends of mine that rape and its aftermath really do suck. Worse than murder or severe physical torture? No. But I find the "what's worse?" game rather distasteful, whether it's being played on the left or the right.

I don't know what percentage of all Western women become voluntarily involved in prostitution, strip-tease, "massage," etc., but it doesn't strike me as particularly high, whether you attribute this to culture or to innate sex differences (I think both are at play).

It would be instructive to obtain that percentage, as well as that of women from Eastern Europe and Asia who choose "sex work," and compare the two figures. (If anyone can suggest a suitably neutral source of statistics, it would be helpful.) If there are far more in the latter countries — which hardly provide women with more "sexual freedom" (for themselves, that is, not merely for the benefit of paying customers) — that strongly suggests coercion to me.

In case this changes your "mind," Stephen — which I doubt it will — no less than Esquire magazine did an article on women from Eastern Europe forced into prostitution in Central and Western Europe. Esquire, to borrow Stolypin's line, "I do not believe to be a hot bed of radical feminism."

"In case this changes your "mind," Stephen ó which I doubt it will ó no less than Esquire magazine did an article on women from Eastern Europe forced into prostitution in Central and Western Europe. Esquire, to borrow Stolypin's line, "I do not believe to be a hot bed of radical feminism.""

Nicely said, though the new trafficing in Japan of Americans is an interesting development.

Fenster Moop: "Let's give the professor the benefit of the doubt relative to the soundness of her research, even if tinted by what someone else would dub ideology."

If she truly believes this: "[P]rostitution barely existed 12 years ago in the Soviet Union. 'It was suppressed by political structures. All the women had jobs.'" then her research gives her no credibility at all. This goes way beyond ideology tinting.

That said, if I ever had the misfortune of being raped, and my attacker was brought to trial, I'd hate to think that you, Stephen, might be on the jury. From some of your posts, I get the impression that you think rape as a crime doesn't really exist.

Stolypin might want to remind readers that Great Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel law would only apply if a suit were brought in Great Britain--and good luck to the plaintiffs getting jurisdiction over either URI or Professor Hughes. If they sue in the United States, then the United States' defendant-friendly libel law would apply. IMHO, URI's and Hughes' pocketbooks are safe.