Good to hear back from you in person. (Much better than that silly automated response you and Prof. Kirstein have been impelled to hide behind.)

Actually, you are responding to a missive sent out generally ("Dear All"), rather than one directly addressed to you, in which I was alerting a large body of people to the basics of the Kirstein affair, and updating them about it through Saturday, Nov. 16. (Should you want to consider a message that I did address directly to you--and presuming it's still around somewhere--see my "Open Letter on the Kirstein Affair," dated Nov. 12.)

Back to your Nov. 15 statement on the Kirstein affair (http//www.sxu.edu/news/kirstein_statement.htm)....You mentioned that Prof. Kirstein's Oct. 31 email to Cadet Kurpiel contained "inflammatory, anti-military comments," aroused "anger and anguish...in many quarters," caused many people to "feel demeaned by his intemperate criticisms of the military," and the like. Acknowledging all of this fallout from the affair, you conclude that "Professor Kirstein's e-mail message was unwarranted and unbecoming a scholar," and that, therefore, Saint Xavier University is duty-bound to adopt specific punitive measures with regard to the Professor. These you then list. And you go on to conclude with a few admonitions about the meaning of academic freedom, both with regard to Prof. Kirstein and more generally. Namely:

"4. Any future faculty contract(s) extended to Professor Kirstein will include a binding addendum specifically requiring him to adhere both to institutional policies and to the norms of the American Association of University Professors in matters relating to the proper exercise of academic freedom and extramural activities." "Saint Xavier University remains committed to the pursuit of teaching and learning in a campus community where all are treated with respect, caring and justice and where academic freedom is enjoyed for purpose of promoting quality teaching, careful research, critical analysis, thoughtful discussion, and programs of direct service to metropolitan Chicago and beyond."

These last two statements trouble me. I believe that they betray an understanding of the idea of academic freedom that is strictly INSTRUMENTAL in its nature--i.e., academic freedom is good ONLY AS A MEANS TO AN HIGHER GOOD (your "for purpose of..."), RATHER THAN AS A GOOD IN ITSELF. I respectfully disagree with your University's strictly instrumental understanding of academic freedom. And I seriously doubt that, let us say, the prevailing opinion among the American Association of University Professors, would agree with it either. A second, no less troubling clause, is the following (emphasis added) "in matters relating to the PROPER EXERCISE of academic freedom and extramural activities."--In the real world--in which the entire Kirstein affair surely counts as an acid test--how might we come to an understanding of the PROPER EXERCISE of academic freedom? Imagine the following counterfactual scenarios

A) In reply to Cadet Kurpiel's original message to Prof. Kirstein, Prof. Kirstein issues exactly the same reply that he did to Cadet Kurpiel on Oct. 31, BUT THE MATTER ENDS THERE, WITHOUT THE SAMIZDAT-LIKE INTERNET CIRCULATION OF THE PROFESSOR'S MESSAGE THAT IT EVENTUALLY RECEIVED. AND THAT IS THAT.

B) In reply to a similarly polite and respectful request for assistance in organizing an upcoming symposium from a member of the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan, Prof. Kirstein addresses exactly the same reply to either of them that he did to Cadet Kurpiel on Oct. 31 (mutatis mutandis, of course)--AND, IN THE EXACT SAME SAMIZDAT-LIKE MANNER OF WIDESPREAD INTERNET CIRCULATION THAT THE PROFESSOR'S MESSAGE TO CADET KURPIEL RECEIVED, YOUR UNIVERSITY FINDS ITSELF BOMBARDED WITH MESSAGES FROM ANP OR KKK SYMPATHIZERS DEMANDING THE IMMEDIATE PUNISHMENT OR DISMISSAL OF THE PROFESSOR.

Admittedly, these ARE counterfactual scenarios, and we cannot test them against reality, as we can the case of the Kirstein affair. But my honest hunch is that in BOTH Case A) AND Case B), your University would NOT have adopted anything remotely close in severity to the four sanctions that it in fact has adopted in the case of the Kirsten affair. This being true, what might it tell us about your University's STRICTLY INSTRUMENTAL understanding of the idea of academic freedom (i.e., "for the purpose of..."), particularly when evaluated in light of your closely related contention about the "PROPER EXERCISE of academic freedom and extramural activities"?

If Prof. Kirstein is to endure sanctions for making "inflammatory, anti-military comments" (and the like), would Saint Xavier University sanction another of its professors for making inflammatory, anti-KKK or anti-Nazi Party comments? Conversely, if Saint Xavier University would not sanction one its professors for making inflammatory, anti-KKK or anti-Nazi Party comments, or for causing anger and anguish among their sympathizers (After all, what on earth might "inflammatory" mean in such a context?), then why would its sanction Prof. Kirstein for making "inflammatory, anti-military comments" (and the like)? My thanks for you continued time and consideration. (FYI Please see below for the copy of an exchange on these issues between Prof. Kirstein and another gentleman that was once published in the journal Academe.)