You really can’t make this stuff up: a consulting company founded by Harvard professors has received millions of dollars from Moammar Gadhafi for, in effect, rendering the services ofÂ propagandaÂ machine to the deranged dictator.
TheÂ Boston Globe reports that the professors tried to help improve the dictator’s image:
Extolled the importance of his theories on democracy and his “core ideas on individual freedom.’’
Prince Alwaleed has given considerable amounts of money to American universities as well — notably Georgetown, where the lackadaisical pseudo-academic John Esposito heads the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. This story shows why the intellectual climate in Middle East Studies departments all over the U.S., as well as the U.K., is so pro-jihad and anti-freedom, and doesn’t allow for any dissenting voices.
Ted Nugent rocks:
Quote of the day:
“The more I thought about it, there were these two things which I found hard to defend,”
Sir Howard Davies
LONDON â€” The London School of EconomicsÂ announced late Thursday that an independent inquiry would examine all of the university’s dealings withÂ Libyaafter its director resigned amid an uproar over a major donation from a Libyan charity and a training contract with the Libyan government.
The inquiry is to be led by a prominent jurist, Harry Woolf, the former Lord chief justice of England and Wales.
The renowned university has been in tumult for nearly two weeks, with students protesting a recent donation of nearly a half-million dollars to the school’s Global Governance program by a charity headed by one of the university’s graduates,Â Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, a son of the Libyan dictator. The uproar grew on Thursday, after The Times of London reported on a leaked diplomatic cable posted on theÂ WikiLeaks Web site noting that the university had agreed to run a training program for elite Libyan civil servants for $3.6 million.
On Tuesday, with questions being raised about whether Mr. Qaddafi’s doctoral dissertation had been plagiarized, the university’s council decided to divert the $488,000 donation from the Qaddafi charity to establish a scholarship for North African students. But the council declined an offer to resign from the school’s director, Sir Howard Davies. Late Thursday, with news of the government contract raising fresh questions about Mr. Davies judgment, the council met again and accepted his resignation.
Mr. Davies acknowledged in his resignation letter that he had also acted as a financial adviser to the Libyan government and said that the uproar over the school’s dealings with Libya had forced him to conclude that it would “be right for me to step down, even though I know that this will cause difficulty for the institution I have come to love.” He added, “The short point is that I am responsible for the school’s reputation, and that has suffered.”
Charlotte Gerada, president of the student union, who was at the Thursday meeting, said in an interview: “What really tipped the balance was the revelation that the L.S.E. was training Libyan bureaucrats. That was just the last straw. They weren’t just coming to the school. This was a bespoke course. In all honesty, it looked sleazy.”
In the leaked cables, American diplomats were told in September 2009 by Libya’s National Economic Development Board that the board was “co-operating with the U.K. government and the London School of Economics, among other U.K. institutions, on an exchange program to send 400 ‘future leaders’ of Libya for leadership and management training.”
InÂ an interview with theÂ BBC on Friday morning, Mr. Davies said that he remained uneasy about his decision to accept the donation from theÂ Gaddafi International Charity and Development Fund and about having acted as a financial consultant to the Libyan government. In 2007 the university received a payment of $50,000 after Mr. Davies gave advice to the country’sÂ sovereign wealth fund.
“The more I thought about it, there were these two things which I found hard to defend,” he said.
The controversy began on Feb. 21, when Mr. Qaddafi made a televised speech warning protesters that his father’s supporters would fight “to the last bullet” and that “rivers of blood” would flow in the country. Students then occupied the faculty dining room and Mr. Davies’s office.
The inquiry the university announced Friday is also expected to examine accusations that portions of Mr. Qaddafi’s 2007 doctoral dissertation may have been plagiarized or ghost-written.
On Thursday, the consulting firm Monitor Group, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, acknowledged in a statement that part of the work for which it had been paid a fee of $250,000 a month by the Libyan government included helping Mr. Qaddafi with his dissertation.
The company also set up meetings between British and American academics and Libyan officials. Among those taking part were Anthony Giddens, the former head of the London School of Economics and an adviser to former prime ministerÂ Tony Blair, and the Harvard professor Joseph Nye, who is also thanked in the acknowledgments section of Mr. Qaddafi’s dissertation.
Sachin Patel, editor of The Beaver, the student newspaper at the London School of Economics, said he thought it was “highly likely we will see other resignations in the next days and weeks.” Noting that student government elections were also held on Thursday night, Mr. Patel said that all of the winning candidates were “very vocal about the need to set up an ethical investment policy” for the school.
Muslims pour money into universities in U.K., U.S. in order to change intellectual climate and push Islam
“Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to ‘hostile’ teaching,” by Stephen Pollard in theÂ Telegraph, March 3:
Sir Howard Davies, the director of the London School of Economics, has at last done the honourable thing and resigned from the university’s governing council. The LSE’s shameless prostituting of its good name in return for Muammar Gaddafi’s blood money (as the Tory MP Robert Halfon has rightly called it) is as great a betrayal of the spirit of a university as there has ever been in Britain.But while it will take the LSE quite some time to regain a seat at the table of respectability, it is not the only university that has reason to feel ashamed. The LSE is said to have received no more than Â£300,000 of the Â£1.5 million it was due from Libya.
Yet, on the most conservative estimate, other British universities have received hundreds of millions of pounds from Saudi and other Islamic sources â€“ in the guise of philanthropic donations, but with the real intention of changing the intellectual climate of the United Kingdom.
Between 1995 and 2008, eight universities â€“ Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, University College London, the LSE, Exeter, Dundee and City â€“ accepted more than Â£233.5 million from Muslim rulers and those closely connected to them.
Much of the money has gone to Islamic study centres: the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies received Â£75 million from a dozen Middle Eastern rulers, including the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; one of the current king’s nephews, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, gave Â£8 million each to Cambridge and Edinburgh. Then there was the LSE’s own Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, which got Â£9 million from the United Arab Emirates; this week, a majority of the centre’s board was revealed to be pushing for a boycott of Israel.
While figures since 2008 have yet to be collated, the scale of funding has only increased: such donations are now the largest source of external funding for universities by quite a long way. The donors claim that they want only to promote understanding of Islam â€“ a fine goal for any university.
But the man who gathered the earlier figures, Prof Anthony Glees, argues that their real agenda is rather different:Â to push an extreme ideology and act as a form of propaganda for the Wahhabist strain of Islam within universities. They push, he says, “the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor”.
This is not simply scare-mongering. The management committees of the Islamic Studies centres at Cambridge and Edinburgh contained appointees hand-picked byPrince Alwaleed. Other universities have altered their study areas in line with their donors’ demands. And it works.
A study of five years of politics lectures at the Middle Eastern Centre at St Antony’s College, Oxford, found that 70 per cent were “implacably hostile” to the West and Israel. A friend of mine, a former Oxford academic, felt that his time was largely spent battling a cadre of academics overwhelmingly hostile to the West, in an ambience in whichÂ students â€“ from both Britain and abroad â€“ were presented a world-view that was almost exclusively anti-Western.
Although much of the money is claimed to be directed towards apolitical ends, this can often be misleading. The gift by foreign governments of language books, for instance, can have a significant effect on what is taught; in one case, the gift of an art gallery was found to have had a direct impact on teaching and admissions policy.
This is all so easily done because there is no requirement for serious scrutiny of either the source of funding or its impact on research. As a report from the Centre for Social Cohesion puts it, our universities “are now effectively up for sale to the highest bidder”. If the LSE’s actions have a saving grace, is that they could help to expose the wider scandal surrounding the behaviour of UK universities.
In 2008, students and academics â€“ including myself as Anti-Racism Officer of the Students’ Union at the time â€“Â raised concerns over a Â£2.4 million investment from Sheikh Abdullah al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates.Â In return, the university’sÂ sleek new theatre was named after the late dictator, Sheikh Zayed.
The UAE is a country which denies citizenship to 80 per cent of its population, and hence most of the civil and human rights afforded only to citizens of the state. Moreover, Harvard’s Divinity School returned a $2.5 million donation after its benefactor, the Sheikh Zayed Centre, wasÂ linked to anti-Semitic and anti-American discourse. Davies was not ‘embarrassed’ by any of this. (source)
A policy of free speech at all costs, even if it means incitement to hate, terror and violence, is an irresponsibly dangerous thing.Â Yet at least one might be able to respect the commitment to the principle behind such a policy.Â No such respect then is due to the London School of Economics. Under the guise of operating a free speech policy, it has opened its doors to countless hate speakers only to slam them tightly shut in the face of speakers that might offend certain benefactors and key constituencies on its campus.
Earlier this week the LSE German Society was scheduled to hold its annual symposium, the panel was to debate on the subject of multiculturalism and the integration of Germany’s immigrant communities. Included among the panellists was Dr Thilo Sarrazin, author of the controversial book ‘Germany Abolishes Itself’, or as The Independent described him, the ‘anti-Semitic Banker’. True, Sarrazin is a former executive of the German Central Bank. But the rest is utterly fallacious.
Curious how The Independent seems to rarely trouble itself with other genuinely anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate speakers that regularly find their way onto Britain’s University campuses. When the speaker is perceived to be of the Right however, well then it’s a different story it would seem.
As it was Dr Sarrazin and the other panellists never found their way onto the LSE campus because at the last minute the University cancelled the event claiming that there would be a security risk and that they could not guarantee that the event would proceed in an orderly fashion or that ‘free speech could be ensured for all participants’.Â So instead LSE decided to ensure that there would be no free speech for any of the participants.Â The idea that the small rabble of Leftist and Muslim protestors that had gathered outside the lecture theatre posed any real threat is simply farcical.
What makes the LSE’s decision so troubling is that when considered in light of the Universities track record a rather shameful pattern emerges.Â For instance when the anti-Western, pro-Terrorist, anti-Semitic newspaper editor Abdl Bari Atwan came to the LSE the university authorities boldly announced that they would be championing Atwan’s right to free speech despite the flurry of complaints they received about the event going ahead.
Similarly the LSE felt compelled to bravely guard the right of Colonel Gaddafi to openly speak his mind to their students via satellite video, regardless of his multitude of horrendous human rights abuses against his own people and his decades of sponsoring international terrorism.Â Same story when members of the now outlawed pro-terror group Al-Mujaharoun came to call.
Yet when it was the turn of the pro-Israel and anti-Islamist writer Douglas Murray to come and speak at LSE following Israel’s war in Gaza, LSE announced that it would be unable to ensure security.Â Why is it then that when those who champion murder and violence wish to speak at the LSE the red carpet is rolled out but that when those who speak out against extremism and terror are scheduled to visit well then the invitation is unequivocally revoked?Â What kind of twisted version of free speech is that?
LSE is sending out the message loud and clear; make anti-Semitic and pro-terrorist statements and we’ll mumble something about free speech and look the other way, but say things Leftists and Islamists don’t want to hear and you’ll be stopped in your tracks.Â With this ever worsening record on who it permits to speak from its platform and who it turns away, withÂ Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh among its alumni, it’s only fitting that the LSE should have earned itself the title, the London School of Extremism.