Let me assure Ira Robinson that even in my corner of the ivory tower we collect information about what goes on in the classroom. We do this to ensure that our instructors are effective teachers whose lectures meet the canons of their discipline for rigor and fairness.

That, however, is where we draw the line on vetting classroom teaching. We do not test for acceptable opinions on controversial matters of international politics, nor do we define the contours of patriotic thinking. We do not tell colleagues there is a "right" interpretation of U.S. foreign policy or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And we do not publish black lists of colleagues who think differently from the way we do.

Does this amount (as Robinson argues) to granting academics immunity from public discussion of the views they profess? Not at all: rational debate and genuine discussion are what the academy is all about. But Campus Watch is not in the business of fostering "discussion." The goal of the site is to place outside the ambit of legitimate debate views that differ from those behind the site. Academics with opposing views are not mistaken; they are, by definition, engaged in deliberate disinformation and unprofessional conduct and thus merit being placed on a black list. That is not "discussion."

The issue at stake here goes beyond arguments about the Middle East. Either you believe it is legitimate to use the specious label of "public scrutiny" to intimidate those whose views on politics and history you do not like. Or you don't. And because we all have to answer that question, Campus Watch actually performs a useful service - though one its organizers hardly intended. They see nothing amiss in compiling dossiers on academic colleagues and then publishing lists of those who don't happen to hold the right opinions. By doing so they allow those who support such methods to self-identify.

E.P. Fitzgerald
History, Carleton University