It’s a bright, sunny Friday here in Austin – the type of weather that we’ve had precious little of recently – and I’m sitting at my desk that overlooks the courtyard of the school of architecture building with its red clay Mediterranean tiles … and I’m trying very hard not to fume.

This morning’s edition of the university ‘newspaper,’ the Daily Texan (alternative punny names include: the Daily Toxin, the Nearly Ticking, etc.) featured an interesting article about the department that I work for. I say that it was interesting because it is an object of interest to be studied and dissected, not because the article was actually well-written and factual.

To sum up the point that the article is trying to make and never quite succeeds with: the department that I work for has limited funding to bring in speakers and outside academics for special events, and a decision was made by the combined faculty and department administration nearly a decade ago that we weren’t going to waste that limited funding by paying to bring in speakers who were essentially spokespeople for a particular political group or organization — in other words, people who would show up and propagandize, and would not be open to having an in-depth, objective discussion about whatever issue it was that they wanted to speak about. We’re not opposed to these people coming to campus to speak, but we view lectures and symposia as ways to supplement the existing academic resources that we already have, and it was decided that these sorts of things would be counterproductive to that goal.

There’s also a political factor: if we bring in a speaker for this group who espouses this viewpoint, are we then obligated to bring in a speaker from a different group who espouses the opposite viewpoint? Why bring them in at all when we can arrange a roundtable or panel with people who aren’t restricted in what they’re allowed to say in public and have a real discussion about the topic? It seems simple enough, and, frankly, it’s kind of a non-issue. I’ve been here frighteningly close to a decade and I can’t honestly recall that anyone has ever challenged the policy or spoken out against it. I don’t even remember hearing anyone complain about it — and my office is in a position (and my penchant for gossip notorious enough) that I would have heard about it if someone did.

As far as Middle Eastern Studies departments go, we are one of the few in the country that hasn’t imploded with infighting among faculty, staff, and students along the usual lines (pro-Israeli vs. pro-Palestinian; pro-U.S. foreign policy vs. anti-U.S. foreign policy, etc.). Our folks actually get along with each other. We’re actually kind of proud of that fact.

And then there was this lovely article in the paper this morning which stops just short of suggesting that we’re stifling debate. Added to this mix are a number of quotes from an infamous professor of communication who is the sort of left wing activist who makes other left wing activists uncomfortable – the sort of guy who is so far to the left that he’s practically traveled around the sphere and met the extreme right coming in the other direction. He’s on just about every neo-conservative list of the most dangerous academics in America. And, interestingly enough, he is not associated with my department in any way, shape, or form. I’m not sure he’s ever even been in the same building. But you sure as heck wouldn’t know that by reading this article.

I don’t know the young lady who wrote the article. I do, however, know several of the people who were quoted in the article. I’ve been copied on a number of e-mails distributed among them this morning. And here’s the thing that really got me worked up when I started seeing the messages exchanged. The Daily Texan is, of course, covered under the freedom of press clauses, and they can write what they wish. Being in the field of Middle Eastern Studies, I am used to controversy and lots of accusations slung around – it sort of goes with the territory.

What gets me, though, is that the young lady who wrote this article contacted one of the prominently quoted students and told him they wanted to talk about the student run film series. The poor guy thought he was being interviewed for a feature article about an upcoming series of films about diaspora in the Middle East. He was downright shocked when he opened the paper this morning and saw himself prominently quoted in an article about the department – and one that wasn’t supposed to be terribly positive, at that (I’m not actually sure the writer succeeded on that front. We were all scratching our heads trying to figure out what the main point of the article was supposed to be).

He’s since written to the editors of the Texan — in language far more diplomatic than I would have used — but I have little hope that his letter will ever warrant any sort of response from the editorial staff, nor will it ever actually be published in the Letters to the Editor column.

I guess they’re not teaching ethics in journalism anymore — at least not here in the hallowed halls of the University of Texas. I am, however, fairly certain that the young lady who wrote the article has a very promising career in journalism ahead of her. She certainly seems to have mastered all the skills necessary to get people to say whatever you want them to for the sake of a good story.