Search News


Browse Archives

News

Another Professor Denied Entry

September 25, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

With some regularity in recent years, Bush administration officials have given speeches pledging their commitment to international education and to a smooth visa system for foreign scholars seeking to come to American universities.

There's just one problem. Cases continue to materialize in which scholars are kept out, leaving them and their American hosts frustrated and angry. There's the Canadian physicist who couldn't cross the border to attend a conference. A musicologist at Mills College has been unable to return there after she was turned away at the airport. It took two years (and a lawsuit) for the University of Nebraska at Lincoln to win a visa for one of its new faculty members. Add to those and a number of other cases the situation facing Marixa Lasso, an assistant professor of Latin American history at Case Western Reserve University.

Lasso's course for the fall -- on Latin American history -- has been called off. She's the only Latin Americanist in her department and she's stuck in Panama. Lasso is a Panamanian citizen, but she has had no trouble winning visas in the past or academic recognition in the United States. She won a Fulbright to study in the United States, earned her master's degree and Ph.D. at American universities and just saw her first book, Myths of Harmony: Race and Republicanism During the Age of Revolution, Columbia, 1795-1831, published by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

"Professor Lasso is a rising star in her field and we are lucky to have her on our faculty," said Jonathan Sadowsky, the history chair at Case Western. "This is a former Fulbright scholar who was here on a program designed to foster U.S. interaction with other cultures, who brings a real perspective to our department, who is being kept out. This is terrible."

The American Historical Association is among the groups that have recently weighed in on Lasso's behalf, with Barbara Weinstein, the president of the group, writing to the State Department, vouching for Lasso's work as an "outstanding scholar" and noting that all who know Lasso find it "astonishing" that her visa would now be held up. The Latin American Studies Association is also lobbying on her behalf.

In a phone call from Panama, Lasso said she too was astonished by what has happened. She travels to Panama regularly, to visit family members or to do research, and she went there after classes ended in the spring, planning to do research for the summer. In July, she went to the U.S. embassy for her visa renewal, which has always been routine in the past, and she was turned away -- not only was she unable to get her visa, but she couldn't get any explanation of why she was being placed in limbo. "They told me that some things changed, but they won't tell me what," she said.

Cyrus C. Taylor, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Case Western, said that officials there have also been unable to get any answer as to why Lasso would be suddenly unable to obtain a visa. The university is "gravely concerned" about the situation, but having difficulty figuring out its strategy when it doesn't know why Lasso was suddenly treated in a different way.

Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the State Department, said Monday that it is policy not to discuss individual visa cases. She said that the U.S. government's position is that "everybody who is qualified for a visa should get the visa and if they are denied a visa, it is for a specific reason required by law." Asked how people could point out possible errors if they don't know why they were rejected, she repeated: "If a visa is denied, [consular officials] are following the rules as prescribed by law."

Lasso said she is left to wonder why she was placed on the barred list. Some Latin American scholars have expressed fear that they are suspect if they write about current political movements that may be critical of the United States. But Lasso specializes in the 19th century. "I'm writing about things that are 200 years old, about people who are very much dead," said Lasso. "We have no idea why they are doing this and we don't know where to go."

Case Western let Lasso move a research leave to this semester, so she is being paid and doing research. But she doesn't know what will happen in the future. Her husband works as a software engineer in Cleveland so she has been kept away from him as well.

"I'm just so disappointed," Lasso said. While she's been waiting, she said, she has kept hoping that someone would tell her "what's going on and what they need" so she can show she is a scholar who poses no threat. "But they won't tell me what's going on, so I can't do anything. That's what's so frustrating. I feel so weak and powerless."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Another Professor Denied Entry

  • "Official Silence"
  • Posted by Merle Allshouse , Senior student at U.S.F. on September 25, 2007 at 6:40am EDT
  • "Official Silence" is the response of the arrogance of power....whether in the silencing of the AAUP listserve or "denied entry." Our government, and even academic institutions, increasingly are permitting only officially sanctioned free speech.

  • Posted by Frederick Ferre , Prof. emeritus at University of Georgia on September 25, 2007 at 7:15am EDT
  • It is simply intolerable that in such an important matter there is no recourse to appeal or explanation.

  • Hit List
  • Posted by John F. DeFelice , Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle on September 25, 2007 at 8:00am EDT
  • It seems our "enlightened" government under the Cheney administration has developed an ideological hit list. Are you concerned yet? You should be. If you're progressive, you're probably next. I imagine they won't be happy until everyone who is moderate, agnostic, or left of center is silenced and under house arrest. The canary caged next to the Bill of Rights has been wheezing and gasping for nearly eight years now! With events like these, I hear a death rattle!

    Got habeas corpus?

  • denial of entry
  • Posted by theron on September 25, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • Is HUAC or the Dies Committee far behind? When those in power can silence critical voices by excluding them and few outside academe object, then the next targets will be critical voices here. First the immigrants and the 'foreigners', then the locals.

    On the other hand, that is being done implicitly already with the Patriot Act, warrantless spying, unlimited detentions and guilt by association. Too many flags blind vision.

  • Posted by Larry on September 25, 2007 at 9:10am EDT
  • Folks, if you want to help these professors, simply help them take legal action. Universities need to be very clear about the extent to which will assist professors in fighting such actions. The government can be made to justify its positions, and can be made to reverse its positions.

    Most of the other comments here are just political rants that really don’t shed any light on the matter. Theron, your comments about the Patriot Act don’t really make sense. Have you even read it? Who was found guilty by association?

  • National Security
  • Posted by Joseph C. on September 25, 2007 at 9:50am EDT
  • "The government can be made to justify its positions, and can be made to reverse its positions." - Larry

    National security. There, that's all the justifying you'll get. With regards to reversing the government's position, well, being reversed and doing the reversing are two very different things. A person can be stuck out in the cold for a very long time while the government "reverses" a position - assuming you are not merely ignored and the whole process has to be repeated.

  • Information Black Out
  • Posted by John F. DeFelice , Associate Professor of History at University of Maine at Presque Isle on September 25, 2007 at 11:20am EDT
  • "We can't tell you why your visa is denied. the terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't tell you why you're under investigation: The terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't tell you why you're under house arrest: the terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't tell you why you're imprisoned without charge: The terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't tell you why you have been renditioned to a police state: The terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't tell you why you're being tortured: The terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't release your battered body to your family: The terrorists might find out!"

    "We can't tell you what "happened" to American Democracy and Justice: The terrorists might find out!"

    Makes you wonder who the terrorists are!

  • And you expected?
  • Posted by rightwingprof on September 25, 2007 at 11:20am EDT
  • "Our government, and even academic institutions, increasingly are permitting only officially sanctioned free speech."

    The government has infringed on nobody's freedom of speech. The fact that the TV has talking heads every night squealing about being silenced -- on national TV, and without repercussion -- demonstrates the fallacy of that statement.

    But the professor under discussion is not a citizen. Free speech isn't relevant for that reason.

    I'm always mystified when liberals, who believe fervently in the expansion of government, complain about bureaucratic governmental idiocies. What, exactly, did you expect? All government is bureaucratic, wasteful, and inefficient. See your local post office. Why would the INS be any different?

  • Joseph C is wrong
  • Posted by Larry on September 25, 2007 at 11:20am EDT
  • Joseph C, That simply is not true.

    First of all, the government has reversed its position, and academics formerly denied entry have entered the country. E.g. Waskar Ari . I was hoping to find a photo of Pro. Ari teaching class, but instead, you will have to been satisfied with his webpage. http://www.history.unl.edu/facultystaff/profile.asp?id=148 .

    Secondly, the government has given specific reasons (sometimes after being taken to court) for denying various visas, such as contributions to organizations that were on the so-called “Terrorist Organization List.” (E.g. Tariq Ramadan) Sure, we might disagree with this practice (because the list is too big, and the donors mean no harm), but is a very specific allegation which, in most cases, is not denied.

    Your post really seems defeatist.

  • Marixa Lasso
  • Posted by dave raden on September 25, 2007 at 11:20am EDT
  • I'm the brother-in-law of Marixa Lasso. Not only is she being hurt by this situation, but also her family here in the USA who welcomed her with open arms into our brother's life just this past March. How our government justifies keeping my Ohio born brother's life partner away from him for no apparent reason is extremely frustrating for all involved. I can only urge all who feel outraged by this situation to write the state deparment and urge them to reverse their decision.

  • Posted by Larry on September 25, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Mr. Raden, Quite frankly, writing the Department of State will do little good. Instead, legal action can be taken. Your brother should get a lawyer which (in my perfect world) should be paid for by his school. If schools are serious about this issue they will have a legal strategy already in place should these issues arise.

    Rightwingprof, While I generally agree with you, the issue is not as clear as you make it out to be. First of all, non-citizens with some connection to the US enjoy 1st amendment rights. Secondly, academic institutions enjoy 1st amendment rights as well. Now, this wouldn’t mean that an institution could invoke “academic freedom” to bring OBL in and immunize him from prosecution, but it does mean that the government doesn’t have free reign to injure a school’s academic efforts.

    Mr. De Felice, As I showed earlier, explanations for visa denials were given. Maybe you don’t like the explanations, but most of them did not seem to actually violate the law.

  • Another Professor Denied Entry.
  • Posted by Tony Williams on September 25, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • I'm appalled at some of the right wing remarks made here and wish to add my condemnation of this recent act. Of course, the old Dies/McCarthy stipulations are being used against foreign academics, mostly illegally. The fact that they are not American citizens does not make the violation of american constitutional rights, the lack of due process, and the right to be informed about the specific nature of the allegations against them any more palatable. These victims have the right to a fair hearing. But the Patriot Act and the recent inhumane practices of Abu Ghraib, Gunantanamo Bay, and others instances are tarnishing America's reputation as a place for academic freedom and the opportunity of hearing foreign scholars. One post is right: this is Dies/McCarthy all over again and I'm sure that those posters who gloat over the plight of these unfortunate victims of White House Babbitry will welcome a return to the good old days of the 1950s. But they may be next in the long run.

  • There are ways
  • Posted by stm60 at UConn on September 25, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Let me echo Larry's comments about this situation.

    First, there are several legal courses a sponsor can take. Most are a actually a good deal more effective than crying and moaning. Second, the government always has a reason. And, as Larry noted, the denied person usually admits that there is a basis to that reason (they may not agree it is a good reason or justifies denial of entry.) Discussion with clients who have been denied a visa start predictably: first, there is the compliant that they were denied three times -- this is due to the fact that the applicant never did anything but resubmit a simple application. Second, on questioning, I find any admission that there was an overstay, or illegal employment or some such on a previous stay. For the political cases, it often is membership or contributions to a suspect or banned group. A good lawyer can work with this - not always get it waived, but can at least work with this and get it in the open.

    In sum, as far as I can tell, there is no random-reject generator at US embassies.

  • what does the PA have to do with it?
  • Posted by Larry on September 25, 2007 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Since STM and I are in agreement, I have to ask Mr. Williams a question:

    What part of the Patriot Act has tarnished the US’s reputation? Specifically, how did it alter prior law so as to tarnish the reputation of the United States, and how does the Patriot Act make the law in the US differ from the law in other countries? Also, how do you square the fact that various parts of the PA have been found unconstitutional and unenforceable? Does this mean that there is now less tarnishing?

    As an academic, I am sure that you have specific answers and actually read the Patriot Act.

  • On the status of non-citizens
  • Posted by Bob Yates on September 25, 2007 at 4:40pm EDT
  • I really appreciate the following observations from rightwing prof:

    But the professor under discussion is not a citizen. Free speech isn’t relevant for that reason.

    My spouse of 25 years is not a US citizen; she does have permanent resident status. Under the reasoning by our colleague, if she is denied entry to the US after visiting family, this is nothing for anyone to be concerned with because she is not a citizen.

  • Posted by A Proft on September 25, 2007 at 5:30pm EDT
  • Franky, I am a bit mystified by all of this, and this case in particular.

    #1. I have friends and family who are citizens of foreign countries. When they've been denied visas to the U.S., they've never been given an explanation. Frankly, if consulates had to explain every denial, they wouldn't have time for anything else.

    #2. The only way they are going to get a response is to hire a lawyer, write Congressmen and Senators, or both.

    #3. If the scholar in question lived in the U.S. for years, works in the U.S., and has a life partner in the U.S., why didn't she apply for permanent resident status? Then she wouldn't need a visa at all to travel to and from the U.S.

  • Why?
  • Posted by Tom Cushing , Instructor (Retired) at Former College Instructor on September 25, 2007 at 5:30pm EDT
  • It sounds like stonewalling to me: more information is needed and the party of the first part is unwilling to engage in dialog to resolve the impass. That doesn't seem right; if there is a serious problem, then state it and go on with life.

  • Responses
  • Posted by Joseph C. on September 25, 2007 at 6:50pm EDT
  • Larry, Waskar Ari is only one example. Also, his web page isn't all the useful. Doing a Google search I found the following eight links down: http://blog.historians.org/news/278/waskar-ari-finally-wins-visa

    One click brings you to the full news story: http://journalstar.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/local/doc469ff412a78db313746744.txt

    The IHE article itself mentions other scholars who have been denied as well.

    "Secondly, the government has given specific reasons (sometimes after being taken to court) for denying various visas, such as contributions to organizations that were on the so-called “Terrorist Organization List.” (E.g. Tariq Ramadan) Sure, we might disagree with this practice (because the list is too big, and the donors mean no harm), but is a very specific allegation which, in most cases, is not denied."- Larry

    I do not see that the charge of supporting a given flagged group as being the point. If the list is too big or the organization does no harm, then deal with these issues. What prevents the ACLU or EFF (both of who I support) from being put on these lists? Also, why should one have to waste time and money taking the government to court just to find out why can't enter the country to get their bloody work done?

    "What part of the Patriot Act has tarnished the US’s reputation?"- Larry

    You essentially answered your own question: "various parts of the PA have been found unconstitutional and unenforceable." While other laws do tend to be found unconstitutional the PATRIOT Act is a cornerstone of US domestic and foreign policy. The PATRIOT Act is one of this administration's big babies and will be parto of its "legacy." As to how laws expanded under the PATRIOT Act differ from laws in other countries just depends on what countries you compare us too.

    "Your post really seems defeatist."- Larry

    In what sense?

    "Frankly, if consulates had to explain every denial, they wouldn’t have time for anything else."- A Proft

    Say what? If the government is going to bar someone from their family and occupation, be they a citizen or not, they are responsible to make the reason known.

    The sentiment seems to be that if one is caught up in one or more of these legal tangles is to jump through whatever hoops are presented and not cause too much of a ruckus. I take issue with this mindset. The point is to question why these hoops exist in the first place. That's tough. It's hard.

    Even harder than reading this post. :P

  • The list is of *foreign* terrorist organizations
  • Posted by Larry on September 25, 2007 at 8:30pm EDT
  • Mr. Yates, Although the Supreme Court has not specifically passed on the issue yet, some lower courts have held that schools have standing under the 1st amendment to challenge an arbitrary denial of a visa to a faculty member.

    Joseph,

    These people all have specific legal problems which need to be dealt with on an individual basis. Sure, it is nice to whine or write Congresspeople, but unless you treat each problem individually little will really be done. Quite frankly, I think that a lot of these public statements by academics which contain nothing but a series of insults directed at consular officers do nothing to help the situation. In fact, without exception, it seems that when people stop screaming about how unfair it is, there seems to be a very specific reason why someone was denied entry.

    Your comments about the Patriot Act were not specific. They seem to be making some kind of political point, but I will leave politics to people that think in political terms.

    As to what prevents the ACLU or the EFF from being put on the list of terrorist organizations, two things: 1) the statute is limited to foreign organization that engage in certain enumerated crimes; and 2) an organization can challenge its designation in court. This is fairly obvious from reading the statute, and I am frankly confused as to why you ignored this. So, I am curious as to why you did not read 8 USC 212(a)(3)(B). If by some chance you were unable to read the statute (not part of the Patriot Act) that you referred to several times, you can find it here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.html

    Anyway, I look forward to your explanation of why you think that the ACLU or EFF could be on this list.

  • Bravo Larry!
  • Posted by Joseph C. on September 26, 2007 at 5:05am EDT
  • Nothing in section (B) would seem to indicate a group such as the ACLU or EFF being targeted. I concede this point.

    It's nice to see a conservative poster here who actually makes me smarter rather than just thrash at me. :)

  • Posted by Tired and Wretched on September 26, 2007 at 5:05am EDT
  • stm, Larry, and "a proft,"

    The case of the Mills College musicologist is even more extreme. Read the article. She was not denied a visa renewal on reapplication at a consulate. She had a valid visa. She was met at the airplane exit by armed men, she was taken away and threatened, and her visa was ripped up because it had been revoked without notice. She has a lawyer provided by the college and inquiries by the lawyer and members of Congress have gotten no answers. This isn't routine processing or simple incompetence by I.C.E. or State. At best, it's incompetence followed by a cover-up. Or maybe it's malicious, or maybe she's a threat to the American Way of Life and Elgar studies. Who the hell knows? But pretending that this is business as usual is, well, pretending.

  • conservative? -- and some advice
  • Posted by Larry on September 26, 2007 at 7:15am EDT
  • Joseph, I am a conservative? Well, I guess anyone who disagrees with you is that. But, in case you were wondering, I am an (active) member of the ACLU and a member of EFF. However, I think it is wrong and bad to replace actual advocacy that is based in an technical analysis of the law with venom that isn’t even remotely based in a legal argument.

    Tired, The musicologist at Mills College did not bring suit. She seemed quite happy to find another job. Also, while she complains a lot, she doesn’t provide specifics. In fact, most of what she says is quite vague. Since she did not file suit it is hard to verify most of what she says.

    Academics need to understand something: not all of the groups they associate with are as benign as they might want to think. Even academics that only want the best can cause themselves (or their programs) needless amounts of trouble by simply taking foreigners at their word.

    However, a lot of this can be avoid by simply consulting with attorneys first, who can advise on what the state of the law is, and if necessary, work to change it (as some academic and humanitarian succeeded in doing.)

  • Marixa Lasso
  • Posted by lyz on September 27, 2007 at 1:30pm EDT
  • As someone who knows and works with Professor Lasso, I find some of these comments callous and disheartening (call it "crying and moaning," if that makes you believe that you are intellectually/ideologically superior).

    Re. Bob Yates: "But the professor under discussion is not a citizen. Free speech isn’t relevant for that reason. My spouse of 25 years is not a US citizen; she does have permanent resident status. Under the reasoning by our colleague, if she is denied entry to the US after visiting family, this is nothing for anyone to be concerned with because she is not a citizen."

    It must be easy for you to make such a comment with your spouse at home (is she permitted to call her dwelling, which one assumes is in the U.S. "home" since she is not a citizen?) -- hopefully (at least for your spouse's sake) you would be concerned if she was denied re-entry after visiting relatives abroad.

    RE stm60: "First, there are several legal courses a sponsor can take. Most are a actually a good deal more effective than crying and moaning. Second, the government always has a reason."

    If being concerned about and missing a family member/colleague/teacher/friend is "crying and moaning," than there are dozens of people in Cleveland who are doing just that. Your smugness is hurtful Mr. stm60. Enjoy your evening at home with your family and know that there's a family in Cleveland who isn't dining together tonight. Re. the governments "reasons" -- for the sake of Professor Lasso's case, I'll leave that one alone for now.

    Re. Larry: "The musicologist at Mills College did not bring suit. She seemed quite happy to find another job. Also, while she complains a lot, she doesn’t provide specifics. In fact, most of what she says is quite vague. Since she did not file suit it is hard to verify most of what she says."

    You need to go back to last Monday's NYT and re-read the article on Nalini Ghuman -- her comments aren't reflective of someone who's happy about anything, much less "find[ing] another job." She "complains a lot" -- how callous of you to characterize her reaction in such a way. "Truth" is revealed through lawsuits???! How naive or delusional you must be.

  • truth
  • Posted by Larry on September 27, 2007 at 3:25pm EDT
  • Lyz, Yes, for the most part, legal “truth” is revealed via lawsuits. Maybe it isn’t objective truth, but it is the best we can do.