Search News


Browse Archives

News

Charlie Wilson's Chair

August 27, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

He may not be Thomas Jefferson, but that does not seem to matter to his supporters. Charlie Wilson, the notoriously fun-loving former Texas Congressman, may soon have an endowed professor’s chair named in his honor, to the dismay of some professors at the University of Texas at Austin.

The T.L.L. Temple Foundation, a charitable organization based in Wilson’s hometown of Lufkin, Tex., has given $500,000 to the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas to establish what a press release asserts is the only faculty chair in the United States focused on the study of Pakistan. In response to the “challenge grant” given by the Temple Foundation, the college is planning to match this initial contribution with an additional $500,000. The Fort Worth Star-Telegramreports that the institution is using a call center in Islamabad, Pakistan, to reach out to potential donors to meet this fund raising goal.

Wilson, now 75, is best known for his role in leading Congress to support the covert Central Intelligence Agency operation that supported the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Charlie Wilson’s War, the 2003 book about this military operation by the 60 Minutes producer George Crile, was turned into a 2007 Hollywood blockbuster starring Tom Hanks. The film, however, put particular focus on Wilson’s rocky personal life, including his well-documented drinking and womanizing.

Some critics of Wilson argue that American support of the Afghan mujahideen led to the Taliban takeover of the country. This failed foreign policy, some argue, helped cause the war in Afghanistan following September 11, 2001. Still, you would never know about Wilson's checkered past from the materials the university used to promote the creation of the chair.

“A strong Texan who supported Pakistan’s efforts to garner extensive aid for the Afghan fight against Russian Communism, Congressman Wilson serves as an example of true leadership and unfailing vision, the type of deeply human hero who is inspiring and challenging,” stated a university press release.

The new chair, which would be based in the university’s South Asian studies program, is not being well received by some faculty members. Twelve professors associated with the program sent a letter to Randy Diehl, dean of the college, and Itty Abraham, director of the South Asia Institute, expressing discontent about the university’s decision. The professors argue that naming a chair after Wilson sends the wrong message to the public and is an implicit endorsement of his ideological legacy. They also argue that it will be difficult to recruit a “credible” scholar of Pakistan with a chair named after Wilson.

“The cold war in South Asia, which saw the United States shore up decades of military dictatorship in Pakistan against the democratic aspirations of its people, cannot be construed as a triumph of ‘good’ democracy over ‘evil’ communism,” the professors’ letter states. “Mr. Wilson’s record as a key Congressman who sent monies and munitions to the anti-Soviet mujahideen groups underscores the worrisome role the U.S. played in escalating the Soviet-Afghan conflict, with devastating consequences for the peoples of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States.”

South Asian Studies faculty were not consulted by the program or university administrators about establishing the Wilson chair, said Kamala Visweswaran, associate professor of anthropology and co-signer of the letter. She said she was not aware of the chair until she heard about it through reports from local news media, and that the university’s news release was not shared with the faculty. If administrators had consulted with faculty before the announcement, Visweswaran said they probably would have been made aware of faculty disapproval. She said she was not surprised by the university’s lack of transparency, though.

“The University of Texas is an institution that has a very poor record of faculty governance,” Visweswaran said. “This is a longstanding issue. The university often proceeds with what it wants to do. Some people felt this was par for the course. Some of us thought it was important to speak up and say, ‘our opinion counts.’ ”

Dana L. Cloud, associate professor of communication studies, said the university should have known that naming a chair in honor of Wilson would have been considered controversial. Still, when major donations are involved, Cloud said all administration and faculty are not always consulted for direction. She said she, too, found out about the decision from local news reports.

“It was just outrageous,” Cloud said. “I thought it was a joke.”

As of press time, the dean’s office at the college had not yet received the letter from the concerned faculty, said Christian Casarez, a Texas spokeswoman, adding that Diehl could not respond as a result. She did note that the chair has been proposed for a “couple of years.” A June 2006 press release from then Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, for example, makes note of the chair two years prior to its official announcement.

“We are pleased not only to honor Congressman Wilson, but also to further the study of a country of Pakistan’s stature and geopolitical importance,” Diehl stated in a prior news release.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Charlie Wilson's Chair

  • Ah Yes ... The “University”
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on August 27, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • Don’t get me wrong, I believe this is a losing battle, although, in the spirit of accuracy, there is no battle at all. It’s a done deal. Sometime after 1970, the modern university faculty hunkered down into a self-centered, don’t-make-waves, fetal position, and today the very few old timers who recall when things were “right” are either powerless ex-warriors or completely worn out anachronisms.

    The statements in this article that are most telling are ...

    Kamala Visweswaran: “[I am] not surprised by the university’s lack of transparency, though.”

    Kamala Visweswaran: “The university often proceeds with what it wants to do.”

    Dana L. Cloud “The university should have known that naming a chair in honor of Wilson would have been considered controversial.”

    Randy Diehl: “We are pleased not only to honor Congressman Wilson, but also to further the study of a country of Pakistan’s stature and geopolitical importance.”

    I ask you, who is “the university” ... who are the “we” to whom Dean Diehl refers?

    Early in my academic lifetime (of two years less than half a century), “the university” was a collection of scholars who taught, learned, and expanded the boundaries of knowledge. “We” were the faculty, students, and research scholars who were, back in the old days, the raison d’etat of any community of scholars worthy of the name. Everyone else was hired help, a relatively small bureaucracy there for the purpose of making sure everything ran smoothly for the scholars.

    Now, however, faculty and research scholars, such as they are, are employees and students are thought to be customers. And the hired help of yesteryear are the decision-makers of today. Theirs is a majority presence on most campuses, and they run the three-ring circus that purports to be higher education. And please ... don’t think for a minute that I believe the former hired help are the cause of this sorry state of affairs. Far from it. The fault lies squarely on the stooped shoulders of whiny, insipid, and, dare I repeat, self-centered faculty who give every appearance of (erroneously) believing they are sooo important everyone else should cow-tow to their whims, even when they’re too “busy” and too cowardly to stand up and fight to preserve something that used to be almost singularly important to society, broadly interpreted.

    So, Dean Diehl, where should I send my application for the Charlie Wilson Chair In Pakistan Studies?

  • Charlie Wilson's Chair
  • Posted by DFS , Assoc. Prof. of Math. on August 27, 2008 at 1:15pm EDT
  • Yes, opponents of this Chair are right. We should have just surrendered during the Cold War and actually helped the USSR during its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. After all, the USA has EXISTED and therefore is the root of all the bad things (never the good) which happen at some point in the future. Visualize the butterfly effect, if necessary.

    No American university should ever honor any patriotic American, I guess. Especially if the honoree to be is flawed in some non-PC way. Oh, the inhumanity! I feel my shorts bunching up.

  • Charlie Wilson's consequences
  • Posted by Prof on August 27, 2008 at 1:46pm EDT
  • Wilson convinced the CIA to work with the Pakistanis to create the Taliban and the al Quaeda network. An important ally was Osama bin Laden. And they succeeded in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. But after the Soviets were defeated, the network of Islamic fighters did not go out of business. Instead they launched a series of attacks around the world, the most infamous being the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. That's right, Charlie Wilson and the CIA essentially created the very dangerous network of people who attacked us on Sept. 11.

    Perhaps the Univ. of Texas should have a sense of history, and name endowed chairs after Charlie Wilson, Osama bin Laden, and Mohammmad Atta!

  • charlie wilson's proposed chair
  • Posted by jon miller on August 27, 2008 at 4:15pm EDT
  • Thank you for continuing to let the country know that there is know close-mindedness like academic clos-mindedness. The school should have known that "liberal arts" professors would never support honoring a man who almost single-handely enabled the Afghanis to defeat and drive out of their country the barbaric, murderous Soviet invaders who had been massacring innocent children, babies, women and elderly civilians.

  • Invaders and Occupiers Do That
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on August 27, 2008 at 4:50pm EDT
  • ". . . the barbaric, murderous Soviet invaders who had been massacring innocent children, babies, women and elderly civilians."

    Did you know that many U.S. troops, testifying at the Winter Soldier Conference 3 or 4 months ago claimed to witness, or be obliged to commit, just such atrocities in Iraq? They were traumatized, brutalized and angry for being "put into that position" by U.S. leaders. (The corporate media scarecly covered it.) My guess is that such masacres are inevitable when a foreign military power invades and occupies another country.

    Just because the leaders of other nations are no saints doesn't mean leaders of the U.S. are. Nation States are protction rackets for private political and economic interests. States are violent institutions.

  • Well said Mr. Manley
  • Posted by Chris on August 27, 2008 at 5:35pm EDT
  • Very nicely put. I think UT will have no problem finding a quality scholar, it is a pretty good u after all.

  • To Malvern Hill
  • Posted by DFS , Assoc. Prof. of Math. on August 28, 2008 at 4:55am EDT
  • Winter Soldier? Are we still keeping that canard afloat? Please see this link for dispositions of the so-called "testimony" given by the malcontents.

    http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=WSI_CID

    Winter Soldier was largely funded by Jane Fonda. That in itself should raise suspicions. But when you see the dispositions in the link above, you will notice that most is contradicted, inadequate, disproven, or without information.

    Just repeating something over and over again does not make it true.

  • War is Dirty
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on August 28, 2008 at 10:50am EDT
  • D.F.S. That's my point. I was answering those above condemning the Soviets for what they did in Afghanistan. There's a historical record showing that the U.S., under Carter, suckered the Soviets into invading in the first place so it would become their Vietnam. The web page you cite can be declared no less credible than you claim the recent Winter Soldier conference was. In a world run Mafia-like, the U.S. and its corporate interests don't get to be "on top" by being entirely virtuous. Just don't rely on either the liberal or conversative media to explain fully.

    I had a next door neighbor. Hated Jane Fonda. He told me things he and his compatriots did in Vietnam, like firing into huts knowing there were children in them. He told me the horrible things the Viet Cong did to his buddies just so American soldiers would take revenge on "suspected Viet Cong," thereby recruiting more guerillas. It's war. My neighbor wasn't even a member of Tiger Force. War brutalizes all involved. It is not a purifying act. The victors, or those who own the media, get to sanitize their own role. Don't you know that all combatants think they are in the right while it's the other guy who is evil. That's why wars are fought.

    My neighbor drank himself to death in 1992. I, along with one of his co-workers, discovered his body and chalked him up as another casualty of the Vietnam War.

    Nowadays, it's not just regular troops involved, but privatized mercenaries like Blackwater, unaccountable, that can do dispicable things in my name. It's not the troops' fault. If I don't question my leaders' policies, then my silence gives consent.

  • Posted by Imran Iqbal , Mr at POLIS, University of Leeds UK on August 28, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • Excuse me, Are we debating the Faculty-Administration relationship or moral grounds or justification for naming Pakistan chair after Charlie?

    Allow me to present one good aspect behind this move. By naming Pakistan chair after Charlie will help American to know and remember the role that the then US government played in South and Southwestasia. It will continue to remind them of their partial responsibility for creating frankenstein phenomenon such as Al-Quaida, Taliban, Islamic militancy, Madrassas and military dictators.

  • Posted by Faridoun Farrokh on August 28, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • One of the faculty members at UT referred to the dismal record of UT administration in governance issues. I have news for her. This is becoming true of more and institutions in this country as the upper echelons of university administrations are becoming further and further isolated from the realities of actual teaching and research. We are seeing more and more non-academics, or marginal academcians, college grabbing presidencies, provostships, and even deanships merely through personal or political connections. They have a monarchical attitude and a disdain for the faculty as mere plebeians. I am not surprised that the UT brass would initiate a faculty chair without consulting the faculty.

  • Thanks, Malvern
  • Posted by DFS on August 28, 2008 at 4:35pm EDT
  • I hear you. With apologies to those who thought we were off the subject, let me just say that many (how much IS "many," anyway?) atrocities occurred in the Vietnam War. Just remind the otherwise forgetful people of the facts: There was a maximum troop level of some half a million or more --- there were perhaps more than 2 million different troops there. (These figures are conservative.) Of all of this potential, only a few actual atrocities occurred. There were, of course, MORE than a few of these. When we fired upon huts, bunkers, emplacements, areas, knowing there were innocents there, we did so knowing (or were confidant in knowing) that it was necessary because there were antagonists and deadly forces comingled with the innocents --- at least, in MTY unit we knew this (the commander is important). We had authorization to question, and possibly refuse, such orders to fire, but we had to make a calculated decision before executing such an order. Sometimes we refused, and in so doing, we sometimes lost some people. Sometimes we WILCO'd, and then we discovered how faulty the intelligence was.

    War IS dirty. War makes us all dirty. There are innumerable nights where I thought I should have been better served by NOT returning. But, I DID return. And I know what the Policy was. And I know HOW the Policy both was, and was to be, executed. These aberations are inevitable in war, and they ARE aberations from the norm, so they WILL predictably occur. This does not, of course, excuse them. This only mitigates them.

    You dismiss out of hand my link to Winter Soldier, perhaps because I found it through frontpagemag. But all of those dispositons came from official Army CID investigations. I know --- now we must question the Army.

    I always question the Army, perhaps because my old job there was to perform wiretaps on the Army. But leave that all aside.

    Our people are the most honest and virtuous, as a nation, that has ever existed on earth. Otherwise, what's the point of going on? Our checks and balances ensure this. Momentarily we may and should question this, but also, momentarily, we should remember that we are transparent, and this is why I know that our policies cannot include, over the long haul, any illegality.

    A bad entity does a good thing: it is still a bad entity. A good entity does a bad thing: it is still a good entity. The key point here is, what do we consider ourselves, good or bad?

    Again, Malvern, thanks for a thoughtful reply. I know and love ALL veterans.

  • Checks and Balances, Transparency
  • Posted by Malvern Hill on August 29, 2008 at 8:45am EDT
  • DFS: And thank YOU. Our troops are well-trained, brave and self sacrificing. They act out of conscience and on the best information that they have at the time. It's just that some come upon new information later that throws them into crisis. Or they get placed into impossible situations.

    History shows that it is our leaders who often lie on behalf of Power and a new kind of economic Empire. They twist language and call "the National Interest" things that are not national at all, but private, corporate, military-related interests, or those of cliques like neo-cons or the Trilateral Commision. And they do this because their enemies, other global leaders do it. That's why I say the world is Mafia-like. Not the world's peoples, our elites.

    I'm not a pacifist. I believe in defense. The American people might have known, however, that after WWII when the War Department became known as the Department of Defense that it wasn't going to be used for defense any more. And most of the damage we've done has been against peoples, not enemy leaders.

    I'm not so sure that our "transparency" and "checks and balances" really work as they should. And we have the corporate media largely to thank. We've had a succession of Congressionally undeclared wars. And sometimes it's the entity with the greatest power to HIDE that's in a position to do the greatest evil, even while faking transparency. This is not a testament against our young men and women who go off to war thinking they're fighting for average Americans' freedom at home. Rather, it is to look behind the scenes at what our leaders do and how they make the case for war, such that our veterans, it always turns out, actually fight for more freedom for U.S. and global elites. In a dictatorship the leader says we're going to war and everybody marches. That's pretty much what the U.S. has done since at least Vietnam, with the help of the media. That's not transparency, it's propaganda.

    If we were really the progenitors of democracy we claim to be, we would be speaking and acting not for "national security" so much as mutual security. For evil leaders do harness their peoples' fear to suit the elites' selfish purposes, it seems to me, based upon information I have.

    And I also acknowledge that I myself may be a victim of propaganda. "Ah," as the Pope says in Browning's _The Ring and the Book_, "where, where lies truth?"