Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

‘The Bollinger Committee’
In The New York Sun’s editorial of December 10, 2004, you correctly note that universities like Columbia will take no action against professors whose outrageous positions are deemed a matter of “scholarly belief” [“The Bollinger Committee”]. But values besides academic freedom, you write, “are also important, even central. Like, say, truth.”
Truth? Where did you get that old-fashioned idea? Most academics don’t believe there is any such thing, at least as regards abstract, evaluative ideas. Hence their indignation at anyone who would claim to know any such ideas to be absolutely true.
The doctrine of “academic freedom” and its child, the tenure system, were designed precisely to make truth irrelevant. As long as a professor – at least one in the humanities – can formulate a rationalization couched in academic jargon, he is presumed to have integrity and no one can touch him.
“Academic freedom” means a guarantee that professors not be held accountable for their beliefs. For a university to fail to underwrite scholarship it finds objectionable is somehow supposedly a violation of freedom.
What freedom? The freedom of a professor to obtain the support of others as an entitlement, regardless of their judgment? As if boycott – the withdrawal of support – were not in fact a legitimate exercise of freedom, one fundamentally different from censorship – the forcible suppression of speech. As if thought and discovery had not flourished at universities for centuries before the invention of this doctrine in early 20th-century America.
PAUL BLAIR
Manhattan
Yemeni Stele Returns Home
As the former owners of the Arabian Alabaster Stele referred to in The New York Sun’s December 2, 2004, article [“Yemeni Stele Returns to Mideast Home”], we are pleased that the piece is being returned to its rightful home.
Far from being the disreputable dealers the article portrays us to be, we are considered by many as leaders in our field. It is outrageous to state that we smuggled out the stele. We bought it from a dealer in good faith, and put it up for pubic auction the same way.
Once Sotheby’s discovered that there was a question regarding the piece’s rightful ownership, it offered to return it to us. Instead, we requested that Sotheby’s turn it over to the authorities. No further action was taken against us in this matter once the piece was turned over.
As for our other legal issues, Ali categorically denies any wrongdoing, and has never been involved in any smuggling from Egypt or from anywhere else in the world. In fact, he only learned of the conviction from the newspapers, and was never even notified of the alleged charges nor given an opportunity to defend himself in court. He is taking the necessary legal steps to nullify the judgment.
As for Hicham’s situation, he was convicted of a misdemeanor for presenting inaccurate paperwork in an administrative process for which he has apologized. Hicham paid a $5,000 fine, and additionally, Phoenix Ancient Art voluntarily refunded the $1 million the client had paid for the “Silver Griffin.” The case is now closed.
We are ardent proponents of ensuring that only pieces with impeccable provenance are brought to market. In those rare instances when provenance is found to be questionable, as with the Yemeni stele, we quickly see that it is returned to its rightful owner or turned over to the proper authorities and absorb the financial loss.
In addition, if a piece a client has bought comes under question, it is our policy to refund the full purchase price. It is these policies and our professional reputation that has made Phoenix Ancient Art the dealer of choice for many of the world’s leading museums and private collectors.
HICHAM AND ALI ABOUTAAM
Phoenix Ancient Art
Manhattan
‘Bollinger’s Blindness’
In her letter defending two anti-Zionist Columbia University professors against The New York Sun’s criticisms, Miriam M. Reik concludes by stating, “I am a Jew…try dismissing my opinion, please, as ‘anti-Semitic’ ” [“Bollinger’s Blindness,” November 26, 2004].
Apart from the issue of academic freedom for the professors in question, on which honest people will disagree, I am disturbed by Dr. Reik’s assumption that any person should be immune to criticism simply because of his or her ethnic background.
Whether or not a person utters an anti-Semitic remark should be judged by the content and context of the remark, not simply by whether or not the person is a gentile or a Jew.
DENNIS KING
Manhattan
Justice for Ulysses S. Grant
Kudos to Marvin Cohen for his wonderful review of the recent Grant biographies and his own commentary on Grant’s character [“Still Understanding Ulysses S. Grant,” Arts and Letters, December 14, 2004].
I, too, have read the review of Grant’s memoirs by Matthew Arnold and marveled to see how a turn-of-the-century British intellectual so admired his character.
I live near Grant’s Tomb and I visit the general every Sunday and pray for him to give his guidance to our fighting men in Iraq.
DAVID M. O’NEILL
Manhattan
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.