On Saturday, Sept. 22, Zewdalem Kebede, a native-born Ethiopian currently studying political science at San Diego State University, was reading in his college’s library. At a nearby table, a group of Saudi Arabian students were holding a conversation in Arabic, a language Kebede -- unbeknownst to them -- had learned as a young student in Ethiopia. Unaware that Kebede was listening in, the Saudi students began to speak of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Before long, their comments took an alarming turn. "They were talking about the Sept. 11 action," Kebede later recalled in an interview with SDSU’s student paper, The Daily Aztec, "and with that action they were very pleased ... they were happy ... and they were regretting of missing the ‘Big House’."

Unable to sit quietly by, Kebede approached their table. Speaking in Arabic so as not to expose the subject of the Saudis’ conversation to the other students in the room, Kebede expressed his disapproval. "What you are saying is unfair," Kebede remarked, "how do you feel happy when those 5,000 to 6,000 people are buried in two or three buildings? You are talking about the action of bin Laden and his group, you are proud of them ... you should feel shame." The Saudi students weren’t happy and, before long, the small group was involved in a heated exchange.

At this point, another Saudi student approached from a nearby table. Loudly addressing Kebede in English and turning heads across the room, the newcomer demanded to know whether Kebede objected to the students speaking in Arabic. When Kebede replied that he didn’t, the man asked him if he intended to threaten them. Again, Kebede replied that he did not. He then returned to his own table. In choosing to address the students in Arabic, Kebede had quite rightly understood that it would be impolite (and perhaps dangerous) to chastise the students for expressing sentiments which they might have kept to themselves had they been speaking English. By addressing Kebede in English, the newcomer had cleverly -- and dishonestly -- turned Kebede’s good intentions against him. For all the other students could tell, Kebede was the real villain, threatening the poor Saudi students solely because they spoke a Middle Eastern language. It was a nice piece of theater.

The episode, however, did not end there. Thirty minutes after the first exchange, two university police officers approached Kebede and asked to speak with him. After listening to his version of events, the police officers told Kebede that he should have reported the incident rather than confront the students directly. The officers next spoke with the Saudi students, took some notes, and cautioned all involved to avoid causing further disturbance. They then returned to the station and filed a report.

Three days later, Kebede received a letter from SDSU’s Center for Student Rights. The letter, which ordered Kebede to attend a meeting to discuss his conduct in the library, charged that he had been "verbally abusive to other students," a charge that was to be repeated in a Sept. 27 crime brief (yes, crime brief) in the Daily Aztec. Fortunately for Kebede, several students, familiar with his version of events, wrote the paper to complain about the charges contained in the report. Within a few days, Kebede’s run-in with the Saudis had become the talk of the campus.

Though Kebede’s case was quickly on its way to becoming a big embarrassment for SDSU’s administration, they pushed on with their disciplinary hearings all the same. After meeting with Kebede on Oct. 3 and hearing his side of the story, University Judicial Officer Antionette Jones forwarded the matter to a committee for decision. On Oct. 9, Kebede heard back from the committee. In essence, he was put on probation, warned that any further involvement in "confronting members of the campus community in a manner that is found to be aggressive or abusive" will be punished by severe disciplinary measures. "You are admonished," the letter stated, "to conduct yourself as a responsible member of the campus community in the future."

Which begs the question, did Kebede act irresponsibly in the first place? According to those who support the university’s action, the Kebede case boils down to an issue of free speech. In expressing approval of the Sept. 11 attacks, they argue, the Saudi students were simply exercising their right to say what they like. Yet by engaging in some free speech of his own, Kebede was somehow seeking to deprive them of this right. The reprimand, on this view, was thus well deserved.

To their credit, many members of the SDSU community see little sense in this argument. As Sue Ferrara wrote in a letter to the Daily Aztec, "freedom of speech must be applied to both parties... if Arab students have the right to talk glowingly about a terrorist attack on the United States, Mr. Kebede also has the right to tell these students that their words are offensive." Exactly. To judge by the response of the SDSU administration, you would have thought that Kebede had attacked the Saudi students or urged the other students in the room to attack them. As it happens, however, he simply voiced his disagreement with them and then in a way that protected them from what would have been the justifiable anger of their fellow students. "I’m naturalized American. I have taken an oath to live to protect this country, so that is my part to do -- for that I am happy," Kebede said. "I am an honest citizen for this country. I showed those guys that there are people who love America, who defend America. … Is that a crime?"

Apparently it is, at least when those making the offensive remarks are themselves members of groups deemed "sensitive" by the liberal elite who run today’s universities. And here we encounter that double standard for free speech which has become so familiar on the nation’s campuses over the past two decades. Increasingly, the only people who seem to fully enjoy freedom of speech are those who belong to recognized "victim groups". As SDSU alumnus Steve Provost wrote in an Oct. 23 letter to the Daily Aztec, "If a group of American students (preferably white males) were publicly celebrating the murder of thousands of innocent people, would that be considered ‘a free speech issue’? More likely, wouldn’t they be the ones summoned to the Center for Student Rights to discuss their conduct, and admonished to conduct themselves as responsible members of the campus community?"

The case of Zewdalem Kebede is in this respect about much more than the incident at the library. In the scheme of things, a handful of odious Saudi students and an administration prepared to sacrifice any principle to maintain the appearance of "sensitivity" don’t count for much. The problem is, such administrations are now the rule, not the exception. For them, debate is dangerous in itself and free speech just a convenience for defending the excesses of those who, if made to answer for their views, would quickly learn to hold their tongues. Without debate, however, the critical spirit dies and our universities are reduced to little more than rubber stamping centers for the corporate and professional worlds. It’s both sad and telling that it has taken an immigrant to remind us of what we have lost. Let’s hope that there are more like him.