Last week, it was announced that Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal contributed $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown to endow programs in Islamic Studies.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rumsfeld v FAIR, the case brought by the law schools of these two universities, plus 34 others, to permit them to exclude military recruiters without foregoing government funds because of the military's 'don't ask / don't tell' approach to homosexuality, which is prescribed by Congress.

So, the law schools of Harvard and Georgetown want to be able to exclude recruiters from the U.S. military — the ultimate guarantor of all our rights — but have just accepted endowments from a Saudi prince.  Why is this incongruous?

Doubtless Alwaleed is a fine fellow.  However he is not just Alwaleed but Prince Alwaleed.  Prince of what?  Of the al—Saud family that rules Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is not only ruled under Islamic law — sharia — but it also one of the principal proselytizers of radical Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam through madrassas located throughout the world.

And what is the Saudi view of homosexuality under sharia?  It is punishable by imprisonment, flogging or death.

So, to sum up, two leading American universities want to exclude our military because of a policy designed to let gays serve in the military, but are accepting substantial endowments from a Saudi prince in spite of that country's position that homosexuality is illegal and subject to extreme punishment. 

What's wrong with this picture?

Greg P. Richards   12 19 05