According to GU's web site, the "total enrollment" is 14,148; the student-faculty ratio is, serendipitously, "14 : 1". Ergo, one could as easily state that 850 GU profs (85% of the faculy) have NOT sought the removal of Mr. Uribe.

It should be noted that less than 10 actual Georgetown professors signed the letter.

So what do we have here? A group of "educators" seeking to ban/sensor a two-term democratically elected former president of Colombia, who has not been tried or even accused of human rights violations in any international court that I am aware of. It smells like the far left is at work.

So what do we have here? An "educator" who can't spell "censor" or one who can't spell "censure"? (I haven't a clue whether Mr. Uribe is worthy of the post, quite frankly.)

Late twentieth-century American "education" has been at work.

Thank you for the spelling corrections dank48. Tools like you are invaluable.

lol, voice

No problem, Voice. Better an invaluable tool than . . . oh, better leave it alone.

You might want to work on the vocative comma next. --I.T.

As one of the Georgetown professors who signed the letter, I can speak for my concerns, if not those of others. We have had several recent appointments of major political figures from other countries. Many faculty - not simply those signing this particular letter, circulated at the last minute - object to the lack of regular process in making such appointments. Ordinary faculty go through extensive job searches before being hired; those hired with tenure must go through the University Rank and Tenure Committee before teaching at GU. Although special appointments of this nature need not follow such a procedure, many faculty believe they should not be made without some level of consultation with faculty, particularly those with expertise in relevant areas. Again, speaking for myself, I would strongly object, on free speech grounds, to any disruption within Mr Uribe's classroom, but I would equally strongly support, on the same grounds, the right of students who oppose his presence on campus to demonstrate against it in, say, the traditional Georgetown venue (locally known as Red Square because of its brick surface). Georgetown has a particular reason to be sensitive to allegations of human rights violations in Latin America because some of the Jesuits murdered in El Salvador in 1989 were former members of our community: our then President, Rev. Leo O'Donovan, S.J., wrote a moving editorial about that event in the Washington Post, shortly after the murders. Uribe had very close ties to the military men responsible for the "false positives" scandal and he was governor of a province in which the military, and paramilitaries founded under his aegis, murdered many civilians. His direct connection to these events is under investigation. Without in any way prejudging Mr Uribe's guilt or innonence, in a case with such obvious implications for the Jesuit Order, I believe Georgetown should have taken a bit more time to evaluate the appointment. Allowing Uribe to speak on campus is one thing - Georgetown has hosted people whose political views range from Jean-Bertrand Aristide on the Left to Jean-Marie Le Pen on the Right - investing him with the title of visiting professor is quite another.

I am an American who has lived in South Korea, Czech Republic, Peru, and Colombia, and I have visited many other countries as well. In all of my travels, I have never witnessed such love and adoration for any man, much less any politician, as the Colombian people have for Álvaro Uribe.

Before condemning Uribe, I think people should remember that a short ten years ago, Colombians would not drive from, say, Medellín to Bogota. It was just too dangerous. I'm told the only people on the roads between Colombian cities in those days were the drug runners. A young woman from Bogota told me, while choking back tears, how one day a few short years ago Uribe declared the road safe and people made a parade of celebration between Bogota and Medellín.

I argued with another man who claimed that Uribe was solely responsible for his country's turn-around. My position was that these things do not happen because of the actions of just one man, and the Colombian people owe themselves a pat on the back, and should stop hero-worshipping Uribe. Nevertheless, he remained firm in his position. He desperately wanted a third term for Uribe and feared what would happen to his country when the greatest president in its history stepped down.

Most of all, we should remember that Uribe did step down. Does anyone doubt that he could have pulled a Nicaraguan Ortega and quietly changed Colombia's constitution while the opposition was out of town? Does anyone think that he would have received less than a landslide victory had he strong-armed a third term? No! The man stepped down because he respects his country's constitution, which he made meaningful during his presidency.

I don't like Uribe's military-only solution to Colombia's problems. However, whether Ingrid Betancourt is another great Colombian leader or a shameless self-promoter, she is right when she calls the FARC nothing more than a glorified drug cartel. I heard another tearful story over dinner of a boy who lost his legs in a bombing of a little grocery. Apparently, the grocer refused to pay Pablo Escobar his protection money. The boy was my friend's cousin. So, for his sake, I want to remind everyone that the drug cartels moved up to Mexico, and the cocaine that might end up at a Georgetown block party more likely comes from Peru these days, not from Colombia, thanks to Uribe.

I would also like to remind everyone that just yesterday soldiers had to storm a hospital to free Ecuador's President Correa from the hand of rebel police. Then there is Venezuela. Is Chavez actually trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or was that just some sting operation to bust a disgruntled US nuclear scientist? In any case, I think the situation in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America would make Georgetown support the one great ally that the US has in the region.

Therefore, I would like to see this minority of professors at Georgetown get some perspective on politics in South America today instead of whistling tunes from their favorite Madonna movie as they mindlessly scribble off their names on a petition. I would like them to burn their letter while considering what Colombia and Álvaro Uribe mean to peace in the Western Hemisphere.