Campus Watch

Campus Watch 		Campus Watch
Latest Posts  |  Archive  | 

Columbia's Catastrophic "Nakba" Conference

Mary Madigan has written about last week's "Nabka" (Catastrophe) conference at Columbia University. She attended and provides a first-hand report on the pontifications of Columbia professors Joseph Massad, Lila Abu Lughod, Gil Anidjar, and others. Mary wrote last month about NYU's "Academic Freedom" conference.

Here is the introduction of her essay, which was published today at FrontPage Magazine:

As Israelis look towards the future in their celebration of the nation's 60th birthday, some Palestinians cling to the past by commemorating what they call the "Nakba" or "the catastrophe." A faculty panel discussion held at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) last month and titled, "60 Years of Nakba—The Catastrophe of Palestine 1948-2008," was one of many similar lamentations held worldwide.

The tone from the outset was grim. Speakers acknowledged that another "Nakba" anniversary was confirmation that combined Palestinian and Arab attempts to eliminate the Jewish state have not succeeded.

To read the rest of her article, please click here.

By Winfield Myers  |  Thu, 8 May 2008 at 3:20 PM  |  Permalink

Middle East Studies Profs. Still Peddling Peaceful Jihad

In his 2002 Commentary article, "Jihad and the Professors," Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes makes a compelling case for "the nearly universal falsification of jihad on the part of American academic scholars." Rather than acknowledging the aggressively military nature of jihad (otherwise known as "holy war"), such academics would have us believe that it consists either of defensive warfare, a struggle for spiritual and personal improvement, or the promotion of social justice. Here are a few of the quotes he cites in the article:

Jihad as "usually understood" means "a struggle to be true to the will of God and not holy war."

Dell DeChant, professor of world religions, University of South Florida

"…in the struggle to be a good Muslim, there may be times where one will be called upon to defend one's faith and community. Then [jihad] can take on the meaning of armed struggle."

John Esposito, founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University

Jihad is "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights."

Farid Eseck, professor of Islamic studies, Auburn Seminary

Six years later, it would be nice to conclude that the situation has changed. But the academic apologists inhabiting the field of Middle East studies continue the obfuscation. The following is just a sampling of the sort of misleading and, in some cases, deceptive definitions of jihad these professors have been peddling:

"It is clear that military warfare is the lesser jihad, and the greater jihad is against the forces that prevent human beings from being human, as it were."

Mary Richardson, professor of history, Tufts University (source: Tufts Journal)

There is "the bigger jihad and the smaller jihad." The bigger sense of the word, he said, refers to a struggle for self-improvement while the smaller sense is a struggle to show support for Islam…The use of the term to describe wars waged in support of Islam "is incorrect in the sense that it is not the primary meaning of jihad. It is a slogan to create a gap between East and West."

Mohammed Sawaie, professor of Arabic, University of Virginia (source: Cavalier Daily, see also: Jihad Watch)

"Feeding the poor is jihad…writing your Congressperson is jihad."

Timothy Gianotti, professor of Islamic studies, University of Virginia (source: Cavalier Daily, see also: Jihad Watch)

"The September 11 terrorism attacks and Osama bin Laden's calls for a 'holy war' are irrelevant to the concept of jihad. What is more relevant is the political conditions that are creating an environment of militancy throughout the Muslim and Arab world."

As'ad AbuKhalil, associate professor of political science, California State University-Stanislaus (source: CNN)

"Jihad has become a global fad, rather like gangsta rap."

Jessica Stern, lecturer on terrorism, Harvard University (source: The Boston Globe)

In the following case, the real meaning of jihad is acknowledged, if somewhat reluctantly:

Al-Qazzaz says there are two levels of jihad. The greater jihad is every Muslim's quest to live out their faith in their daily lives, to improve themselves and to become a better Muslim. The lesser jihad means to protect one's people and fight against enemies, he says. So the greater jihad prompts devout Muslims to remember their religious guidelines while fighting, which would cause them to treat war prisoners well.

Ayad Al-Qazzaz, professor of sociology, Cal State University-Sacramento (source: ACF News, see also: Campus Watch)

In direct contrast to the dissimulation demonstrated above, Islam scholar Robert Spencer pulled no punches in an April 8 speech at Stanford University accompanied by Daniel Pipes and titled, "Jihad: What does it really mean and why do so many people lie about it?" (The Stanford Review covers the speech in its latest issue and the video is available online). Spencer read numerous passages from the Koran to demonstrate that in its original incarnation, jihad involved "the relation of believer to unbeliever." And more often than not this relationship has been one of violence towards non-Muslims.

The fact that Spencer was accompanied by all of four security guards throughout the evening would seem to back up his conclusions. Peaceful jihad, indeed.

By Cinnamon Stillwell  |  Mon, 28 Apr 2008 at 6:03 PM  |  Permalink

Victims on Parade at NYU "Academic Freedom" Conference

On April 3 and 4, Mary Madigan attended a conference at New York University called "Academic Freedom in an Age of Permanent Warfare."

Her report on what she heard, commissioned by Campus Watch, was published today at FrontPage Magazine. Madigan's title captures the spirit of the conference: "Victims on Parade at NYU 'Academic Freedom' Conference." Here's a sample:

The poster advertising New York University's "Academic Freedom in the Age of Permanent Warfare" conference featured a scolding Statue of Liberty pointing an accusatory finger and stating: "YOU! Stop Asking Questions. You're Either With US or You're With the TERRORISTS!"

The speakers and attendees gathered around the pastry-laden table at NYU's new Frederic Ewen Academic Freedom Center last week didn't appear to be oppressed or under attack. But once they wiped the sugar from their mouths and stood up to speak, they assured the audience that they were, in fact, victims in an "age of permanent warfare."

To read the rest, click here.

By Winfield Myers  |  Thu, 10 Apr 2008 at 9:23 AM  |  Permalink

Middle East Quarterly Student Writing Contest Deadline May 31

As we announced last fall, the Middle East Quarterly is holding a student writing contest. The May 31 deadline is approaching, so get your entries in.

The original press release follows.

******************************

The Middle East Quarterly is pleased to announce the Albert J. Wood Student Writing Contest. It will award $1,000 for the best university student writing in Middle East studies in a given year, plus the opportunity to be published in the journal.

The contest is named after Albert J. Wood, the founding chairman of the Middle East Forum who had a special connection to the Quarterly.

What the Quarterly Seeks

The Quarterly covers a geographic area from Morocco to Afghanistan but concentrates on the area from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. It seeks to bridge the academic and policymaking worlds. Articles should be both relevant to policymakers and break new ground intellectually. This implies a tension: articles need to be cutting edge (to interest the specialist) and accessible (to attract the general reader). They should be scholarly, yet written clearly, and with a point of view. The thesis should be advanced through reasoned argument rather than bellicose prose. For a full explanation of MEQ objectives, see Author Submission Guidelines on the MEQ website.

Submissions

Submissions should be original, unpublished work of 4,000-7,000 words with full scholarly references.

Entrants must be full-time undergraduate, graduate, or professional (law, medicine, etc.) school students, and must provide proof of full-time status.

Please submit your article as an MS Word document or in Rich Text Format. Please do not submit a PDF or hard copy.

E-mail submissions by midnight May 31, 2008, to the editors at MEQ@MEForum.org. Please enter "Student Writing Contest" in the subject line.

Prizes

  • First: $1,000 plus publication in the Middle East Quarterly
  • One-year subscriptions to the Middle East Quarterly for five runners up.

By Winfield Myers  |  Tue, 8 Apr 2008 at 6:29 PM  |  Permalink

Profs Hammer Israel, Fail to Predict Palestinian War

In "Profs Hammer Israel, Fail to Predict Palestinian War," Campus Watch adjunct scholar Jonathan Schanzer asks why professors of Middle East studies failed to address internecine Palestinian war, even as many attacked Israel's defense policies. Writing in The American Thinker, Schanzer notes:

From the Egyptian border breach to indiscriminate rocket fire at Israel, the Gaza Strip currently poses serious threats to regional security. The Hamas terrorist organization controls this territory because it defeated the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in a six-day Palestinian civil war in June 2007. But a cursory review of history shows that the Hamas-PLO rivalry has been brewing since 1988, when Hamas first emerged on the scene. Despite clear signs of impending conflict, nearly every professor of Middle Eastern studies in America failed to see it coming.

Why did so few experts write about the internecine Palestinian war? Hundreds of Arabic-speaking professors and researchers have trekked through the West Bank and Gaza over the years, funded by U.S. research dollars.

Most were too busy lambasting Israel's defense policies to identify the gathering storm, but a few U.S. professors saw the writing on the wall.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

By Winfield Myers  |  Wed, 12 Mar 2008 at 12:00 AM  |  Permalink

David Meir-Levi vs. Hatem Bazian: Debating the Arab-Israeli Conflict

My latest Campus Watch article - posted today at Frontpage Magazine - reports on a debate between Middle East studies academics, David Meir-Levi and Hatem Bazian:

A Santa Clara University course optimistically titled, "The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes," was the setting for a February 26 academic debate on one of the world's most intractable disputes: The Arab/Israeli conflict.

San Jose State University Middle East history lecturer, David Meir-Levi, represented the pro-Israeli side of the equation, and UC Berkeley Islamic studies lecturer, Hatem Bazian, argued the pro-Palestinian position. Interestingly, each embodied the nationality of his respective side of the debate. David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli who once served in the Israeli Defense Forces, while Hatem Bazian is a Palestinian native.

Bazian is notorious for his transparently biased approach to the Arab/Israeli conflict. His call for "an intifada in this country" at a 2004 San Francisco anti-war protest is just one of many radical statements. More of an activist than an academic, Bazian personifies the politicization of Middle East studies today.

Meir-Levi, on the other hand, is known for his scrupulous scholarship on the subject of Middle East history. His recent book, History Upside Down: The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression," as described by Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes, "applies great common sense where demagogues and ignorami too often dominate."

Throughout the debate, Meir-Levi succeeded in turning history or, rather, the inaccurate historical narrative popular on college campuses, upside down, exposing the fallacy of Bazian's arguments in the process.

Continue reading "The Arab/Israeli Conflict Debate "

By Cinnamon Stillwell  |  Mon, 10 Mar 2008 at 12:00 AM  |  Permalink

Campus Watch Readers Weigh In on Middle East Studies

Readers have been weighing in on the Middle East studies professors featured in recent Campus Watch articles or blog posts (as well as a few new names) with some enlightening stories of their own. With their permission, we are reprinting several of them below:

In response to "Joel Beinin To Head PSU's Middle East Studies Center?":

Re: "In addition, Beinin, along with other Middle East studies academics, has been involved in contributing to the production of biased and inaccurate history textbooks for use in K-12 public education."

Beinin's "inaccurate" presentations are not limited to K-12. A few years ago, I took a one week online course at the college level sponsored by several respected universities, one of which employed Professor Beinin. The lectures were transcribed. Beinin was unavailable to the students, but an "assistant professor" ran the course.

Although he has been in the field for over 25 years, as I understand it, Beinin's lectures, which were clearly biased, were riddled with outright, and easily verifiable, inaccuracies. Repeated errors from someone who has been in the field as long as Beinin raises very serious questions about his honesty, not to mention his qualifications to teach.

One inexcusable misstatement was that hardly any Latin American countries voted in favor of the creation of the state of Israel. This is patently untrue, and when I cut and pasted the actual U.N. vote into the online discussion board, the teaching assistant running the course, who was a professor at another school, could only respond, and I quote, "Hmmmm."

Beinin presented reading materials by Israeli historians whose books contradicted the history of Israel's founding. Even though these same historians later wrote books that retracted much of the original material (based on further research), Beinin never based any of the course on the later books.

Even more egregiously, this introductory course made no mention that Israel had been attacked by surrounding Arab countries immediately after having declared herself a state. Thus, students were led to believe that the land seized as a result of this war, and any harm that befell the Palestinians, was purely gratuitous and the result of illegal aggression.

My heart bleeds for Portland and the innocent minds about to be corrupted.

Name withheld

In response to both "Joel Beinin To Head PSU's Middle East Studies Center?" and "Esposito at Stanford":

Re: "Esposito's treatment of two self-described Arab Christian students in the audience further revealed this bias. When asked about the well-documented violence against Christians in Iraq and the persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world, Esposito resorted at first to obfuscation and then bullying. After trying to chalk up the violence merely to 'primitive' behavior, he cut off one young woman angrily, telling her that it was 'an absurd question.'"

I've been to several of these things (the worst being the Finklestein extravaganza also at Stanford). These guys have the floor. They control the Mike. They can sound professorial and impressive. Sometimes, however, I have seen these folks lose composure, and with it their credibility.

Once I was at a Joel Benin lecture. I asked a question he did not like, and pointed out his unfair presentation. He lost it. He went berserk. His face turned red. He shouted at me in front of the audience. His exact words (I remember it like it was yesterday) were: "Who are you? Who are you? You are a nothing! I am a professor! You can only have an opinion! I have knowledge!"

Scott Abramson
San Mateo, CA

In response to "Esposito at Stanford":

Your Esposito article was fantastic and I loved it. I'm a sophomore at a private liberal arts college in Iowa, and I am so sick and tired of hearing apologists tell me how white Christians have caused every problem in the world, from global warming to illiteracy, without reference made to the blatant violence in Islam.

Melba Patillo Beals [department chair and assistant professor of communications at Dominican University of California], the speaker at our opening convocation last semester, was particularly terrible. She had written a book read by the freshmen, something to do with education, but launched into a self-righteous sermon about the fact that terrorists are misunderstood. She then used the example of a suicide bomber who killed American soldiers to illustrate how strong Islam makes people.

I was so angry, I refused to clap. I couldn't believe the woman had the gall to praise a murderer (my brother is a Marine; this is someone who would have killed him) and say that this was in any way a good thing. It's lunacy and incredibly offensive to anyone who takes this seriously.

The college refused to release the recording of her speech to the school newspaper's right-wing columnist! They must have realized how bad it sounded to sane people. Luckily, I have a well-placed friend in the recording booth who got me a copy that I was able to pass on. But it's so frustrating to see that these people are still respected. That woman got a standing ovation.

Thanks,

Sarah May
Luther College
Decorah, IA

By Cinnamon Stillwell  |  Wed, 27 Feb 2008 at 12:00 AM  |  Permalink

NYU Hosting the Latest "Academic Freedom" Conference; Break out the Violins

The proliferation of dubious conferences on "academic freedom" continues unabated. And, in each case, biased and politicized Middle East studies academics are a major component.

In October, 2007, the University of Chicago hosted, "In Defense of Academic Freedom," an event whose unifying theme was "the notion that Jewish groups have degraded the quality and breadth of discussion in the media and in Washington." Hardly the stuff of self-described progressives, but such is the state of discourse in the corridors of academia today.

Then there was the "DePaul Academic Freedom Conference" earlier this month. It featured the usual suspects, all alleging "academic freedom violations" against DePaul University because "professors Mehrene Larudee and Norman Finkelstein were denied tenure." Apparently, the granting of tenure is now a God-given right and any infringements thereupon are considered grounds for martyrdom.

Next up on February 23, the College of Arts and Science (CAS) Student Council of New York University will host the "First National Teach-In on Freedoms at Risk in America." This time around, the gathering of the persecuted will include, as described at the CAS website, "our nation's foremost academics and intellectuals, and students and faculty from both within and outside of the NYU campus."

Among this supposedly stellar cast of characters is the aforesaid Norman Finkelstein, who was last seen on Lebanese television expressing "solidarity" with the terrorist group Hezbollah, calling for the "defeat" of Israel, and encouraging "military resistance" to America. Finkelstein fancies himself a sacrificial lamb to the cause of academic freedom, not only for being denied tenure, but for losing his job at DePaul. Finkelstein's long record of extremist statements, unprofessional behavior, and outright lunacy was more likely the real reason DePaul chose to part ways. But that hasn't stopped the so-called academic freedom movement from transforming Finkelstein into its poster-child.

Speaking of unsavory heroes, radical leftist attorney Lynne Stewart will also be addressing the NYC teach-in. Stewart, you'll recall, was convicted in 2005 of conspiracy and providing and concealing material support of terrorism for sneaking messages from her imprisoned client Omar Abdel-Rahman to members of the terrorist group Gama'a al-Islamiyya. The teach-in announcement conveniently omits these details, describing Stewart simply as a lawyer who represents "unpopular clients" and, of course, a victim of "recent political oppression." Apparently, those who plot the mass murder of civilians are merely "unpopular" in the rhetoric of aggrieved academia, and legal consequences for aiding and abetting terrorists is known as "political oppression." That Middle East studies academics would align themselves (and not for the first time) with someone like Stewart indicates just how low the bar has been set.

NYU Middle Eastern studies and history professor, Zachary Lockman, is another speaker at the teach-in. Lockman is the president of the highly politicized Middle East Studies Association (MESA), an organization devoted in large part to decrying the attention paid to the field by external critics in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Such whining was a mainstay at the 2007 MESA annual meeting in Montreal where, as noted by Campus Watch, Lockman and his cohorts played the victim card to the hilt. Similarly, Lockman was quoted in a 2007 Nation article on "The New McCarthyism" as follows:

There certainly is a sense among faculty and grad students that they're being watched, monitored. People are always looking over their shoulder, feeling that whatever they say--in accurate or, more likely, distorted form--can end up on a website. It definitely has a chilling effect.

If the ability of students, as well those outside academia, to observe, cite, and, if warranted, critique professors on a professional basis has a "chilling effect," then Lockman and company had better develop thicker skins. In the age of new media, no one is free from scrutiny, nor, above all, accountability.

The truth of the matter is that the only threat to academic freedom in the realm of Middle East studies extends to those that buck the prevailing left-leaning, anti-Western orthodoxy. The case of Georgia Perimeter College history professor Tim Furnish, who, writing for Campus Watch, described being turned down for a job because he was seen as "more conservative than others in [his] field," as well as for sounding "like Daniel Pipes," comes to mind.

Meanwhile, the keepers of the post-colonialist flame remain firmly ensconced in their Ivory Towers. That they continue to hold conferences alleging their persecution, circulating alarmist petitions, and railing against perceived "censorship" in a variety of publications is a testament to the true situation at hand.

Nevertheless, expect to break out the violins this weekend.

By Cinnamon Stillwell  |  Fri, 22 Feb 2008 at 12:00 AM  |  Permalink

Esposito at Stanford

Last week, I attended a lecture at Stanford University by Georgetown professor John Esposito and my Campus Watch article on the experience is up today at Frontpage Magazine. It begins like so:

Georgetown professor John Esposito, director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding has a reputation as an apologist for radical Islam. And it's one he lived up to with a Stanford University speech last week titled, "Dying for God? Suicide Terrorism and Militant Islam."

Continue reading "Esposito at Stanford"

By Cinnamon Stillwell  |  Fri, 15 Feb 2008 at 12:00 AM  |  Permalink

Joel Beinin To Head Portland State University's Middle East Studies Center?

History professor and former president of the Middle East Studies Association, Joel Beinin, went on "extended leave" from Stanford in 2006 due to what he described as the university's "minimal institutional interest in the study and teaching of the modern Middle East." Since that time, Beinin has been serving as director of Middle East Studies at the American University in Cairo (AUC), Egypt.

But was it scholarly concerns or mounting criticism that caused Beinin to leave Stanford for AUC? In a 2006 interview with Egypt Today, Beinin was portrayed as a victim of "conservative reaction" on the part of Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes, Islam scholar Martin Kramer, and others for being "a staunch critic not only of American policy in the region, but of the state of Israel itself." The interview went on to note that Beinin, after "having fought his fair share of battles," was "ready to settle into...a more comfortable life in Egypt's capital."

Now, it seems, Beinin may be heading back to the U.S. For the past several months, rumors have been circulating that Beinin is being considered to head up Portland State University's (PSU) Middle East Studies Center. A source who wished not to be publicly named and who has contacts at PSU has confirmed that the hiring process is underway and could be finalized within the month.

Needless to say, the prospect of Beinin joining PSU in such a high-profile manner raises concerns for the Portland community. Beinin is notorious for his ideological bias, shoddy scholarship, apologetics, and unsavory tactics.

As Campus Watch noted previously, former Stanford professor Steven Zipperstein once told J: The Jewish Weekly of Northern California, "It's said that Joel Beinin doesn't believe in balance as an intrinsically crucial goal in academic life. The charge is accurate, and he would acknowledge it, I think." Alyssa Lappen wrote about Beinin for Campus Watch in 2004, and stated that, "if one individual can showcase all the flaws of Middle East Studies in academia, Joel Beinin is that man."

In addition, Beinin, along with other Middle East studies academics, has been involved in contributing to the production of biased and inaccurate history textbooks for use in K-12 public education.

Considering Beinin's long list of dubious accomplishments, one might wonder why PSU would hire him as director of its Middle East Studies Center. The answer to that question remains to be seen.

By Cinnamon Stillwell  |  Fri, 15 Feb 2008 at 12:00 AM  |  Permalink

Campus Watch Blog Archive

Campus Watch		 Campus Watch

© 2002 - 2008 The Middle East Forum. Campus Watch contact e-mail: campus-watch@meforum.org