Author: Martin Kramer

Tenured and dangerous

On By Martin Kramer

David Horowitz has published a book with the title The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. These sorts of lists used to get academics in a lather, but they’ve become so commonplace that the novelty has worn off. (Some profs are even wearing their inclusion as a badge of honor. As one of them put it,  “I suspect most [of us] are either pleased or insouciant .”) Horowitz might make it more interesting by putting the 101 names on his website, so that the rest of us can rank them. Democracy now.

I haven’t seen the book, which presumably fills out the case against each professor. But I’ve gone through the list to see who’s made it from Middle Eastern studies. Despite the field’s small size, it’s amply represented. Below are the professors of Middle Eastern studies in Horowitz’s 101 “most dangerous,” with my own vote in italics. (Please note: I’ve skipped profs who may write a lot about the Middle East, but who aren’t members of the guild. That includes the likes of  M. Shahid Alam, Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Norman Finkelstein, etc.)

  • Baylor University: Mark Ellis. Concur.
  • Columbia University: Lisa Anderson, Gil Anidjar, Hamid Dabashi, Joseph Massad. I’d take out Anderson, perhaps also Anidjar, and would replace them with Rashid Khalidi and Mahmood Mamdani.
  • Duke University: Miriam Cooke. Concur. And by the way, she writes her name in lower case, thus: miriam cooke. Go figure.
  • Georgetown University: John Esposito, Yvonne Haddad. Concur.
  • Stanford University: Joel Beinin. Concur.
  • University of California, Berkeley: Hamid Algar, Hatem Bazian. Concur, and I would add Beshara Doumani.
  • University of California, Irvine: Mark LeVine. LeVine is more amusing than he is dangerous. I’d drop him. But as long as we’re in California, I would add Asad AbuKhalil at Cal State Stanislaus, Sondra Hale at UCLA, and Stephen Zunes at the University of San Francisco. From outside of the guild, I’d add Saree Makdisi at UCLA.
  • University of Kentucky: Ihsan Bagby. I’d never heard of him before I saw his name here. Drop.
  • University of Michigan: Juan Cole. Concur.
  • University of Southern California: Laurie Brand. Nah. Only dangerous to herself.

I’d have no trouble filling up another list of “dishonorable mentions,” but it wouldn’t differ much from the names on this petition, so I won’t bother.

Are these professors dangerous? The jacket of Horowitz’s book says he “exposes 101 academics–representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people–who also happen to be alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters.” With a few possible exceptions, I don’t think that those listed above fit neatly into any of these categories. They’re fellow travellers and apologists who’ve already been exposed. At this point they’re as dangerous as potholes, easy to avoid if you’re paying attention or someone has warned you in advance.

The more serious problem is that Middle Eastern studies are mediocre. I haven’t seen a citation analysis, but my guess is that no one in Middle Eastern studies would come even close to the top 101 in the humanities and social sciences. No wonder provosts and deans look upon Mideast departments as places more pregnant with embarrassment than achievement.

Martyrs get tenure at Columbia?

On By Martin Kramer

Yesterday the press reported that Columbia University has promoted Joseph Massad to associate professor. Massad, a Palestinian extremist and protégé of the late Edward Said, was the prime culprit in last year’s student abuse scandal. His most famous contribution to the store of human knowledge is his ingenious discovery that Zionism isn’t just racism, it’s antisemitism. Read his latest excretion, a review of Steven Spielberg’s Munich, and ask yourself how in the world Columbia entrusted him to teach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Edward Said hadn’t been pulling all the strings on Morningside Heights, Massad probably would have ended up teaching in a community college. Now he’s one step away from tenure at a leading university.

If he’s ultimately tenured, who will bear the responsibility? In December, David Biale, Emanuel Ringelblum Professor of Jewish History at University of California Davis, published an article on campus controversies in J., a Jewish newspaper based in San Francisco. I don’t have the patience to rebut every claim or factual error in this text; Professor Biale really should stick to Jewish history. But there’s one claim that relates to Massad’s tenure, and that demands elucidation. Professor Biale writes:

When Palestinian professor Joseph Massad at Columbia University addressed an Israeli student in a fashion that certainly deserved censure, those eager to find an anti-Semitic conspiracy ended up turning him into a martyr and guaranteeing him tenure. Colleagues at Columbia have told me that their prior doubts about this instructor were drowned out by the din of external propaganda.

This is a very serious charge—not against the makers of “external propaganda,” but against Columbia University. If Professor Biale believes that mere “martyrdom” is sufficient to get someone tenure at Columbia—that Columbia, like Hamas, puts shahids on a permanent pedestal—he should step forward immediately to deplore Columbia for betraying the basic principles of academic integrity. I propose he begin by announcing publicly that he won’t lend his name to any appointment or promotion procedure at Columbia. He should urge others to do the same.

However, yesterday’s report indicated that Massad’s tenure isn’t guaranteed, which means that it may not be too late to block him. If Professor Biale and his “colleagues at Columbia” relieve me of the responsibility of making the case against Massad, I’ll be glad to defer to them. I merely await their explicit assurance. I’m particularly eager to learn who these “colleagues” are, and what sort of “doubts” they’re willing to express.

Should they not have the courage to step forward, preferring to stay securely locked behind their office doors, they should keep silent about “external propaganda.” It will be the only thing standing between Massad and tenure. I’m quite willing to conduct it, and I’ll expect Professor Biale’s tacit support.

Update: David Bernstein (The Volokh Conspiracy and a law prof at George Mason) thinks I don’t give enough credit to community colleges: “I can’t imagine any self-respecting community college would give [Massad] a job.” He’s probably right.

Bernstein has gone back to Massad’s review of Munich, which compares Spielberg’s latest to the film Exodus:

Here is how Massad describes [Exodus‘s] plot: “Exodus tells the story of the Zionist hijacking of a ship from Cyprus to Palestine by a Zionist Haganah commander.” This is analogous to saying that Schindler’s List was a movie about Jews taking a working vacation in Poland.

We’re all familiar with Holocaust denial; no respectable university would hire a Holocaust denier for its faculty. So why would any elite university like Columbia retain, much less promote, someone who similarly intentionally falsifies Jewish history (indeed, in this case, the history of Holocaust survivors) for political ends?

I think this is a perfect opportunity for Professor Biale to show a bit of grit. I urge him to come forward with an authoritative critique of Massad’s distortions of Jewish history. Isn’t this precisely why he was tenured (and chaired)? To counter falsehood with truth? As Professor Biale teaches the Holocaust, he has a unique responsibility, and far more authority than any blogger. (Read his many credentials.) Come forward!

Danish cartoons: a proposal

On By Martin Kramer

National Review Online asked me and others for short contributions to a symposium on the Danish cartoon controversy. They didn’t use mine for whatever reason (maybe it was the tongue-in-cheek proposal at the end), so I offer it below.

There are excitable mobs in every great Muslim city, and the Danish cartoons have given them an excuse for riot and pillage. But is there more to it than that? Who is playing the role that Ayatollah Khomeini played in the Rushdie affair, fanning the flames in specific directions?

Seek the answer in the palaces, not the streets. Some Muslim governments have come under intense pressure from the Transatlantic alliance. They have reacted by seeking to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe. Iran needs a divided West to avoid sanctions over its nuclear program. Syria needs it to escape accountability for the Hariri assassination. Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood allies need it to break an embargo of the new Hamas principality. Egypt and Saudi Arabia need it to escape Western demands for reform.

Since the United States refuses to be intimidated, the focus has been on Europe. And for embattled regimes, the cartoon affair has been an Allah-send. The palace-dwellers aren’t interested in Danish apologies or expressions of media regret. They want to be paid off in political coin for dousing the fire. Until they are, Danish and other embassies will burn. Syria and Iran especially need a Europe cowed into meek submission, which may be why the worst violence rocked Damascus and Beirut.

Europe must stand firm and united, lest it become a tributary of despots and fanatics. European states should close their embassies in Damascus and Beirut, in solidarity with the Danes. The Danish government should emulate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Under fire for his Holocaust remarks, he announced Iran would convene a conference to delve into the historicity of the Nazi genocide. Denmark should offer to convene a conference in Copenhagen, comparing histories of religious tolerance and free speech. For the main event, I propose a disputation between Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Christopher Hitchens. May the best civilization win.

Update: The French scholar of Islamism, Olivier Roy, has reached the identical conclusion: “Il est évident que ces manifestations sont entièrement manipulées par les autorités.” Full interview here.