Unreal Rashid

Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor at Columbia, gave an interview to the Radical History Journal, and it’s a gem. The interviewers wanted his take on Title VI reform, but they got a lot more: a rambling compendium of excessive statements on a wide range of issues. In a new Sandstorm column, I look at one of the most bizarre assertions in the interview: Khalidi’s insistence that universities and their faculty are conservative.

But alongside the wild claims are some astonishing confessions. In the rush of questions and answers, Khalidi inadvertently concedes many of the very points made by academe’s critics. Here he is on scholarly objectivity: “Now, I’m with Edward Said. There’s no such thing as opinionless, objective scholarship.” Here he is on the tenure process: “It is in some sense a corrupt system, but I can’t think of what the alternative would be.” And here he is on faculty indoctrination: “It has to be admitted that this issue of abuse of authority, which the Right is using as a stick to beat us up with, is not entirely illusory. I mean, there is an issue there…. There’s probably a way in which the academy is forcing a kind of mindless conformity on students.” It’s not every day that a chaired professor admits that scholarship is biased, the tenure system is corrupt, and students are forced to conform. These statements are smoking guns, and they suggest that we’ve just scratched the surface at Columbia.

The interview also includes an enraged tirade against proponents of Title VI reform. “They are political, and we’re not political,” he tells his fellow radical historians a statement that shouts its absurdity to the heavens. “We’re never going to be as good at the kind of mudslinging and the kind of deceitfulness that these people are masters of. There’s just no way that we can get so far down in the gutter as them successfully…. These are people going for the jugular. These are people who want to destroy things…. They’re operating on a level of a kind of slimy attack politics, which actually has become a very important part of the right-wing arsenal in the United States…. It’s Karl Rove, and the Christian Right, and the neoconservative right wing that really is behind this. The Middle East and the specific concerns of these people have an important role. But this is bigger than that…. Reality bears no relationship whatsoever to the lies and falsehoods that they’re putting out.”

Well, I don’t sit atop the Olympus of truth and apolitical virtue that is the Edward Said Chair. And I’m sure the gutters at Columbia are so clean that its students can eat out of them. But read my column, and decide for yourself whether reality bears any relationship whatsoever to Khalidi’s depiction of it.

Sandbox calls MESA elections!

Elections for president of the Middle East Studies Association ended last Friday. The results won’t be announced until the association holds its annual conference in another month. But I’ve closed my own straw poll, and on its basis, I’m going to project a winner: Zachary Lockman (NYU) will beat Mark Tessler (Michigan).

Now you may ask how in the world my poll justifies such a call. A total of 45 people voted: 33 voted for Tessler (73 percent), and 12 for Lockman (27 percent). That would seem to point to a landslide victory for Tessler.

Ah, but you see, the people who vote at my website tend to do the opposite of the average MESAn. Last year I ran the same straw poll, and 63 people voted. Fred Donner (Chicago) got 71 percent of the votes, and Juan Cole (Michigan) received only 29 percent. But Cole won the election! So on the basis of that admittedly slim precedent, a candidate who wins by a 70-percent-plus landslide on my site is in big trouble at MESA.

This is my thesis, at least, and I now await the empirical findings that will validate or refute it. Gee, it’s exciting to practice political science on such a high order. I’ll be staying up all night for the next month waiting for the official results.

Update: Zachary Lockman won.

My life with Richard Perle

Robert A. Pape, University of Chicago political scientist, is author of an influential book on suicide terrorism called Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. He’s coming to Washington to debate me on November 8. I’m grateful he has found the time.

Readers with long memories will recall that I found some glaring errors in his database, when he first published his findings in the journal of the American Political Science Association two years ago. Today he’s made another error, according to this quote in an Indiana newspaper (offered in advance of a talk he’s giving at a university there): “I will be returning [to Washington] next week to debate with Martin Kramer, an associate of Richard Perle, one of the architects of our decision to invade Iraq.”

I think it would be most interesting to meet Mr. Perle, but I’ve never had the pleasure, and he would be as surprised as I am that we’ve been named “associates,” whatever that means. If Professor Pape wants to tar me with guilt by association, let him at least pick someone I’ve met. By the way, this isn’t the first time this has happened to me. An article in a well-known propaganda broadsheet once described me as a “close associate of Perle’s.” Close, no less.

Well, that’s one reason I run this weblog: to keep ’em honest. I look forward to my close association with Professor Pape.

Update: Here’s a summary of my debate with Professor Pape, and the full text of my remarks. And just for the record, on November 17 I made a point of introducing myself to Richard Perle, at an event at the Hudson Institute. He hadn’t heard of me. I guess our association has a long way to go.