|
Post by Moses on Dec 29, 2004 10:36:04 GMT -5
Thunder from the campus right Conservative [sic] students put academic freedom to new kinds of doctrinal testsBy Justin Pope Associated Press December 29, 2004 At the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sue over a reading assignment they say offends their Christian beliefs. In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicizes student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty get hate mail and are pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college says a teacher received a death threat. And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel draws the attention of administrators. The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses. Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination. In many ways, the trend echoes past campus conflicts - but turns them around. Once, it was liberal campus activists who cited the importance of "diversity" in pressing their agendas for curriculum change. Now, conservatives have adopted much of the same language in calling for a greater openness to their viewpoints. Similarly, academic freedom guidelines have traditionally been cited to protect left-leaning students from punishment for disagreeing with teachers about such issues as American neutrality before World War II and U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, those same guidelines are being invoked by conservative students who support the war in Iraq. To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught. "Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Wisconsin and the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs - an essential part of education. Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship. "Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air." Conservatives say a chill is in order.A recent study by Santa Clara University researcher Daniel Klein estimated that among social science and humanities faculty members nationwide, Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one; in some fields it's as high as 30 to one. And in the last election, the two employers whose workers contributed the most to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign were the University of California system and Harvard University. Many teachers insist personal politics don't affect teaching. But in a recent survey of students at 50 top schools by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that has argued there is too little intellectual diversity on campuses, 49 percent reported at least some professors frequently commented on politics in class even if it was outside the subject matter. Thirty-one percent said they felt there were some courses in which they needed to agree with a professor's political or social views to get a good grade. Leading the movement is the group Students for Academic Freedom, with chapters on 135 campuses and close ties to David Horowitz, a one-time liberal campus activist turned conservative commentator. The group posts student complaints on its Web site about alleged episodes of grading bias and unbalanced, anti-American propaganda by professors - often in classes, such as literature, in which it's off-topic. Instructors "need to make students aware of the spectrum of scholarly opinion," Horowitz said. "You can't get a good education if you're only getting half the story." Conservatives claim they are discouraged from expressing their views in class, and are even blackballed from graduate school slots and jobs. "I feel like (faculty) are so disconnected from students that they do these things and they can just get away with them," said Kris Wampler, who recently publicly identified himself as one of the students who sued the University of North Carolina. Now a junior, he objected when all incoming students were assigned to read a book about the Koran before they got to campus. "A lot of students feel like they're being discriminated against," he said. So far, his and other efforts are having mixed results. At UNC, the students lost their legal case, but the university no longer uses the word "required" in describing the reading program for incoming students (the plaintiffs' main objection). In Colorado, conservatives withdrew a legislative proposal for an "academic bill of rights" backed by Horowitz, but only after state universities agreed to adopt its principles. At Ball State, the school's provost sided with Professor George Wolfe after a student published complaints about Wolfe's peace studies course, but the episode has attracted local attention. Horowitz and backers of the academic bill of rights plan to introduce it in the Indiana legislature - as well as in up to 20 other states. At Columbia, anguished debate followed the screening of a film by an advocacy group called The David Project that alleges some faculty violate students' rights by using the classroom as a platform for anti-Israeli political propaganda (one Israeli student claims a professor taunted him by asking, "How many Palestinians did you kill?"). Administrators responded this month by setting up a new committee to investigate students complaints. In the wider debate, both sides cite the guidelines on academic freedom first set out in 1915 by the American Association of University Professors. The objecting students emphasize the portion calling on teachers to "set forth justly ... the divergent opinions of other investigators." But many teachers note the guidelines also say instructors need not "hide (their) own opinions under a mountain of equivocal verbiage," and that their job is teaching students "to think for themselves." Horowitz believes the AAUP, which opposes his bill of rights, and liberals in general are now the establishment and have abandoned their commitment to real diversity and student rights. But critics say Horowitz is pushing a political agenda, not an academic one. "It's often phrased in the language of academic freedom. That's what's so strange about it," said Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University historian who has written about academic freedom during the McCarthy area. "What they're saying is, 'We want people to reflect our point of view.'" Horowitz's critics also insist his campaign is getting more attention than it deserves, riling conservative bloggers but attracting little alarm from most students. They insist even most liberal professors give fair grades to conservative students who work hard and support their arguments. Often, the facts of particular cases are disputed. At Ball State, senior Brett Mock published a detailed account accusing Wolfe of anti-Americanism in a peace studies class and of refusing to tolerate the view that the U.S. invasion of Iraq might have been justified. In a telephone interview, Wolfe vigorously disputed Mock's allegations. He provided copies of a letter of support from other students in the class, and from the provost saying she had found nothing wrong with the course. Horowitz, who has also criticized Ball State's program, had little sympathy when asked if Wolfe deserved to get hate e-mails from strangers. "These people are such sissies," he said. "I get hate mail every single day. What can I do about it? It's called the Internet."
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jan 18, 2005 5:17:26 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/education/18columbia.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=January 18, 2005 Mideast Tensions Are Getting Personal on Campus at Columbia By N. R. KLEINFIELD .... If anything is clear in this very unclear quarrel, ostensibly over supposed intimidation of Jewish students by pro-Palestinian professors in the Middle East and Asian languages and cultures department, it is that it has already produced some unbecoming fallout. It has led one professor, who denounces the whole matter as a "witch hunt," to abandon one of his signature courses. It has prompted a faculty member in the medical school, not at all directly involved, to send an e-mail message to an implicated professor that he is a "pathetic typical Arab liar" and should leave the country..... ....At root it is about some Jewish students and recent graduates, who could number several dozen, contending that in recent years they felt mocked and marginalized by pro-Palestinian professors. They have not, however, pointed to any grade retribution. Complaints of this sort have buzzed around campus for some time, but the issue flared into international news in late October, when the news media was shown a film, "Columbia Unbecoming," which had been made at the behest of unhappy Jewish students at Columbia by a pro-Israel group in Boston called the David Project. The quarrel has also become about whether the department in question, known by the acronym Mealac, is heavily unbalanced in favor of Palestinian sympathizers, not that anyone entirely agrees what "balance" means in academia and whether it is even warranted. And the whole matter has come to be wrapped in the broader cloth of academic freedom.... The dispute has led to abstruse questions being posed, like, "Can a professor officially intimidate a student who is not his student?" The Columbia contretemps is perhaps the most public expression of a polarization that also festers at other campuses. Indeed, the David Project intends to do films elsewhere, and said that early interviews have already been shot. A somewhat similar dispute happened in 2002 at the University of Chicago, though its provost, Richard P. Saller, said the allegations were more vague and largely judged untrue - one professor had the very good alibi of being in Mongolia at the time of an alleged incident - and the resolution reasonably tidy. ....The half-hour Columbia film, which has been expanded from its original version, shows 14 students and Rabbi Charles Sheer, who recently retired as director of Columbia's Hillel chapter and who says he has heard numerous intimidation complaints. Some students in the film point to certain shortcomings. It conflates professors' inflammatory written passages with faculty-student friction, muddling what is being contested, and just 6 of the 14 students speak firsthand of incidents..... 'One Big Fish Soup' Somewhere in the backdrop to all of this, many feel, is the long shadow of Edward Said, the outspoken advocate for Palestinians and Columbia scholar, who died in 2003, and the increasingly vocal, pro-Palestinian viewpoint at Columbia and other campuses in recent years. Rashid Khalidi, the director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, said he thinks too many things are being dumped into "one big fish soup" that inflates the student complaints. "Have some students felt intimidated?" he said. "Sure. But should we all be getting our knickers in a twist and agitated? I think not." He added: "It's particularly piquant to me to hear people who have never taken a Mealac course talking about this. It's like me talking about the astrophysics department." Three professors, in particular, have been joined at the center of this storm: Professor Massad, Professor Saliba and Professor Hamid Dabashi. The allegations against them, at least those made public so far, vary in texture. Professor Saliba, who teaches Arabic and Islamic science, has chiefly come up for the "green eye" incident. Professor Dabashi has been mentioned for canceling a class to answer his "moral duty" to attend a Palestinian rally and seems implicated chiefly for his published political viewpoints. Professor Massad, however, fills a category of his own. More complaints have been directed against him. Some students refer to one of his courses as "Israel Is Racist." He is also the most vulnerable, the only one lacking tenure. Yet all three have been affected. Professor Dabashi, who was born in Iran, said he has become self-conscious about what he says and has canceled several appearances. .... "To me, these are dark ages," he said. "This is not the United States I moved into in 1976. I don't recognize it. I'm in sort of moral shock."Professor Massad, a Jordanian-born Palestinian, said he, too, has been swamped with hate mail, defiled as a "camel jockey" and "Islamic Fascist." He said nonenrolled hecklers attend his lectures to provoke him. He said he has chosen not to teach his most controversial course, "Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies," in the coming semester, because of the emotional toll and because he worries it might jeopardize his tenure..... Dozens of Mealac students, including Jewish and pro-Israel undergraduates, have come forth to defend the professors. "I've had an overwhelmingly positive experience with the department," said Erin Pineda, a Barnard junior and Mealac major. "Sometimes even I don't like some of the answers I get. But that's a far cry from intimidation. By its nature, this is not like a biology department." Why this dichotomy? Some anti-Mealac professors say the pro-Mealac students have been indoctrinated. Some pro-Mealac professors say the anti-Mealac students are, in effect, hicks, products of sheltered environments where pro-Palestinian views are absent. One faculty member suggested that there is "no underestimating how ignorant college students are." Ms. Shanker, who grew up in the small town of Goshen, N.Y., where, she said, Israel is rarely discussed, said to this point: "I think that argument is ludicrous. We're not idiots." Balanced vs. Unbalanced A curious facet of the dispute is that for the most part, the complaining students seem much less angry than people on the periphery. For instance, Mr. Schoenfeld, who took only a few Mealac courses and has graduated, said he has no problem with the department and did not find it unbalanced. He does not think Professor Massad should be fired. On the other hand, an assistant professor in the medical school sent an e-mail message to Professor Massad, saying: "Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned. Get the hell out of America. You are a disgrace and a pathetic typical Arab liar." Alan Brinkley, Columbia's provost, told the school's dean to advise the professor that such messages are unacceptable. Many Columbia professors are worried foremost about the implications for academic freedom. "I've been teaching 33 years and I've always thought we all knew what was appropriate faculty deportment," said Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor who is dubious about the students' charges. "Now it is not clear to everyone that the classroom is where the faculty is in full control. I teach a course called Introduction to Human Rights. We had a whole week on the torture memos of the Bush administration. Now I'm starting to wonder whether there's somebody in my class of 143 students who might grieve against me, that I indoctrinated them, that they went through emotional suffering to hear about these things." Robert Pollack, a professor of biological sciences, said: "Many professors have offensive opinions. If the answer to whether you can have those opinions is no, then we're cooked as an institution." Mr. Bollinger has been assailed by faculty members for too weakly defending the rights of professors and failing to contain the controversy. They suspect he is boxed in by the demands of fund-raising and the university's ambitions to expand its campus. "There has been an administrative silence," Professor Pollack said, "when there should be a ringing endorsement of academic freedom." ....It is impossible to gauge the institutional damage from the quarrel. Some faculty members say alumni have told them they will withhold donations. Other professors say some parents are directing their children elsewhere. "Parents of Jewish students have said to me, given the turmoil at Columbia, I think I'll send my kid to Penn," one professor said. .... A Panel's Tall Task The five-member faculty committee investigating this dispute has itself been maligned, especially by those displeased with the Mealac department. They contend that the committee includes insiders disposed toward the accused professors, including some who have signed Israel-divestment petitions. Some students from the film are considering not talking to the panel. Mr. Bollinger said he has faith in its composition. Clearly, the panel faces a tall task. Some incidents reduce to a student's word against a professor's. There is the matter of what constitutes intimidation. Some faculty members argue that a professor cannot intimidate someone who is not his student, because the professor wields no power. If the committee agrees, that would toss out the Tomy Schoenfeld allegation, since he was not in Professor Massad's class. The committee hopes to sort through this dispute by the end of February. No one imagines its conclusions will be the final word. The fight is too pitched and will not stop. The other day, Mr. Bollinger said he found viewpoints of Professor Dabashi "deeply personally offensive." Asked to respond, Professor Dabashi came back: "I find him 10 times more outrageous. What sort of president is he?"....
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 17, 2005 12:34:09 GMT -5
www.progressreport.orgAcademic Freedom Progress Report
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin with Nico Pitney and Mipe OkunseindeWednesday, February 16, 2005
Higher Education Academic Freedom Under AttackConservatives in the Ohio State Senate are considering a bill: www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200502%5CNAT20050211a.html... that would prohibit public and private college professors from introducing "controversial matter" into the classroom, and shift oversight: www.acluohio.org/issues/free_speech/sb24.htm... of college course content to state governments and courts. The language in the bill comes from right-wing activist David Horowitz' so-called "Academic Bill of Rights": www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/abor.html... which recommends states adopt rules to " restrict what university professors could say in their classrooms: www.ohiodems.org/index.php?display=ArticleDetails&id=205409... and halt liberal "pollution" on campus. The bill is both redundant and misleading -- most colleges already have rules ensuring free expression: www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student/chapter4/community.html... (political and otherwise) and Horowitz and his supporters have been able to offer scant evidence of widespread political bullying. Nevertheless, a variation of the bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives: www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/November2003/Kingstonbillnumbered101203.htm... and has made inroads in six states: www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/actions(boxattop)/ActionsMainPage(new).htmlFor a chance to fight back against the growing influence of the right wing on campus, and to help strengthen progressive student voices, check out American Progress' brand new web site, Campus Progress: www.campusprogress.org/Mumper's Motivation Ohio Senate Bill 24: www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_24... was introduced late last month by State Senator (R) Larry Mumper: www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/bios/sd_26.html... who says it is necessary because "80 percent" of college professors" are Democrats, liberals or socialists or card-carrying Communists": www.ohiodems.org/index.php?display=IssueDetails&id=205519... who attempt to indoctrinate students. When asked how he came to his conclusion, Mumper said he had been "investigating the issue for months", but cited just one instance when he had "heard of an Ohio student who said she was discriminated against because she supported Bush for president." He added that "anti-American" professors were a threat to young people and said he didn't think it was right: www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/10892255.htm... for college campuses to teach students things their parents might disagree with. Ohio Fights Back Last week, the Ohio University student senate passed a resolution against the bill -- the latest in a string of college students and administrations to register their opposition. One "senate commissioner" pointed out the college handbook already mandated similar rules and "suggested that the Ohio Senate should be concentrating on more important issues in education": www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=19676... of which there are many: www.mysan.de/international/article38453.htmlA political science professor at Ohio-Wesleyan said the law could stifle debate, and Kenyon College: www.kenyon.edu/index.xmlPresident S. Georgia Nugent called Horowitz' thinking "a severe threat to academic freedom": www.ohiodems.org/index.php?display=IssueDetails&id=205519Two conservative students from Ohio State wrote in an editorial that they did not think "government should ... be involved in policing academic debate": www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/news/stories/20050215/opinion/1992991.htmlThey also pointed out that if Horowitz "were a professor under his own bill, he probably would violate it." David Horowitz, 'Champion Of Open Debate' Horowitz, who has been the driving force behind the movement for "academic freedom" in Ohio and other states, has a distinguished history of intellectual defamation, historical inaccuracy and political bullying. He has freely compared American liberals to Islamic terrorists: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089526076X/qid=1108503551/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-0136851-7758552... slandered the Democratic Party and John Kerry for criticizing the war in Iraq: www.davidcorn.com/2005/02/is_david_horowi.php... and made a habit out of accusing his detractors of racism: mediamatters.org/items/200412020001Most recently, when African-American historian John Hope Franklin questioned Horowitz' 2001 claim that black people benefited from slavery and owed a "debt" to white America: scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/franklin/bio.html... Horowitz responded by calling the eminent historian "a racial ideologue rather than a historian: hnn.us/roundup/comments/9856.html... and "almost pathological." Horowitz has no academic credentials: www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10814... and routinely distorts facts: mediamatters.org/items/200412010006... exactly the crime he accuses "liberal" professors of committing -- to fit his political bias. Share your thoughts on David Horowitz at ThinkProgress.org: thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=254What Liberal Campus? Horowitz claims his bill is necessary because college campuses are a "hostile environment" for conservatives, but as American Progress's Ben Hubbard and David Halperin point out, "Increasingly, it is the conservative movement that sets the agenda": www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/12/illiberal_education/Over the past 30 years, "the right has built a powerful campus machine. A dozen right-wing institutions now spend $38 million annually pushing their agenda to students. Conservative foundations channel tens of millions more for academic programs" which "buff an intellectual sheen over conservative ideology." Groups like Young America's Foundation, which spent more than $10 million on campuses in 2003, have no progressive counterpart. The ultra-conservative Leadership Institute: www.leadershipinstitute.org/01ABOUTUS/aboutus.htm... boasting prestigious graduates such as disgraced fake White House reporter Jeff Gannon: mediamatters.org/items/200502120002... claims it has trained more than 40,000 college students to become "conservative leaders" since 1979. The Empty Database Horowitz' best attempt to prove liberal bias on campus is his "Academic Freedom Abuse Center": www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/listComplaint.asp?by=college... housed on the Students for Academic Freedom (SAS) web site. But the database, which invites students to report having their "rights abused" in class, only looks impressive until you start reading the actual claims. Some highlights: One student complains because her professor suggested men and women might see colors differently: www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/viewComplaint.asp?complainId=319Another is offended she was asked to watch an "immoral Seinfeld episode": www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/viewComplaint.asp?complainId=374The latest entry in the database as of Tuesday afternoon was from an Ohio State student who claims he got a bad grade on an essay because his English professor " hates families and thinks it's okay to be gay": www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/viewComplaint.asp?complainId=370One of the complaints comes from an Augustana College senior who is upset her school used "funds from Student activity fees to bring in the one-sided speaker David Horowitz": www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/comp/viewComplaint.asp?complainId=111
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Feb 21, 2005 12:39:44 GMT -5
On Sunday, February 20, 2005, CERJ co-principal Sumner Rosen <smr6@columbia.edu> wrote: I hope you can come to the teach-in on McCarthyism scheduled for Monday evening at 7:15 at the Columbia law school, Amsterdam Ave and West 116th St. Speakers include Victor Navasky of The Nation and Ellen Schrecker, whose book is the definitive study of the impact on universities. The heat generated by the charges of anti-Israel and anti-semitic comments by faculty members has steadily increased. In one week, the university experienced a second showing of a revised version of the film produced by the David Project, a lecture about the university's guilt by Alan Dershowitz, and a talk by Jay Kaplan, celebrated for his fanatical crusades against all enemies of Israel real or imagined, sponsored by a faculty organization that has publicly accused the university administration of failure to address the charges made. The New York Sun has for weeks focused first page attention on this crusade to cure Columbia of its sins (to be fair, they printed a letter from me correcting the record). Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz are waiting in the wings. The administration does have much to answer for, but the remedies offered by some of these folks invoke disturbing memories to those like me with long memories. I believe that the intention is to intimidate Columbia, and in so doing to send a message to other colleges and universities about the price to be exacted for failing to conform to the orthodox line. Sumner M. Rosen tel: 212 580-9787 fax: 212 496-8014 address: 201 West 86th Street, New York NY 10024 The Columbia ACLU Presents: Teach-InMcCarthyism & the University: A Historical Discussion on Free Speech and the Academy from the Cold War to PresentFeaturing:Mahmood Mamdani, Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at the Department of Anthropology and Director of the Institute of African Studies at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) Victor Navasky, Editor and Publisher of 'The Nation', and Director of the George Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism at Columbia Ellen Schrecker, Professor of History at Yeshiva University and author of 'Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America' Monday, February 21st, 7:30 p.m. Jerome Greene Hall, Room 103 116th & Amsterdam aclu@columbia.edu Relevant Information on the Speakers:www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6698.htmlMany Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in Americaby Ellen SchreckerWith a new preface to the paperback edition by the Author Paperback | 1999 | $24.95 / £15.95 | ISBN: 0-691-04870-3 608 pp. | 6 x 9 The McCarthy era was a bad time for freedom in America. Encompassing far more than the brief career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, it was the most widespread episode of political repression in the history of the United States. In the name of National Security, most Americans -- liberal and conservative alike -- supported the anti-Communist crusade that ruined so many careers, marriages, and even lives. Now Ellen Schrecker gives us the first complete post-Cold War account of McCarthyism. 'Many Are the Crimes' is a frightening history of an era that still resonates with us today. Reviews:"If the national memory is ever to reach closure on this tragic episode, Schrecker's analysis is a significant and compelling contribution." -- William J. Preston, Jr., Los Angeles Times "[Schrecker's] thoughtful and earnest new study, 'Many Are the Crimes', offers the most comprehensive view yet of the process that turned a legal, political, economic, and cultural crusade into `the home front of the Cold War.'" -- Henry Mayer, San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle "A valuable contribution for anyone who would understand the dynamics of the domestic cold war. [Schrecker] has provided an alternative framework that does much to put McCarthyism in America in perspective." -- Victor Navasky, The Nation "Nothing could be more welcome to students and scholars of United States history than the appearance in paperback of Ellen Schrecker's history of the anti-Communist mania which disgraced America in the 1940's and 50's. ... Schrecker's book is distinguished from its forerunners by its comprehensive scholarship (soundly based in archival research), lucid exposition and calm intelligence." -- Hugh Brogan, Time Literary Supplement "The book's great value is that it brings together recent work on McCarthyism and wonderfully illuminates the relationships between the component parts of that protean culture, and its own extensive original research enhances its authority. It is a true work of scholarship. The depth of Ellen Schrecker's research, her careful analysis and her elegant prose command respect." -- M.J. Heale, American Studies Endorsement:"It's all here, carefully researched, well written, and with a detached view of both the pursuers and the pursued. Excellent." -- John Kenneth Galbraith, Harvard University
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 7, 2005 16:53:15 GMT -5
This story was printed from The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. Site URL: www.dailycollegian.com. Middle East transparencies By Ramzi Kanazi, Collegian columnist March 07, 2005 Objectivity: a construction, inexistent when covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Transparency - perhaps the next best thing - also remarkably absent from the relative discourse. Let me continue this column with an attempt of the latter. I'm Palestinian. I believe that the Palestinians are unfairly and unfavorably represented in nearly all general aspects of American government and society. Furthermore, reporting of the conflict is disproportionately biased in favor of the state of Israel. I hope that helps. I hope you appreciate it too. I'm sure I've ruined any future prospects for employment with Fox News or for membership in SAFI. I'm trying to hold my tears back... Many groups call for objectivity when reporting on subjects relating to the Middle East, yet few call for transparency. One particular organization covering this topic is CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It is a media-watch group that claims to be "devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East." The balance on their website is not so noticeable. One would be hard-pressed to find criticisms by CAMERA concerning bias against Palestinians in the media. I could not find a single instance while browsing their site, even while checking publications known for their slander against Arabs like the New York Sun and the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, according to CAMERA, the only problem with Middle East coverage in the media regards anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli or anti-American reporting. One of the cofounders of CAMERA, Dr. Charles Jacobs, also happens to be president of the David Project. The website of the David Project claims to promote a "fair and honest understanding of the conflict in the Middle East," but it is a Zionist organization, one that promotes a pro-Israeli perspective on the situation. Contrary to their claims, the members of the David Project have little interest in fairness and honesty; instead, they wish to promote their agenda. They do, however, advance token overtures to Arabs, but as a smokescreen, covering the explicit blame that they place on the Arab world for the conflict. Another organization, Campus Watch, which frequently uses CAMERA material, is endorsing a film that the David Project produced and helped create. Daniel Pipes founded Campus Watch. He is a proponent of a bill that would cut funding to schools considered promoters of "anti-American" or "anti-Israeli" perspectives. He keeps a running tab on a number of professors whom he opposes, and he is frequently described by academics as a McCarthyite. The film, entitled Columbia Unbecoming, attacks Columbia professors in the Middle East and Asian Language and Cultures department for apparent biases against Israel and America. Columbia Unbecoming asserts that a number of professors in the program promote their position using methods like intimidation. It has prompted a symposium at the University. As both sides argue against each other, one must notice the antagonizing party. They are a bunch of Zionists who are critical of the department at Columbia! Natan Sharansky, Martin Kramer and Alan Dershowitz, the three featured speakers at the symposium are all unabashed Zionists who obstinately argue that ideas like a bi-national state, promoting equal status for both Palestinians and Jews, are tacit examples of anti-Semitism. Dershowitz, a Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, ostensibly argues that he is interested in a fair solution to the problem, though he is often regarded as anti-Arab. Ironically, the topics of the event include academic freedom, integrity and objectivity. That's like creating a committee to debate bipartisan politics made up entirely of Democrats. To be fair, their goal is ostensibly altruistic (though inherently ethnocentric and exclusive). There are problems with bias in American institutions. They exist on both sides, but the extent to which one sees bias for the Palestinians is overwhelmingly shadowed by the bias against them and convincingly surpassed by a partiality for Israel (right, remember my claim for transparency earlier). While it is true that scholars are less susceptible to Israeli bias, most of America is not. The rest of the country, unfortunately, is trying to penetrate the academic world to teach it about objectivity through non-academic institutions that aim to protect governments - not people. CAMERA, Campus Watch and the David Project are all non-academic entities that are working to influence the academic curricula while pandering to Israel. These organizations currently operate under the guise of objectivity, something that they clearly do not exhibit. As students, we must watch for organizations like these and demand transparency. Note: Most newer browsers don't need a print-friendly version of this article. Just click File, then Print from your browser's menu at the previous page.
© 2005 The Massachusetts Daily Collegian
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 16, 2005 12:52:23 GMT -5
COLUMBIA UNBECOMINGZNet | Israel/Palestine www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7435§ionID=107Academic Integrity Travestied at Columbia Middle East Studies Conferenceby Terri Ginsberg; March 14, 2005 On Sunday, March 6, Columbia University hosted a conference called "The Middle East and Academic Integrity on the American Campus." Despite its repeated and advertised calls for "balance" and "objectivity" in academic scholarship, the gathering exemplified nothing of academic integrity. The conference was sponsored by U.S. organizations which support the Israeli right wing, including Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Columbians for Academic Freedom, The David Project, Jewish Business Student Association, and Koleinu: Columbia Law Students for Israel, and all participants hailed solely from the political Right on the issue of Israel/Palestine. Each presentation expressed support for U.S. and Israeli military manipulation of the Middle East as well as for anti-Arab racism and legislation that would censor dissenting speech, deemed "oppressive" and "antisemitic," in both the academic and public spheres.[/color] The merging of a neoconservative agenda with the language of liberation is disconcerting, to say the least: it places a blatant bid to foster the idea that neoconservatives, who openly seek to mold the world into a mirror-image of an oligarchic U.S., are in fact "progressives." The best and most incendiary example of this was the presentation by Phyllis Chesler, a recognized feminist best known for her 1972 book, "Women and Madness," and more recently the author of the neoconservative "The New Anti-Semitism," a book that charges all critics of Israel with being antisemites. Chesler starred at the "Academic Integrity" conference, emphasizing her feminism while decrying "multiculturalist" insistence on equality for Palestinian women. Insisting that she is feminist, anti-racist, and pro-gay, Chesler then declared herself (and the audience) victims of that purported majority of feminists, African Americans, and gays whose propensity to question her pro-Likud views belies as self-serving, she claimed, their status as alienated, struggling, and deserving of sympathy from the U.S. mainstream, and whose movements should now be monitored for undue influence. Chesler and subsequent speakers related this phenomenon to the situation of Palestinians, who were likewise accused of exploiting their status as occupied to wring unwarranted sympathy from Americans, while marginalizing Jews. The inversion of victimhood became salient during the course of the conference, when Palestinian and Jewish objectors, whose opinions were apparently unwelcome at the "balanced and objective" event, challenged Chesler's characterizations. In response, the audience shouted death threats at the objectors. In one instance, after a Palestinian-American man explained that he had been shot twice by Israeli soldiers, an audience member yelled, "If I had been one of those soldiers, you'd be dead"; in another, a Jewish objector was blocked from leaving the room and similarly threatened. In response to these audible pronouncements, conference attendees roundly applauded, and conference organizers took no action against them. A New York Times photographer who attempted to capture the incident was immediately prevented from doing so. Upset and shaken, she wondered aloud whether her work had been pre-empted because she "didn't look Jewish."This travesty of academic discussion was convened to support a campaign of attacks on professors in Columbia University's Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures Department (MEALAC). "Columbia Unbecoming," a video funded by the David Project which makes claims about faculty intimidation of students in MEALAC courses, was screened at the conference. Much like the conference, "Columbia Unbecoming" presents a disingenuous cry of victimization. Nothing it alleges about professors' conduct can rightly be considered "intimidating" or a violation of pedagogical decorum. In fact, "Columbia Unbecoming" makes not one credible argument: it comprises merely a loose patchwork of unsubstantiated interviews with ostensible MEALAC students, and decontextualized quotes from the targeted professors' writings. No wonder that, although the video has sparked a firestorm of media coverage and accusations, it is closely guarded by its sponsors and remains unavailable for public consumption.The events which transpired at the Columbia conference would be comical if they weren't so foreboding. The David Project and its cohorts are working hard to squelch all criticism of Zionism and Israeli policy. In the name of "fighting antisemitism," they even seek to silence the growing number of Jews at Columbia University and around the world who have come to oppose the israeli occupation of the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Their campaign draws upon the general rise in discrimination against Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians and increasing attacks on civil liberties in the U.S. and elsewhere. Oppositional student voices at Columbia have started referring to the campaign as "the new McCarthyism." Enter U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner and neoconservative ideologue Martin Kramer, whose presentations at the conference revealed efforts underway to capture the real plum: reauthorization of Title IV in the U.S. Senate. Reminiscent of HUAC-era Hollywood, the likes of Kramer have been lobbying Congress for passage of new Title VI legislation that would establish independent monitoring of university courses on issues that "affect homeland security," especially Middle East and international policy studies.This proposed legislation would in effect remove all decision-making power over curriculum development and faculty hires and review from faculty and turn it over to outside appointees. Apropos of Kramer's presentation, an International Educational Advisory Board would ideally serve to eliminate higher educational departments and programs involving international studies that are deemed "anti-American," replacing them with private research institutes stocked with scholars situated firmly on the political Right. It would also review syllabi and course materials, including article footnotes, to check for and eliminate perspectives critical of Israeli and U.S. policy in the Middle East.The obvious unprofessionalism of the Columbia conference and the amateurish "Columbia Unbecoming" video are a façade of ineptitude obscuring a well-organized, deep-pocketed threat. At best, they constitute a subversive propaganda campaign aimed to dumb down the populace on many crucial foreign and domestic policy issues. Far worse, they represent a fierce attack on universities, on critical thinking, and on the study of political structures in our increasingly fragile and volatile world. Censorship, racism, and death threats to dissenters, cleverly disguised as resisting the "intimidation" of conservative students by "antisemitic" professors, are not merely signals being sent by the "The Middle East and Academic Integrity on the American Campus" conference: they are directives issued straight from the top.
Terri Ginsberg was most recently Adjunct Professor of Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College. -- <br>
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 17, 2005 14:18:44 GMT -5
David Horowitz's 'Academic' Standards: Under Fire, Right-Wing Campus Watchdog Admits Colorado Exam Story is Phony After Accusing Media Matters of SlanderTo: National and State Desk, Education and Political Reporters Contact: Melissa Salmanowitz of Media Matters for America, 202-756-4109 or press@mediamatters.org
WASHINGTON, March 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Right-wing activist David Horowitz, the president of Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), which purports to fight anti-conservative bias on the nation's college campuses, has admitted that a story highly publicized by his group concerning alleged events at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) "appears to be wrong," and that "our presentation of this case appears now to have had several faults." Horowitz made the concession in an article posted on FrontPageMag.com -- his online magazine -- on March 15, under the headline, "Correction: Some of Our Facts Were Wrong, But Our Point Was Right." On March 14, in a post on his FrontPageMag.com blog titled "A new Brock slander goes round the web (and is refuted here)," Horowitz had accused Media Matters for America, which raised questions about whether the Colorado story was true in a March 7 item, of "slander" and insisted the story was true. Despite Horowitz's March 15 concession that the story is not true, the false attack on Media Matters is still posted on his blog. The Horowitz about-face appears to have been prompted by a report, also posted March 15, on InsideHigherEd.com, which describes itself as "the online source for news, opinion and career advice and services for all of higher education," that refuted nearly all of the claims Horowitz and his SAF group had made regarding a student's purported allegations of political bias against her criminal justice professor at the UNC. Horowitz and SAF had alleged that a student in "(a) criminology class at a Colorado university," when asked on a midterm essay exam to explain "why President Bush was a war criminal," received a failing grade for answering instead why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, and that this constituted anti-conservative bias. However, InsideHigherEd.com quoted a UNC spokeswoman as saying that "the test question was not the one described by Horowitz, the grade was not an F, and there were clearly non-political reasons for whatever grade was given." All the information the university had "was inconsistent with the story Horowitz has told about this incident," the Web site reported having been told by the UNC spokeswoman. The article also reported that the professor Horowitz and SAF attacked, Robert Dunkley, is a registered Republican. Before retracting their claims, Horowitz and SAF had gone to great lengths to maintain their veracity in the face of skepticism from Mano Singham, the director of Case Western Reserve University's Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education, who questioned the Colorado story March 4 in a Cleveland Plain Dealer op-ed; and from Media Matters, which noted that media outlets were reporting the Horowitz story as if it were true even though there was no evidence to support it.-- Horowitz attacked Media Matters for "slander," defended allegation as true, but again provided no proof: In a March 14 FrontPageMag.com blog post, Horowitz attacked Media Matters and defended the University of Northern Colorado story's veracity, writing: "The story about the Colorado exam is true and was even referenced by the president of the university in question, Kay Norton, at legislative hearings on the Academic Bill of Rights. The link Horowitz provided was simply to the SAF homepage, where a March 14 article titled "University of N. Colorado Story Confirmed" was featured. The article seemed to provide a number of details surrounding the story that Horowitz and SAF had not previously disclosed -- the name of the professor, the course description, and the format of the essay exam -- but absolutely no documentation to back up those details or the allegation. -- Horowitz and SAF promised forthcoming evidence: The March 14 SAF article claimed that UNC president Kay Norton had testified to the incident at a September 9, 2004, hearing before the Colorado state legislature's Joint Education Committee. However, the article provided no quotes, and no links to a transcript of Norton's testimony. In lieu of evidence, the SAF article originally promised that "(a)n audio file of the relevant portions of UNC President Norton's testimony, along with a transcript, will be posted to the Students for Academic Freedom website on Monday (March 14, 2005, presumably)." However, the language of the article was changed late on March 14 to read "(a)n audio file of the relevant portions of UNC President Norton's testimony, along with a transcript, will be posted to the Students for Academic Freedom website IN THE NEAR FUTURE" (emphasis added). The article also claimed that letters the student allegedly received from the UNC administration regarding the incident would be posted on the SAF Web site "as soon as the student returns from spring break," which, according to the university's Web site, ends on March 18. As of this posting, no audio files or transcripts have been posted on the SAF Web site or on FrontPageMag.com. The SAF article also linked to a September 10, 2004, Washington Times article as "an example of the press coverage of the September 2004 legislative hearing." The Times article did report on the Joint Education Committee hearing, but did not mention Norton by name and made no mention whatsoever of the alleged incident. A Nexis search revealed a September 10, 2004, Associated Press article that mentioned Norton and the Joint Education Committee hearing. The AP article made a number of specific references to instances of alleged anti-conservative bias on college campuses, but there was no mention of the alleged UNC incident. In lieu of substantiating evidence, Horowitz posted correction In his March 15 FrontPageMag.com recantation, despite acknowledging that the InsideHigherEd.com article "debunked" a number of the facts he and SAF had reported on the UNC incident, Horowitz continued to claim that the exam was biased: "So while we apologize for not having fully checked and corrected this story, we conclude that our complaint about the exam was justified." Though the exam never asked students to "explain why George Bush is a war criminal," as Horowitz had falsely claimed, Horowitz opined that the actual exam question, as reported by InsideHigherEd.com, was "loaded." He then attacked "an army of Internet bloggers" who had allegedly joined with Case Western's Singham "to zero in one of the hundreds of cases (of anti-conservative bias on campuses) we have identified with the obvious intention of bringing the entire campaign for academic freedom and just plain decency in the classroom to a halt." The blog on DiscovertheNetwork.org , a Web site run by Horowitz that purports to "identif(y) the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it," also touted Horowitz's "refutation" of the March 7 Media Matters item. The author of the posts, Richard Poe, who is identified as the blog's managing editor, has a reputation for spreading misinformation and using smear tactics. As Media Matters for America has documented, Poe floated a raft of distortions and factual misstatements in an attempt to smear billionaire philanthropist George Soros on the May 19, 2004, edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," and in a May 2004 article in the right-wing NewsMax magazine, of which Poe is a contributing editor.
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Media Matters for America is the first organization to systematically monitor the media for conservative misinformation –- every day, in real time. For more information, log on to www.mediamatters.org. www.usnewswire.com/-0- /© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Mar 29, 2005 15:53:35 GMT -5
Dutchess Community College Stands up for Academic Freedom More on the subject from a different state (this thing is spreading like the Black Plague).
"Professional Staff Organization Dutchess Community College 24 March 2005 In response to the “Academic Bill of Rights” (ABOR), currently under consideration by SUNY administration, the Professional Staff Organization (PSO) of Dutchess Community College (DCC) hereby ASSERTS: that DCC has already stated its commitment to academic freedom in clear and unambiguous terms; that the ABOR, which purports to promote intellectual diversity, actually threatens the tradition of academic freedom at DCC; that the ABOR’s implication that knowledge is “unsettled” in most academic disciplines except for the sciences is dubious, at best; that the ABOR distorts the principle of academic freedom by erroneously extending all of its protections to students; that DCC students are already protected from racial, religious, and sex discrimination under applicable federal and state law; that in addition to these legal safeguards, DCC students enjoy other rights and privileges pursuant to the policies of the College, including a grade appeal procedure; that by setting narrow limitations on what teachers may consider when grading student work, the ABOR makes it harder for teachers to maintain academic standards; that the vagueness of ABOR’s language appears to invite the imposition of outside political pressures on teachers; that the ABOR would subject many of the College’s activities—including the selection of public speakers, formation of curricula, and hiring and promotion of employees—to external, non-academic standards; that the intent of the ABOR appears to be to expose faculty and staff to civil action from those who claim to be victims of discrimination because of their “political beliefs”; and finally, that the combined threat of lawsuits and external political pressure will have a chilling effect on the presentation of controversial topics in DCC classrooms. Therefore, it is RESOLVED: that the PSO rejects the proposed “Academic Bill of Rights” and urges SUNY to do the same; and that the PSO remains unwaveringly committed to the principle of academic freedom, as defined in its public documents. " posted by Juan @ 3/29/2005 06:10:00 AM www.juancole.com/2005/03/dutchess-community-college-stands-up.html
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 2, 2005 11:44:50 GMT -5
'When They Came For Ward Churchill'Here's a 'must-see': 'When They Came For Ward Churchill' Producer: Source Code Length: 101:53 minutes These are the links to excellent video interviews with North American First Peoples activist Russell Means and scholar Ward Churchill, and film clips of speeches by Churchill. A must-see for anyone seriously concerned not only with issues of academic freedom, but also with the global phenomenon of the USA as a rampaging militaristic empire, still practicing its policies of conquest after centuries of genocides, usurpations, crimes against humanity, and unjust wars. www.freespeech.org/fsitv/fscm2/ramgen.ram?url=rtsp%3A%2F%2Frealmedia.freespeech.org%2Fnew%2Ftv_archive%2Fchurchill_speech.rm/or/ tinyurl.com/52eoa"Embattled Professor Ward Churchill speaks on the controversy over his essay, his treatment by the media and the people calling for his firing, and even execution, for 'treason'. In this hour-long program, Professor Churchill invites FSTV into his home to tell the side of the story told nowhere else on American television: his side." The page with the above interview linked to it is: www.freespeech.org/fsitv/fscm2/contentviewer.php?content_id=1071
If you don't have it already, you should install the free RealPlayer in order to view it. The Realplayer browser plug-in is available here: www.real.com/
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 2, 2005 11:48:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 6, 2005 19:48:09 GMT -5
FrontPageMag's "Columbia Whitewash" (FrontPageMag being one of the organizers of shutting down US academia in favor of Pro-Israeli indoctrination) : frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=17612It names many of its co-conspirators, such as National Review. Note that their account attempts to pair American and Israeli interests and inseparable, once again proving that this is a group is loyal to Israel, and not to the United States or its interests. They are a foreign influence/lobby:
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 7, 2005 5:42:41 GMT -5
New York Times, showing its blue and white skirts, echoed the Horowitz "whitewash" theme in an editorial today: www.nytimes.com/2005/04/07/opinion/07thu1.html?th&emc=thBut in the end, the report is deeply unsatisfactory because the panel's mandate was so limited. Most student complaints were not really about intimidation, but about allegations of stridently pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias on the part of several professors. The panel had no mandate to examine the quality and fairness of teaching. That leaves the university to follow up on complaints about politicized courses and a lack of scholarly rigor as part of its effort to upgrade the department. One can only hope that Columbia will proceed with more determination and care than it has heretofore.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 7, 2005 11:20:06 GMT -5
If you wish to see the films disparaged by our betters at the National Review and the New York Times, there is a film festival here in DC: DC CINEMA PALESTINE FILM FESTIVALwww.cinemapalestine.com/"A Stone's Throw Away"and "Frontiers of Dreams and Fears"This Friday, April 8th, 7 pm - 9 pm * This screening will include a photo exhibition of Michael J. Keating's photographs from the U.S. diplomatic delegation's visit to the West Bank in July 2004 (see October 2004 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs). * and "Ford Transit"and A discussion with Ghaleb Darabyaof the Palestinian Mission to the United States This Sunday, April 10th, 6 pm - 9 pmScreening location: George Washington University Marvin Center Amphitheater (3rd Floor) 800 21st Street, NW - Washington, DC Seating is limited. Reserve your ticket now by filling out our short webform: www.cinemapalestine.com/reserve.shtmlAll proceeds from the festival will be sent to the Milk for Preschoolers Program of ANERA, which feeds over 12,000 children in more than 100 preschools in Gaza with milk and biscuits fortified with nutrients and vitamins. ANERA is a leading non-profit humanitarian organization whose projects improve Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, and Jordan. DC Cinema Palestine (DCCP) is an array of insightful and provocative recent films and documentaries from and about Palestine. The films we have chosen explore the social, political, and personal issues confronting Palestinians. They illustrate what it means to be Palestinian in a world where Israeli occupation presents endless obstacles to the fulfillment of basic human rights. Our hope is that in some small way these films can contribute to a future of justice, peace, and co-existence. Film Schedule by Date:(Subject to change - Please visit www.cinemapalestine.com for up-to-date information) Friday, April 8th: Children7:00 pm A Stone's Throw Away (Line Halvorsen, Norway, Documentary, 2003, 51 minutes) "A Stone´s Throw Away follows three boys from Dheisheh refugee camp on the outskirts of Bethlehem. The children are growing up under Israeli occupation. Their friend, who was only 13 years old, has recently been shot to death by Israeli soldiers. In the film the children talk about their feelings of fear, hoplessness, anger and revenge. The film provides an intimate insight into the children´s thoughts and lives, raising questions about how children are influenced by the conditions in which they live."8:15 pm Frontiers of Dreams and Fears (Mai Masri, Palestine, Documentary, 2001, 56 minutes) "Award-winning Palestinian filmmaker Mai Masri's most recent work traces the delicate friendship that evolves between two Palestinian girls: Mona, a resident of the economically marginalized Beirut refugee camp and Manar, an occupant of Bethlehem's Al-Dheisha camp under Israeli control. The two girls begin and continue their relationship through letters until they are finally given the opportunity to meet at the border during the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon. When the intifada suddenly erupts around them, both girls face heart-breaking changes in their lives. As in Masri's earlier films, Frontiers of Dreams and Fears focuses on the difficult plight of Palestinian children while exhibiting an optimism that defies their unbearable circumstances."( First Prize Documentary, International Festival of films by Women, 2002 - Turin) Sunday, April 10th: Palestinian Identity6:00 pm Ford Transit (Hani Abu-Assad, Palestine, Documentary, 2002, 80 minutes) "The documentary is about the people who commute in between Israeli military checkpoints via Ford mini-vans. Filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad interviews Rajai Khatib, the young Ford truck taxi driver, and his customers, showing viewers a variety of Palestinian opinions that don't often get represented in the international news media, while also illustrating the absurdity of the military checkpoints in the West Bank. Surveying Rajai and his passengers' opinions of George W. Bush, suicide bombers, and Israelis, the responses Abu-Assad receives are often sad, profound, and witty. Thankfully, Abu-Assad exploits the Palestinians' famous sense of humor, while at the same time treating serious issues with the attention they deserve." (Fipresci Prize 2003, Thessaloniki International Film Festival)Followed by a discussion lead by Ghaleb Darabya of the Palestinian Mission to the USA Saturday, April 30th: Striving for Normality6:00 pm Crossing Kalandia (Sobhi al-Zobaidi, Italy/Palestine, Documentary, 2002, 52 minutes) "A video journal reflecting the life of a Palestinian family and a Palestinian town during one year of the intifada. Kalandia is the name of a refugee camp between Ramallah and Jerusalem, but more recently it has become the location of one of the most heavily-traveled Israeli checkpoints in the Palestinian territories. The filmmaker's intention is not to portray Palestinians as victims, but rather to reveal that Palestinians are like any other normal society; they are diverse, complex and very misunderstood. The film focuses on Palestinians' persistent and resilient efforts to lead normal lives in the midst of much violence and suffering."7:15 pm Rana's Wedding (Hany Abu-Assad, Palestine, Fiction, 2002, 90 minutes) "Rana wakes up one morning to an ultimatum delivered by her father: She must either choose a husband from a pre-selected list of eligible men, or she must accompany her father abroad. Rana's Wedding is a romantic drama about a Palestinian girl who wants to get married to the man of her own choice. With only ten hours to find her boyfriend in occupied Jerusalem, Rana sneaks out of her father's house at daybreak to find her forbidden love, Khalil. Facing barriers and occupation which have become an everyday reality, Rana overcomes her fears and doubts, deciding not to let anyone control her life."(Best Actress, Marrakech Film Festival - Marrakech, 2002; Antigone d'Or, Prix de la Critique, Prix des Étudiants, Cinéma Méditerranéen - Montpellier, 2002; Grand Prix, Arte Mare Festival - Bastia, 2002; Grand Prix, International Mediterranean Film Festival - Cologne, 2002; Nestor Almendros Award for Courage in Filmmaking, Human Rights Watch Film Festival - New York, 2003; Audience Prize, Otranto Festival - Otranto, 2003)Friday, May 6th: Refugees6:00 pm Until when...(Dahna Abourahme, Palestine/USA, Documentary, 2004, 76 minutes) "Set during the current Intifada, this documentary follows four Palestinian families living in Dheisheh Refugee Camp near Bethlehem. Fadi is 13 and cares for his 4 younger brothers, the Hammashes are a close-knit family who pass on the lessons of life with humor and passion, Sana is a single woman who endures long commutes to do community work, and Emad and Hanan are a young couple trying to shield their daughter from the harsh realities of the occupation. They talk about their past and discuss the future with humor, sorrow, frustration and hope. Until when... paints an intimate in-depth portrait of Palestinian lives today." Followed by a discussion lead by Huwaida Arraf of the International Solidarity Movement Saturday, May 7th: Media 6:00 pm Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land (Bathsheba Ratzkoff & Sut Jhally, USA, Documentary, 2004, 80 minutes) "This pivotal video exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites--working in combination with Israeli public relations strategies--exercise a powerful influence over news reporting about the Middle East conflict. Combining American and British TV news clips with observations of analysts, journalists, and political activists, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides an historical overview, a striking media comparison, and an examination of factors that have distorted U.S. media coverage and, in turn, American public opinion. Interviewees include Seth Ackerman, Mjr. Stav Adivi, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Hanan Ashrawi, Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Dr. Neve Gordon, Toufic Haddad, Sam Husseini, Hussein Ibish, Robert Jensen, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Karen Pfeifer, Alisa Solomon, and Gila Svirsky."Followed by a panel featuring Alison Weir of If Americans Knew and Rima Mutreja of the media task force for the US Campaign to End the Occupation.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 7, 2005 14:59:43 GMT -5
April 7, 2005 DCRA* Action Alert: Defend Academic Freedom at Columbia UniversityDear friends, Today, April 7, 2005, the editorial of the New York Times (see here for ease of reference: www.arab-american.net/Civil_Rights/Campus/NYTimes/nytimes.html) echoed further the chorus of vicious attacks on academic freedom at Columbia University. It continued to vilify a distinguished Arab American professor, Joseph Massad, and, in effect, called for policing political opinion when it comes US foreign policy and Israel.This systematic and unabated campaign against academic freedom and First Amendment rights is critically dangerous, particularly during a time of conflict and war. The Defense of Civil Rights in Academia Project (DCRA) fears that the behavior of influential media outlets, such as the NYT, will in fact normalize the escalating hate against Arab Americans while simultaneously stifling academic freedom and the right to free speech and expression. This will inevitably lead to an era of new McCarthyism that will engulf all. Please write to the NY Times and to the president of Columbia University expressing your concerns. NY Times Op-Ed Editor: David Shipley shipley@nytimes.com Or to letters to the editor: letters@nyt.com Ph. (212) 556-1234 Fx. (212) 556-4100 229 W 43rd St, New York NY 10036-3959 Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger: bollinger@columbia.edu 535 West 116th Street, 202 Low Library Mail Code 4309 New York, NY 10027 Ph. 212.854.9970 fx. 212.854.9973 Thank you for your continued support during this very critical time.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 9, 2005 12:21:31 GMT -5
Informed Comment Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan www.juancole.com/2005/04/new-york-times-supports-mccarthyite.htmlFriday, April 08, 2005 New York Times Supports McCarthyite Witch Hunt I am cancelling my subscription to the New York Times, and I urge others to do the same.The New York Times editorial board went over to the Dark Side on Thursday, (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/07/opinion/07thu1.html?oref=login) with an editorial that blasted the end results of a panel at Columbia University that investigated whether students had been intimidated by professors at Columbia University. The panel found that there was no evidence of any such thing, that no students had been punished for their views by lowered grades, that there was no evidence of racial bigotry. The NYT nevertheless praised the neo-McCarthyite "film" (actually it is large numbers of films that are constantly re-edited and have never been publicly shown) produced by the shadowy anti-Palestinian "David Project." But the "film" is not an objective document. I could interview on film lots of people who ascribed all sorts of bad behavior to the editors of the New York Times and call it a "d**ning documentary." Students, including Israelis, who have actually taken classes in Middle East studies at Columbia dispute the films' allegations. The real question here is whether it is all right to dispute the Zionist version of history. The David Project, AIPAC, the American Jewish Congress, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Middle East Forum, Campus Watch, MEMRI, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Zionist Organization of America, etc., etc., maintain that it is not all right. Some of them have even been known to maintain that disputing Zionist historiography is a form of hate speech.Historians are unkind to nationalism of any sort. Nineteenth century romantic nationalism of the Zionist sort posits eternal "peoples" through history, who have a blood relationship (i.e. are a "race") and who have a mystical relationship with some particular territory. The Germans, who were very good at this game, called it "blood and soil." Nationalism casts about for some ancient exemplar of the "nation" to glorify as a predecessor to the modern nation. (Since nations actually did not exist in the modern sense before the late 1700s, the relationship is fictive. To explain what happened between ancient glory and modern nationalism, nationalists often say that the "nation" "fell asleep" or "went into centuries of decline. My colleague Ron Suny calls this the "sleeping beauty" theory of nationalism.) But there are no eternal nations through history. People get all mixed up genetically over time, except for tiny parts of the genome like the mitochondria or the Y chromosome, on which too much emphasis is now put. Since there are no eternal nations based in "blood," they cannot have a mystical connection to the "land." People get moved around. The Turks now in Anatolia once lived in Mongolia (and most Turks anyway are just Greeks who converted to Islam and began speaking Turkish). The David Project wants Middle East historians to reproduce faithfully in the classroom the Zionist master narrative as the "true" version of history. We aren't going to do that, and nobody can make us do it, and if anyone did make us do it, it would be destructive of academic, analytical understandings of history. Next the Serbs will be demanding that we explain why the Bosnians had to be suppressed, and the Russians will object to any attempt to understand the roots of Chechen terrorism, and the Chinese will object to our teaching about Taiwan. The American Nazi Party will maintain that the Third Reich is presented unsympathetically in university history classes, etc. etc. Ethnic nationalisms if allowed to dictate the teaching of history would destroy the entire discipline. The NYT editorial concludes: "But in the end, the report is deeply unsatisfactory because the panel's mandate was so limited. Most student complaints were not really about intimidation, but about allegations of stridently pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias on the part of several professors. The panel had no mandate to examine the quality and fairness of teaching. That leaves the university to follow up on complaints about politicized courses and a lack of scholarly rigor as part of its effort to upgrade the department. One can only hope that Columbia will proceed with more determination and care than it has heretofore."What the editors mean by "anti-Israeli" is not spelled out. But generally the term means any criticism of Israel. (You can criticize Argentina all day every day till the cows come home and nobody cares in the US, but make a mild objection to Ariel Sharon putting another 3500 settlers onto Palestinian territory in contravention of all international law and of the road map to which the Bush administration says it is committed, and boom!, you are branded a racist bigot. And if you dare point out that Sharon's brutality and expansionism end up harming America and Americans by unnecessarily making enemies for us (because we are Sharon's sycophants), then you are really in trouble.Personally, I think that the master narrative of Zionist historiography is dominant in the American academy. Mostly this sort of thing is taught by International Relations specialists in political science departments, and a lot of them are Zionists, whether Christian or Jewish. Usually the narrative blames the Palestinians for their having been kicked off their own land, and then blames them again for not going quietly. It is not a balanced point of view, and if we take the NYT seriously (which we could stop doing after they let Judith Miller channel Ahmad Chalabi on the front page every day before the war), then the IR professors should be made to teach a module on the Palestinian point of view, as well. That is seldom done. Academic teaching is not about balance or "fairness" or presenting "both sides" of an issue. It is about teaching people to reason analytically and synthetically about problems. The NYT approach would ruin our ability to do this and would impose a particular version of history on us all by fiat. It even implies that some committee should sanction anyone critical of Israel.[/color] Universities are about skewering sacred cows. Anyone who doesn't want their views challenged or their feelings hurt should stay away from them. If you can't handle an intellectual challenge, you shouldn't be on campus. And you certainly shouldn't be editing a major newspaper.Links: Rashid Khalidi on Democracy Now.. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/06/1421213) Links to the report and to Joseph Massad's response. (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3742.shtml) Baruch Kimmerling, the eminent Israeli sociologist, denounces the witch hunt at Columbia. (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Kimmerling0329.htm) The Chronicle of Higher Education, which hasn't done squat for professors faced with the New McCarthyism, rejected Kimmerling's piece, and they are another good candidate for cancelled subscriptions. Scott Sherman in the Nation, "The Mideast Comes to Columbia." (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20050404&s=sherman) Note: The links aren't "balanced." You'll have to find the McCarthyites on your own. posted by Juan @ 4/8/2005 10:11:00 AM
|
|