Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for April, 2005

Typepad Feature Wanted: Internal Trackback

Friday, April 29th, 2005

Do you sometimes write a series of posts on the same subject and wish there way an easier way to link all the posts to each other so your readers could follow the thread of what you’ve written?  Say you’ve written four posts about Microsoft’s retreat from support of gay rights as I have.  Right now, the only way I can link the posts to each other is by adding hyperlinks to each post for the other three posts.  What a tedious job!

I’ve thought of a concept that would probably not be too complicated technically and would probably do the trick.  Trackbacks are a very interesting feature that allow you to let readers of someone else’s blog know that you’ve written your own post that either comments specifically on the blog post or on the subject of that post.  Then readers interested in the subject might want to read your perspective on the topic.  And other bloggers can trackback their own posts to yours.  This is what I call an external trackback.Trackback_3

I’m calling my concept an internal trackback.  Using the same trackback mechanism, you could configure it so that you could trackback to your own posts internally by using their trackback urls.  Since you’d be tracking back to your own posts Typepad could program trackback to notice this when you publish the trackback and automatically create an internal trackback.

The internal trackback would function slightly differently than the external.  Unlike the external trackback which is essentially one way, the internal trackback would be two way because it would establish hyperlinks within each post to the other.  It could be configured to create a small box at the end of the post saying something like: "See other posts in this blog on this topic" or "For more on this topic see these posts."

I’d like to know whether others find any need for this feature.  If you do (and you’re a Typepad user) please send a Help ticket supporting my feature request.  If you’re not a TP user but your blog service provides trackbacks, suggest this idea to them.  I don’t care who develops it.  I just want it to happen.  And if this feature already exists somewhere, please let me know.

Israel-Palestine Forum Launches

Friday, April 29th, 2005

For two years or more, I’ve nursed the idea that what the web needed was a place for progressives to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: an online forum.  There are, of course, lots of forums where you can discuss the conflict: MideastWeb, Charlie Rose, Middle East Info.  But the members are all over the map politically and one can get batted around pretty hard over there.  I didn’t want my forum to be a shouting match.  I wanted serious, in-depth discussion.

I turned to organizations like Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, Tikkun and Brit Tzedek to see if they were interested in my idea.  None were unfortunately.  So the idea remained in the back of my mind until I read a post by Andrew Schamess in Semitism.net which suggested the same idea.  I was almost dumbstruck that someone else had thought of precisely the same project as I.  So I contacted Andrew and we became partners in the Israel-Palestine Forum.

Alas, Andrew had to drop out of the partnership when he became involved with JAMP, traveled to the West Bank on a medical relief mission, and returned home to tell the world about what he saw.  I’m pleased to say that Andrew is with us in spirit on this and has already registered as a forum member.

It’s taken some doing to get this far, but I think we’re almost ready for launch and I wanted to let my readers know about this project in hopes that you’ll visit, read and post in the forum.  I have the idea, but only you can make it become real.  I hope you will share some of your hopes and dreams for the future of the Middle East there.  When you visit, this is what you’ll find:

1. Forum: creating an online community for progressives to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
2. Israel-Palestine news: feeds from the world press covering the conflict (at least those publications that have a Middle East feed) including the BBC, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, International Herald Tribune, and Daily Star
3. Israel-Palestine blogs: feeds from 10 of the best blogs writing about the conflict including Semitism.net, RafahPundits, Lawrence of Cyberia, Aron’s Israel Peace Weblog, CalTzedek and Tikun Olam; also a Blogdigger search of those blogs writing on the subject
4. Essays: in-depth reportage, magazine essays, polls and research that provide a look at some of the deeper issues
5. Links: a directory of the online community dedicated to promoting Mideast peace

The site is still in formation.  So tell me what you like and what you don’t.  I’m especially interested in good content that should be there.  Feed me links of stuff you think should be there.  And most of all, register for the forum and join the progressive dialogue about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Microsoft Employees Oppose Company’s Position on Gay Rights Bill

Friday, April 29th, 2005

I’m delighted that Microsoft employees are not taking their leaders’ indifference to gay rights lying down.  The following communications include a letter of protest circulated among employees and a petition which had over 1,400 employee signatures when the copy I received was sent.  Congratulations on standing up for human decency when your superiors seem to have lost the heart to do so:

Microsoft logo

Lost its bearings?

Please help Microsoft live up
to its values by signing this letter.  To add your name, click on Additional Reading below.

I’m proud of Microsoft’s values and our track record on diversity.  I
was surprised and disheartened to learn that we decided not to support House
bill 1515 after supporting this bill last year.  Our values clearly state that
discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable.  Withdrawing our
support for this bill is not a neutral statement—it sends a clear message to the
world that Microsoft will not stand up for our stated values.

Steve
Ballmer’s recent email to the company asks, “When should a public company take a
position on a broader social issue?”  The fact is that Microsoft, like many
other companies, has already taken a position on discrimination.  We have a
responsibility as a leading corporation to support legislation related to this
fundamental workplace issue.  I believe it is a mistake to dismiss
discrimination as a social issue; it is a civil rights issue.

From a PR
perspective, it is embarrassing that last Monday we launched our largest
marketing campaign ever and on Friday we received a black eye in the New York
Times for withdrawing support for this bill.  Companies such as Boeing, Coors,
QWEST—and even Nike, a company with a poor human rights record due to sweatshop
labor, supported this bill.   I can only imagine that this further damages our
already embattled brand.

What can we do to remedy the damage we’ve done
to civil rights in Washington and to reaffirm our commitment to living up to our
values?

Here are three suggestions:
1. Reinstate support for HB1515
and other anti-discrimination legislation.
2. Investigate whether Brad
Smith’s decision was influenced by Pastor Ken Hutcherson.  The evidence outlined
in The Stranger article indicates this was a factor.
3. Make a financial
donation to an anti-discrimination group in WA.

I hope that our senior
leadership has the courage to take action that shows Microsoft stands firmly
united against discrimination.

The Stranger Article:
http://www.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/feature.html

The New York Times Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22gay.html

Microsoft’s
Anti-Discrimination Policy

Additional Reading:
http://msweb/sites/mlerner/Lists/reading/AllItems.aspx [internal MS site inaccessible to outsiders]

****

Current count is 1444
signatures.

 


I am sending you this letter because I
consider you part of my community at Microsoft.  I know that many people are
upset that Microsoft chose to withdraw support for HB1515, the
anti-discrimination bill, after supporting this legislation last year.  Our
company values clearly state that discrimination is unacceptable in any form.  I
think it is a mistake to dismiss discrimination as a social issue; it is a civil
rights issue. 

 

I believe we have a responsibility as a
leading corporation to support legislation related to such an important
workplace issue.  Please stand united with me against discrimination by signing
the following open letter to Microsoft management:

http://msweb/sites/mlerner/Lists/values/AllItems.aspx

 

I hope that you will also take ten minutes
to forward this email broadly to your
community at Microsoft
.  If each of us takes the time to forward this
email, we will collect enough signatures to make a strong statement that we
believe Microsoft has a responsibility to take a position on this fundamental
civil rights issue. I am going to forward the link above to my management chain
on Wednesday evening, so please sign the petition and send your emails now.

 

Thanks in advance,

Additional Reading:

http://msweb/sites/mlerner/Lists/reading/AllItems.aspx

Now, if only Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates and Brad Smith would listen to the voice of reason coming from their own employees.

Microsoft and Ralph Reed: Strange Bedfellows?

Thursday, April 28th, 2005
Reed

Ralph Reed: "But Bill, I DO like homosexuals–
and your $20,000 monthly retainer"

(credit: Reviewjournal.com)

Sarah Kershaw’s article in yesterday’s Times raised an interesting and important issue regarding the company’s close relationship with Ralph Reed.  The issue arose in connection with Microsoft’s recent abandonment of proposed State gay right legislation.  Now, the coverage of this issue is broadening to encompass Microsoft’s relationship with one the country’s savviest and most conservative Republican lobbyists; one who also holds views that are antipathetic not only to many employees, but perhaps to the company’s Code of Conduct.

As a human rights activist quoted in the article put it:

"We’re dismayed to know that Ralph Reed is on the payroll of
Microsoft," said Dan Kully, a spokesman for Equal Rights Washington.
"In our opinion, Microsoft’s reputation as a fair-minded company is
rapidly slipping away from them."

A MS employee quoted the company’s Code of Conduct to Kershaw:

"Microsoft expects its vendors to share its commitment to human rights
and equal opportunity in the workplace. While we recognize and respect
cultural differences, we believe that vendor companies should not
engage in discrimination in hiring, compensation, access to training,
promotion, termination or retirement based on race, caste, national
origin, religion, age, disability, gender, marital status, sexual
orientation, union membership or political affiliation."

Where Kershaw slips in her article is that she focuses the issue on whether Reed’s company, Century Strategies, adheres to the code in its hiring practices (the company’s website says nothing about this subject–but I’d be curious just how many African-Americans and gays work there).  But even more important is whether Reed himself, as one of the most outspoken Republican/evangelical political operatives in the country, accepts Microsoft’s code.   Does Ralph Reed believe in the idea that there should not be discrimination based on sexual orientation in society or the workplace?  If so, I’d like to hear him say it clearly so that he’ll alienate the tens of millions of evangelical voters he’s appealing to when he speaks on behalf of the Bush campaign or in his run for Georgia Lt. Governor.  If he doesn’t believe in this, then why is Microsoft paying him $20,000 per month to represent its interests?

I just did some googling around and discovered this coverage of a 1997 speech Reed delivered at Johns Hopkins University:

Reed also explicitly stated that he opposed assisted
suicide, abortion and homosexuality…Reed added that "the traditional
society should be according to a moral code, and there should be
no deviations from that moral code."  Among those deviations he listed divorce, out-of-wedlock
births and same-sex marriages.

Come on, we all know Ralph Reed is disgusted by the idea of protecting gays from discrimination in society or the workplace.  Who’re we kidding?  So Bill, I’m afraid you’ve got some more explaining to do.  We all know why you hired Reed.  He’s one smooth operator and has the ear of the most senior Bush administration officials including the president himself if he needs it.  No doubt, Reed greased the skids for Bush’s total cave-in on the anti-trust case that allowed Microsoft to walk away without a scratch with its monopolistic practices essentially intact.  No doubt, Reed delivers.  But Bill, do you want Microsoft identified with a bigot and gay-hater?  I hope not.

Microsoft Does Partial Turnaround on Gay Rights

Wednesday, April 27th, 2005
Gates

Bill Gates: "Aw shucks, does
anybody care what I think?"

(credit: Ted S. Warren/AP)

Thank God, Bill Gates is weighing in on the controversy generated by Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for a Washington State bill to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Because his minions, Brad Smith (corporate counsel) and CEO Steve Ballmer have made a mess of things up till now.  Gates apparently feels discomfort with the company’s previous position (or has felt enough heat from his employees and the blogworld to have second thoughts) and may reverse it (according to an interview with the Seattle Times) come the next legislative session:

"Next time this one comes around, we’ll see," he [Gates] said. "We certainly
have a lot of employees who sent us mail. Next time it comes around
that’ll be a major factor for us to take into consideration."

Well, that’s OK as far as it goes, but by no means good enough.  This reminds me of the country that announces its going to war.  After a good drubbing on the battlefield, it wants to withdraw but can’t quite wrap its arms around the idea that it might have to backpedal from a really stupid idea.  It doesn’t want to lose face.  That’s what Bill faces.  His guys really messed up.  But he can’t quite admit that and say: "Yeah, we messed up and we won’t mess up next time around.  We’ll gonna throw everything we’ve got behind the bill and hope to see it pass."  That would be nice to hear.

Instead we hear this fumfering around:

"Well, we didn’t expect that kind of visibility for it," Gates said.
"After all, Microsoft’s position on a political bill — has that ever
caused something to pass or not pass? Is it good, is it bad? I don’t
know.

"Is my being behind it good? Look at the referendums I’ve been behind.
I’ve lost gun control — I’m looking really good on that one," he
quipped.

Gee, is having Microsoft behind a bill really important to its passage?  That’s a tough one: one of the state’s biggest private employers, economic engine of the state’s economy, the state’s richest businessman.  I don’t know.  It might have some slight beneficial impact to have MS behind it, don’t you think?

Bill, I’ve got news for you.  People in this state (especially legislators) look to Microsoft for leadership on all sorts of issues.  So in case you don’t know it already, YES, the company’s support is instrumental in the potential success of this legislation.  Why anyone should have to tell you that is beyond me.  I think you’re merely being modest or else disingenuous (take your pick depending on your view on Bill Gates).

Apparently, Bill got the message that people are really pissed off at the company.  But he still doesn’t get what it would take to get the company back on track:

"It’s perfectly fair for us to be scrutinized on anything," he said.
"We didn’t realize that one would get that level of scrutiny, but
there’s people who care a lot. They care a lot about the issue."

Yes, and I hope they won’t let you or Microsoft off the hook until you do the right thing and put a full court press on the legislature the next time this bill comes to a vote.

New York City Gripped by Anti-Semitism Epidemic!

Tuesday, April 26th, 2005

Apparently, a terrible contagion of anti-Semitism (or is it anti-Zionism?  aw, I guess they’re one and the same, right?) is gripping New York City.  It all started on the campus of Columbia University where a few Jewish students spied the anti-Semitic micro-organism in a classroom during a lecture being delivered by Professor Joseph Massad.  Masaad teaches in that infamous Columbia cauldron of anti-Semitism called the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures.  The students reported their findings to one of the world’s great anti-Semitism epidemiologists, Charles Jacobs, "MD".  And Jacobs put out the word to anyone who’d listen through his documentary film, Columbia Unbecoming.

[For full and complete disclosure: I am a Columbia alumnus, BA General Studies '75]

Ny_sun

The New York Shmate:
finding anti-Semites everywhere

Well, I regret to say that the contagion has spread farther through the streets of New York.  But thanks to the untiring efforts of those media experts in ferreting-out-anti-Semitism-wherever-it may-lurk, the New York Sun, the scourge may’ve been stopped in its tracks.  The Sun, however, was no longer interested in the relatively small-fry Prof. Massad.  It set its sights higher up the anti-Semitism microbial food chain–on Professor Rashid Khalidi.  Before he became infested with anti-Semitism, Prof. Khalidi was known as one of the most distinguished Middle East experts in this country.  But there was a fatal weakness in Prof. Khalidi’s defenses against anti-Semitism: he holds the Edward Said Chair at Columbia and everyone knows that before the unfortunate Prof. Said passed away he too was infested with the anti-Semitism virus.  In fact, Edward Said might’ve been the "Typhoid Mary" of anti-Semites, a genuine spawner of anti-Semites.  Where are the Ghost Busters when you really need ‘em?

So it makes perfect sense, when you think about it (and the Sun has definitely thought deeply on the subject) that the disease would’ve spread to his successor, Dr. Khalidi.  The Sun musters utterly convincing evidence of Khalidi’s malady:

A Columbia University professor [Khalidi] has called Israel a "racist" state
with an "apartheid system," and has supported attacks by
Palestinian-Arabs on Israelis

Let’s examine the evidence a bit more microscopically.  Here is what Khalid actually says about the use of the term "racist" in relation to Israel:

"I do not think Zionism is racist. When we talk about some of [Israel's] contemporary laws, there are policies that I consider racist and
discriminatory."

But of course, the Sun doesn’t believe in nuance when a sledghammer will do.  While Khalidi may have called Israel an "apartheid state" so have many others including people who would call themselves Zionist or supporters of the state of Israel.  Myself, I would probably tone down the rhetoric a bit and not use such incendiary terms as "racist" or "apartheid," but basically Kahlidi’s terms aren’t that far from the truth.  As for his supposed statement supporting attacks by Palestinians on Israelis, where’s the proof?  In a 2002 article "welcoming" Khalidi’s arrival at Columbia, the Sun unearthed an audio relic of Khalidi claiming that:

…Killing [Israeli] civilians is a war crime. It’s a
violation of international law.They are not soldiers. They’re
civilians, they’re unarmed. The ones [Israelis] who are armed, the ones who are
soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that’s different.That’s
resistance…”

So we see the Sun deliberately mischaracterizing Khalidi’s statement by claiming he endorses attacking "Israelis" when he really said that attacking  Israeli civilians was a "war crime" while adding that attacks against the military were a legitimate form of resistance.  Even more importantly, what does Khalidi believe now?

As for the current situation in Israel, “I
would say it would be wise to show restraint because there is a
political process under way,” he said.

So the anti-Semitism busters attack Khalidi for views he no longer holds.  Sounds like a tactic Joe McCarthy would’ve admired.  But McCarthyism in the pursuit of anti-Semitism is no vice, right?

In this article, another thing that really bugs the Sun anti-Semitism hunters is the fact that Rita Hauser, a distinguished national Jewish leader, was a lead donor in funding Columbia’s Said Chair (which Khalidi holds).  Moreover, she spoke warmly of Said as “a friend of mine. I admire him.”  Imagine the sheer chutzpah.  A Jew who publicly admits she likes an anti-Semite!!

We should point out that one of the Sun’s founders was right wing attack dog, Conrad Black.  Could it be that Black wants the Sun to do to New York City public discourse what he’s done to the coffers of Hollinger International (that is, loot it of all reason and civility)?

New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein has caught the anti-Semitism bug as well.  After reading the Sun’s article, which made a point of disclosing Khalidi’s teaching role in a New York City schools teacher’s seminar designed to help teachers teach about the Mideast in the public schools, Klein immediately "fired" Khalidi.  Phew!  Imagine if he hadn’t done that.  How many of our good teachers would’ve been infected with the anti-Semitism contagion?

But given the Sun’s abysmal distortions in its battle against Khalid, maybe this anti-Semitic scourge is being overblown in that bubbling cauldron of Jewish politics called New York City?  I’d say so.  Just listen to some of filthy hateful things being said about Khalidi by some of my fellow Jews:

Martin Kramer, a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, and an outspoken critic of Professor Khalidi’s intellectual
forebear, Edward Said, sees Khalidi’s potential departure as a positive
step: "If Khalidi abandons the Edward Said chair, it’ll mean that
Columbia is no longer a Saidian safe house. That’s a revolution. And
while Khalidi may not be the source of Columbia’s fever, it’ll be
easier to treat it without him."

"Saidian safe house."  That phrase has a nice ring to it–likening Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi’s academic "home" at Columbia to some kind of Taliban safe house where apparently the former are free to spew their anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist venom.  And in the anti-Semitic miasma enveloping Kramer, Khalidi again becomes a microbe causing a "fever" in the body politic.  The way to "treat" it?  Of course, lance that boil and let all the hateful puss drain out.

The Forward quotes other Jewish leaders who’ve spoken out against Khalidi but who don’t seem to know what it is that they don’t like about him:

When asked what statements of Khalidi’s had been problematic, David
Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, declined
to point to any specific statements and said that the problem was
"where he stands on Arab-Israeli issues."

Wimp out, Mr. Harris!  I should think you could do better than that.  And Anthony Weiner, New York mayoral candidate who’s been braying for the heads of Massad and Khalidi:

when asked to identify objectionable statements, said, "I am by
no means an expert on the guy’s work, but what I have seen anecdotally
on the guy is troubling.

I’m absolutely disgusted by all these delusions of anti-Semitism.  They’re fueled by a terribly nasty strain of pro-Israel New York Jewish politics that sees enemies of the Jewish people everywhere and sees friends nowhere.  It is the worst type of paranoia and must be fought tooth and nail.  Just as Christian evangelicals are overwhelming our political discourse in this country, delusional pro-Israel Jews are overwhelming the Israel-related discourse in the city of my birth.  It makes me ashamed and embarrassed for my native city.

Now, Princeton’s Jewish alumni are taking up the cudgels against Khalidi’s possible appointment to an academic chair there.  Will the hysteria never cease?

We ought to reopen our copies of Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and learn a historical lesson or two about what witch hunts can do once they’re let loose on society.

PBS: Looking for a Few Good Right-Wing Viewers?

Monday, April 25th, 2005

Deborah Solomon interviewed Ken Feree, the new interim president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine and it was a doozy.  Besides the fact that the guy’s right-wing agenda is self-evident, he has an anti-art, anti-intellectual streak a mile long.

Pbs

Ken "I’d Rather Be on
My Harley" Feree:
new PBS chief
(credit:
Ramona Rosales/NY Times)

When asked about the demise of his immediate predecessor due to Bush Administration and right-wing mudslinging, he professed amnesia:

All I know is that on Friday afternoon the board chairman came in and asked if I would serve as interim president. I had no idea until the 11th hour that this was happening. I don’t know what led to what.

When asked whether he feared that the political infighting would lead to the disaffection of traditional liberal viewers, Feree seemed to have no use for them:

Well, maybe we can attract some new viewers.

You mean viewers who are more conservative?

Yeah! I would hope that in the long run we can attract new viewers, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves to a particular demographic. Does public television belong to the Democrats?

Hey, all you poor slobs who’ve grown up on PBS with Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and then graduated to NOVA and Frontline, PBS has no use for you unless you’re part of that growing evangelical demographic that we know watches tons of educational programming (all ten of them)!

Then the interview proceeds into bizarro world.  It seems that the new head of PBS doesn’t watch PBS, doesn’t listen to the news (taking a page from George Bush’s playbook?), listen to NPR (which PBS also manages) and doesn’t even watch TV.  He doesn’t have a favorite PBS program (couldn’t he have lied and made one up?).  He doesn’t much go for Shakespeare (which he likens to the News Hour) and really prefers People Magazine–and his souped up motorcycle.  The colloquy has to be read to be believed:

What PBS shows do you like?

I’m not much of a TV consumer. I like ”Masterpiece Theater” and some of the ”Frontline” shows. I like ”Antiques Roadshow” and ”Nova.” I don’t know. What’s your favorite show?

It would probably be the ”NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.”

Yes, Lehrer is good, but I don’t watch a lot of broadcast news. The problem for me is that I do the Internet news stuff all day long, so by the time I get to the Lehrer thing . . . it’s slow. I don’t always want to sit down and read Shakespeare, and Lehrer is akin to Shakespeare. Sometimes I really just want a People magazine, and often that is in the evening, after a hard day.

For the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, you don’t sound like much of a PBS viewer. Perhaps you prefer NPR, which your organization also finances?

No. I do not get a lot of public radio for one simple reason. I commute to work on my motorcycle, and there is no radio access.

Can’t you install a radio on a motorcycle and listen with headphones?

One probably can. But my bikes are real cruisers. They’re stripped down deliberately to look cool, and I don’t want all that electronic gear.

So what I want to know is why isn’t this guy a bean counter for People Magazine or a motorcycle salesman?  Why does he have to impose his cultural and artistic vapidity on tens of millions of us PBS viewers who like Shakespeare, Jim Lehrer and the other treasures PBS has to offer?

Right-Wing Princeton Jewish Alumni on Warpath over Possible Khalidi Appointment

Monday, April 25th, 2005

Inside Higher Ed reports (much of this post derives from that site) that right-wing Jewish alumni are up in arms at Princeton over news that the Near East Studies Program may hire noted Middle East scholar, Rashid Khalidi.  It even appears that the campus director of the Center for Jewish Life endorses or at least sympathizes with the opposition (see quotation following).

Khalidi_1

Rashid Khalidi: Princeton
under fire for considering
him
(credit: Lafabrique.fr)

The Near East Studies Program is known for its faculty exhibiting a "tilt" in favor of U.S. and Israeli approaches to the conflict.  Bernard Lewis, a retired Program member, perfectly mirrors this approach.  That being the case, it makes perfect sense that conservative alumni would feel uncomfortable with the notion that Khalidi might upset the balance by introducing a scholarly approach more understanding, if not sympathetic to a Palestinian perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Lost in the morass of controversy is the fact that Khalidi is one of the most outstanding Middle East scholars in academia today.  Anyone who hears his eloquent and persuasive comments on his Charlie Rose Show appearances would probably agree with me.  Scott Jaschik’s Inside Higher Ed post carries Juan Cole’s appreciation of Khalidi:

Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, said in
an e-mail interview this weekend that Khalidi was “a giant in the study
of the modern Middle East” who has “used archival sources and the best
of critical theory to rethink the history of Arab and Palestinian
nationalism.”

So what exactly are his opponents afraid of?

…Pro-Israel groups have denounced his work for several years, arguing that his Palestinian sympathies distort his scholarship.

…Arlene Pedovitch, interim director of the Center for Jewish Life at
Princeton, [is quoted in the Daily Princetonian] as saying “Some Princeton alumni are very concerned about
the possibility of Princeton University hiring an individual who has a
political agenda rather than a scholarly approach to history.”

Isn’t it interesting that when an academic holds scholarly views divergent from your own then those views constitute "a political agenda?"  But a pro-Israel academic would of course have a purely scholarly agenda devoid of any political slant, right?  Hmmm.

Pedovitch also raises the red herring of Princeton’s anti-Semitic, quota days in relation to a Khalidi appointment:

"Many alumni and students are concerned that
a potential appointment of Professor Khalidi will be used as an excuse
to describe Princeton as anti-Semitic again."

Excuse me, but the fact that Princeton was a bastion of genteel anti-Semitism in the past is incontrovertible (as were almost all other Ivy League campuses).  But what does that have to do with Khalidi?  Are you saying he’s an anti-Semite?  If so, I double dare you to prove it because you can’t.  I think what these people are really saying is they don’t want to be faced with any faculty member who might challenge their preconceived notions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Welcome to the bizarro world of narrow minded provincialism.  Are these the values that Princeton wants to espouse?

Another ‘tolerant’ undergrad raised the specter of Khalidi on campus hindering recruitment and enrollment of Jews:

"It’s going to be a problem come admissions" if Khalidi is chosen.

So let me get this straight, no Jews will want to attend Princeton because it’s hired one of the world’s most eminent Middle East scholars?  Hmmm.  I’d say that any Jew that uses this as a criteria to reject Princeton should be rejected themselves as a candidate.  Whatever happened to tolerance and open-mindedness in the world of academia?

Based on comments from a Princeton administrator quoted in the Inside Higher Ed post I believe that the college will not cave to such pressure and will pursue the issue of Khalidi’s possible appointment with due and fair deliberation (unlike Steve Ballmer’s cowardly approach to evangelical pressure against Microsoft).