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

Posts Tagged ‘academic-freedom’

Bar Ilan President Calls for Ouster of Faculty Supporting Academic Boycott

Saturday, July 24th, 2010
moshe naveh

Moshe Naveh: Israeli university president disdains academic freedom for faculty who disagree with him

In a new low for academic freedom in Israel, Bar Ilan University’s President Moshe Kaveh called for the firing or resignation of any faculty members who advocate the academic boycott (BDS) of Israeli institutions.  He did so in a political, rather than academic setting–as part of a panel on Jewish identity at a Jewish culture festival–which tells you quite a bit about Kaveh’s intended audience and how unmoored his view is from any academic protocol.  Joining him on the panel was Education Minister Gideon Saar, who also advocates such stupidity and is a bosom buddy of the anti-intellectual campus critic, Im Tirzu.

Here are some of his remarks (Hebrew):

It’s easy to muster the courage to criticize.  But he who has the courage to criticize the institution where he teaches should also have the courage to resign.  And if not, I will make this happen myself.

How can it be that a teacher can stand before his students in class and say: “Boycott the State of Israel?”  Someone who calls for a boycott of his place of employment from a moral point of view is required to resign.

Though Bar Ilan is known as an Orthodox-oriented academic institution, until now it had its credentials intact and was a respected member of the Israeli university community.  This little escapade by its president should cost it dearly in that department.  Can any faculty member, whether right or left, who values academic freedom willingly work at such an institution?  Is a university president to be granted the right to fire faculty solely for their political views?  Lest any of you who support the Israeli right feel like cheering for Kaveh, think twice.  Now, it is the left’s ox that is being gored.  But your turn will undoubtedly come next.  Do you think that Israeli universities, once permitted the firing of those on the left will stop there?  Remember Martin Niemoller’s dictum about the Nazis: eventually they will come for you and by then it will be too late.

Thank God, there are Israeli academics who took strong issue with Kaveh.  Galey Tzahal quotes a faculty member anonymously:

Kaveh’s words sound like the onset of a regime opposed to freedom.  Even if lecturers might not express their private views before their university students, the language of threat used by Kaveh is unacceptable.

As with much of Israeli politics, Kaveh’s statement is pure political grandstanding.  He couldn’t do what he’s proposing and if he did his faculty would likely tar and feather him.  But that’s almost beside the point.  The point is that a respected member of Israel’s academic community has crossed the moral Rubicon and spoken out for a position no one has previously advocated–at least no one in a position comparable to his.

This represents the further moral decline of Israeli academic life and the nation’s democracy.  There is an ever-deepening demand for political consensus within Israel and a growing intolerance for those who violate the norms.  Those in Israel who support BDS are the canaries in the coal mine.  Their criminalization will speak volumes about the widening disintegration of Israeli democracy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rightist Ben Gurion Professor Derails Faculty Candidacy of Peace Activist

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Assaf Oron is a research statistician at the University of Washington.  He is also an Israeli peace and human rights activist who blogs at Daily Kos, the Villages Group, and was an IDF sarban, refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories.  Before he was named to his current academic post, he applied for a tenure track position as a statistician in Ben Gurion University’s department of industrial engineering.  He was told a year ago he was the department’s top candidate.  What he did not reckon was that his candidacy would generate a firestorm of controversy due to the machinations of a far-right member of the department nominations committee.

Prof. Israel david

Prof. Israel David publicized internal departmental deliberations to smear BGU job candidate

Prof. Israel David is an industrial engineer who teaches operations research at BGU.  He was a major in the IDF before he retired after 11 years of service, and lives in an Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv.  He has worked for the Israeli defense industry and a significant portion of his research is funded by either the IDF or military contractors.  Prof. David’s political screeds are published regularly by  Daniel Pipes-Campus Watch-type groups in Israel called Israel Academia Monitor and Isracampus.  They take upon themselves the weighty responsibility of ridding Israeli campuses of Arab-loving, Israel-hating faculty like Dr. Oron.  David’s views are also congenial to another far-right Israeli gang which targets Israeli academics with progressive political views, Im Tirzu.

Once David caught wind of Oron’s candidacy he went into high gear.  Sitting on the department appointments committee, he lobbied his colleagues hard to deny the former the position.  In meetings, he noted Oron’s political engagements and cited them as grounds for not hiring him.  It rapidly became clear to the department chair, Dr. Gadi Rabinowitz that David was biased against the candidate and would not restrict his consideration to academic-professional criteria alone.

So Rabinowitz disbanded the appointment committee, created a new one and left David out of it.  This infuriated the latter.  He went to the media.  He placed a story in Globes, the Israeli Wall Street Journal, in September 2009 for which he was an anonymous source.  The article called Oron “a second Neve Gordon.”

This was shortly after Prof. Gordon wrote a controversial op-ed in the Los Angeles Times supporting the global BDS movement.  After the latter published his article, the University’s president publicly invited Gordon to quit his position, which he uncooperatively refused to do.   Prof. Rivka Carmi explicitly stated that academic freedom did not give a professor the right to support such an enterprise which posed a danger to the State of Israel.

Undoubtedly, Prof. David was emboldened by Carmi’s attacks on Gordon and saw an opportunity to continue the controversy by opening a second front against Oron.

But that first Globes story did not drum up the brouhaha that the engineering professor expected so he wrote his own story under his own name at the News1 site.  In it, he quoted from confidential internal committee deliberations about Dr. Oron’s record, including his political views.  Here is just a nugget:

The department chair summarized the proceedings by saying that Dr. Oron matched the position’s professional requirements but that he suffers from other “personality problems” [so reads the transcript of the meeting].  The committee asked one of the senior members of the department to take advantage of his summer sabbatical in the U.S. by speaking with Oron and asking whether he’d be willing to restrain his political activism in order to better assimilate into the department.

In most universities (though apparently not BGU), this is among the most sensitive functions that faculty members and a department can perform.  Such transcripts are treated with sensitivity and guarded jealously.  In most universities where I have studied or worked, publishing such material publicly would be grounds for disciplinary action.  Not so Ben Gurion.  Apparently there, faculty can skewer job candidates, smear their reputation, dredge up personal matters and political involvement, and use them as ground for denying someone a job.

In his article David levels a full frontal assault on the notion of confidentiality and claims that the concept violates court rulings.  I have never heard of any such ruling either here in the U.S. or Israel and I’m reasonably certain that no court has ever ruled that enforcing confidentiality in such circumstances is a violation of law.  Further, he argues that non-academic and even political considerations are rightfully within the purview of such committee discussions.   In fact, I believe that David is here daring the University to either discipline him or take legal action against him.  Which of course it would never do.  A University dean confirmed to me that no disciplinary action is contemplated against David.

I also find it astonishing that an academic department would ask a job candidate to restrain his private political statements.  What business is that of anyone either in academia or outside?  Does this department and Ben Gurion as a whole not cringe in embarrassment at the thought that such a discussion occurred during deliberations concerning the hiring of a faculty member?

The University’s response to David’s onslaught against Dr. Oron was to claim that it “does not compromise the privacy of candidates.”  Which of course ignores the fact that a duly appointed member of a University committee did just that.  At no time during any of this madness did the University or department make any attempt to reach out to Oron, explain to him what was happening, or seek to mollify his concerns about the attack on his reputation.  It never defended him personally or encouraged him in any way.

In addition, David accused the University of Washington lecturer of “disseminating hate against Israel” and comparing the IDF and its officers with Nazis.  In truth, it was IDF officers themselves who made the comparison in a 2002 Haaretz article in anticipation of Operation Defensive Shield.  They admonished the army to learn from all previous military sieges in history including, specifically the Nazi assault on the Warsaw ghetto.  Oron merely called attention to this fact in his essay.  Here is the salient passage from the Haaretz article:

…One of the Israeli officers in the territories said… it’s justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander’s obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles – even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin.

Frankly, I’ve been writing on this subject for a very long time and this article was new to me until I read the essay in which Oron quoted the article.  The idea that the army of the State of Israel should learn lessons from one of the most desperate and vicious assaults against Polish Jewry during the Holocaust era is not simply tin-earned or offensive, it is really a hillul ha-Shem, a desecration of God’s name.  Does the IDF really want to be compared to Hitler’s killing machine at the height of its vicious assault against the brave Jews of the Warsaw ghetto?

Returning to David’s accusations in his column, much like abortion and other socially conservative ideas have been exploited as wedge issues against Democrats, Israeli rightists manipulate the Holocaust as a wedge issue in an Israeli political context.  Like abortion for American conservatives, the Holocaust elicits a visceral response from Israelis.  Whenever you can tar your opponent with terms like those David exploits, you’re almost guaranteed to put him on the defensive.

Finally in his article, David excoriates Oron for supporting the military refuser movement and notes longingly that there are countries in the world (North Korea and Iran undoubtedly) where refusal to serve is punishable by death.

Then Prof. David upped the ante, suing Rabinowitz for libel for 100,000 shekels and claiming that in removing him from the appointment committee the chair had slandered his good name.  The rightist professor retained as counsel a leading far-right attorney who is also representing Im Tirzu in its libel lawsuit against an Israeli activist who created a Facebook group calling the group “fascist.”  David’s brief, all the while claiming his own reputation was damaged, slanders Oron savagely.

As part of his legal campaign, yesterday Haaretz published an op-ed by David which called BGU “Bir Gurion University,” as if the campus’ left-wing faculty wished to turn it into an Arab university.  The article was briefly available on the website’s main page, but now it’s been relegated to an inaccessible back page.  A slightly different version has also been published by Yediot Achronot.  Among the other smears David offers in Haaretz is to call a campus protest against the Gaza flotilla attack a “Nazi march.”  Finally, he accused, again without proof, the campus peace activists of calling a faculty member’s son who died a “hero’s death” in Operation Cast Lead, a “Nazi criminal.”  Even more shockingly, he calls the entire affair of Oron’s job candidacy and his own elimination from the appointment committee a “Nazi circus.”

In the year since he heard that he was the department’s top candidate, no one from the University had any contact with Oron, and certainly no one breathed a word of apology to him.  In April, no doubt goaded by Prof. David, the student body president quoted the school’s president as saying that his candidacy was dead.  Last week, on an Israeli Social Sciences listeserv, David waved this as evidence of the president’s support for his campaign.

After a year of absorbing these body blows to his reputation and not responding, Oron finally confronted his BGU nemesis on the listserv last week.  He simultaneously wrote Pres. Rivka Carmi expressing concern with the smearing of his reputation and her supposed connivance with David to undermine him.  Prof Rivka Carmi replied that she couldn’t possibly interfere with any candidate’s consideration by a department even if she wanted to do so.  She also added the rather mysterious statement that Oron’s candidacy was “no longer relevant.”

Curiously Dr. Rabinowitz, the department chair, wrote to Oron yesterday claiming that when Pres. Carmi inquired about the status of Oron’s candidacy Rabinowitz told her that he was still very much an active candidate.  The chair blames Oron’s supposed lack of communication with the department for his not getting the job, without realizing that after a candidate has been smeared it might be the responsibility of the department to contact him rather than the other way around.  I’d say the truth is that after David went on the warpath neither the University nor the department wanted to hire him and they can find many reasons in retrospect to blame the victim for not getting the job.

What is also troubling is that after all of this madness, the chair expresses disappointment that Dr. Oron addressed David’s charges against him in the Social Sciences listserv where the latter had attacked him.  It appears he would’ve preferred Oron to have remained silent and waited patiently for the school’s rejection letter.

A few days ago, Prof. David wrote triumphantly to Oron that the department had hired someone else for the job.  Which means that David has won, that academic bullying has won; that anyone at Ben Gurion who has a political vendetta against a young aspiring academic can vent their rage and frustration in the most public of settings.  They can sling mud at them, potentially harm their careers and no price will be paid.

In fact, after the University of Washington statistician defended himself on the Israeli listserv, an Israeli graduate student wrote to him that he had been denied a graduate fellowship by a Diaspora academic fund because his name appeared on the Israel Academia Monitor site.  Though I do not know for certain which group participated in the witch hunt, one of the best funded such academic programs is the American-Israeli Cooperative Exchange, whose director is former Aipac flack, Mitchell Bard.  Given Bard’s pro-Israel advocacy and ideological partisanship it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he used Isracampus, Israel Academia Monitor or NGO Monitor as arbiters of who should be denied funding for academic research.

Returning to Dr. Oron, luckily he has a good position at the University of Washington.  Despite Prof. Israel David’s best efforts, one hopes he will fail in harming Oron’s career.  But imagine the next young scholar applying for a job at BGU who has ‘questionable’ affiliations in his or her background.  If such a person has several job interviews with Israeli academic institutions, why would they want to include BGU given the treatment afforded Oron?

Ben Gurion’s president honors academic freedom in the breach when it doesn’t cost her anything.  When the chips are down, she folds like a house of cards.  For example, when BGU Prof. David Newman was attacked by a British trustee of the University, who suggested he’d be happy if Newman died because the faculty member had aired views critical of Israeli policy in a TV documentary, Carmi remained mum.  140 of Newman’s colleagues demanded that she make a statement in support of Newman.  In the face of alienating a wealthy donor, she shut up.  Perhaps as a direct result of her pusillanimousness, Newman was recently named dean of the faculty of humanities and social sciences in a vote by his peers.

Instead of leadership and conviction, Pres. Carmi tests the political winds to see which way they are blowing and follows suit.  Currently in Israel there is a savage campaign against human rights and peace NGOs.  The legal political activism of activists is under assault as never before.  Astute individuals like David and Carmi understand this.  The first exploits it and the second acquiesces to it.  Neither response does either Israeli academia or Ben Gurion proud.

On a related note, yesterday the founder of Im Tirzu published a Haaretz column, The Fight for Academic Freedom, in which he contended, much like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes in the U.S. context, that anti-Zionists have taken over Israeli campuses and that soon political correctness will prevent anyone not sharing such views from speaking their minds.  Assaf Oron’s case proves the absolute falseness of this claim.  If anything, it is the Im Tirzus and Israel Davids who are in the ascendancy on Israeli campuses, not the other way around.

Finally, what is one of the most obvious and elementary violations of both the candidate’s privacy rights  and academic due process is that the job he was applying for had absolutely no political component.  He was applying to be a statistician, not a political science or sociology professor.  As such, his personal political involvement had nothing to do with the job and should’ve been ruled treif as grounds for review or consideration.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ben Gurion University President Defends Neve Gordon After Death Threat

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
neve gordon death threat

Neve Gordon death threat: 'Gordon: You are a traitor. I will reach Ben Gurion to kill you. Signed--Im Tirtzu'

In a moment of supreme irony, Ben Gurion University President Rivka Carmi, who only a few months ago was facing a revolt among donors and Israelis aghast at Prof. Neve Gordon‘s support of the global BDS movement, has now released a strong statement of support for him in the face of a death threat.  She did the right thing compared to the cowardly response she had to Gordon’s articles on BDS.  Then she advanced the specious argument that Gordon himself had somehow crossed a red line of permissible speech in advocating a political position that harmed the state.

Here are major excerpts from her statement:

…The death threat Professor Gordon received is a crossing of a red line for one and all [here at Ben Gurion] without regard to any difference [we may have] of religion, political affiliation, ethnic origin.

The political debate in Israel is hard, polarizing, and even extreme.  We walk a very thin line between our democratic obligations and values such as freedom of speech, and our obligations to the security, strength and future of our nation.

The dispute is piercing and painful and each person is convinced that truth is on his side.  We have already seen that we are not suited for balanced discussion–not even in academia.

But no matter how much we oppose and disdain the view of another–the shedding of blood is a crime plain and simple.  Something terrible has befallen us and it is imperative that we be on guard.

Ben Gurion University will not tolerate the fomenting of hatred of any kind, whether physical or verbal violence, and will act vigorously to eradicate it.

Another irony is that Prof. David Newman, a colleague of Gordon’s  and a newly named Ben Gurion dean, found that a British trustee of the University wished for Newman’s demise because of a disagreement with the latter’s liberal politics.  I wonder if Pres. Carmi let this trustee know in no uncertain terms that his speech crossed a line?  Perhaps a trustee can get away with breaking the rules more readily than an unknown person who mails a death threat.

One hopes of course that this incident would sensitize the president to the necessity of protecting her faculty’s right to free expression.  Though she does not say it explicitly, the passage in italics seems to imply that if only Gordon hadn’t violated his end of the bargain he wouldn’t find himself under threat.  Personally, I don’t buy the distinction she attempts to make.  I do not believe it is the obligation of an academic to pull punches during a policy debate because one’s views might endanger the state.  This is total narischkeit.  And certainly in the case of Gordon.  Advocating BDS in no way endangers Israel.  What it does threaten is a conception of Israel as a state with superior rights for Jews and inferior rights for non-Jewish citizens.  And it threatens a state based on Occupation, which is a state many citizens–Jewish and Palestinian–don’t want either.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Im Tirtzu Widens Assault to Israeli Universities

Monday, June 21st, 2010
neve gordon death threat

Neve Gordon death threat: 'Gordon: You are a traitor!! I will reach Ben Gurion to kill you.!! Signed--Im Tirtzu'

Im Tirtzu, the Israeli brass knuckles hasbara outfit, has expanded its campaign for mind control over the Israeli political debate by assaulting Israeli universities.  Until now, it had focussed much of its energy on attacking the New Israel Fund and other Israeli human rights NGOs for their alleged support of the Goldstone Report.  Now, they have widened the assault to include the political science departments of Israeli universities, which it views as being rife with anti-Zionist professors teaching left-wing propaganda to students and demanding that they parrot it back in return for good grades.

Among the unsupported (and unsupportable) claims leveled is that 80% of the material taught in political science courses is anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli. The entirely scientific method used was for two Israelis who somehow earned PhDs to divide up the course materials (articles, books, etc) into two categories: “Zionist” and “anti-Zionist” or “post-Zionist.”  How did they arrive at this distinction?

‘We used a single criterion,’ said Dr. Ron Bartz, ‘what was the stance of the author regarding the question of whether Jews have the right to a national state in the Land of Israel–yes or no.  Articles defined as Zionist were virtually non-existent in course syllabi.’

The report they wrote (pdf) found that of researchers who embraced the model of “a state for all its citizens” as opposed to those who embraced Israel as a Jewish state, articles reflecting the former perspective were found 24 times in course lists and articles reflecting the latter were only found 9 times.  Presumably Im Tirtzu views the former perspective as anti-Zionist and the former as Zionist, which of course isn’t necessarily the case.

I’m dying to see specific books and articles and how they categorized them.  This should bring a barrel of laughs.  Just as a ferinstance, Norman Finkelstein‘s work will of course fall into the anti-Zionist camp even though he supports a two-state solution.  You rapidly get an idea of how slanted Im Tirtzu’s methods are.

It’s rather odd to me that the newspaper article to which I link above claims that Drs. Ron Bartz and Uri Lebel “supervised” the report.  But their names are not listed as authors.  Indeed, no name is listed as far as I can see.  Which makes this document authorless and utterly lacking in any credibility.  Lebel, by the way, teaches at Ariel College, a settler institution established without academic certification.

An article in Yisrael HaYom, Israel’s Likudist daily underwritten by Shelly Adelson’s billions, also pointed to an seminar taught by Tel Aviv University Prof. Yehudah Shenhav on Government Bureaucracy and Human Rights.  What especially irked Im Tirtzu is the participation of Israeli human rights lawyer, Michael Sfard in the course and the fact that students would participate in projects organized by anti-Occupation human rights NGOs Machsom Watch and Yesh Din.  In another course, students were required to watch a documentary film featuring an interview with (has v’halila) Azmi Bishara and listen to a speech by left-wing Knesset member Dov Chenin.  Apparently, according to Im Tirtzu, teaching about these subjects in an Israeli university should be forbidden or at least balanced by an accompanying course that waves the white-and-blue fervently.

This entire exercise strikes me as a rip-off of Daniel Pipes Campus Watch.  In its report, Im Tirtzu even tracks student complaints filed against specific courses and professors, which is a tactic patented by Pipes’ crew.  I would be willing to wager that the Israeli group has consulted closely with Pipes and/or Charles Jacobs of The David Project.  This is yet another example of Israel importing some of the worst polemical tendencies of the American Jewish right.

education minister saar addresses im tirtzu

Education Minister Gideon Saar blesses Im Tirtzu (Haaretz)

Im Tirtzu has the ear of the right-wing political establishment.  Education Minister Gideon Saar, announced recently that he had a few surprises in store for academics who endorse the BDS movement (Neve Gordon, are you listening?).  It’s not clear what the government can do to punish such professors unless it wishes to violate principles of academic freedom; or whether it intends to punish the universities or departments via cutting off governmental subsidies.

A Kadima Knesset member had this delightfully witty analysis of the malady afflicting Israeli academia:

“Israeli academia apparently suffers from ‘Palestinomania,’ a mild psychological illness whose symptoms include self-hatred, an affinity for Israel’s enemies, Jewish anti-Semitism and/or anti-Zionism,” Shamalov Berkovich said in the Knesset. “The spread of ‘Palestinomania’ demands the immediate and painful treatment for all of our sake, and the sooner the better.”

Minister Saar earlier this year gave his papal blessing to the hooligans of Im Tirtzu when he addressed one of the conferences:

“I place great importance in this gathering,” he said. “Campus activism is hugely vital, and this is what you are doing. For this, you will be blessed.” “I very much appreciate this work, which gives expression to an authentic Zeitgeist felt by the public and is much-needed on our campuses,” Sa’ar said of Im Tirtzu. “I came to tell you: God speed.”

These threats against Israeli academia and specific researchers comes on the heels of the death threat sent to Prof. Neve Gordon which I feature here.  For those who seek to dismiss the seriousness of such gestures remember that wanted posters graced the streets of Jerusalem just before Prof. Zeev Sternhell was wounded by a pipe bomb likely delivered by accused settler serial killer Jack Teitel.  Hate like this is serious.  Not that this means the Israeli police will uncover the culprit/s.  They somehow often manage not to be able to solve such cases.

I wonder whether it’s getting to the point that Israel is turning into an inverted version of mullah-led Iran, where “dissidents” like Gordon come under a fatwa and need 24 hour security in order to protect them from settler crazies.  We’ve had an Israeli prime minister assassinated by such a one before.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ben Gurion University Trustee Wishes Professor Dead

Friday, January 1st, 2010


Ben Gurion trustee wished David Newman 'removed from face of earth' (UCLA International Institute)

Ben Gurion trustee wished David Newman dead

The pro-Israel ideological wars continue at Ben Gurion University (BGU), where knives were sharpened after faculty member, Neve Gordon published a groundbreaking op-ed in the L.A. Times advocating the BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) movement as a means of opposing Israel’s Occupation.  Now, there is news that a right-wing BGU trustee, Michael Gross, after seeing Prof. David Newman interviewed on the BBC documentary (starting about 19:25 in the video above), Dispatches, wrote him an e mail wishing him dead:

Mr Gross [the trustee] sent two emails to Prof Newman after the political geography professor, also British-born, appeared on last month’s Channel 4 Dispatches strand, which examined Britain’s pro-Israel lobby.

Prof Newman, who has been at BGU for 21 years, did not directly criticise Israeli policy in the programme…

Mr Gross, who…sits on BGU’s international board of governors, emailed Prof Newman after the programme’s transmission…“I saw your disgusting contribution to the Dispatches programme. I will use whatever influence I have at BGU to have you thrown out…I hope you perish.”

He later sent another message: “The sooner you are removed from BGU and the face of the earth, the better.”

I have spent many years in academia as an undergraduate and graduate student and university fundraiser.  Frankly, I’ve never heard of a university trustee doing such a thing.  It’s beyond astonishing.  I can certainly understand that a right-wing pro-Israel trustee like Gross would be angry with Newman for appearing on a TV show that he viewed as harming Israel’s interests.  But wishing him dead?  And not once, but twice?  This is simply beyond the pale and should not be countenanced by a legitimate institution of higher education.

Of course, there is the issue of academic freedom, which Gross’ grossly threatening language violated.  But beyond that, Gross wished a distinguished member of the BGU faculty DEAD.  Can this be acceptable in civil discourse in a university community?  Especially when the individual levelling the threat is a university trustee?

128 BGU faculty signed a letter of protest (gathered over a mere 48 hours) addressed to the chairman of the school’s board of governors, former Goldman Sachs vice chairman, Roy Zuckerberg.  They wrote in part:

We find it quite incredible that a person [Gross] capable of writing such letters should have a place on any Board of Governors, in particular that of a University.  The letters signal an attitude of  total disdain for the principles of  academic discourse based on open debate, and for free inquiry of any  kind, and we believe that there is no place in the BGU community for  people who are capable of writing such letters. The fact that Mr.  Gross wishes  to use his financial assets as leverage, and seeks to control who  should, and should not, be employed by the university, renders his  behaviour even more egregious. We accordingly ask that you use your position as Chairman of the Board of Governors to ensure that Mr. Gross issue a formal and public apology to Prof. Newman, or alternatively ask for his resignation from his position as a member of  the Board of Governors.

Zuckerberg, rather astonishingly replied to the letter by addressing both Gross and Newman as two naughty schoolboys who’d just had a fist fight in the schoolyard:

…Both of you by your own admission have made errors of judgment.  I am not going to assign grades or degrees of blame, nor do I plan to take any of the actions suggested by you and some of your colleagues.

I must insist, however, that both of you drop the issue, enough damage has already been incurred to the good name of the University, and any further prolongation of the dispute will only exacerbate the situation.

…I call on both of you to return to applying your talents and resources in constructive channels.

I anticipate we can now end this matter.

A fellow trustee of his university has wished a faculty member dead and the chairman of the board wishes to wash his hands of the matter with a statement best summarized as “boys will be boys.”  Zuckerberg is the chairman of an institution of higher learning, not Goldman Sachs.  This incident has huge repurcussions in terms of violation of academic freedom and just plain abusive conduct.  Yet Zuckerberg writes as if he’s admonishing two rogue traders who had a fist fight on the trading floor.  This will not do.

Another unintentionally comic aspect of this donnybrook is this statement by British pro-Israel academic and columnist, Geoffrey Alderman:

The now very public slanging match involving Michael Gross and David Newman, reported in the JC last month, represents, for me, a multiple sadness.

…The language used by Mr Gross [in his attack on Newman] is not the language I would have used. At the same time, Professor Newman’s decision to appear on Peter Oborne’s pseudo-documentary — apparently without any editorial control — is not the decision I would have made.

Academic freedom is a precious commodity. But it doesn’t give an academic the licence to say what he or she pleases. There is, for example, such a thing as bringing one’s university into disrepute, and during an academic career now in its 48th year it has been my sad duty to have had to deal with a number of such cases, involving academics (some very senior) who felt they could, with impunity, bite the hand that fed them.

I’m sorry to use the word “astonishing” so often in this piece, but here we have another piece written by an academic, of all things, which completely misconstrues the meaning of the term academic freedom.  In fact, this concept DOES give a member of the academy to ‘say what he or she pleases’ as long as it is truthful and accurate.  And nothing Newman said in this documentary was untruthful or inaccurate or even incendiary.  Academic freedom does, in fact, allow a faculty member to ‘bite the hand that fed them’ if doing so is in the interest of the pursuit of knowledge, the essential mission of academia.  Not that Newman was doing anything of the sort through his participation.

Further, I find it again, well, astonishing that a fellow academic, when faced with something close to a death threat (or at least “death wish”) would refuse to rally in the latter’s defense.  Alderman, who seems eminently lacking in empathic spirit, should himself face such a threat and then we’d see how he would react and what he would have a right to expect from his own colleagues in support.

But here’s the real clincher:

At this point, I must declare an interest. It is a matter of public knowledge that I am privileged to hold, at the University of Buckingham, a professorial appointment endowed by Mr Gross. It is from this endowment that part of my salary is paid. But I must add at once that Mr Gross has never sought to influence either my academic work or my extra-mural media activities. On a great number of issues affecting world Jewry, he and I happen to agree. On some others we do not. But we respect each other’s views, and independence.

Of course, Alderman “respects” Gross’ “views” on Newman and has little or no problem with them.  As for independence…did that man say ‘independence?’  How independent is he when Gross virtually signs his paycheck.  In fact, it is a journalistic travesty that the Jewish Chronicle, Britain’s main Jewish periodical, published this column.  Alderman has a huge conflict of interest and anything he says on this subject is colored by his professional association with Gross.  And having Alderman declare himself independent and therefore able to be objective in this matter is deplorable.  It’s like a white 1960s southerner telling you he’s no racist.  Of course, Alderman thinks he’s fair and balanced.  But it’s not up to an interested party to make such a judgment.  That should be in the hands of a sober editor, something the Chronicle apparently doesn’t possess.

Gross must go.  To have him continue as a director of Ben Gurion risks making the institution look like the donors run the show and are able to call for the demise of any faculty member they dislike.  Besides, Israel lately has been the victim of numerous incidents of violence and terror by Jews against fellow Jews (not to mention Palestinians as well).  In fact, settler terrorist, Jack Teitel has admitted to Israeli police that he planted a bomb intended to kill Hebrew University professor Zeev Sternhell.  In light of this how can BGU countenance retaining Gross on its board?  I would like to ask Roy Zuckerberg what it would take for him to actually force Gross off the board?  Newman’s death?  Or merely a bomb placed outside his front door as happened to Prof. Sternhell?

I’m not claiming that Gross would do such a thing.  But he came perilously close to suggesting as much in his atrocious e-mail remarks.  Or at least suggesting that someone else who killed Newman would receive Gross’ approbation.  This is garbage pure and simple and should not be winked at or treated with a slap on the wrist as Zuckerberg has done.

‘In Defense of Academic Freedom’ Chicago Conference

Monday, October 8th, 2007

in defense of academic freedom poster
An extraordinary conference will take place at the University of Chicago on October 12th called In Defense of Academic Freedom. Several distinguished academics and public intellectuals will examine the threats to academic freedom posed by recent controversial tenure decisions and other campus developments which have stifled the free exchange of ideas. The conference will explore these issues in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict since some of the most contentious issues revolve around it. The impetus for this certainly began with Norman Finkelstein’s ouster from DePaul University. But it also includes the furor generated by Walt-Mearsheimer’s The Israel Lobby and cancellation of their speaking engagements under real or perceived pressure from Jewish groups and leaders; the recent cancellation of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s scheduled talk at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis due to his alleged anti-Israel stance; and the campaign to deny Nadia Abu El-Haj tenure at Barnard College.

Among the speakers will be: Tariq Ali, Norman Finkelstein, John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky, Tony Judt and Neve Gordon. It is sponsored by the DePaul Committee on Academic Freedom and Verso Books. The program begins at 2PM in the Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.

Finkelstein and the DePaul Lockout

Monday, August 27th, 2007

I don’t know what’s going on in Chicago these days. I’ve always thought of it as a progressive, tolerant and diverse place by and large. But something’s gotten into Chicago folk over the past few months…First DePaul University unceremoniously dumped Norman Finkelstein for reasons that even the school’s administration’s haven’t been able to articulate convincingly to anyone but Alan Dershowitz.

Then the Chicago Global Affairs Council, after inviting Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer to speak about their new book on the Israel Lobby, canceled the invitation unless they agreed to debate Abe Foxman. It seems that some Council members (no doubt also supporters of AIPAC) decided Walt and Mearsheimer were far too incendiary to speak without some rejoinder from the pro-Israel community. The two original speakers quite rightly balked at being so singled out and thus they were also unceremoniously booted.

Hearing this, some Jewish Chicagoans scoured the Jewish community for a facility (synagogue of community center) that would house a Walt-Mearsheimer event. Guess what, none could be found.

norman finkelstein-suchar argumentVideo image released by DePaul depicting argument between Finkelstein and Suchar after tenure decision meeting. Finkelstein notes Suchar is saying to him: “Fuck you. Fuck you.”

And returning to DePaul, not content to be made a laughingstock of the academic world in their treatment of Finkelstein DURING the tenure process, they’ve practically stuck their asses in the air and asked the world to kick them with their latest round of campus buffoonery. It seems Norman Finkelstein is such a danger to the faculty, administrators and students of DePaul that the classes he was to teach during his final year there have all been canceled. His office has been shuttered and he has been denied another office. Even his possessions in his old office have not yet been released to him. This is the equivalent of a corporation’s calling security guards to escort a disgraced ex-employee out of the building. Except in that case they usually give the poor shlub a cardboard box with his possessions in them:

On Friday, August 24th…DePaul’s University…decided to cancel Professor Norman G. Finkelstein’s classes for the autumn quarter.

…What is the stated reason for the cancellation of Finkelstein’s courses…? Professor Finkelstein, it seems, in the judgment of DePaul’s administration, constitutes a security threat to DePaul faculty and staff. In a previous article, I documented that Finkelstein simply confronted Dean “Chuck” Suchar outside of 990 Fullerton on June 14th after the special LA&S emergency meeting devoted to discussing the procedural and academic freedom violations in the Finkelstein and Larudee cases…Suchar apparently alleged that he felt harassed by Finkelstein, calling for the administration to issue a restraining order against his colleague.

In an irony sure not to escape Dissident Voice readers, Finkelstein is being barred from teaching courses devoted to examining “Freedom and Empowerment” and “Justice and Social Equality”. In addition, Finkelstein is being thrown out of his office and might not even have access to office space this coming academic year at DePaul.

According to what I’ve read, this is behavior that is absolutely unheard of in the usually laid back world of academe. To me, this is like a university administration holding up a big sign saying: “SUE ME, PLEASE, for lots of money!” I don’t know much about faculty employment contracts. But I do know that DePaul has broken so many usual conventions that should Finkelstein wish I bet he could sue them for a great deal of money.

An academic blogger is quoted in Inside Higher Education denouncing DePaul’s decision:

John K. Wilson, on his blog College Freedom, wrote: “If anyone doubted whether DePaul was violating Finkelstein’s rights, that doubt must end with this decision…. Even if DePaul pays off Finkelstein, it is violating his academic freedom (and the freedom of its students) by refusing to let him teach and effectively silencing his voice in its classrooms.”

Finkelstein, not the sort to take any insult lying down, has has let the Administration know he will give as good as he gets:

DePaul University has canceled all of Norman G. Finkelstein’s courses, taken away his office, and put him on administrative leave for his final year, but the controversial political scientist said that will not stop him from coming back to teach this fall. If necessary, he said, he will go to jail.

In an e-mail message, Mr. Finkelstein told The Chronicle that he intends “to show up on the first day of the academic year to teach my classes (students are currently searching for an alternative venue) and to use my regular office in the political-science department. If the university attempts to impede my movements, I intend to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and go to jail. If incarcerated, I intend to go on a protracted hunger strike until DePaul comes to its senses.”

“It is regrettable,” Mr. Finkelstein continued, “that I have been driven to such drastic actions to defend basic principles of academic freedom and my contractual rights, upon which DePaul has been riding roughshod for so long.”

I don’t think the Vincentians at DePaul bargained for what a tough Jew Norman Finkelstein would turn out to be. And I think they better reconsider their idiocy before it bites them big time. How much more horrible publicity like this can they take? Apparently, they’ve hired the celebrities’ favorite crisis PR flack Howard Rubenstein to guide them through this gauntlet of bad press of their own making. But I don’t even think Rubenstein can make lemonade out of the lemons he’s been given by DePaul.

The American Association of University Professors as well has taken strong exception to DePaul’s treatment of Finkelstein:

Jonathan Knight, who directs the program in academic freedom and tenure at the American Association of University Professors, said…that the fact that DePaul is continuing to pay Finkelstein does not end questions about the university’s “extraordinary” actions. Knight noted that Finkelstein’s classroom conduct has never been questioned, and said that removing a professor from teaching in such a case is only justified by real fears about a danger the professor could pose. “That’s a terrible commentary to be making on an individual,” Knight said, and should require real evidence and faculty input.

Unless there has been a real hearing and the opportunity for due process, Knight said, the move is not a matter of placing someone on leave, but a “summary dismissal…”

Given all of these nightmares in Chicago, the DePaul Academic Freedom Committee and other local students and peace activists have decided to plan a mass public forum on academic freedom scheduled for the University of Chicago campus on October 12th. The conference’s keynote speakers are Noam Chomsky (MIT), John Mearsheimer (Univ. of Chicago), Akeel Bilgrami (Columbia), Neve Gordon (Ben-Gurion University, Israel), and Tariq Ali (New Left Review). They ought to invite Dean Suchar and President Holtschneider to be the panel respondents. Maybe they’d learn something.

Finkelstein Denied Tenure at DePaul

Saturday, June 9th, 2007

buy 'Beyond Chutzpah' from Amazon
June 8th was a black day for academic freedom and a black day for free and open debate about issues of concern to the Jewish community like the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a banner day for the intellectual thought police represented by Alan Dershowitz who has triumphed with an intense, fiercely fought and ugly smear campaign entirely devoid of intellectual content. Instead the campaign was fought on overheated rhetoric and twisted arguments. And Dershowitz has won. DePaul has rid itself of the meddlesome professor by denying him tenure.


This statement from DePaul’s president beggars belief:

“Over the past several months, there has been considerable outside interest and public debate concerning this decision,” Rev. Dennis Holtschneider said. “This attention was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case.”

Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact, academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul. It is guaranteed both as an integral part of the University’s scholarly and religious heritage, and as an essential condition of effective inquiry and instruction. On a daily basis, DePaul faculty and students explore the most important ideas of our time, including difficult and contentious issues, and they do so in ways that adhere to professional standards of academia and respect the dignity and worth of each individual.

Dershowitz and the pro-Israel hatchet-folk didn’t have any impact on the internal campus debate surrounding tenure? Right.

I want to make clear that while I don’t agree with Finkelstein’s anti-Zionist position, I think he has much to say in his critique of the Jewish community’s obsession with the Holocaust as the supposedly defining element of Jewish identity. And as eminent a historian as Raul Hilberg–dean of Holocaust historians, in fact–agrees with me. I urge anyone who cares about intellectual fairness and justice in this case to read the DemocracyNow interview with Hilberg and Avi Shlaim, an Oxford historian. They are not always in full agreement with Finkelstein. They take him to task for the incendiary nature of some of his discourse. But what they say in his support is very strong and very important:

I am impressed by the analytical abilities of Finkelstein. He is, when all is said and done, a highly trained political scientist who was given a PhD degree by a highly prestigious university. This should not be overlooked…

However, leaving aside the question of style — and here, I agree that it’s not my style either — the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.

This smug statement by Dershowitz makes me sick:

“It was the right decision, proving that DePaul University is indeed a first-rate university, not as Finkelstein characterized it, ‘a third-rate university.’ Based on objective standards of scholarship, this should not have even been a close case.”

Harvard should be ashamed that it gives academic cover to such a mendacious, overblown bully.

DePaul has made a very serious mistake. It has set a very bad precedent for American universities. Given the worldwide recognition that Finkelstein’s academic books and articles have received it is ludicrous to say he has not met the threshold for publishing. And if you want to argue that he’s not a nice person or collegial enough or that he has a sharp tongue–well, get in line with the tens of thousands of other tenured professors who share those qualities.

I an incredulous that DePaul would essentially deny a professor tenure claiming (though of course this is a smokescreen reason) that Finkelstein’s rhetoric toward his academic peers was overheated. Here’s what Peter Kirstein–who has read the dean’s memo denying tenure–has to say:

The university’s decision to deny tenure is basically a repetition of the Suchar Memorandum’s charge of inappropriate tone, collegiality and manners. I think this case will continue to be examined by national organisations that exist to protect professors from such arbitrary and egregious display of contempt for controversial research that may offend some but on its merits represent significant and valuable scholarship.

UPDATE: In the president’s letter to Finkelstein (pdf file) he quotes this lame passage from the faculty tenure committee which voted 4-3 against granting him a promotion:

…Some may interpret parts of his scholarship as “deliberately hurtful” as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect than to carefully critique or challenge accepted assumptions. Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks in his writings and intellectual debates. These concerns are relevant in the recognition that an academic’s reputation is intrinsically tied to the institution of which he or she is affiliated. It was questioned by some whether Dr. Finkelstein effectively contributes to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues.

Then the president continues:

…Reviewers at all levels…commented upon your ad hominem attacks on scholars with whom you disagree…Your unprofessional attacks divert conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration…Your work not only shifts toward advocacy and away from scholarship, but also fails to meet the most basic standards governing scholarly discourse within the academic community.

…Nor can I conclude that your scholarship honors our University’s commitment to creating an environment in which all persons engaged in research and learning exercise academic freedom and respect it in others.

Can you imagine this academic jackanape has the chutzpah to accuse Finkelstein of not respecting “academic freedom??” And since when do college faculty NOT engage in ad hominem attacks or even savage debate about subjects on which they are passionate? This is beyond lame.

Kirstein also reports that another DePaul professor who prominently supported Finkelstein was denied tenure. This makes a laughingstock of the DePaul president’s statement above.

I am glad that Finkelstein has the right attitude toward this travesty of academic justice and his persecutors:

“As it happens, I was just this past week teaching about Paul Robeson in my political science class. When Robeson was crucified for his beliefs, he said, ‘I will not retreat one-thousandth part of one inch.’ That’s what I say to the thugs and hoodlums who are trying to silence me. They don’t want to talk about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. So they make Norman Finkelstein the issue.”

No doubt, Finkelstein has enough fame that he will publish and earn a living from his books and the lecture circuit and not need an academic appointment. But should he wish to return, one has to wonder what university would hire him and be willing to risk the “hit” it would take from Dershowitz and his academic Brownshirts. There would be a massive campaign to enlist alumni to cancel donations much like Daniel Pipes’ blackmail at Brandeis recently. It would get ugly. What faculty department or university president is willing to take on such a burden? DePaul didn’t.

The Inside Higher Education has one of the better articles on the subject.