In the past few days, two pieces of embarrassing news originated from Brandeis University. The first concerns its academic affiliation (or former affiliation) with Al Quds University in Abu Dis, Palestine. UPDATE: Syracuse University has also severed its ties with Al Quds. Al Quds is a remarkable Palestinian educational institution founded by its current president, Sari Nusseibeh in 1984. Nusseibeh has written several well-received books about his life and political commitments to the Palestinian struggle. His university stands as a beacon of tolerance and progress for its students and the nation.
Earlier this month, a group of students affiliated with a Palestinian militant group (Netanyahu’s office claims they were from Islamic Jihad) marched on campus. Since the school doesn’t allow guns on campus, these individuals used wooden cut-outs resembling guns. They dressed in black and held aloft the black flag of the Palestinian Islamist movement. Some of them allegedly also raised a straight-armed salute that, to the eyes of ‘Nazi-hunters’ like Breitbart and Washington Free Beacon, resembled a Nazi salute.
It should also be noted that the Islamophobia lobby and related media outlets have for years also targeted Al Quds calling it a “Hamas terror university” (thanks to reader Oui for providing these stories) and the like. This latest outrage should be seen in this context. The withdrawal of university affiliation by Brandeis and Syracuse represents the triumph of pro-Israel Islamophobia, not the triumph of tolerance Fred Lawrence claims.
AP published a story which placed the November campus incident into better context:
Al-Quds in a statement Wednesday urged Brandeis to reconsider. The university said it launched an investigation immediately after the Nov. 5 rally and informed all political factions on campus not to hold such activities. The university said the campus political wing of Islamic Jihad responsible for the rally has a small number of students who violated their agreements with the university.
The faction’s activities are unacceptable and contrary to the university’s “liberal policy and the human values we are trying to promote,” the statement said.
…A spokesman for Islamic Jihad’s military wing in the Gaza Strip told The Associated Press that although similar, there is no connection between Islamic Jihad’s salute and that of the Nazis. The raised arm pointing toward the sky symbolizes a desire to reach holy Jerusalem…he said.
While I neither admire nor support Islamist militancy, we must put this incident into context by noting that IDF has repeatedly invaded campus in the past and deliberately provoked full-on melees. This Haaretz report goes all the way back to 2003. This raid, in which 40 Al Quds students were shot with steel coated rubber bullets happened only a week ago. Imagine if you were a student watching as your unarmed fellow students were shot and maimed by a hostile government that invaded your campus periodically just for the hell of it. You might feel pretty militant yourself. Nor do I recall Brandeis’ administration offering any public statements of support or solidarity for its beleaguered academic partner.
The Israeli Likudist press followed Bibi’s lead and began reporting this story earlier this month and it was picked up by the right-wing Jewish press as well. It noted Brandeis University’s academic affiliation with Al Quds and began pressuring both the president and board of trustees to sever its ties. The first response was to organize a faculty committee to travel to Palestine to investigate the incident. But unfortunately, Brandeis’ president, Frederick Lawrence, in office little more than a year, grew skittish under pressure from the wealthy pro-Israel advocate-donors on his board and laid down an ultimatum: Al Quds had to release a statement denouncing the rally and it had to do so in English and Arabic. These were demands that virtually mirrored those of the right-wing pro-Israel media. It was an ultimatum, and a demeaning one that no self-respecting academic institution would issue to a peer.
Al Quds did release a statement that criticized the rally. But it was far too muted and balanced for the pro-Israel critics. The Palestinian university also refused to publish the statement in Arabic. That settled the matter for Lawrence and he immediately suspended academic ties with Al Quds.
There are several remarkable aspects of this case: first, both Brandeis and Al Quds are academic institutions. The focus ought to be on academic content and not on extra-curricular student activities. Are there courses offered or academic papers published that violate whatever code Lawrence wishes to enforce? If not, why focus on non-academic issues?
For example, if Brandeis students rampage through campus in a drunken riot (as happens in many U.S. colleges) would this be grounds for Al Quds to suspend its relations with Brandeis? If Brandeis Hillel screened Third Jihad, Obsession or any of the Clarion Films, which depict Islamist militants as Nazis seeking to rule the world, would that be legitimate grounds for Al Quds severing its relationship? Or, just as some U.S. campuses have ROTC, if Brandeis hosted an IDF officer speaking proudly about his tour of duty in the West Bank in which he participated in raids on Al Quds, would that be sufficient grounds?
In other words, these would all be acts of individual students, student groups, or campus organizations–but not events integral to the academic program or even sponsored by the University. When one university affiliates with another is it because of the student activities or the academic program? The answer is obvious. If you make a decision to sever ties based on extraneous factors like a student activity, then you’re really making a political decision, rather than an educational one.
And as long as we’re discussing severing ties with academic institutions, might we consider whether Brandeis wants its example used to justify other universities who might sever their ties with Israeli universities whose faculty and research support Occupation and the national security state? What’s good for the goose…right?
What I’m getting at regarding the Al Quds rally, is that there is context to everything in the Israel-Palestine conflict. If you refuse to understand this you may feel righteous in denouncing the sins of the enemy, but you will be little more than a fulminating ideologue. That’s in effect what Brandeis’ president has become.
Second, is there any written code of conduct governing the affiliation agreement between Brandeis and Al Quds? If so, what was the basis for Lawrence’s decision other than abject fear of losing donations (which is not an academic criteria)?
Third, there is a great danger in making academic decisions using non-academic criteria. In this case, the decision to sever ties is purely a political and financial consideration. Schools that make major decisions on this basis risk losing or tarnishing their academic reputation. Further, Brandeis has allowed itself to become a cog in the pro-Israel hasbara apparatus run out of the Israeli prime ministers office. What does that say about Brandeis and its decision-making process?
Brandeis’ public statement announcing the cut off of ties notes, in its defense, that it maintains noted academic programs in conflict resolution and peace studies. But the fact is that those faculty delegated to travel to Al Quds and investigate the incident were pre-empted before they could even return with their recommendations. I’m told by a source with knowledge of these matters that no campus faculty from any of these programs were consulted before the decision to terminate was made. So what good is it to have such programs if you ignore them? And isn’t it the height of hypocrisy to defend a decision made based on political considerations by saying you couldn’t possibly be accused of political bias because of the existence of these programs?
Jehuda Reinharz’ Big Payday
On a related matter, the Boston Globe published a shocking report that former Brandeis president Jehuda Reinharz has been receiving his full presidential salary for years after he left office (in 2010). He’s been paid $600,000 each year (salary and benefits) since then and those payments will continue for some unspecified period. This is on top of the $800,000 annual salary he’s being paid as a ‘consultant’ to the Mandel Family Foundation.
But the intrigue goes farther: the Foundation has contributed $50-million to Brandeis over the past twenty years. The family name “graces” at least two campus buildings. A family member sits on the Brandeis board of trustees. So you have to ask the question: what’s going on? What’s going on, as I read it, is that Brandeis wanted to get rid of Reinharz after his disastrous decision to eliminate the Rose Art Museum and sell its art holdings in order to fund other academic programs. The uproar from museums, artists and trustees was so intense that the University sustained a black eye and backed off the ill-conceived plan.
Reinharz had been president since 1994, an eternity for college presidents. The trustees and faculty had had enough. They negotiated a golden parachute that offered him a good-will bribe of years worth of salary. The Mandel family offered him a plum, do-nothing job at the Foundation. And just like that, a problem was solved for everyone involved. It was, as a friend told me, the ‘quietest and most elegant regicide’ he’d ever seen.”
But appearances! Oh my how appearances betray them! Reinharz gets that University salary and does nothing for it. He teaches no classes, advises no students, attends no faculty or departmental meetings. Though he claims he ‘advises’ the current president and smooths relations with the major donors with whom he’s enjoyed especially benficial relationships, Reinharz was on sabbatical and off campus the entire first year of Lawrence’s presidency.
Reinharz also does little or nothing for the Mandel Foundation. As he says: he never punched a time clock at any academic job. Which is another way of saying, I don’t show up. Mandel, according to the Globe article, didn’t even report Reinharz’s consulting fee on its IRS 990, which is a serious breach of the tax code.
If you look at the portrait accompanying the Globe report you’ll see a man who thinks exceedingly highly of himself. He reminds me of a Roman emperor with that slightly wincing, imperious gaze.
The entire affair is an exceedingly ugly portrait of expediency, venality and board room self-dealing. It’s extraordinary that a school which must have a course of two in ethics and/or non-profit governance, should engage in such borderline chicanery.
It reminds me of an incident back in the late 1980s, when I was a fundraiser for Brandeis and it hired a fresh, young go-getter VP for development whom it snatched up from Cornell. He’d been placed in the job by a job recruiter whose company founder sat on the Brandeis board. No sooner did he say hello than he fired 15% of the fundraising staff including all the regional development staff (including yours truly). A few months later, the VP himself was gone. Everyone realized they’d made a big mistake. His departure was greased by the job recruiter, who promised to find him yet another job. And everyone was happy! What a nice, cozy set of relationships!
Returning to Reinharz, not everyone was happy. There are a few faculty hold-outs who yearn for the days when Brandeis’ commitment to its namesake’s social justice vision was far firmer:
“You can imagine how the faculty feels about this,” said Carol L. Osler, a business professor at Brandeis, noting that Brandeis was named after a leader in social justice. “One has to wonder if it is consistent with the values of Justice Louis Brandeis.”
Not to mention that the school’s administration came to the faculty in 2008 after its endowment took a huge hit in the midst of the Madoff scandal. Professors agreed to forego the school’s contribution into their retirement funds. Since then raises have averaged 1-2% per year. Meanwhile, a no-show ex-president gets his lily gilded in a sweetheart deal worth millions. It’s shameful really.
The importune questions of the Globe reporter who interviewed Reinharz must’ve been exceedingly annoying, because when asked what research he might be pursuing, instead of answering truthfully, he told him he was writing a book about “donkeys” in literature:
The one area where Reinharz was specific about how he spends his time was his own research, including a book he is co-writing on the history of the donkey in literature, arguing that the animal is often used as a substitute for people.
“There are smart donkeys, stupid donkeys, evil donkeys, etc., and no one has ever contemplated this on a large scale,” said Reinharz, who commissioned an artist to make a wood carving of a donkey that stands proudly on his desk. “It’s probably the most ambitious topic I have ever contemplated.”
I presume this was his perverse way of trying to make the reporter look like a jerk. But the only jerk it exposed was Reinharz himself: donkey indeed. But on rereading the passage, it occurs to me that Reinharz might just have been sincere. If he was, I’m afraid it’s him who’s wearing the donkey’s ears.
A bit of background is helpful here: a few years ago Norman Finkelstein was scheduled to speak at Brandeis. Daniel Pipes then threatened to disrupt the University’s donor relations by calling for trustees to boycott the school and take an alleged $5-million off the fundraising table. Instead of telling Pipes to take a hike, Reinharz ushered him into his office for a cozy chat, thus giving an academic seal of approval to one of the more noxious Islamphobes on the circuit. Pipes even received his own invitation to speak on campus. In some senses, it was Reinharz’ “cave” on this matter that showed where the school’s real priorities lay. It was more about doing everything possible not to rile donors, more than it was standing up for academic principle.
Reinharz’s wife, Shulamit, is also on the University faculty, where she teaches sociology. At some point in her career, she turned to the dark side politically. She joined the board of the David Project (the local Islamophobic group spearheading the attack on the Roxbury mosque). She even denounced Prof. Nadia Abu El-Haj, a Palestinian-American anthropologist, whom Barnard College was considering for a tenure appointment.
The final word goes to that friend who knows something about these events, and told me that Brandeis motto is no longer: Emet (“Truth unto its innermost parts”), but rather “Truth, until it gets too uncomfortable.”
BDS?
What’s good for the goose?
@ Shmuel: I was referring to BDS. Sorry if the other reference wasn’t clear: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/what%27s_good_for_the_goose_is_good_for_the_gander
I meant that if Brandeis can dissociate from Al Quds then what’s to stop other foreign universities from cutting their ties to Israeli universities for whatever reason they might choose: Occupation, weapons research, etc.
Photos of ‘alleged Nazi salutes’, martyr posters and DEAD ISRAELI SOLDIERS!
http://www.israelunseen.com/scenes-from-a-moderate-palestinian-university-that-brandeis-has-partnered-with/
Lets hear you you Richard, “Cum ba ya…..”
@ Pip: I placed bets on which one of the hasbara crowd would post links to those pictures. Thanks, I won $20! I knew you wouldn’t fail me!
That bit of off-topic gratuitous snark earned you moderation.
Richard.
The ‘Nazi style’ campus demonstration preceded in time the IDF raid of Abu Dis (not the campus itself). So, that campus demonstration had nothing to IDF incursions onto the campus. The demonstration was not a reaction to IDF incursions on campus.
The Haaretz article you cit concerns a 10 year old IDF incursion onto the campus.
You seem to be making excuses for demonstrators you really know nothing about.
@ Pip: You’re losing the forest for the trees. Of course the IDF & Border Police’s ongoing campaign of harrassment, provocation & violation that has gone on for years has EVERYTHING to do with any form of resistance displayed by students on campus, including this rally. In other words, I was portraying a decade long pattern of harrassment. Not to mention that the Israeli assault on Abu Dis (in which 40 students were shot–or did you miss that??) Was clearly in retaliation for the purported IJ rally. Calling it “Nazi style” is highly inflammator6 & I dare you to produce any evudence that proves those individuals were purposely using a Nazi salute.We’re being a little thick, aren’t we? Or did you really not understand my intent?
@ RS,
Since lately the NAZI flag has been raised over few of the Palestinian villages, no one should take lightly the appearance of a NAZI salute on a Palestinian Campus. This is 10 minutes from the heart of Jerusalem.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/520/863.html
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=23856
and many other incidents.
Seriously now. You expect me, in this day & age to believe that the image of a Nazi flag supposedly flying over Beit Omar is real? The story to which you linked quotes an anonymous resident commenting on it. Frankly, you’ll have to provide more evidence than this to support this claim.
BTW, the AP story I’ve just added to this post notes the “salute” at Al Quds had nothing to do with Nazis & everything to do with Muslim yearning for Jerusalem. As you know nothing about the views or rituals of Islamic Jihad, I suggest you may want to do more research before you make such charges in future.
@ RS
I guess Sari Nusseibeh and the university who issued an apology, knows about Islamic Jihad rituals, even less then i do.
Mr. Silverstein while criticizing Israel, even as venomously and righteously as you do, is tolerable, Justifying and making excuses for Antisemitic behavior which you drift into is unacceptable and repulsive.
I wish you good luck and all the best.
@ Joe Black: You didn’t even bother to read Pabelmont, did you? You’re making the classic Zionist error of conflating Jews with Israelis. Islamic Jihad has a problem with Israel, not Jews. But that’s why you need them to be making a Hitlerian salute, so you can conflate the two & turn Palestinians into Nazis. How convenient.
Accuse me of exusing anti-Semitic acts one more time & you’ll get the boot.
@ Joe Black: Now you’ve lied twice on Nusseibeh’s behalf. Here you say he apologized, which he didn’t. Later you say he called the rally “anti-Semitic,” which he didn’t. Reading not your strong suit, eh?
@ RS
Here it is in mako, and in may it aired in the Israeli TV.
http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/security/Article-87af5f95911ce31004.htm
@ Joe Black: I’d be willing to bet that settlers hung that flag as a provocation. Israeli Jews have been known to do this.
If you can find an interview with a Palestinian villager who says that Palestinians did it or by anyone who says they saw who did it, I’d love to see that.
@ RS
Funny that you bring the act of a very frustrated person who’s both parents and 3 siblings died in a suicide terror attack (Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing – on 9 August 2001 ) as an example to what Settlers do.
You are becoming an apologist for Antisemitism, and you do so in a very repulsive way.
no doubt Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
@ Joe Black: Nah, you don’t read well. I said that I believed settlers may’ve strung up the Nazi flag in Beit Omar. About the flag which I displayed I said it was something done by “Israeli Jews.” Not “Israeli settlers.” Not “settlers.” Can you tell the difference?
But you do know there are Israeli Jewish neo-Nazis, don’t you?
You were warned. Now you’re banned. Don’t slam the door on your way out. And you can let the next hasbara flight know we’re expecting touchdown any moment.
Just for the sake of accuracy — two minor points:
The article you linked says “40 Palestinians, including students from al-Quds University” were shot — not 40 students.
It also says that rubber-coated steel bullets were used — not “steel coated rubber bullets,” as you write.
Nothing out of the ordinary for IDF harassing Palestinians … Today in Palestine – September 8, 2013.
RS: Fantastic story. Thanks so much. I’m forwarding to academic friends, mostly in Boston.
This reminds me of an uncomfortable truth: The very rich corrupt politics not only by taking direct political action (bribes, revolving-doors, campaign contributions, payments-for-speeches) BUT ALSO by “charitable” contributions — such as to Universities, for PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES (to keep former presidents “in line”), etc.
@ Richard
The link concerning Sari Nusseibeh’s books is ‘dead’, but I guess you’re referring first of all to his excellent autobiography “Once Upon A Country. A Palestinian Life” that I encourage everyone interested in Palestinian history and culture to read. He writes extensively about the foundation of al-Quds University, the problems with the Apartheid Wall splitting the university in two, and generally the efforts that the Israelis make to prevent the university from functionning.
And isn’t it ironic: Sari Nusseibeh is on the Advisory Board of the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life at Brandeis University. I hope he’s going to resign.
http://www.brandeis.edu/ethics/about/bios/boardbios.html
He was removed from the Board today:
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/brandeis-removes-al-quds-nusseibeh-from-ethics-center/2013/11/21/
@ Ari Greenfield: It’s Brandeis’ ethics that are wanting in both these incidents, not Nusseibeh’s.
@ Deir Yassin: Thanks, I corrected that link which displays his latest book about a Palestinian state. But I recommend both.
Corcerning the “Nazi” salute: this a regular accusation from the Hasbara Machine ‘proving’ that the Palestinians really are nothing but modern Nazis. Ben Gourin stated so already before the creation of the State of Israel
The Roman Salute has been used world-wide, also in the US (known as the Bellamy salute)
– en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_salute (scroll down for picture of the Bellamy salute)
The Mexican president is sworn in with the Roman salute so is the président of Taiwan. Here some good friends of the US, the army of El Salvador: (I omit the www in order not to block the posting)
– rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-el-salvador-military-socialism.jpg
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (marxist) also uses the Roman salute (with the left arm: google PFLP salute photo and you’ll get one).
The only real fascists in the Middle East who use the Roman salute are the Lebanese Phalange (Kata’eb), but as they’re Israel’s best pals, nobody cares…
And then this fascist of course:
http://mediacdn.disqus.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/355/153/original.jpg
Richard, I don’t understand why you feel the need to downplay & minimize antisemitism. You’re quick to call Israeli & Jewish leaders islamophobic at the drop of a hat, but you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that mocking Israel soldiers with Nazi imagery is antisemitic. Even Nusseibeh said as much in his statement! You describe the demonstrators’ “straight-armed salute” but have to quality that it only “resembles” a Nazi salute “in the eyes of ‘Nazi-hunters’ like Breitbart and Washington Free Beacon”.
Do you think if you talk openly about antisemitism, it will undermine your politics? You insist that “we must put this incident into context” but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. You can call out antisemitism and still talk about context. But the omission here is glaring.
djf:
I do understand that some people think that hating Israel and its doings is ipso facto “antisemitic”. I don’t feel that way, I don’t think that way, but some people do. It’s a “feeling” thing. But not reasonable.
I don’t understand where you discern the antisemitic content of Palestinians using what you may consider to have been Nazi-style gestures, salutes. Isn’t anyone allowed to make references to Nazis? Seems to me Israeli politicians do it all the time. Are they antisemitic when they do that?
Is the trouble that Nazis were WORSE than Israelis are? That it somehow cheapens the imagery to use it for (mere) IDF soldiers? Is the cheapening the crux of the antisemitism? You know, the IDF are awful but not nearly as bad as the Nazis were. Is that the crux of your assertion of antisemitism?
Is the trouble that using Nazi symbolism in reference to anyone but Nazis CHEAPENS the symbolism (and is thus and for that reason antisemitic: no-one suffered as Jews suffered under Hitler, so don’t pretend that Palestinians suffered as Jews suffered?)? But haven’t Israeli politicians used Nazi slurs for Arafat, Ahmedinejad, and others? And did such uses cheapen the symbolism? And was it condemned as antisemitic?
Try to think about the problem of communication.
The Nazis were one of the worst (and best known) systematic persecutors in the recent past. And very well known in Israel as also in the West. What better gesture to copy to symbolize and COMMUNICATE persecution than Nazi symbolism (assuming that that is what actually happened). Of course, the students may have adopted their gesture, their salute, from other models. they may not have had Nazis in mind at all. But assuming they did, what better way to signal their displeasure?
I don’t know if Israeli soldiers have a distinctive salute, do they? And if the demonstrators had used THAT salute (assuming that a distinctive Israeli salute exists), would that have carried through the emotional task of communicating their displeasure? Would the outside world have understood the gesture? Would you have? I wouldn’t! I don’t know what the distinctive Israeli salute is. We’re talking about communication here, and the symbols must be known to both sides of the communication.
Would it have been antisemitic to use an Israeli army salute to mock Israeli soldiers?
Perhaps you call any disrespectful gesture used toward Israelis “antisemitic”. I reject that. Those soldiers are Israelis, first, last, and always (until they leave to live elsewhere — perhaps in Germany), not necessarily Jews. Might even be Druse, you never know. But they are not acting “as Jews” — they are acting under orders as soldiers of the State of Israel. Complaining about soldiers is never “antisemitic”. soldiers are soldiers, not Jews.
I think a lot of people like to declare that any complaint about a Jew, or a collection of Jews, or even Israel, “antisemitic”. That’s nonsense.
Argue it a bit more, if you will. Perhaps I’ll understand.
@ djf: As the AP story which I just added to this post makes clear, Islamic Jihad itself just released a statement clarifying that the salute has nothing to do with Nazism. I doubt any of those who marched in that rally even know what Nazis are let alone the Nazi salute. But that of course won’t prevent the hasbara crowd from finding Nazis under every Palestinian bed.
And who said anything about “mocking Israeli soldiers??” WHere did you get that from? I think a little rationality is in order here. You’ve apparently been spooked by all that Holocaust imagery you absorbed whereever you absorbed it.
“But that of course won’t prevent the hasbara crowd from finding Nazis under every Palestinian bed.”
Again with the name-calling. Nusseibeh called the demonstrate antisemitic also. Is he part of your “hasbara crowd” too?
Do you have a link of his statement? In the TOI interview he expressed nothing of the sort you claim.
These accusations are nothing new and return each academic year. See previous claims on Islamophobic sites. Ohio-based Saudi ‘Charity’ Supporting HAMAS Terror University – Sept. 19, 2007 and Brandeis University’s Partnership With Hamas Linked, Al Quds University Underwritten By Ford Foundation – August 27, 2008.
As RS has explained, the Islamic Jihad does not display the Nazi salute. The same salute can be seen by Hamas, Qassam Brigades and Hezbollah. The demonstration at Al-Quds University on November 5 was likely part of the remembrance to last year’s victory and the anniversary of Stones of Baked Clay. Especially the assassination of Ahmed Jabari is commemorated (Nov. 14).
@ Oui: The campus rally was on November 5th.
Thanks for those old news clips. I had no idea there was a prolonged campaign of incitement against Al Quds.
@ djf: What ever are you talking about? Nusseibeh said nothing of the sort!
I once defended Nusseibeh from the charge of antisemitism
and I would still do so, in the same circumstances. Your statement
that “Nusseibeh said nothing of the sort!” is not quite accurate.
In his original statement he averred that: “These extreme elements
spare no effort to exploit some rare but nonetheless damaging
events or scenes which occur on the campus of Al Quds University,
such as fist fighting between students, or some students making a
mock military display. These occurrences allow some people to
capitalize on events in ways that misrepresent the university as
promoting inhumane, anti-Semitic, fascist, and Nazi ideologies.
Without these ideologies, there would not have been the massacre of
the Jewish people in Europe; without the massacre, there would not
have been the enduring Palestinian catastrophe.” As the statement
was in response to a particular event within those “events or
scenes” he alludes to in this paragraph, and as he ends the
paragraph on the note that such an occurrence might imply that its
message is shared by the university, and that since the university
opposes “inhumane, anti-Semitic, fascist, and Nazi ideologies.” it
is reasonable to conclude that he regards this occurrence as
“inhumane, anti-Semitic, fascist, and Nazi”. He is of course not
coming outright and saying it , I suspect, for the same reason that
he all but conceals the reference to the Holocaust under the much
greater moral outrage of Palestinian displacement.
As you said, everything you said is “alluded to,” meaning he inferred it in very general, oblique terms. That’s certainly not sufficient to label it as Nusseibeh’s acknowledgement of the rally being anti Semitic.
[Comment deleted as comment rule violation–off-topic]
Richard,
1. Do you know what role, if any, the Brandeis Board of Trustees had in this decision? I’m not familiar with the particulars of the affiliation with Al-Quds but it seems to me that a decision to sever formal ties with another institution would fall under the purview of the BoT (unless of course the decision was delegated to the Uni Pres).
2. “Third, there is a great danger in making academic decisions using non-academic criteria. In this case, the decision to sever ties is purely a political and financial consideration. Schools that make major decisions on this basis risk losing or tarnishing their academic reputation.”
I’m with you on the political consideration part, however, isn’t it especially difficult, if not impossible, for a private institution to ignore or not take into consideration the financial impact and/or consequences of its decisions?
@ Ari Greenfield: The president was inundated I’m sure with phone calls from mega donors. As for the nature of the agreement, I’m trying to delve into that now. I don’t know if it’s a matter solely at the president’s discretion or whether departments weigh in on it as well. Will let you know what I discover.
Of course private universities need to consider financial consequences in their actions. But the Rose Art Museum fiasco shows what happens when you use financial considerations as your sole criteria. The Al Quds decision shows what happens when you use a combination of political & financial considerations. All these decisions excluded academic considerations, which is what my argument is all about. Academic considerations always should be foremost. IF they’re not then you’re no longer an academic institution but a weird hybrid of academic-Jewish-pro-Israel-nationalist.
@Richard
I read an article that said budgets cuts in recent years have reduced the affiliation to a facility exchange program. It did not provide further details.
@ Ari Greenfield: I really doubt that whatever affiliation either Brandeis or Syracuse had will harm Al Quds in any substantial way. In fact, most Palestinians will rally around the school for standing up to such American ‘bullies.’ But eventually I believe it will harm both U.S. schools.
For Brandeis president Lawrence, the subject is personal:
brandeis.edu/aqu/news/ -Error 404- page not found!
IMO, getting rid of the Al Quds University partnership was just waiting to happen. The demonstration in November was a needed provocation to make the final decision. It won’t be a suspension, it is very definite. The webpage of the Al-Quds University/Brandeis University Partnership [cached] has been deleted. Most of the information about Jimmy Carter Brandeis visit and the students travel to the West Bank – Students Crossing Boundaries – have been erased.
Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have a greater role in campus discussions
President Lawrence, it matters whose free speech is entertained …
Syracuse University has decided to suspend its affiliation with al-Quds:
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Syracuse-follows-Brandeis-in-halting-ties-with-Al-Quds-332650
Once lauded in Israeli media for opposing the BDS academic movement, Dr. Nusseibeh is now targeted by a US Islamophobic mindset and suffers a boycott himself.