Academia Amok

Once again, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is right on target. Check out his recent Jerusalem Post article on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's upcoming visit to Columbia University (click here). Here are some of his important points:

In reference to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's assertion that the invitation was in keeping with, "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum of robust debate."

Shmuley notes:

Of course, that is nonsense. Does anyone seriously believe that Columbia would invite a politician or scholar who denied that American slavery took place, or alleged that its effects on African-Americans was benign or exaggerated? Would Columbia host a Grand Wizard of the KKK who called for African nations to be wiped off the map?

And yet, Ahmadinejad is far worse. Not only has he denied the Holocaust and called repeatedly for Israel's destruction, he has gone beyond words and worked hard to put his plan into action.

As for double standards, he recalls that:

TWO YEARS ago, Harvard President Lawrence Summers lost his job for insinuating that women were not as intellectually competent in math and science as men. Yet Ahmadinejad presides over a government that brutally suppresses women, inflicting corporal punishment if they so much as go out in the street without a head covering. But none of this has prevented him from being feted by American academia.

Most interestingly, he clearly shows that the world (and sadly, in this particular case, academics) are directly complicit in providing cover for this nutcase and his dangerous viewpoints.

When I read about the Holocaust, I often ask myself how the world allowed Hitler to rise to prominence. After all, humanity bore continuous witness to the hatred and venom that spewed from his evil tongue against Jews. Did the nations of the world not isolate him as soon as he began frothing at the mouth?

But in light of Ahmadinejad being invited, on his last visit, to address the Council on Foreign Relations, and to speak at Columbia University on this trip, I now get it. Whatever Hitler said, nobody took him seriously. They treated his rantings as a tasteless form of benign entertainment. They found him darkly amusing. It took the incineration of six million Jews and the destruction of much of Europe to discover that, ultimately, the joke was on us.

I guess I should no longer be surprised that Abu El-Haj was recommended by Barnard (Columbia's sister institution) for tenure.

The Nadia Abu El-Haj Debates

Since my friends and family often ask me some variation of, “What is this Anthropology “stuff” that you are interested in and what do you guys talk about?” I thought I would share an example of a current e-mail debate that I had with two other of my fellow colleagues. The debate ostensibly centered on the question of whether or not Dr. Nadia Abu El-Haj should receive tenure at Barnard, but branched out to touch other issues including the role of academics, the importance of Anthropology and even touched on the nature of Truth (the one with a capital "T").

To learn more about the debate surrounding Dr. El-Haj, I direct you to the website of those who are seeking to deny her tenure. I was planning to direct you to the Wikipedia article, but it has recently been gutted by editors with the names Malik El Shabazz and Tiamut (over 65 edits between them). If you click on their names you will probably get some idea as to what their worldviews are. For now I can at least recommend the Wiki on Dr. El-Haj’s book (though Shabaz and Tiamut have been over this as has Huldra). Other articles and links are included below in the actual discussion.

My interlocutors have kindly permitted me to reprint our exchange in its entirety in this blog. Nonetheless, in the interest of anonymity, all names have been removed. I have tried to make this easy to follow, but am not sure how well I have succeeded. I have labeled my colleagues with the exceedingly bland monikers Writer X and Writer Y while maintaining the right to publish under the name Seraph. I apologize for the excessive length, but Anthropologists are kind of notorious for their prolixity.

Letter #1 by Writer X:

This is an issue that some of y'all may find interesting. Of course I don't know anything firsthand about the quality of work in question, and I understand that there exists a dramatic diversity of opinions about Israel's place in the world through history and so forth. But it appears that in this case a collective of politically-motivated alumni may succeed in getting tenure denied to an established and academically sound archaeologist. It might help to compare to our own situation - would we want our students here at UGA passing judgement on our careers based on their political opinions? Just $.02, but you should follow the links and form your own ideas. All best, .
Quoted e-mail:

A group of Barnard alumni have drafted an online petition to deny professor Abu el-Haj tenure because of her work examining the relationship between the discipline of archeology and the construction of Israeli nationalism. Attached is a link to an article in the chronicle about it as well as a petition in support of professor abu el-Haj. Please forward widely.

please pass along, with the Chronicle article:

Seraph Response #1:

Which one is it? Do you not, "know anything firsthand about the quality of work in question" or do you think that Dr. El-Haj is an "academically sound archaeologist"?

For those who would like to read more about this issue, please consider taking a look at this link.

If you prefer a more polemical approach.

Writer X rightly asks whether we would want, "our students here at UGA passing judgement on our careers based on their political opinions?" Hopefully, no more than we would we want our professors to be the type of people who use their scholarship to pass judgments based solely on their political opinions.

Letter #2 by Writer X:

Seraph asks: Which one is it? Do you not, "know anything firsthand about the quality of work in question "or do you think that Dr. El-Haj is an "academically sound archaeologist"?

It can be both - I haven't read the work, nor am I an archaeologist qualified to judge it, but since it's passed peer review at various journals and University of California Press, I feel justified in calling it "academically sound." That's my point: me, Seraph, politically-motivated former undergrads - none of these folks are qualified to judge or doing so from a place of good faith. Now, if someone were to hold a professional forum on El-Haj's work full of critical arguments, that might be awesome - but hardly cause to deny her tenure.

There are lots of tenured academics who are widely disagreed with and still considered "academically sound." The links that Seraph provides are a perfect example of attempts to subvert the academic review process for political purpose - just like what the creationists do, or David Horowitz, or the College Republicans and the "Guard Dawg" here at UGA, and etc. Peer review and our other methods of academic self-policing are imperfect of course, but they're a hell of a lot better than the transparent lobbying of non-academics.

Seraph Response #2:

I agree that neither you nor I can judge the quality of her work. For that reason I would not sign a petition either against of or in favor of her - nor for that matter would I advocate (read: lobby) others to do so by distributing a petition.Clearly there are some of her peers who are qualified to judge this matter who feel that her scholarship is not "academically sound". That is unless, of course, you feel that Jacob Lessner's review falls into the category of the "transparent lobbying of non-academics". (To learn about Dr. Lessner)

Writer X states:

"... since it's passed peer review at various journals and University of California Press, I feel justified in calling it "academically sound. ... The links that provides are a perfect example of attempts to subvert the academic review process for political purpose - just like what the creationists do, or David Horowitz, or the College Republicans and the "Guard Dawg" here at UGA, and etc."

Frankly, it is more than slightly disingenuous to believe that publishing houses such as California Press would not publish a polemic - peer reviewed or otherwise. They are in the business of selling books and controversy sells books. Moreover, to imply that somehow the peer review process at publishing houses or the academic review process is somehow "a view from nowhere" that is (or can be) unaffected by money, power, politics (academic and otherwise) as well as narrow self-interest goes against what we have been taught (and experienced) in our studies. I also think it smacks of elitism a la "Ivory Tower".

Personally I say let Barnard College decide the matter internally. At the same time, I think that academics can not have their cake and eat it. You can not claim to be an objective observer and yet at the same time get into the ring and then be surprised when the other guy punches at you. If you want to impact (our understanding of) the world by publishing under the pretense of objectivity, do not be shocked if people call you on that point. In short, I don't see why would one think that being an academic means that you are immune from having to publicly defend your points of view? Why should the public be expected to leave this in the hands of academics?

To me this sounds a lot like leaving the cat to guard the milk.

Letter #3 By Writer X:

Hi Seraph, and you other poor suckers. These are good points, for the most part, but I think they misrepresent my argument and that of those defending El-Haj. Since Seraph agrees that he wouldn't sign a petition against her tenure or advocate doing so, we don't really have any points of disagreement left - that's what the whole discussion was about.

And yet...An academic press, even the most highly regarded academic press in the country, might publish a politically-charged piece in hopes of stirring controversy and hence, selling more books. This is no surprise. It doesn't follow, though, that therefore the book in question is less worthy than other, less controversial volumes. If the book meets the standards of a reputable academic press, than it is - by definition - academically sound. Soundness is defined by the approbation of the relevant peer group. Is El-Haj's book good, morally acceptable, or True? Dunno. Doesn't matter.This is precisely the opposite of a "view from nowhere." Peer review is a composite view assembled from several very specific places. That compiling effect defines what we do as academics - we are a public sphere. The fact that self-interest and "politics" enters into it in no way calls its validity into question, because we are not after Truth or Quality but the consensus of the relevant public. This is not a "pretense of objectivity" by any means - it's an explicit acknowledge of the imperfect quality of everyone's knowledge.

Which is what is lacking in the argument of the movement to block El-Haj's tenure, as it is lacking in the movement to remove evolution from the curricula, "politics" from the lecture hall, etc. The folks behind the petition claim that the Truth (in this case about Israel and its use of the archaeological record) is a knowable thing, that El-Haj _doesn't_ have it, and therefore shouldn't be able to pursue her career. They are attempting to bring a specific form of politically powerful influence to bear on a sphere (academia) that carefully insulates itself against that kind of influence. You could call that insulation the "Ivory Tower," or you could call it academic freedom, intellectual autonomy, etc.

Which is why this argument of Seraph's:

"In short, I don't see why would one think that being an academic means that you are immune from having to publicly defend your points of view? Why should the public be expected to leave this in the hands of academics?"

...makes no sense. Publicly defend one's points of view, share the debate about an important issue with any and every taker? Absolutely. But the people circulating this petition aren't trying to debate El-Haj's work, they are explicitly trying to silence it. If they want to publicly critique her, write scathing reviews, heckle her at speaking events, that's all wonderful. But when they are using their political influence with a university's board of regents and so forth to stop an academic from doing her work, that's just censorship. I think we should all be against that, and I don't think it's elitist to think so.

Thanks!

At this point in the debate Writer Y interjected with their opinions:

Letter #1 By Writer Y:

I have a couple of points that I would like to interject:

First of all, I would like to clarify that El-Haj is not an archaeologist, but a socio-cultural anthropologist who studies relationships between scientific knowledge and things like politics, power, identity and nationalism. If I had to put her work into a sub-disciplinary niche within anthropology, I'd say that it would be "science studies".

Secondly, El-Haj's claim to scholarship is not based simply on the publication of one book, as the anonymous authors of the petition against her tenure case claim. I have not read the book that they question, but I am familiar with some of her journal publications and her research seems pretty main-stream for anthropology. If the case against her tenure is going to be based on a rejection of a "positivist commitment to scientific methods" (see above-linked petition), then it's a sad day for many in anthropology. For the anonymous authors of this web petition to claim that El-Haj's claim to scholarship (and by extension, tenure) lies in a single publication is patently ridiculous as well.

Third, I'm not sure that I actually understand the following passage from a previous message on this thread:

Seraph states: "Personally I say let Barnard College decide the matter internally. At the same time, I think that academics can not have their cake and eat it. You can not claim to be an objective observer and yet at the same time get into the ring and then be surprised when the other guy punches at you. If you want to impact (our understanding of) the world by publishing under the pretense of objectivity, do not be shocked if people call you on that point. In short, I don't see why would one think that being an academic means that you are immune from having to publicly defend your points of view? Why should the public be expected to leave this in the hands of academics?"

I mean, I understand that a scholar should be willing and able to publicly defend his or her research (and am in fact an advocate of public scholarship), but how exactly should we go about letting the public decide who does and does not get a fair shake when their tenure comes up for consideration? Anonymously-penned web petitions? Maybe I'm being naive, but should tenure really be based on the political popularity of the/your research focus, or on the quality and quantity of your research as judged by the standards of your discipline? I don't see the movement to deny El-Haj tenure as a call to publicly defend a point of view, but to restrict a scholar's access to professional advancement based on interesting reasoning about the nature of the research and the objectivity of the research.

Here's a question, bearing in mind that anything dealing with politics and power in Israel/Palestine can set off a firestorm: If El-Haj's research was the same, but dealt with relationships between scientific knowledge and Chinese, British, or Icelandic nationalism and state power, would the situation be the same?

Seraph Response #3:

According to Writer X:"If the book meets the standards of a reputable academic press, than it is _by definition_ academically sound. Soundness is defined by the approbation of the relevant peer group. Is El-Haj's book good, morally acceptable, or True? Dunno. Doesn't matter."As I am sure you are well aware, books are notoriously easier to publish than articles, so I disagree that just because something is accepted for publication it is "by definition" academically sound. Indeed, the fact that it is published by an "academic" press does not make the academics of the work more "sound". As I noted before, even an academic press needs to publish some books that will "pay the bills".I can not judge her work, but I think that one can not simply ignore the fact that many of El-Haj's colleagues who were not consulted before the book was published have found her research to be lacking. In short, I think that it does matter if El-Haj's book is, "good, morally acceptable, or True?" (to use Writer X's words).

Having said this, I admit to being of the minority that is emphatically not relativist and believe that there are in actuality "Truths" out there that can be known. For this reason alone, I suspect that in the end we will probably have to "agree to disagree". Personally speaking, I have little respect for people who shoot arrows and then draw bulls eyes.

Which brings me to my second point. El-Haj is asking for admittance into a group of her peers. This is not only a closed group, but one that provides status and bestows the one who is accepted with a certain air of authority. She will be representing her university and her discipline. In the end, receiving tenure is not a "right" but rather a privilege.

Hence, I see nothing wrong with either her peers or the the Board of Regents at the university at which she is requesting tenure taking a close look at her scholarship to see if it meets their standards. It is also for this reason that I don't think that the academic review process should be influenced by petitions FOR or AGAINST her - regardless of the strengths/weaknesses of those petitions.

Writer X states that, "we are not after Truth or Quality but the consensus of the relevant public" and Writer Y asserts that research should be judged "by the standards of your discipline" i.e. the relevant public. I wonder what is the worth of standards not based on "Truth or Quality" or why we would think anyone else would take such findings seriously? That both Writer X and Writer Y mean "real" standards does not make it any better nor does it do much for Anthropology's credibility. In fact, it is precisely for this reason that Anthropology as a field has become more irrelevant than ever. And this precisely when it is needed more than ever.

Writer X’s point:"...makes no sense. Publicly defend one's points of view, share the debate about an important issue with any and every taker? Absolutely. But the people circulating this petition aren't trying to debate El-Haj's work, they are explicitly trying to silence it. If they want to publicly critique her, write scathing reviews, heckle her at speaking events, that's all wonderful. But when they are using their political influence with a university's board of regents and so forth to stop an academic from doing her work, that's just censorship. I think we should all be against that, and I don't think it's elitist to think so."Sorry, but this just a bit melodramatic (e.g. "explicitly trying to silence it"). As noted above, tenure means that you are being admitted into an elite club of "tenured" academics. You can still be an academic and there are many people both academics and others who do not have PhD's who conduct research, write books and even interesting and insightful papers. This is not censorship, but rather holding people accountable for what they write and say.Finally, to Writer Y:"Here's a question, bearing in mind that anything dealing with politics and power in Israel/Palestine can set off a firestorm: If El-Haj's research was the same, but dealt with relationships between scientific knowledge and Chinese, British, or Icelandic nationalism and state power, would the situation be the same?"I am tempted to say that the answer to your question is "The Jewish Lobby". Since I am afraid that there are those out there who would take me seriously, I will try to do what we are supposed to do whenever we try to understand something in Anthropology - i.e. "contextualize". This work comes in the context of a continuous assault by Palestinians to de-legitimate Jewish historical claims to the land of Israel and hence the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their homeland. If Icelandic nationalism was constantly de-legitimized and if Icelandic nationhood were under constant existential threats, then I suspect a similar work would raise a few hackles in Reykjavik and Door County. I suspect it might even cause problems for someone writing such a work to get tenure at the University of Wisconsin.

Response #4 By Writer X:

Seraph wrote: “Hence, I see nothing wrong with either her peers or the the Board of Regents at the university at which she is requesting tenure taking a close look at her scholarship to see if it meets their standards.”

Writer X: That's the tenure review process that the petition is trying to disrupt!

Response #2 By Writer Y:

According to Seraph: "Since I am afraid that there are those out there who would take me seriously, I will try to do what we are supposed to do whenever we try to understand something in Anthropology - i.e. "contextualize". This work comes in the context of a continuous assault by Palestinians to de-legitimate Jewish historical claims to the land of Israel and hence the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their homeland. If Icelandic nationalism was constantly de-legitimized and if Icelandic nationhood were under constant existential threats, then I suspect a similar work would raise a few hackles in Reykjavik and Door County. I suspect it might even cause problems for someone writing such a work to get tenure at the University of Wisconsin."

I would like to reply that I do not see what the issue at hand has to do with "Truth"; relativism; the rightness or wrongness (morally speaking) of El-Haj, the Israeli state, Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, etc. To me this issue is about freedom of academic inquiry being directly and indirectly hindered by popular politics. If a research topic is "hot-button" and causes controversy or debate, the researcher should definitely be prepared to meet the challenges put to him or her by public and peer alike because challenges will surely come. However, to be denied promotion or even the option of getting a fair shake at the tenure table when your review comes up because somebody's politics, religion, or personal passion clash with your analysis is unjust and stinks of censorship and blacklisting.

Seraph wrote: "Writer X states that, "we are not after Truth or Quality but the consensus of the relevant public" and Writer Y asserts that research should be judged "by the standards of your discipline" i.e. the relevant public. I wonder what is the worth of standards not based on "Truth or Quality" or why we would think anyone else would take such findings seriously? That both Writer X and Writer Y mean "real" standards does not make it any better nor does it do much for Anthropology's credibility. In fact, it is precisely for this reason that Anthropology as a field has become more irrelevant than ever. And this precisely when it is needed more than ever."Is it possible for one to speak of objectivity and contextualization, yet advocate evaluation of research on standards of "Truth (capital T???) and Quality"? Once again, I must say that I really do not understand this paragraph. Especially the link between the need for Truth being related to the alleged irrelevancy of anthropology. And, given the context, I would wonder what exactly is meant by the statement that "[anthropology] is needed more than ever"?

Seraph Response #4:

According to Writer Y, “I do not see what the issue at hand has to do with "Truth"; relativism; the rightness or wrongness (morally speaking) of El-Haj” AND “Is it possible for one to speak of objectivity and contextualization, yet advocate evaluation of research on standards of "Truth (capital T???) and Quality"?”

Frankly, I am not sure that I could have made my case much better than you have. The answer is: Yes. Yes, you can judge a work's quality and be objective and speak of standards and truth. I do not see why one can not talk about objectivity and Truth. That is unless, of course, one believes that there is no “Objective Truth”. Of course that would mean that you believe Truth (with a capital T) to be subjective (and no doubt relative).

As for the contention that this is a case where someone is being denied, “promotion or even the option of getting a fair shake at the tenure table … because somebody's politics, religion, or personal passion clash with your analysis is unjust and stinks of censorship and blacklisting”

First off it is too soon to tell how all this will pan out. Secondly, as I noted before, I have no problem with her peers AND the Board of Regents making this decision based on standards*.

Personally, I think that an Anthropology or (to use your words) an “analysis” that is not based on objective truths - or an “analysis” that is wholly theory driven - is akin to Creative Writing and not something I am interested in. Since a tenured Professor in Anthropology at a prestigious school represents the discipline, I think that this scrutiny is hardly censorship (after all, she already wrote what she wrote AND her ideas are getting a lot of press) nor is it blacklisting (you realize that it is actually possible to keep teaching without tenure). If anything, it would be a non-promotion - something that can happen when your work does not meet the existing standards*.

Third, I would like to take your argument and make it ad absurdum. Would you say that someone who denies Evolution should be tenured because they have an interesting “analysis”? How about someone who espouses racist or hateful ideologies – should they get tenure because their ideologies are based on a (warped) theoretical perspective? Would denying them tenure be tantamount to blacklisting and censorship?

As for your final two queries regarding what is, “… the link between the need for Truth being related to the alleged irrelevancy of anthropology. And … what exactly is meant by the statement that "[anthropology] is needed more than ever"?

I am not sure if you have been following the news lately, but there is a great deal of suffering in the world that stems to a great degree from different groups not understanding one another. What happens in a distant corner of the world has repercussions on our lives and vice versa. In my humble opinion, Anthropology is more needed than ever so that we can better understand one another and the processes that affect all of our lives.

Of course, to do so there need to be some “standards”* or the rest of humanity that is not living in “creative writing land” will find our work irrelevant (or at least not more relevant to decision-making than creative writing). In fact, the hallmark of Anthropology has been the relentless drive to understand human diversity by living in the cultures we study while actually ground-testing our theories and hypotheses to see if they conform with observed and objective reality.

Seraph

* Refer back to previous discussions on “standards” vis a vis Truth, objectivity, quality and relativism.

Response #5 By Writer X:

Hi Folks - aside from the various serious epistemological problems, there's some logistical problems.

Seraph says: “First off it is too soon to tell how all this will pan out. Secondly, as I noted before, I have no problem with her peers AND the Board of Regents making this decision based on standards.*”

As far as I know, a Board of Regents never ordinarily gets involved in tenure cases. The department takes a vote based on strict analysis of the candidates record of teaching, publishing, community work, whatever their previously published standards* stipulate. They take a vote and pass that vote to the appropriate dean. The dean, taking into account disciplinary issues, budgetary issues, the public image of the university and so on, makes a final decision. Most often this reflects the department's vote, except in extreme cases.

To bring in the Board of Regents, as this petition proposes to do, essentially says, "We don't care about the due process you usually use, or your disciplinary standards - we're going to raise a stink and threaten to take the money away." That's what the BoR is for - the money. They get involved when they think that a university's faculty-and-dean-and-President approved activity jeopardizes the funding stream from the state and private donors. If that’s where this controversy is headed, it's nothing but bad news for educators of any political orientation.

Now, regarding Seraph’s claim that being denied tenure is really no big deal at all, well - talk to a professor. One can continue to teach w/o it, but not at that university. One has to leave one's job, classes and students, pack up the house, and hope to get work somewhere else, with the lingering smell of failure hovering over one's head.

Sure, people do it - but it sucks and is generally considered the next-worst punishment to being fired. If every publication and lecture we gave carried that threat, none of us would ever write or teach anything controversial, and that would also suck. That's why I call it 'censorship,' and say that El-Haj is being silenced, and I don't think that's melodramatic, I think that's pretty explicitly what the petitioners are after.

Response #3 By Writer Y

I think that Writer X’s last post was very well-stated.

That being said, I think I need to clear up a little misunderstanding on Seraph’s part. I never said El-Haj should get tenure, but that her work should be evaluated in a fair manner (the same way that anyone's tenure case would be evaluated at her university). Your evolution analogy is little more than a straw man argument, and I still fail to understand how useful or feasible standards based on "Truth" might be. Truth (with a capital T, of course) tends to be very problematic when it comes to issues of policy.

I think that the deeper issues that have emerged in this discussion (Truth, subjectivity, relativism, etc.) may best be saved for debate over coffee at a later date.

Seraph Response #5:

Again, while I do not support either petition, I think that a university has the right to decide who it will promote. That includes ALL those who are decision makers at a university.

A quick search for the mission statement for Barnard College’s Board of Trustees did not yield results, but I did find the one for Columbia University:

“Overall governance of the University lies in the hands of its 24-member Board of Trustees. The Trustees select the President, oversee all faculty and senior administrative appointments, monitor the budget, supervise the endowment, and protect University property. (See: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/secretary/trustees/index.html)

This is pretty standard stuff for universities and while it does not mean that they get involved in every decision, every case is under their purview.

As for tenure … Sure it sucks not to get tenure, but why should someone get tenure if their work sucks i.e. does not meet standards? In the meantime I was only suggesting a “wait and see” approach.

In any case, I suspect that this thread has maxed out its utility and I am signing off. Besides, I need the time to sort out my “various serious epistemological problems”!

At this point, the debate continued off of the listserve:

Seraph’s Letter to Writer Y:

As promised, I will let you have the last word and am not sending this out to everyone. Nonetheless, I thought to write to make it clear that there may actually have been a misunderstanding on your part regarding what I was prescribing. I never said that the Board of Trustees should get involved, but certainly they could if they wanted to and I would not see that as censorship or unfair since: 1) it is under their purview and; 2) the image of the university is something that they are entrusted to maintain.

As for the "straw man analogy" ... Is it? I mentioned evolution precisely because Writer X mentioned it in one of his first posts (regarding the, "movement to remove evolution from the curricula") in the same breath he derided the notion that "Truth … is a knowable thing". This naturally begs the question of what is so wrong with the "movement to remove evolution" if Truth is really something that is not knowable.

Obviously, in practice, Writer X does not believe that it is not knowable, regardless of what he may think theoretically. Otherwise, why would he care – either in this case or the case of El-Haj? After all, if the Truth is not knowable, then Evolution is just another ethnoscience and should at most be taught along with Creationism. Moreover, based on this and paraphrasing your previous arguments, couldn't one then logically contend that the fact that we as Anthropologists do not see the need to teach Creationism is tantamount to censorship?

In any case, I will happily take you up on your offer to discuss these important and interesting matters in a more social setting.Finally, I would like to suggest an op-ed published in The Forward yesterday that addresses this whole issue of "censorship" and the debate that will certainly surround Walt and Mearsheimer's soon to be released book. Here is the link.

Writer X’s Letter to Seraph

Hi Seraph, I was just thinking that when you get around to blogging up the El-Haj stuff and etc, you might want to look at or include this discussion about Ward Churchill.

It offers some (much-needed;)) support for your argument - a popular professor exposed as a fraud only after a right-wing lynchmob went after him for a tasteless remark. Until then, peer review and tenure etc had (un)wittingly passed over his shoddy or faky scholarship. One might call it good results from bad practices, but in any case a good comparative example. $.02, as they say. Cheers.

Seraph’s Response to Writer X:

I finally had an opportunity to read the link you sent. I have been enjoying three days at home with a feverish child and no Internet access.

I.

I enjoyed reading the musings in Savage Mind and generally agree that this case is, in fact, indicative of a larger problem. If I agree with anyone, it is with Orson Buggeigh who has commented on the article. I mentioned this in our exchange as well - i.e. that we should not be rewarding scholarship that is based on shooting arrows first and bulls eyes later with tenure. I personally do not want to be associated with such a discipline since it makes the discipline a laughingstock and hence irrelevant.

So, if anything, I am advocating a balance between being totally theory driven and completely fact-focused. At the moment (in Anthropology) I think the pendulum has swung too far to the theory-driven side of things so that many people think of data collection as an imposition devised by people suffering from OCD.

II.

There are some interesting similarities between Churchill and El-Haj that do not come out of the article that I wanted to mention. I think in both cases many people want to believe what they are saying since it is only polite to do so in "progressive" circles. Of course Native Americans (and Palestinians) have suffered (and are suffering), but this certainly does not absolve anyone of the need to base their arguments in fact.

By not doing so we end up with a caricatured and essentialized view of people in history. Did whites/settlers infect Native Americans in 1763? They must have. After all we know that they were genocidal and evil.

Unfortunately, history is far more complex and not as neat precisely because people and culture is complex and far from neat. This is why I think it is so important to avoid presentist historical analysis and why it is also so important to question our own motivations.

III.

For some reason everyone seems to assume that they know my motivations and clearly to some degree it colors what they think I am saying and what they say to me. For example, I am thinking of Writer Y’s's question about whether this would all be a big thing if it did not touch on Israel/Palestine issues.

Actually, I think the same question in reverse is screaming to be asked. Would El-Haj receive such support if she were not an Arab intellectual? Would Ward Churchill's shenanigans be put up with if we did not think that his defense of an oppressed people was essentially just? Why else would people who should know better put up with such a tangled skein of lies that he has woven? To me this just smacks of a reverse discrimination and yes, a soft form of racism.

IV.

I wonder if you were aware that, much like Ward Churchill, Edward Said - the anti-Orientalist, professional refugee and anti-Oslo campaigner - invented large portions of his own life. If you don't believe me, check out the article by Justus Reid Weiner in the September 1999 issues of Commentary. In fact, when confronted with the facts Said admitted that his "autobiography" was not really. Instead he argued that it did not matter because what he had written had "really" happened to many Palestinians and was thus even more "representative"!

IMHO the fact that he was never held to account for numerous lies is a silent testimony to the acquiescence of the more "progressive" members of "respectable society". After all, he wrote what many people wanted to believe. That all of this matters can be seen in the extensive damage that his works have done to our understanding of the Middle East as well as to Israel's standing in the world.

You may think that this is an academic debate or sour grapes on my part, but in reality people's lives (both Israeli and Palestinian) are hanging in the balance. That is why I think that, regardless of whatever epistemological reservations you may have about my reasoning, that in the end truth and standards are important.

V.

Finally, if Savage Minds made my points better than me it is because I was never trying to make those points. I am smart enough to know that if I were to try to present arguments against El-Haj and her various "theories" that my arguments would be written off as the arguments of a "true-believer" or those of the Jewish Lobby. (Maybe you don't have to think in these terms, but I can't help but to think this way.)

In fact, that is why I tried to argue the law rather than to argue the actual case. Based on this I contended that the tenure review could rightly be influenced by the Board of Trustees and that the entire matter is under their purview. That is precisely why I found your point about whether or not this is usually done to be completely immaterial.

Should the Supreme Court have intervened in the 2000 election? Whether they should or shouldn't have, the fact is that they did and they do actually have the right to rule on this issue based on our constitution and system of laws. Should the person who won the popular vote be the one sitting in the Oval office? These are philosophical questions and questions regarding a particular system. The fact remains that our electoral system is not set up that way.

For recent articles on this issue: The Jewish Advocate, The New York Times