Last night I did a post on a Yale case demonstrating the influence of pro-Israel money in academia. Here's a related situation. Roger Cohen of the IHT makes the following important point in a letter to Marty Peretz on the TNR site:
I gave a talk last week to several hundred
people in the Iranian Studies Department at Stanford. There are few
such departments left in the country, yet another sign of the
lamentable effects of three decades of non-communication.
Well, Israel Studies departments are growing like gangbusters, as Mitchell Bard, the Israel lobbyist reports. I wonder why?
[T]he American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) created the Israel
Scholar Development Fund to encourage young scholars to enter the
field, to bring the best Israeli scholars as visitors to American
campuses, and to advise donors how to ensure that universities do not
misuse their investments….
The hope is that once a university and its donors see how valuable it is to have an Israeli scholar on campus, they will want to have one on a regular or permanent basis. In just the last two years, centers and chairs have been established at Brandeis, the University of Maryland, UCLA, and Yeshiva University. Centers also exist at Columbia, University of Denver, and NYU, bringing the total (including American and Emory) to nine. Most of these remain one-person operations, but several are expanding. In addition, 15 Israel studies chairs have been created.
Hey, let's listen to the hasaba points of the zionist zealot who lives in his own gaited community
regarding white trash trailers and those evil white gentiles–who are the ones dying to protect his freedom of speech:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-and-loathing-on-an-american-campus-444585.html
The problem is that Fink is notorious, not noted. He was proven to be a poor scholar and a poorer educator.
I have heard little but praise for Finkelstein's teaching ability, and he has done valuable work in shredding the Peter's book (and Dershowitz's attempt to resurrect it), and dissecting Goldhagen's poor scholarship. He also exposed the corruption in holocaust reparations efforts. His last book was published by the Univ. of California press, and he was praised by Raul Hilberg, who was disgusted by the holocaust reparations racket and Peters and Goldhagen's poor scholarship, but did not like to get into mudfights. Finkelstein thrives on mudfights. I gather you don't like Finkelstein, but you waste your time with nonsense like "he was proven." Passive voice appeals to unnamed authorities are a dead giveaway that you are just mindlessly repeating talking points fed to you by others.
"Follow the money." That's the first thing my professor said for us to do when investigating or writing about something.
My god Phil, you are funny – funny and I am really convinced now that you are a complete light-weight. Why should they hire Finkelstein when they have other, far more capable scholars on the subject than he? To the best of my knowledge, he has never even been to Israel, exept in transit to the occupied territories. He also does not speak or read Hebrew (or Arabic for that matter). In short, he is not qualified as a "noted scholar of Israel studies" any more than you are. The fact that they would probably not hire Norman Finkelstein is proof of just what? That the Departments of Israel Studies do not hire professors that hold your position? The inability to see that other positions are valid is, in addition to being superficial, a sign of immaturity.
What comes around, goes around: The departmental minority report cites Dr. Finkelstein’s personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz, Benny Morris, and the holocaust authors Eli Wiesel and Jerzy Kosinski. My own examination of Prof. Finkelstein’s works corrobarates the minority report’s claims and conclusions in this regard. My reading of Dr. Finkelstein’s work, especially The Holocaust Industry, where in one chapter alone Goldhagen, Morris, Wiesel, Kosinski and many others are collectively attacked as “hoaxters and huxters”, typifies his apparent penchant of reducing an argument and oppositional views to the inevitable personal and reputation damaging attack, demeaning those with whom he disagrees. It is my view that DePaul’s commitment to personalism basically prohibits addressing individuals with the kind of invective or insult that I find all too common in Dr. Finkelstein’s scholarship where the dignity of the individuals with whom he disagrees are routinely disrespected. Chuck Suchar, Dean College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
What exactly are they going to teach? How in 60 years, they've managed to ethnically cleanse a land and kill a couple of thousand Palestinians
Never fear, Jacob. People here will just claim that Suchar was in the pocket of AIPAC and the Zionists.
So this Chuck guy resorts to using ad hominem attacks against a person (Finkelstein) who uses ad hominem attacks against other people (Dershowitz et al.)?)
Follow the money, indeed! Weren't we just talking about this yesterday? Prince Alwaleed donated $40 million just to Georgetown and Harvard. The article that Phil cites, states that, since 1979 total funding from Arab Governments and individuals over the last 30 years has exceeded $300. Considering there are only 15 universities with "Israel centers" – most of them one-man operations, according to the article – even a generous estimate of the total donations wouldn't even come to $45 million. So, Saleema, why don't you just "Follow the money"…
Shafiq, Shafiq, may Allah bless your little heart. This "Chuck guy" happens to be the dean of the School of Liberal Arts, and I don't think that what he says about Norm can be interpreted in any way as "ad hominem" attacks. As dean, it is his responsibility to provide his opinion on the level of Finkelstein's scholarship and of how he presents it to the outside world upon whom DePaul depends for its reputation. Frankly, I have read Finkelstein's Myth and Reality, and I didn't find that his analysis went beyond a first-year graduate student's book reports. It most certainly did not leave me with the desire to sample more of his meager collection of academic works.
Which means that he's not very qualified to speak on issues relating to the Middle East. It does seem that most other academics are impressed with Finkelstein's work including the whole of De Pauls' Politics department. Now I'm not an expert here, but it makes more sense to take the views of an entire Politics department than the views of a Dean of a Liberal Arts and Sciences department
Let me put the question to you. What makes Norman Finkelstein particularly qualified as a scholar specializing in the Middle East? He doesn't speak any of the languages of the Middle East, nor does he have a particularly in-depth understanding of the history of the region. His most significant works are on the Holocaust, which, as I'm sure you will agree, is primarily a European event. As to what "most other academics" may think or not think about Finkelstein's work, I don't think that either of us are in a position to say, and the paucity (i.e. absense) of peer reviewed articles in his CV makes it even more difficult to ascertain what his qualifications and achievements are. Finally, the dean does have a right to override DePaul's Politics department. In fact, preliminary tenure votes are routinely overriden, for a variety of reasons (and not just because of the evil influence of "The Lobby").
Well, he's qualified in Political Science, which allows him to specialise in the politics of any region. He's been studying Zionism and the Holocaust since his post-graduate times. Both Zionism and the effect of the Holocaust combined (although European in their origin) led to the creation of the State of Israel. I know you'll probably disagree with me here, but in my opinion, having no knowledge of a language (and relying on translations by several different people) is better than having faulty knowledge of a language. Arabic takes several years to master and because a lot of Arabic sources would be in a variety of different dialects and time phases, it would be impossible for one person to be able to accurately translate all the pieces. As for Hebrew, I don't know. I do realise that the Dean does have a right to override the Politics Department, but in no way does this 'prove' that Finkelstein is a 'poor scholar and a poorer educator' (Jacobwolfen's words), which is what I had issue with.
Yes. Start with the over a quarter billion big macher American Jews have donated to universities mentioned yesterday. Now that doesn't affect their governing boards, does it?
"I didn't find that his analysis went beyond a first-year graduate student's book reports. It most certainly did not leave me with the desire to sample more of his meager collection of academic works." This is meaningless. What matters is whether his facts and interpretations are right. And while I don't care for Finkelstein's rhetorical style, I've read his books and he generally does give specific reasons for his criticisms of people. Suchar's complaint is a cheap shot–it gives the impression Finkelstein does nothing but rant and rave. His last book, for instance, was an excellent summary of the work done by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem on Israel's human rights violations, but someone who wanted to attack it could no doubt pull out samples of Norman's overheated rhetoric and give someone the false impression that this is all there is to Finkelstein's work.
Most Israel Studies professors I know are the MOST critical of Israel. If that's not ironic (especially considering the intent of the donors) I don't know what is. Likewise, Arab studies professors here are some of the BIGGEST voices against authoritarianism in the Arab world.
Probably true. Arab studies professors here are some of the BIGGEST voices against authoritarianism in the Arab world. I don't see how any right minded person can support authoritarianism anywhere
Jacob Lassner and Nadia Abu el-Haj
The funding of chairs and departments is a function of demographics. The successful Jewish business-people, professionals of my parents and my generation are retiring, funding charitable trusts that they hope will continue beyond their lives.
Arabic takes several years to master and because a lot of Arabic sources would be in a variety of different dialects and time phases, it would be impossible for one person to be able to accurately translate all the pieces. Just FYI, written Arabic does not have dialects. There's only one written Arabic.
So,let me see "lurker". You're comparing the money donated to establish university medical centers, schools of business and art, and chairs in a variety of liberal arts and science departments by Jewish citizens of the United States with money donated by Arab nationals and Arab governments specifically to foster "better relations" (viz. influence) with the Arab and Muslim world?