EI has the latest on the Martin Kramer debacle at Harvard, the fellow who called for the west to take action to limit the Palestinian birthrate. Harvard offered mixed signals on Kramer, but is sticking by his right to be controversial. I’m all for controversy myself; but I would remind people, Kramer is an extremist fool who calls for racist population measures and he has a platform to be controversial, at Harvard, while the only Palestinians in the mainstream discourse are the most moderate. And (as Ali Gharib notes) Norman Finkelstein is controversial, but he’s sitting in Brooklyn reading Gandhi’s collected works in 52 volumes. Abunimah makes the point below.
In an initial response to an email from EI’s Ali Abunimah, Professor Beth Simmons, the director of WCFIA, wrote, "I agree with your assessment of the appalling nature of these [Kramer's] statements," but added, "the WCFIA does not have a policy of censoring or censuring our affiliates on the basis of their opinions." Simmons also stated, "I very much hope you bring these [Kramer's] words to the attention of others affiliated with the WCFIA, Harvard and the broader community, where I hope they will garner their just reaction." She encouraged individuals to make their concerns known to Professor Stephen Rosen, who is in charge of the National Security Studies Program of which Kramer is a fellow.
A short time later, however, a statement jointly signed by Simmons and Professors Jeffry Frieden and James Robinson (who are acting directors while Simmons is on sabbatical) appeared to reverse course.
The statement read: "Over the past several days, we have heard from several members of the public, and of the Harvard community, who object to the statements of Martin Kramer at a recent conference."
The statement continues, "Accusations have been made that Martin Kramer’s statements are genocidal. These accusations are baseless. Kramer’s statements, available at link to www.martinkramer.org express dismay with the policy of agencies that provide aid to Palestinian refugees, and that tie aid entitlements to the size of refugee families. Kramer argues that this policy encourages population growth among refugee communities. While these views may be controversial, there is no way they can be regarded as genocidal."
The statement then goes on to implicitly criticize those who have criticized Kramer: "Those who have called upon the Weatherhead Center to dissociate itself from Kramer’s views, or to end Kramer’s affiliation with the Center, appear not to understand the role of controversy in an academic setting. It would be inappropriate for the Weatherhead Center to pass judgement on the personal political views of any of its affiliates, or to make affiliation contingent upon some political criterion. Exception may be made for statements that go beyond the boundaries of protected speech, but there is no sense in which Kramer’s remarks could be considered to fall into this category."
In his letter to WCFIA director Simmons, Abunimah had asked, "I wonder how long Mr. Kramer’s views would be tolerated if — all other things being equal — he were an Arab scholar who had called for Jews to be placed in a giant, sealed enclosure which virtually no one is allowed to leave and enter, and deprived of food and schooling for their children in order to reduce their birthrate?"
WHAT IS IT WITH “KRAMER’S”?
All joking aside, the other Kramer was brought to task and paid dearly for his racist statements – but not the Kramer of the hallowed halls. I guess it just depends on the setting, and whether the target of the speech is Arab or African American.
This same school has loose canons like Dershowitz, that holds the Felix Frankfurter chair of law, and this one goes around saying how you must indiscriminately kill everyone and anyone among the Palestinian population. They (Harvard) have war criminals attending their “management” classes, and those who commit crimes against humanity teach. If teachers and fellows of institutions like these are allowed to go on without recourse or redress, than I say they are worthless and traitors to their calling – pursuit of the truth. If they reduce genocidal statements like Kramer’s to “opinions,” than it is not only true that everyone has opinions like there are assholes, but there is a peculiar type of asshole that has opinions like this that is a product of elite institutions like Harvard.
A commenter at Juan Cole’s site points out that Kramer has recently accepted a new gig at a college in Israel.
This is more than just an isolated incidence, Harvard seems to be breeding these types of individuals –
THE BOYS FROM ISRAEL AND HARVARD
If these words are simply ‘controversial’ at Weatherhead, then shouldn’t there naturally be some reaction from other Weatherhead associates vigorously contesting Kramer’s contentions? One would expect, in a lively academic environment, to hear all sides of a ‘controversial’ issue, yet strangely this is not the case. Is the term reserved simply for those cases where the powerful say something a little too repugnant for the wider public to stomach?
Biljana Plavšić, time to dust off your resume and applying for a fellowship!
I think the Harvard people spelled wrong. Surely they didn’t mean the “role of controversy in an academic setting” but “the role of cowardice in an academic setting”.
One notes that both Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo are alumni from Harvard.
Still shocked and appalled by Harvard’s standards? Myself, I’m only appalled.
Harvard is a breeding ground for extremism.
Martin Kramer will be doing panels for the aipac policy conference next month, and sitting with Congressman Brad Sherman of CA (D) . Sherman’s record in California is worse than that of Jane Harman on issues of Palestine/Israel. (sherman sponsored a bid to call to defund the UNRWA. Harman did not co-sponsor that resolution. Another panel he shares with Steve Emerson.
Pingback: Harvard’s reigning ideology (neoconservatism) is epitomized by Rosen, dominant male and patron to sandbox-man