Yesterday I did a post about Alan Dershowitz attacking a Harvard colleague, Duncan Kennedy, in his speech at Tel Aviv University last week. Dershowitz assailed Kennedy’s Harvard Law School class on Israel/Palestine legal issues but didn’t mention Kennedy by name. Then Kennedy responded to Dershowitz in a collegial Dear Alan email.
There’s been a lot of water under the bridge since then.
First, here is the syllabus of Duncan Kennedy’s class. Boy, does this look good. I have always said that we need more non-Jewish scholars of Jewish history. The late great Gershom Scholem disagreed; he said that Jews should write Jewish history. No, we need more air in the room. We need to understand this majestic history that is now so engaged with elements of militarism and imperial power.
Second, Dershowitz has now responded curtly by email to Kennedy. I reprint the entire email below. I must laugh at one line. Dershowitz says that Kennedy never invited him to speak at the class. Well, Dershowitz also was upset that Brandeis did not invite him to debate Jimmy Carter three years ago and that Walt and Mearsheimer didn’t invite him to debate. It is grandiosity on his part, and seems an acute variant of Groucho-Marx disease (I only want to be a member of a club that won’t have me).
OK, now here’s Dershowitz’s letter, which begins with a reference to former HLS student Joel Pollak, an Israel lobbyist and phenom who is already running for Senate from Illinois (why not Supreme Court?):
Dear Duncan,
Joel’s account would seem to confirm the thrust of my comment. I also seem to recall that at least one student requested that I be invited to the class to present a different perspective but you declined to invite me. I gather you have circulated your personal email to me to others. I would appreciate if you would circulate my response and Joel’s to those recipients. Thanks Alan
I will pass along Pollak’s email below. But first, here is Duncan Kennedy’s wise response to friends:
It seems likely that the Dershowitz/Pollak response to my email will circulate widely. So feel free to share this reaction: The key sentences of Joel’s email are these: “There is also one respect in which Prof. Kennedy’s remarks are inaccurate. Though he asked me to assemble materials as a "research assistant," I never put in for a single penny of compensation for my efforts in finding a few pro-Israel materials over the summer, nor did I claim any expenses.” It’s true that Joel turned down my offer of compensation. But he here concedes that the rest of my “remarks” are accurate. By his own account, contrary to Alan’s story, I approached Joel rather than the other way around; I never “rebuked” him for offering materials; I included some of the materials he suggested; and it was not true that: “The course was completely one-sided with all the materials representing an anti-Israel point of view.”
Nonetheless, Alan writes that: “Joel’s account would seem to confirm the thrust of my comment.” Joel says that: “The broad thrust of your remarks at Tel Aviv University remains accurate.” Go figure. DK
Now the rest of this post is comprised of Joel Pollak’s note to Alan Dershowitz. Paragraphs are indicated by / marks. Don’t have time to do formatting.
Dear Prof. Dershowitz, / Thank you for forwarding Prof. Kennedy’s letter. Allow me to relate my recollection of events surrounding his fall 2007 course on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. / Prof. Kennedy approached me at the end of the semester (spring 2007) before the course began and asked me to provide some materials from "the other side." He approached me, I believe, because I had argued vigorously in the Harvard Law Record against comparisons of Israel to apartheid South Africa . I agreed to send him some materials over the summer while I was in Israel . He did not include much of what I had suggested and continued to use his discretion to guide the syllabus in what he admitted, at our first meeting, was a "pro-Palestinian" direction. Some of the readings were so extreme (e.g. Ilan Pappe’s "ethnic cleansing" as an introduction to the region’s history) that it was impossible to provide any counterweight. The course materials remained thoroughly anti-Israel, with a few pro-Israel readings sprinkled in as alternative texts, or used as rhetorical foils to develop the central pro-Palestinian theme. This troubled me greatly and I began thinking about what to do. I was concerned both about the content of the course and the possibility that my involvement would be used as a fig leaf for "balance." / Over the summer, I approached you for advice. You very helpfully suggested that the answer to Kennedy’s syllabus was more speech, not less. It was then, while I was in Jerusalem , that I began organizing a set of alternative materials for an alternative course, entirely outside of the few things I had sent to Prof. Kennedy. Prior to the start of the class, I approached my fellow students about participating in an alternative curriculum. Some responded positively, and we established an informal connection that we maintained throughout the semester. (I also approached Dean Elena Kagan about bringing in someone like Amnon Rubinstein to give a proper course on the subject. She seemed open to the idea, but though I approached a few scholars the suggestion never came to fruition while I was there.) / In the course of the semester, as more students attended Prof. Kennedy’s class (some as mere observers, since if they were not enrolled Prof. Kennedy did not let them speak), it became clear that while some were open to a pro-Israel view, there were some who were committed to a pro-Palestinian view regardless of the materials presented. On one occasion, for example, several students argued that it was permissible for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians. In addition, the only speakers invited to class were those critical of Israel . From my perspective, the curriculum remained biased, and Prof. Kennedy had no intention of balancing it. / So I began blogging about the course as well, using the alternative materials I had assembled over the summer to respond to things that Prof. Kennedy and his guests had said in class. This turned out to be the most effective response of all, because there were only limited opportunities to respond to the discussion during the class itself. At some point Prof. Kennedy began reading my blogs after class and made it clear to me that he was doing so. Perhaps this made him more cautious about his approach–I do not know. I do think that blogging was important as a way of monitoring the course and providing thorough responses to it. / The following year, Prof. Kennedy surprised me by inviting me to address the class, which had grown beyond a seminar into a full lecture. I agreed cautiously, though once again I bore the unequal burden of being a student up against the professor. His own ideas would carry more weight with the class simply because he was a faculty member and I was not (and he never, to my knowledge at least, invited a pro-Israel professor whose stature and authority might rival his own). He also would have the opportunity of responding in my absence if he so chose. I came and delivered a lecture presenting my views on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and he did not comment. I was told later by students that my remarks had been "interesting." I don’t know what weight they carried, against a deeply prejudiced curriculum. / The broad thrust of your remarks at Tel Aviv University remains accurate. I organized an alternative curriculum because Prof. Kennedy made clear his intention was not to present both sides fairly. I responded to unfair speech with more speech, not less. I do believe I had a positive effect on at least some of my classmates. The one respect in which your remarks may have slightly missed the mark is that I am not sure I convinced the majority of my fellow students to agree with me. I do think I opened their eyes to the pro-Israel point of view. Several pro-Palestinian students told me that I had convinced them on certain points. I wish I had done more. / There is also one respect in which Prof. Kennedy’s remarks are inaccurate. Though he asked me to assemble materials as a "research assistant," I never put in for a single penny of compensation for my efforts in finding a few pro-Israel materials over the summer, nor did I claim any expenses. Harvard’s records will confirm this. I did not want to be paid, as it was clear to me that nothing I could provide would balance the curriculum while Prof. Kennedy wielded discretion over the materials. / Thank you for acknowledging me in your speech–I am deeply honored and grateful that you would mention me on such an auspicious occasion. I regret that Prof. Kennedy chose to take issue with your remarks. I hope my explanations above will put the matter to rest. I look forward to seeing you in Chicago in a few weeks. / Yours, Joel
