Wikipedia says Jeffrey Ullman of Stanford is a renowned computer scientist, now in his late 60s. From the National Iranian American Council:
Stanford University has distanced itself from controversial remarks made by a faculty member regarding the prospects for Iranians to be admitted to the school.
Dr. Jefferey Ullman, a professor emeritus in Stanford’s Computer Science department, wrote in November 2010 to an Iranian student seeking admission, “even if I were in a position to help, I will not help Iranian students until Iran recognizes and respects Israel as the land of the Jewish people.” The professor went on to write, “If Iranians want the benefits of Stanford and other institutions in the US, they have to respect the values we hold in the US…”
Chronicle of Higher Education:
The e-mail continued, "If Iranians want the benefits of Stanford and other institutions in the U.S., they have to respect the values we hold in the U.S., including freedom of religion and respect for human rights."
Ali Gharib got to this a long time ago.
Ullman refers to the West Bank by the name used by Israeli settlers and other far-rightists: Judea and Samaria. Unsurprisingly, Ullman’s Unsurprisingly, Ullman’s FAQ page on Iran and Israel reads like a Hasbara manual, from Israel’s ‘generous offer’ of 2000 right down to Naqba denial — “The notion that Arabs were pushed out of the land of Israel is nonsense.”
This seems kind of stupid; maybe Ullman thinks he’s doing the right thing, but what is to stop professors in a position to do so on the opposite side of the divide from silently keeping Jewish and/or Israeli students out of their prestigious programs?
This is a dangerous game to play, and nobody wins. Very stupid.
>>Dr. Jefferey Ullman … wrote in November 2010 to an Iranian student seeking admission, “even if I were in a position to help, I will not help Iranian students until Iran recognizes and respects Israel as the land of the Jewish people. … If Iranians want the benefits of Stanford and other institutions in the U.S., they have to respect the values we hold in the U.S., including freedom of religion and respect for human rights.”
Does Zionism really make people that stupid? “I believe in the value of respect for human rights. What’s that? You come from a country I don’t like? Oh, well, then f*ck you AND the camel you rode in on!!”
This guy couldn’t care less about freedom of whatever. He wants Israel to remain strictly a Jewish democracy and for the indigenous ethnically cleansed former residents to screw off.
“If Iranians want the benefits of Stanford and other institutions in the U.S., they have to respect the values we hold in the U.S., including freedom of religion and respect for human rights.”
Someone needs to send this crackerjack the “Palestinians To the Ovens” article, which I can’t link to because Richard Silverstein’s account appears to be suspended.
Huh? Suspended?
Silverstein’s article was reprinted here (among other places):
link to zimbio.com
On the other hand, I am now reading some of what the guy writes on his webpage, the Q and A section. A lot of his anti-Iranianism is pretty reasonable, in that it’s antipathy to the government rather than the people (he says this explicitly). It’s hard to disagree there. The ruling classes of Iran are hostile and combative, and have been so for a long time. Of course, we did overthrow the Shah back in the day, which is quite bad. But fast forward 50 or 60 years and here we are. The revolution, predictably enough, has morphed into an oppressive regime that really ought to be replaced with something more open. But that is something that Iranians will have to do themselves; it’s not an American responsibility to do that for them, as we’ve learned in Iraq.
do you mind expanding on this, Gellian:
in your expanded explanation, pls include the sources you use to form your opinion. Explain how the majority of Iranians who voted for their government are appositive TO their government, and compare and contrast that situation to characteristics of Jewish Israelis who vote for their government.
thanks
A lot of his anti-Iranianism is pretty reasonable,
Absolutely not. These words were written in a context of defending Israel. His words are political weapons to be used on Israel’s behalf. Major zionist forces both in this country and in Israel want the US to go to war against Iran. Using your bandwidth to politically support war against Iran is most unreasonable.
Looks like the professor has made it his responsibility to help the knowledge-seeking Iraninan student (who can’t do a damn thing about where he was born) realize what real democratic American values are by making him pay a penalty, by crushing his aspiring academic and cultural education in the US.
it’s antipathy to the government rather than the people (he says this explicitly).
which proves he’s a hypocrite.
thank god he isn’t teaching political science.
Of course, we did overthrow the Shah back in the day, which is quite bad.
NO, we helped overthrow the elected leader of Iran, and installed the repressive Shah in his place. You got it backwards.
good catch taxi, gellian is generally ripe for the plucking. i should have read further, instead i gagged on the hypocrisy of “in that it’s antipathy to the government rather than the people (he says this explicitly)” and read no further.
whoops — thanks, meant to say that; a hazard of typing late at night. At least you didn’t gag, like Annie says she’s prone to doing. I wouldn’t want that!
it is galling that someone with Ullman’s ideological bent purports to speak for “the values of the USA.”
but if that’s the case, then he’d have no problem with a letter like this if I posted it on my blog:
I will not help Jewish students until Israel recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Iran and the Iranian people; the rights of Palestinians to reclaim property stolen from them over the past 60 years, and makes reparations to Palestinians for their losses and suffering, and to Iranians for the losses their economy has suffered as a result of US and Israeli-sponsored sanctions, assassinations, and acts of subversion.” The professor went on to write, “If Jews want the benefits of Stanford and other institutions in the US, they have to respect the values we hold in the US…
you know, I kinda like Ullman’s letter to the Iranian student — as amended.
I think it should be circulated to all US universities — to their alumni offices. As part of the BDS movement.
I’m sending it to my alumni office, and to my children’s university alumni offices.
Thnaks, professor ullman. your name may go down in history as the guy who gave BDS a major boost.
Good idea, PG. He’s as cocooned as Nancy Pelosi and Hannity.
The professor is an Israel-first racist who imposes collective punishment of innocent Iranians seeking an education in America. It was supposed to be crystal clear that America’s beef with Iran was with the government, not the people. Disgraceful.
That ziocain is a very powerful drug.
When I posted an article a while back on
Martin Kramer, Harvard and the Eugenics of Zion”
link to counterpunch.org
the editors shortened the ending to leave out what was my favorite part:
“Ironically, for a movement which embraces eugenics as policy, it would seem that an excess of Zionism not only promotes racism, but also – like too much TV news – makes people stupid. Not for nothing was Zionist mole in the Pentagon Douglas Feith (Harvard ’75) called “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet.” What could be more depressing than to observe the buffoonish antics of extremist politicians in the Israeli Knesset; lunatic settlers and genocidal rabbis in the West Bank; Commentary Magazine, Abe Foxman or Alan Dershowitz? Just lately, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has begun construction of a “Museum of Tolerance” in Jerusalem – on the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery.
“Surveying the bleak political-intellectual landscape in Israel and among its supporters in the Diaspora more than 60 years after the founding of the Jewish State, one is tempted to recall the famous conclusion of Justice Holmes’ Buck v Bell opinion: ‘Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’”
So Counterpunch censored you. Hmmph. Great to have the ending to a wonderful article. Thanks, Jeff.
Jeffrey Ullman must have learned his history from Joan Peters. His ignorance of the subject is truly astonishing.
link to infolab.stanford.edu
“The fact is that in the mid 19th century, the land was essentially unpopulated desert. Of the people living there, a substantial portion were Jews, as had been the case throughout recorded history with a few brief periods when Jews were evicted by the Babylonians, and then the Romans. In mid 19th century, European Jews, bringing the best agricultural technology of the day bought land from its rightful owners, and proceeded to reforest the land and to create agricultural settlements. These developments brought an influx of Moslems into the land, especially after the famine of 1905. It is mostly the descendants of these immigrants who are portrayed by the anti-Israel forces as the “original inhabitants of the land.” It ain’t so.”
That isn’t ignorance; that’s stupidity, just like the headline says. The stupidity is the result of not realizing there are historical references on the web that people can read, original documents in online reference libraries and, admittedly, bad translations Google can offer for the docs not in your mother tongue.
Some scientist that he cannot read official data, nor even understand census counts.
Or is he just smug about his own intellectual powers?
Ullman joins a dismayingly long list of very smart people who are vicious bigots on the subject of Israel and occupied Palestine. Two others that come to mind — the noted Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam (whose views, though skewed, are comparatively mild) and, as noted by the late Edward Said, philosopher Isaiah Berlin (very liberal until the subject of Israel came up). I leave out liberal politicians like New York’s Anthony Weiner or Charles Schumer because my impression is that they are people of limited intellectual capacity to begin with. By contrast, Putnam, Berlin, and others like them, are (were) unquestionably profoundly insightful and intelligent — until you bring up Israel.
Philosopher Michael Walzer, of Just War Theory fame, is another perfect example in this vein.
As with so many instances like this, imagine the response of a prominent Arab or Muslim scholar (like the late Edward Said) were to respond to an Israeli Jewish applicant with a comparable letter demanding recognition of Palestine. It would probably make the front page of The New York Times. The David Brookses and Charles Krauthammers would be screaming bloody murder, calling for expulsion from the academy — and that would very likely be seriously pursued.
This falls under a broad category of double standards in academia (and other supposedly intelligent forums): Martin Peretz, Martin Kramer, Alan Dershowitz contrasted with Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, Juan Cole…. There are variations on the theme — important ones — but the general pattern is the same. Pro-Israel bigots can say the most reprehensible things, up to and including advocacy of genocide, while indisputably true claims by critics of Israel are met with violent opposition.
Pro-Israel bigots can say the most reprehensible things, up to and including advocacy of genocide, while indisputably true claims by critics of Israel are met with violent opposition.
reminds me of helen. how many of these pro israelites have advocated for transfer in our msm..they don’t loose their jobs, they debate it as if it is a viable option.
Helen, Baird, Chas Freeman…, instead we get the NY Times, Lieberman, and Dennis Ross. Aren’t we Americans lucky to have them watching the hen house?
He’s at Stanford…..the bloke’s brain has been “Hoover-ized”….(vacuumed clean of any conscience) ……Ullman…Rice..Pipes Zelnick..Rumsfeld……who else?