Campus Watch: Keeping an Eye on Professors Who Teach About the Middle East





Last week the Middle East Forum, which is directed by HNN contributor Daniel Pipes, established a new website known as Campus Watch. The website lists professors suspected of an anti-Israel bias and asks students to send in names and information. The site currently lists"dossiers" on eight professors, including Juan Cole, who is also a frequent HNN contributor. Mr. Cole reports to HNN that since the website was established he and the other professors listed on the site have been targeted by a relentless conspiracy of email hackers.

The following statement appears on the Campus Watch website.

The Problem

American scholars of the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East.

Examples:

There may be a war on terrorism underway, but the scholars downplay the dangers posed by militant Islam, seeing it as a benign and even democratizing force.

With only one exception, every American president since 1948 has spoken forcefully about the benefits to the United States from strong and deep relations with Israel. In contrast, American scholars often propagate a view of Middle Eastern affairs that sees Zionism as a racist offshoot of imperialism and blames Israel alone for the origin and persistence of the Palestinian problem.

While Americans overwhelmingly supported the war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, the Middle East specialists just as overwhelmingly rejected that use of force; and the same divide has recurred in 2002 with the prospect of a military campaign against Iraq.

Scholarly offerings frequently present in a benign light such hostile actors as the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Ba'th regime, and other Middle East despotisms. In contrast, they emphasize and often exaggerate the faults of Israel, Turkey, Egypt, and Kuwait. They blame Washington, not Tehran, for the hostile relations between these two states.

Here are some choice but typical quotations:

  • Stanford University's Joel Beinin, who also serves as head of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), blames U.S. foreign policy for the attacks of September 11, 2001, rather than militant Islam. Specifically, he finds that the attacks stemmed from Israel's use of American weapons to defend Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism:"The sight of American-supplied F-16 fighters and Apache helicopters bombing civilian targets and carrying out over 50 extra judicial assassinations has raised anger over the American-Israeli alliance to new levels."

    Source: http://www.peaceandjustice.org/nowar/1beinin.html


  • John Esposito of Georgetown University condemns President Bush's description of the terrorists as"evil". He claims:"the use of 'evil' all the time … in religious terms translates into, 'You're a believer or you're a non-believer.' It is us and them, forces of good against forces of evil, and what this does is it leaves no middle-ground for anyone, whether it is countries or people. In effect, that is either the explicit or the subtle message that this administration has been giving out." One wonders, how would Professor Esposito have Mr. Bush characterize Al-Qaeda? As misguided?

    Source: http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/esposito.cfm


  • Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco, sees only the United States to blame for the atrocities of September 11, 2001:"It is no coincidence that terrorist groups have arisen in an area where the world's one remaining superpower puts far more emphasis on weapons shipments and air strikes than on international law or human rights and even blocks the United Nations from sending human rights monitors or enforcing its own resolutions against an ally. Nor is it surprising that that superpower would eventually find itself on the receiving end of a violence backlash."

    Source: http://www.fcnl.org/issues/air-violence/terror/article_baltsun901.htm

The Causes

This bias results from two main causes. First, academics seem generally to dislike their own country and think even less of American allies abroad. They portray U.S. policy in an unfriendly light and disparage allies. The closer those allies are (first Israel, followed by Turkey, then at some distance Egypt and Saudi Arabia), the more hostile their analysis. In contrast, they apologize for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Ba'th regime, and other rogue states. Likewise, the academics downplay the dangers of militant Islam and terrorism. Revealingly, while Americans overwhelmingly supported the war to liberate Kuwait in 1991 and the war on terrorism today, academic specialists just as overwhelmingly rejected the use of force on both occasions.

Second, Middle East studies in the United States has become the preserve of Middle Eastern Arabs, who have brought their views with them. Membership in the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the main scholarly association, is now 50 percent of Middle Eastern origin. Though American citizens, many of these scholars actively disassociate themselves from the United States, sometimes even in public. Rashid Khalidi, a historian at the University of Chicago (and former president of MESA) said in the preface of his study of the PLO that he owes"the greatest debt of gratitude to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982... in defense of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon." When Edward Said of Columbia University wrote,"Palestinians today are separated by geography and by Israel's designs to keep us fragmented and isolated from one another," he wrote"us" as a Palestinian, not as an American.

In fact, Edward Said can be held responsible for a large portion of the morass of today's Middle East Studies departments. His 1978 book, Orientalism, was a watershed polemic that equated modern Middle East scholarship to racism, imperialism and ethnocentricity. As Martin Kramer notes in Ivory Towers on Sand,"In the more than twenty years since the publication of Orientalism, its impact on the broad intellectual climate in American Middle East studies has been far-reaching. Orientalism made it acceptable, even expected, for scholars to spell out their own political commitments as a preface to anything they wrote or did. More than that, it also enshrined an acceptable hierarchy of political commitments, with Palestine at the top, followed by the Arab nation and the Islamic world."

Why Is this Important?

Scholars have an extensive but subtle influence on the way Americans see the Middle East, and set the tone for much of what is taught and learned across America on nearly every level. College students learn from them in the classroom and are influenced by the tone they set for the debate of Middle East politics on over two thousand campuses. High school and elementary teachers take their cue from them. Scholars write newspaper opinion pieces, are quoted in magazine articles, and appear on television. They serve as expert witnesses in court cases. They influence government officials in a variety of ways - a candidate formulating his positions, the CIA seeking outside advice, a congressional staffer preparing legislation, or a speechwriter for the secretary of state.

Campus Watch seeks to reverse the damage already caused by the activist/scholars on American campuses. We see this as an ongoing effort, one that should continue so long as the problem exists.

Who We Are

Campus Watch consists of American academics concerned about US interests and their frequent denigration on campus. Those interests include strong ties with Israel, Turkey, and other democracies as they emerge; human rights throughout the region; a stable supply and a low price of oil; and the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes.

What We Do

Campus Watch will henceforth monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance. Campus Watch will critique these specialists, and make available its findings on the internet and in the media. Our main goals are to:

  • Identify key faculty who teach and write about contemporary affairs at university Middle East Studies departments in order to analyze and critique the work of these specialists for errors or biases.
  • Develop a network of concerned students and faculty members interested in promoting American interests on campus.
  • Keep the public apprised of course syllabi, memos, debates over appointments and funding, etc.
  • Keep the public informed of relevant university events.
  • Continuously post the results of our project on www.campus-watch.org, including articles, reports from campus and other relevant information.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Tony Lafarge - 10/21/2003

Im a economics grad / lawyer practising in London: your site is reminiscent of communist purges, where teachers who didn't tow the line were often shot. how tight a grip should one have on these traitors?

A clear indictment of this site is the lack of input, the last message was months ago.

The fact that these academics are publicly vilified for there opinions indicates only that the american public is susceptable to this. shouldn't a society learn to deal with these opinions?


Miriam - 4/11/2003

Some of the comments I looked through are deeply rooted in anti semitism. It is anti sementic propogana such as the "elders of zion" that ingrain certain ideas about jews in peoples heads. Also, it is very scary to see how people are so misguided on historical facts pertaining to the middle -east. Maybe a good starting point would be to read the book by Mitchell Bard "Myths and Facts. A Guide to the Arab- Israeli Conflict"


Miriam - 4/11/2003

Gus,
Your comment is deeply rooted in anti-semitism. It is very scary to hear someone comment that way you have. Maybe you should get some of your facts straight before you make such a strong statement. Maybe you could refer to a book by Mitchell Bard, "Myths and Facts. A guide to the Arab - Israeli Conflict"

~Miriam


death to muslims ALL - 3/23/2003

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=1193956&nav=9qrxElWV

Attack on 101st Airborne: Soldiers Reportedly Wounded in Ambush


A grenade attack on a leadership tent at the U.S. 101st Airborne Division in Kuwait has wounded several soldiers, according to military officials.

Military officials said 10 soldiers were injured, six seriously, during an early Sunday morning attack at Camp Pennsylvania of the 101st division. Time reporter Jim Lacey told ABCNEWS that he talked to an eyewitness at the rear base camp who said that grenades were rolled into a tents that housed the leaders of the brigadier unit. A terrorist, the witness told Lacey, shot the first two people who exited the tent.

The injured soldiers were rushed to a field hospital but there is no word on their condition. Military officials are investigating the attack and searching for the attackers.

ABCNEWS' Don Dahler also reported seeing a large explosion in the sky near Camp New York, which is about five kilometers from Camp Pennsylvania in northern Kuwait. Military officials said the blast was a U.S. Patriot missile that was encountering and destroying an enemy missile.

Camp Pennsylvania was named to honor of the victims of plane that crashed in Pennsylvania during the Sept. 11 attacks. The camp, located approximately 20-30 miles south of the Iraqi border, is surrounded by large berms and guarded by armed soldiers, with others in observation posts watching the desert. The camp is also home to Patriot missile batteries.

The attack came as military officials reported that ground troops were making swift progress, advancing halfway to Baghdad from the border with Kuwait. Air raid sirens and explosions have been heard on-and-off in Baghdad for hours as the Iraq capital braces for another air assault.

ABCNEWS' Richard Engel in Baghdad said he was hearing fresh rounds of explosions on the outskirts of the city as thick plumes of smoke billowed from what appeared to be fires deliberately set at Baghdad's perimeter. Air raid sirens sounded across the city.

Military sources said that over the past 24 hours, the Navy has flown about 150 sorties and launched more than 400 Tomahawk cruise missiles. ABCNEWS' John McWethy added that several of tonight's targets could lie outside the Iraqi capital.

"Baghdad is only one of many, many areas that will be hit," McWethy said.

Meanwhile, ground forces have been moving fast. Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director for operations said today that troops have crossed the Euphrates River and advanced 150 miles north of the border with Kuwait.





gene hosack - 2/16/2003

Your name is Phang, you went to Columbia and were "converted to leftism" ??? Sara, Sara , Sara, you were born a leftist...


fucking jew hater - 2/10/2003

my mind is set on killing one


A. Hitler - 12/14/2002

I already did!! :)


Maria - 12/7/2002

FUCK JEWS


Roy Tomasulo - 11/13/2002

I think it necessary we achieve an equilibrium among the echelon of higher learning. For those who have opined in this forum, must surely be aware that for such arguments to exist, opposition must clearly be defined. For quite a while, many who have viewed this as mere propaganda against forward thinking on the whole, have discounted the notion of PC permeating our institutions, and our lives. I am intrigued that an entity such as Campus Watch has the ability to stir its own perceived opposition, insomuch as the opposition itself is now reacting in a manner, as to validate its existence. I think we have defined opposition, hence, reactionary defending against reactionary. In my own opinion, quite similar to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 10/3/2002

My ol' grandpappy used to have a saying: "Never argue with a fool, 'cause after awhile nobody'll no the difference."

Because of his sage advice, I haven't wanted to respond to the crazies on this Campus Watch topic beyond an initial submission, but Mr. Lloyd's reply to Ms. Phang is such a concise right-wing classic that I couldn't withold noting that nowhere I've read in her brief posting does she offer a "definition of free speech" or say Campus Watch oughtn't to have a website.

Secondly, the right has this other disturbing tendency to assert that its general claims are true by virtue, I suppose, of repetition. Or because they say so. So, there is the blanket statement that [all?] campus newspapers accept Holocaust-denier ads and [all?] refuse those of anti-reparationists (not a new claim). This silly shift of aggresive propositions--from fictional judgment to unsupported generalization--and its close connection to that most favored of right-wingers' blunt instruments, the ad hominem--is really a kind of public madness.

You simply cannot question--musch less disagree--without being labelled or denounced or both. There is no possibility of a "public sphere" containing them, the right, I mean. They have no conception of it, or see it as a threat, or as a target of maliciousness, or whining, or perform the odd transference of their own weaknesses to their perceived enemies--it's really that "left" (what left?) or them thar liburuhls who threaten free expresion. George Orwell'd have loved these guys! In my book, they're totalitarians in speech, would be in action if they had access to real power, and totalitarianism is what writers like Mr. Lloyd stand for.


Miss G. U., Classroom 1A - 10/3/2002

Now, Alex, you know very well what I meant. Of course it was wrong of Lefty to interrupt Mr. Goliath Irving, even if Goliath's ideas
about what happened in Eastern Europe in the 1940s are a little odd. Lefty will sit in the corner until he apologizes. But I want you and Rightie to behave and not try to bully Lefty either. Our next speaker will be Mr. Mumbo Jumbo talking about how right and wrong are "relative". Isn't school fun ?

Teacher


Alec Lloyd - 10/3/2002

I’m sorry, your language is a bit confusing. What, exactly are you saying?

Is it your contention that because leftists use violence to silence their opponents and the right does not, no one can criticize the left? Is this the “wrong” you refer to, Mr. Up? (or is “Grow Up” a hyphenated name, as in “Ivana Grow Up”? )

If a bunch of thugs beat me up for what I have to say, I have no right to denounce this because that is an “equal” wrong?

Truly amazing logic.


Grow Up - 10/3/2002

Two wrongs make would make a right, therefore because Lefty hit Rightie while Rightie didn't hit Lefty, Lefty is wrong, and therefore it's okay for Rightie to call Lefty and all his friends bad names.


Alec Lloyd - 10/3/2002

Speaking of kindergarten logic, how about addressing my point.

Name one leftist shouted down on campus and forced to cancel a speaking event. Just one. I can name half a dozen conservatives.

Name one example where the entire run of a left-wing college newspaper was stolen and this blatant infringement of free speech was given a pass by the college administration.

Name one example of a pro-Palestinian speaker subjected to physical attack and death threats. I'll give you bonus points if the administration's reaction to the event is to declare the topic off-limits to further discussion.

Take your time. I can wait.


Bob Greene - 10/3/2002

The US suppots the unconditional right of Israel to defend itself from homicide bombers and groups such as Hamas who are bent on "driving the Jews into the sea" The occupation of the diputed territories will not end until the Palistinians give up terrorism and gove up the notion that the can wipe Israel off the map. Remember the occupation is a result of one of the numerous attemps of the Arabs to destroy Israel.


Bob Greene - 10/3/2002

Have the guts to deal with the issue. Which side shouts down its opponents. Facts are facts it is left wing thugs at magor universities that shout down conservatives and hence stiffle debate. Show me a conservative group that shouts down a liberal speaker and I will join you in denouncing them. Will you make the equivalent pledge?


Grow Up - 10/3/2002

What a brilliant insight: All "conservatives" are good, all
"liberals" are bad. Such lucidity, such profundity, what a fabulous grasp of kindergarten logic.


Chris Murphy - 10/2/2002

If I was to claim -- falsely -- that "You simply choose to be blind in the face of the Israeli implants within the USA who have one goal in mind, to spread Zionism", it would at least have as much credibility as your own false claim. From where I stand -- and I must state now that I am not in America but I do follow US affairs very closely -- the pendulum is very much in Israel's favour when it comes to the formulation of American foreign policy. Further, it seems to me that being an American with Arab blood right now is to find oneself in a very vulnerable position.

Instead of slamming (dare I say "hating"?) Arabs and Islam, you would do well to stick to your principles and promote reason and tolerance in the face of extremist madness. The same, of course, goes for the other extreme. Extremists win when otherwise good people react extremely. Blind hatred does no one any good. And it will certainly never help to win people over to one's point of view.

The trouble with unreasonable people like Daniel Pipes and organisations like Campus Watch is that the more they shout at us and stamp their feet, the more they harm their cause. In the end, when all the shouting and stamping of feet has come to nought, there is only one way for them to win the argument, and that's by use of force and violence.

To proceed to such an outcome is a tragedy for reason, for good people, and for democracy. If it comes to that, it will be a tragedy for America.


Alec Lloyd - 10/2/2002

Yeah, the people who beat up Holocaust survivors at Concordia weren’t hateful or violent at all. They were just looking for a pay phone so they could call “Donahue” and voice their dissent.


Alec Lloyd - 10/2/2002

Yes, but the difference is that while college newspapers will publish ads by Holocaust deniers, they won't publish ones questioning slave reparations.

I like youre logic though: since they don't meet your definition of "objective" they shouldn't be allowed to express their views on a web site.

Fascinating definition of free speech you've got there.


Alec Lloyd - 10/2/2002

Would that make you the "Manchurian doctoral candidate?"

The fact that you were "converted" through college is not helpful to the thesis that the academy is unbiased, you know.


Bob Greene - 10/2/2002

Mr Gomez rantings notwithstanding his charges against Campus Watch are a pack of lies. One need only check out the website to see who is telling the truth. Campus Watch is engaging in reason and vigorous debate, the very essence of what the campus should be


Bob Greene - 10/2/2002

It is the luantic left which dominate the college campus today that engages in hate mongering and attempts at censorship. It is only conservative who are shouted down by left wing thugs at talks on campuses. Groups such Campus Watch courageously counter the many lies and distortions of the left by printing the truth and for their efforts afe denounced as Nazis. To Daniel Pipies and his fellow patriot I say 'Dittos'
Bob Greene


Sage - 10/1/2002


If we want to resist the "lies and hate" of fanatical Islam, it would clearly be best to avoid the hypocrisy of hate-mongering
and censorship promulgated by the kooks of "Campus Watch".
Evidently, their real objectives have little to do with fighting
religious fundamentalism, reducing suicidal terrorism or overcoming oppression in the Middle East. May God bless a free, democratic, and intelligent America.


Chris Magoc - 9/30/2002

Uh, no. You've never been in my classroom, yet you presume that I have a "speech code"?? Our purpose as academics ought not to be "keeping anybody in line," but to--dare I say it again--get our students to think hard, critically, unapologetically, about all sides of an issue.


Najeeb Jan - 9/30/2002

Unfortunately the above suggested article is from a source that is, for Arabs and Muslims atleast, the quivalent of the KKK. Worldnet is hardly a source without bias, but rather one with an avowedly rasicst and rightwing agenda ......people like Mr. Farah who wrote this piece openly advocate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinains from the West Bank..... WorldNet also frequently hosts articles from Ann Coulter (also known as Miss "Eva Braun"), whose rascist and fascist views are well known...... After 911 she openly advocated invading Arab countries and forcebly converting their people to Christianity. More recently suggested that we should use Nuclear Weapons against Islamic Extremists.... try using it in Buffalo, where six alleged terrorists reside........


Sara Phang - 9/30/2002

Campus Watch's claim to represent "objective" views is amusing, since Holocaust revisionism takes the same line.


Sara Phang - 9/30/2002

Where on earth is the Left supposed to be able to express itself, if not in the universities, which should be allowed to be protected sites for a range of views? The efficacy of the First Amendment has already been practically nullified by the lockhold that the pro-imperialist Right maintains over the print media and TV. You theoretically have free speech, but you can't be heard because of "market forces." To watch Middle East scholars for "un-American" views is reminiscent of McCarthyism. What will come next? Will all revisionist scholars criticizing the imperialism of the Spanish in the New World, of the American West, the British Empire, or even Athens and the Roman Empire be deemed "un-American" too, since they are critical of power and do not promote the new American Empire? Why not simply purge all the universities, send leftist professors to gulags, burn all the leftist books, and install the curriculum of Oral Roberts University everywhere? That is where institutions such as Campus Watch leads to, and what ideologues such as William J. Bennett would really like to see. I do not regard myself as "propagandized" by leftist professors (I did graduate studies in history at Columbia). I was converted to leftism and post-colonialism after a long personal struggle, culminating in my awareness of the present government's imperialistic "war on terror" and suppression of dissent.


Alec Lloyd - 9/30/2002

Isn’t Said a proven liar? That’s not the ground I would chose to break…


Alec Lloyd - 9/30/2002

Again, there are already pro-Palestinian interest groups out there and their tactics are far more intimidating than putting an opponent’s name and opinions put up on a web site. If academics in an inherently political field can’t stand the heat, I suggest they exit the kitchen.

Your answer is typical of the new left: silence dissent. Instead of countering with your own web site and allowing both sets of ideas to do battle on campus, you want to unilaterally silence the people with whom you disagree. For them to set up a forum to marshal criticism is “McCarthyist” and “censorship.” In fact, it is nothing of the sort.

We need more free speech on campus, not less. If a professor can’t handle his views being quoted and publicized, he might try to find another field. Most people would welcome the free publicity.

In fact, since Campus Watch is supposedly a neo-Nazi (yet also Zionist, go figure) front group, to be singled out by them should be a badge of honor. I, for one, dream about a full-fledged character assassination by the editors of the Nation.

Again, there is no hint of violence or any sort of physcial intimidation of the sort that regularly happens at Berkeley or, most recently, Corcordia. If you find the mere organization of idealogical foes as antithetical to debate, than your definition of free speech is unknown to me.


Jennifer Renee Echols - 9/30/2002

According to the authors of the campus watch web site, the supposedly "objective" proponents of intellectual truth are being victimized and marginalized by the so-called "biast" "muslim" and "arab" sympathizers who "excuse" "terrorism". If these right wing ideologues claim that ground breaking scholars such as Edward Said are hopelessly bound to their own Arab identity and to a "liberal" agenda that is in herently anti-American, then they too must recognize thier own political motives. All discourse is inherently political, and claims to objectivity are just that, claims. These accusations of anti-symotism are just as "racist" as they claim Middle Eastern scholars to be. As they decry the %50 persons of Arab origin in the Middle Eastern Studies Association, and as they criticize any pride in one's ethnic identity, if only because that particular identity just happens to be Arab or Muslim, their own prejudices and narrow mindedness is easy to see. The so-called "watch-dog" group is an anthema to the project of scholarship and the university.


Rafael Gomez - 9/29/2002

I'm sorry too, but Campus Watch's bigotted rantings are not just criticism. They are clearly attempting to silence and censor people that have formed their own opinions.

I agree with you that dissent cuts both ways, as I made clear in my first posting. The people at Campus Watch can have and air any opinions and criticism they want, and get into any debate they want; but they go furhter, and are clearly attempting to intimidate, ostracize, and censor any scholar that espouses ideas that they deem heretical. And their attacks don't seem to be substantiated on good argumentation on the merits of the ideas and opinions they dislike. All they do is question loyalties, motives, and unwillingness to conform to the crowd.

Since when academics, or anybody else for that matter, are supposed to embrace "the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East"?
I thought the whole idea of democracy and freedom is that anyone can have any views he or she wants, and is allowed to express them, regardless of what "most americans" and the government think. Since when does the fact that opinions and ideas differ from everybody else's makes them bad? Most citizens of communist countries were probably convinced that communism was good, or at least better than capitalism. Does that automatically make communism a good idea? Were the few breave souls that dared to critizice their communist governments automatically a bunch of idiots and traitors solely because they rejected the views of most of their fellow citizens and their governments???

Campus Watch talks about bias and politization in universities. But its intended promotion of american interests on campus is as political as any behavior they criticize. Campus Watch's seemingly blind support for US allies like Turkey and Israel is as biased as anything. Their real concerns are not bias and politics on campus per se, but biases and political opinions that run contrary to their own. And any study of history and national or international affairs is by its very nature political, so how can you with a straight face criticize the "politization" of campus education on those subjects? It would be a very different matter if a physics professor would use a class on quantum mechanics (a subject that has nothing whatsoever to do with politics) to talk about his political opinions. But so far, I have not heard of something like that happening in US universities.


Douglas Miller - 9/29/2002

If only for the sake of balance or fairness, would you accept the formation
of another "Campus Watch" that would watch those professors who have an
anti-Islam bias? Unfortunately, the "debate" seems to sink to name calling,
demonization, and villification. Would it be more profitable and historically
accurate to include references from many sides of the debate without
dismissing those who favor one side only? I would submitt that including a
forum for those who would assess the relative merits of Albert Hourani,
Bernard Lewis, Noam Chomsky, Arthur Goldschmidt, Jr., Edward W. Said, and
others, would be an important intellectual exercise. Just who is an authority
on the Middle East? How do we determine who has the best evidence?
I'm afraid that if the "Campus Watch" convinces others that having the
"correct" point of view, then the deliberative advantage inherent in
democracy is somewhat tarnished.
Douglas Miller


Rach Terry Neuwirth - 9/29/2002

Define democracy - Does it mean falsification and misrepresentation of truth? Does it mean incitment to hate and lie that those 8 mentioned professors in capuse watch are preoccupied with? Does it mean lending a hand to terrorism?

What is a democracy? Declaring the the US is reponisble for the 9/11 tragedy?

Use common sense.


Rachel T. Neuwirth - 9/29/2002

>If so, I would like to be shown how.>

why not read this 'The world collective amnesia'

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/sept02/amnesia.html


Rachel Terry Neuwirth - 9/29/2002

Falsifications, spreading lies and hate has no room in the education system nor adhere to democracy.

Campus Watch was not created out of a vaccum but in the face of the vicious attacks on the US by Militant Islam/Arab World and those who follow them. You simply choose to be blind in the face of the Saudi/Arab World implants within the USA who has one goal in mind to spread Islamism. Wake up before it is too late. Is it your opinion that people should not be aware of lies and hate their children absorb by irresponsible professors who maybe paid to do just that - sell the soul of the country to the devil - Militant Islam?

Thank the Heavens for people like Campus Watch to watch our children grow learning dignity, truth and love for their country - America.


Chris Murphy - 9/28/2002

In the United States in the year 2002, academics may discuss the Middle East but only if it's in accord with the party line. Those who step outside the bounds will now have their doors daubed with paint.

Shame! Democracy is based upon beliefs, opinions, and - yes! - even "bias". Intimidating people because of what they say - and that is most definitely what Campus Watch is about - is anti-democratic to the point of fascism. Nothing less. And it must be exposed as just that.


Richard Kurdlion - 9/28/2002


Academic freedom in America outlasted McCarthyism and it will outlast this pitiful latter-day copy-cat, Sharonism.

R. K.


Alec Lloyd - 9/27/2002

If Edward Said and company were shouted off campus and Arab students beaten and taunted by mobs screaming “death to Muslims,” you might have a point. Of coruse, that isn't happening.

At present, Mr. Pipes is more likely to catch a brick in the head thrown by a violent extremist and he has experienced far more “intolerance” than a battalion of Arafat apologists.

Pro-Palestinian activists have shut down debates across the continent, most recently declaring Montreal a "Middle-east studies-free zone." That seems far more dangerous to scholarly inquiry than a web site.


Alec Lloyd - 9/27/2002

I’m sorry, but you’ll have to explain to me how publicizing poor and politicized scholarship is “censorship.” Are jack-booted thugs going to break in doors? Midnight meetings at the Diag to burn copies of “Orientalism?” Right-wing hit squads firing spit wads at the Espresso Royale?

Once again, sunlight is to be feared and criticism is equated with “McCarthyism.”

For much of the academy, “free speech” means “freedom from opposition.” Sorry, dissent cuts both ways.


Rafael Gomez - 9/27/2002

Great logic Sir!
So because some in the left try to silence opinions they don't like, we need some in the right doing the same.
This only leads to a stupid "arms race" between the two camps that completely destroys the meaningful and honest debate that is fundamental to maintaining democracy and an open society.

There's a very good book dealign with this issue, titled "Free Speech for Me but not for Thee," by Nat Hentoff.

Classrooms are full of sunlight as they are. Anybody can go in an listen to what is taught. And shouldn't we trust students to be intelligent enough to be critical of their professors and come up with their own opinions? Or are we going to assume that students are all completely incapable of critical and independent thinking, and need watch groups that will protect their simple and impresionable minds from heretical teachings?
If students are so handicapped, then so are we; you and me sir, and everybody else. If we don't trust college students to make up their own minds regarding what they hear in class and be critical of it, why should we trust them with any other responsibility?
I would suppose that the most important educational goal in a democracy is not to transmit already-made knowledge and opinions, but to teach critical and independent thinking. Groups like Campus Watch and any other with the same censorial inclinations, left and right, undermine that fundamental educational goal and do a great disservice to a society that touts itself as free and democratic.


Glenys Sugarman - 9/27/2002

I am looking for extra outlets for short actuality/commentary print or radio spots. I have over 20 years experience as a radio journalist for SABC who have now stopped using my material due to a change in "direction" for want of a better term, by the South African govermenent and its national radio with regard to the middle east. Secondly I am on the lookout for a newspaper/journal that would like occasional tongue in cheek commentary about current affairs in the mid east. examples can be provided. with thanks, Glenys Sugarman


Aleksandr Kerensky - 9/27/2002


Have you no sense of decency sir?
At long last, have you no sense of decency?


Camron Michael Amin - 9/26/2002

While all Middle East specialists have opinions about the current
state of affairs in the Middle East, we also all work very hard
to present careful analyses of Middle Eastern history and culture to our students, colleagues and fellow citizens. We do so often in the face of classrooms that are either strongly biased or sharply polarized on such issues as the Iranian
Revolution of 1979 and the Arab-Israeli conflict. How do you explain the Israeli side of things to a largely Arab American audience? How do you explain the appeal of Ayatollah Khomeini to
the children of Iranian exiles? How do you discuss the importance of feminism in Middle Eastern history to an audience of socially conservative students? How do you explain anti-American sentiment in the ME to students traumatized by 9-11? These are times when the cultural stakes are very high and it is crucial that those who have spent their lives studying the Middle East contribute not just to public debate but to the tone of that debate. We take on these tasks with the expectation that our colleagues in the field -- no matter what their personal politics are -- respect our efforts and appreciate the value of reasoned debate. It is a grave disservice to academia and to the American public for Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes to question the patriotism and intellectual honesty of those with whom they disagree. It is espcially sad when such insinuations seem to inspire efforts
to intimidate and harass dedicated teachers and researchers. We
are all better than that, surely.


Alec Lloyd - 9/26/2002

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but groups already exist that do just that.

They stage sit-ins, disrupt speakers, intimidate those who disagree with them and even steal newspapers to prevent “dangerous thoughts” from being disseminated.

They are campus radicals and are almost uniformly of the far left. If this troubles you, I suggest you contact the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. http://www.thefire.org/

If your classroom can’t stand a little sunlight, perhaps you should reconsider what you are teaching.

In any event, this proposed organization will pale before the might of the p.c. mafiosi which currently dominate the educational establishment. Still, it’s a start.


Gus Moner - 9/26/2002

Who is monitoring the watchful scholars Mr. Lloyd? What criteria are they using? What authbority have they to snoop on others and make that public? Should we do that with all public servants, everywhere? It's a free society, people are free to think, espouse and debate. Or not unless we reach the conclusions the snoopers would prefer?

As for the other living on another planet, it's all a question of perspective, no? Perhaps it is the one who sees not the slippery slope who lives on another planet....


Al Czervikjr - 9/26/2002

>>Far be it from academics to suggest to our students that they ought to engage in critical thinking about the history of US foreign policy that is at least partly responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation

Of course, as long as engaging in critical thinking does not lead your students to express "insensitive" opinions or ideas, right Mr. Magoc?...then you've simply got to rely on your infamous speech codes to keep the budding Safranskis and Heuislers in line, right?


Chris Magoc - 9/26/2002

Absolutely. The whole portrait of human experience--the noble and the ignoble--is what we should aspire to present. And it's Dr. Magoc.


Alec Lloyd - 9/26/2002

Edward Said is the most respected liar in academia. Strange that his falsehoods haven’t resulted in more censure. Must be that all-powerful Jewish lobby again.


Alec Lloyd - 9/26/2002

If we had sent suicide bombers into London, deliberately targeted British civilians and made our goal the elimination of the British people, you would have a point.

As it is, you come across as either historically ignorant or morally blind.


Alec Lloyd - 9/26/2002

Yes, and funny that whenever the Palestinian Authority murders “collaborators,” isn’t it odd that the word doesn’t appear in quotation marks?

You’re right, it’s all a Jewish conspiracy.

You may want to re-read your post. It may not be your intention, but you sound like David Duke—or Adolf Hitler.

Funny how many of those “Zionist settlers” were evicted from their homelands by the Arabs. Also omitted from your rant are the vicious anti-Jewish pograms mounted during the 1920s. Finally, it is also important to remember that the Palestinian “refugees” (most of whom were born in their “camps”) left voluntarily after being told by the Arab governments that the Jews would be driving into the sea by their armies in short order. They are kept on the West Bank in poverty to provide a recruiting base for the destruction of Israel.

So, let us review:

The 20-some Arab despotisms need more sympathy and recognition and perhaps the creation of yet another dictatorship but the evil participatory democracy doesn’t get enough blame.

Thanks for the moral inversion.


Chris Osborne - 9/26/2002

Edward Said is indeed a scholar who has flirted with dangerous political positions during his career. One of the arguments which he has made in the past while attacking Bernard Lewis is that only insiders to the Muslim world are best qualified to write its histories, which closely resembles the PC argument that historical inquiry should be banned to outsiders of a given community. Gee, I wonder what leftists would say if Whites demanded that non-White professors be forbidden to teach European history courses? I read a couple of texts by Lewis during my undergraduate years on the modern history of the Middle East. He stated that while Arabs have been as mad as hell against the European imperial powers and subsequently the United States for oppression of Muslims their rage curiously did not extend to the Soviet Union's oppression of Muslim peoples in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Maybe this is a reason why Said is so mad at Lewis.
One fact that Lewis did not mention which I learned subsequently is that Joseph Stalin murdered half of all the Kazakh people during his 1930s genocide campaigns and countless thousands of other Soviet Muslims. He also deported the Muslim Kalmyk people and Crimean Tatars from their homelands in 1943/44 merely for having lived under temporary occupation by the Wehrmacht. Again, no anger from leftists about any of these events.
The Left indeed has not merely sought inclusion and its place in the sun in the academic world but the systematic exclusion of all non-leftist points of view from the academy. Richard Bernstein's "Dictatorship of Virtue" and "The Shadow University" by Harvey Kors and Alan Silverglate amply confirm this reality. One wonders too why Said claimed to have been born in a Palestinian refugee camp when he was really born in Egypt; and why he claimed that Jewish theologian Martin Buber kicked his family out of an apartment he owned when in fact Said's family kicked out Buber.


Richard T. Vann - 9/26/2002

I agree that some of the comments quoted above sound biased. I am no expert, but I do follow Middle Eastern affairs on a journalistic level. My views are as follows: the Palestinians must discontinue suicide bombing directed at civilians in Israel. They cannot expect and must give up any hope for any extensive right of return to Israel (although courageous Israeli historians have now pretty much discredited the idea that they spontaneously fled in 1948). The Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank are illegal and in return for recognition of its pre-1967 borders and a discontinuation of any hostile military actions by Palestinians or other Arab states, these settlements must be evacuated.
Now, do Professor Pipes and his colleagues (surely all free of any pro-Israel bias) consider my views biased against either party to the present dispute? If so, I would like to be shown how.


Rafael Gomez - 9/26/2002

Truly apalling article!
If even the US, which is touted as the beacon of democracy and freedom in the world, can engender thought-control groups like this Campus Watch (who probably get a lot of, at least moral, support from people in high government positions), there is certainly very little hope for true democracy and freedom anywhere in the world.
I naively imagined that true freedom of thought and opinion existed in the US, but I see now that people are only "free" to think what Campus Watch and their henchemen want them to think.
What is the difference between Campus Watch's philosophy and many communist government's efforts to call anybody who dares criticize them an "anti-revolutionary traitor"??


Christopher Riggs - 9/26/2002

The fact that at least some critics of Israel have expressed anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their positions is disgraceful, and such persons deserve to be censured.

Campus Watch's mission, however, goes far beyond simply trying to challenge anti-Semitism. Rather, it seeks to promote a particular political perspective on Middle Eastern politics and to intimidate scholars who express any alternative point of view. How free will professors, especially junior and untenured faculty, feel to offer any critiques of Israeli policy if they know they are being monitored, reported on, and in danger of being labeled "unpatriotic"?

Some of Campus Watch's defenders argue that the group is necessary to provide an objective viewpoint because students over the past thirty years have been "bullied" into accepting "biased" perspectives. Aside from the fact that such assertions are stereotypes at best, can we honestly say that the education students received before the 1960s was "unbiased"? Are we honestly supposed to believe that students in the 1950s received wholly objective views of such subjects as the Cold War and race relations? Do not college classes now offer the opportunity to discuss a much wider array of issues and ideas than before? Can't students benefit from hearing ideas that reflect biases that differ from the biases that shaped what students learned from their families and in high school?

In other words, just because certain ideas don't conform to the political agenda of Campus Watch and its defenders doesn't mean that students shouldn't learn about them. Besides, Campus Watch doesn't advocate students being given an unbiased point of view. It seeks to replace the biases it doesn't like with biases it favors. That is not the same thing as being objective.


Bill Heuisler - 9/25/2002

Mr. Magoc,
Amazing how the doctrinaire unwittingly extract tidbits-du-jour from the mud. Critical thinking on Israel should attend critical thinking on racist Legislators. Your fawning "higher form of patriotism" quote from the mouth of a die-hard segregationist is tasteless and disingenuous. Surely you're aware how your hero, Fullbright, voted during Sixties Civil Rights Legislation. Before quoting good ol' J. William on the rights and duties of Americans will you bother to inform students of his hypocrisy?
Bill Heuisler


Larry C. Wilso - 9/25/2002

It amuses me when a nation born in violent revolution against its lawful government complains about terrorists.


Alec Lloyd - 9/25/2002

This is hilarious. Really. Mssrs. Moner, Leckie and company really must live on another planet if they think the academy is unbiased and does not indulge in political activism.

Let me get this straight: a scholarly group intends to monitor what is actually being taught in our collegiate classrooms and this is somehow will result in an East German police state? Yes, God forbid the taxpayers actually find out what their cash is subsiding…


Gus Moner - 9/25/2002

This comment is generally true. The pro-Israel bias is backed by phantasmagorical sums of money disbursed by lobbyists, through Jewish control of the media and a series of governments over-represented in key positions by people who defend Jewish interests. Jewish advocates abound in commentary programmes, talk shows, etc. How many Arab equivalents are there to Wolf Blitzer, David Horowitz and Larry King, for example?

However, the nation as a whole is indeed responsible for letting this happen, by the way the education programmes limit world history teaching, and what they do teach is skewed to glorify Zionist settlers as brave victims and ignore the plight of the Palestinian inhabitants who have been invaded and uprooted by hordes of Zionist settlers.

The Jewish terror of the 1920-1948 period did not benefit from the era of mass communication, so few now know that one of the founders of the Israeli state and its first president blew up a hotel, among other terrorist acts, for example. So, he’d be comparable to Arafat!

Now, when the Israeli state itself is doing the work of terrorists, with tanks and helicopters bought in large part with US private and public aid, it is painted by this Jewish controlled media as an army acting in self-defence.

During the 45 day period of no suicide bombings in this most recently expired truce period, (brokered by the CIA) the Israeli government used the lull to kill 74 Palestinian men, women and children so blatantly that on a number of occasions they were obliged to apologise. No one seems aware of this; as it was Israel doing the killing, it merited no media recognition. However, when the Palestinians had had enough of this “truce” and sent in a suicide bomber it got so much airtime it was incredible, and of course the background was that the Palestinians broke the truce, they were to blame. The lack of historical perspective in the USA even by the media and even in a 45-day period, is astounding.

Indeed, as Mr. Beres says, the bias points up that, “the far bigger problem is pro-Israel bias, on campus and everywhere else”.


Gus Moner - 9/25/2002

I think most scholars would agree that it is difficult to teach Political Science, History and all Humanities in general without going into politics. So, “politicising” the classroom is the wrong term, and gives the wrong impression. Some classroom subjects involve politics. Therefore, it’s impossible to agree with you that it’s “academics themselves who have politicized the curriculum”. Politics are part of the curriculum.

Politically based hiring is unknown to me as a rule, professors are hired according to their curriculum vitae and in a manner that respects legal hiring practices. Not often do you hear of hiring scandals at universities. Of course, on the odd occassion you would have preferred one over the one selected, as in any business.

Plenty of “unqualified” people on all sides of the political spectrum obtain professorships due to inimitable life experiences. Not just Julian Bond, whom you apparently disapprove of.

There is, and always has been, a “permanent bright light” on the teaching profession at the universities of the USA. Every student and his family is well appraised of the teachers, their comments, points of view, grading methods, biases and the like. Just ask any other professor you encounter. As for the closed doors, that’s a professor’s call. The students and the administration can always request open doors, if they feel they are lacking. There are grievance procedures at all universities. Why install a network of spies?

We do not need an Orwellian or KGB-like thought control process in any university. That is where ideas and dissent should be openly discussed without fear of being labelled or put on a watch-list, so that young people can grow, learn and freely develop their own ideas, not simply be taught the ones some people of conservative wiles might prefer they have. That is freedom of education, choice and thought, the very essence of the nation.

What may be happening (that some seem to dislike - and are in an uproar about) is that as students freely choose how they want to face the world, with what philosophy and political persuasion they will focus the hard choices they have to make, there might be many that choose a humane, liberal approach rather than a conservative, restrictive one.

However that is no reason to stifle variety and dissent in education, but rather a reason to promote it. We might still be fighting in Vietnam if dissent and debate had been stifled in the manner these "new age" fanatics would prefer, to only teach the official government line and military patriotism.


george beres - 9/25/2002

Anti-Israel bias? Are you kidding?? Tho there may be vestiges of it in some longtime bigots, the far bigger problem is pro-Israel bias, on campus and everywhere else. As I read books about Zionist intimidation in behalf of Israel by George Ball and Paul Findley, I'm appalled by the way Zionist money, "free speech" given to political candidates, has dictated U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Who is at fault in the Middle East? All of us. But no one as heavily and insidiously as Zionists. Your campus review is misdirected and bigoted.


Chris Magoc - 9/25/2002

Far be it from academics to suggest to our students that they ought to engage in critical thinking about the history of US foreign policy that is at least partly responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves as a nation. I deeply resent the suggestion that we who encourage students to examine the historical roots of this crisis (including, but not limited to, unqualified support for Israel at all costs, no matter what) are somehow knee-jerk, blame-America-first, less-than loyal-Americans. I subscribe to Sen. William Fullbright's definition of a "higher form of patriotism" that calls us to be critically engaged Americans, including questioning the extent to which our nation's policies have helped to put this nation at risk. "Launching pad for political struggle"? The subtext of my recent US course is: Pay attention, read newspapers, read books beyond what is assigned in class, know what your government is doing in your name, vote accordingly, join organizations that support your views, and, by God, take to the streets if you are so inclined--on any issue you care about. These are the tools of democracy. They are essential to the active, thoughtful citizenry which lies at the heart of American history. Our patriotism and our support for the right of the Israeli people to live in peace and security should not be questioned simply because we teach our students to think.


mark safranski - 9/25/2002

I'm afraid it is late in the day for academics to complain about having political monitors in the university classroom since most of the time it is the academics themselves who have politicized the curriculum.

Politically-based hiring, awarding of fellowships, grants, postdoc positions and tenure have been the stock-in-trade of aging New Leftists and tenured radicals for thirty years.( As has been the practice of awarding professorships to unqualified Leftists like Julian Bond - he did his history doctorate where ? ) Many scholars are dedicated to educating their students but too many others see the university as a launching pad for political struggle. A bright light on their actions might make the latter type think twice before engaging in the PC bullying of undergraduates and grad students that occurs behind closed doors at too many public institutions


Gus Moner - 9/24/2002

Well, this is really food for thought. I had never before been taught that scholars had to accept and promote the views of “most Americans”, or, to any degree, had to accept the “enduring policies of the US government” to be considered scholars. Who dreamt that one up? A scholar is, by definition, “one who has done advanced study in a special field”; thus, it would stand to reason that those in government indeed, most everyone, would be less informed, especially those attending university who presumably would go there to learn from them.
One goes to university presumably, though not exclusively, to learn varying points of view in order to achieve the ability to reason. Through this learning process, which relies on scholars, one is trained to make up one’s mind as to how one feels or what one believes about any particular subject, especially those dealing with humanities, political science and history, the object of much interpretation.
What’s the purpose of going to study with scholars if they are just going to recite the official US government line? One would be foolish to pay exorbitant fees for that. That sort of propaganda can be found daily in the cowed press and television, at practically no cost.
The hesitation to use force may be a logical conclusion of the study of humanities, obviously, as the authors make clear, one that is not shared by all who are scholars, thereby providing a brilliant example of why diversity in universities is important. Presumably, they have graduated from universities where they studied the same biases, yet they managed to reach diametrically opposing views to their would-be academic adversaries. Hurrah for freedom of opinions.
Studying has to do with learning, understanding history and seeking alternative solutions to the world’s problems that advance humanities’ development. On what theory do the authors base themselves to use a scholar’s rejection of the use of force to disqualify that scholar from teaching? Would a person who opposed the use of force, say, in Waco, Texas, or opposed the use of force against Northern Ireland protesters or Palestinian civilians, be equally liable to be made redundant for his or her views?
Anyhow, on most accounts, some 40% of Israelis oppose their government’ s use of force. Are they also to be excluded from universities? I am keen to learn since when the university is merely a propaganda tool of government. It is precisely the independence of the universities from government control that makes them scholarly institutions, that produce diversity of thought, (as the authors clearly demonstrate by “dissenting”), reasoning, debate and ultimately provide students the most important weapon of all, the reasoning tools to reach their own conclusions without government interference. Were not the author’s ever opposed to Soviet university curriculum that only indoctrinated the students? Why replicate it?
According to the authors, if “academics” oppose the use of force, “they automatically dislike their own country and think even less of American allies abroad”. Brilliant deduction. Perhaps the authors should pause and have a think about why academics with presumably more scholarly minds that your average layman or woman, who have devoted much of their lives to thinking through situations, usually seek and advocate other alternatives to the use of force. We’d then be likely to have more solutions to problems than merely the use of force.
If the study of Middle Eastern issues is the realm of people of Middle Eastern origin, is that surprising or a problem to anyone but xenophobes? When you go to a language academy, who would you prefer teach you German, a Portuguese teacher or a German one? The German could teach you the language better, with better pronunciation and add the cultural aspects not available in a book or computer.
If the MESA is 50% Middle Eastern, that would include the entire Middle East, of which Israel is a part. How many are Jews? Is it proportional? Does it matter? How many are from Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen? What’s the point? Is the point that if it’s foreign it’s got to be bad or wrong? Perhaps that’s is the authors’ point. But more to the point is that if it’s not supportive of the government line, of using force to get cheap oil, and of Israel’s corralling of Palestinians it’s simply anti-American. That is ludicrous at best.
If Palestinians write as Palestinians, what’s wrong with that? How many Israelis don’t write as Jews, or vice versa? The authors give the following example: “Rashid Khalidi, a historian at the University of Chicago (and former president of MESA) said in the preface of his study of the PLO that he owes "the greatest debt of gratitude to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982... in defence of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon." Where is the anti-US stand? Where is the problem with that statement? Do not Jews similarly revere those who gave their lives to help build their new settler state in Palestine, who fought their wars so they could live in Palestine?
The “What we do” bit is really the heir to the work of Dzerzhinsky, the NKVD’s founder in the USSR, Himmler the Nazi crusader and Mr. Ashcroft’s who gave us the scheme to have everyone spy on everyone in the USA. I have put in bold the most pernicious elements of this thought control scheme.
“Campus Watch will henceforth monitor and gather information on professors who fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance. Campus Watch will critique these specialists, and make available its findings on the internet and in the media. Our main goals are to: Identify key faculty …critique the work of these specialists for errors or biases… Develop a network … promoting American interests on campus.
What criteria, will be used in these critiques? How will disinformation, incitement (to what, I dare ask) and ignorance be judged and analysed? Since when is the university environment to monitor people? What qualifies these “academics” to become a self-appointed jury to critique the work of others for “biases”? The real pity would be that there were no biases in scholarship, just one big, beautiful line of though we all shared happily 24 hours a day.
The authors also state that when Edward Said wrote, "Palestinians today are separated by geography and by Israel's designs to keep us fragmented and isolated from one another," he wrote "us" as a Palestinian, not as an American”. Is Mr. Said’s statement false in any way? Palestinians are separated by a geography constructed by force of arms. Most troubling is the inference that “he wrote "us" as a Palestinian, not as an American”. Since when can people write and opine only from the “American” viewpoint? It sounds decidedly exclusivist, chauvinist and un-scholarly, plainly un-constitutional, as in the US Constitution.
The further nonsense about Mr. Edward Said requires no rebuttal. It’s incomprehensible to blame a single author for a would-be academic “morass” in an entire nation! More scandalous, it is done merely on the analysis of Mr Said provided by another man. The authors never once directly comment on the allegedly guilty author’s own work, its content, merits or demerits; just on the analysis and opinion of one man, Martin Kramer, should we abhor Edward Said. Drivel.
My comment on Mr. Said is written from the perspective of one who disagrees with a number of his positions and opinions, and who does not consider Mr. Said’s work to be “unbiased”. Nonetheless, I shall defend his right to his bias until the Campus Watch authors come and take my computer away because I “fan the flames of disinformation, incitement and ignorance.


William H. Leckie, Jr. - 9/24/2002

Now cometh Middle East Forum, initiating its own version of Rechtsfuehrer John Ashcroft's call for us to spy on each other? Of particlar note is the item in this initiative's mission statement to "Keep the public apprised of course syllabi, memos, debates over appointments and funding, etc." Nowhere in this manifesto is a call for public debate by those in the field over the Middle East region's past and urgent contemporary policy issues, but rather it announces the creation of a pressure group for intimidation, denunciation, and influence over who are or who are not orthodox enough to deserve jobs and money. Indeed, even the occupant of the Oval Office has said congressional consideration--forget specialists in learned institutions--of the matter of Iraq is merely and "opportunity to support" what his political advisers craft for him. What's next?


Cyril F Daly - 9/23/2002


So long as the US supports the Israeli occupation of Palestiine and the continued construction of housing settlements, it will make not one iota of difference what a junior college or Georgetown acadmic has to say.

History News Network