 |
|
This discussion is closed. This is a transcript.
Tarnished as a spy?Author: Colloquy ModeratorDate: 08-08-02 19:39 A number of professors and some associations of Middle Eastern- and African-studies scholars are urging faculty members and institutions to boycott the National Security Education Program, a federal effort that supports language-training programs at colleges in the United States and that provides fellowships to students in return for a pledge to work for security-related government agencies after graduation. Those urging the boycott say that the program is tainted because it is run by the Department of Defense, and that the Pentagon tie exposes grant recipients to danger when they study and travel abroad. But other scholars are outraged by the boycott. They say that language programs badly need money, that the United States badly needs more students to study foreign languages, and that the boycott organizers are just looking for an excuse to bash the U.S. government. Should professors and students boycott this program? Read more ... Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Professor Stanford J. Shaw Date: 08-09-02 09:28 Any scholar who does not want to work for the United States government or the Defense Department has the perfect right to refuse to apply for or accept a fellowship from the National Security Education Program which requires such service in return. At the same time, those wishing to boycott such fellowships themselves should not have the right to impose their feelings on others and in the process to deprive scholars who wish to accept such fellowships in return for the obligation to work for the NSEP of their option to do so. Some of our best scholars in the last half-century have emerged from such work with an expertise unmatched by few others and have made very important contributions to academic research and writing. It is, however, to be hoped that in addition to the NSEP fellowships, the United States government will provide additional fellowships for foreign language study to scholars wishing to engage in academic, business, and other occupations rather than those related to the government. This is sad Author: David Foster Date: 08-09-02 10:03 If this boycott should succeed, the effect would be to deny badly-needed language/analysis resources to the intelligence agencies. This would almost certainly result in a failure to intercept terrorist operations which could potentially have been thwarted. Real people will die so that certain academics can enjoy a feeling of moral superiority. There was a time when universities made a real contribution to the survival of their societies. In WWII, the M.I.T. RadLab was instrumental in the development of radar. Hundreds of thousands--possibly millions--of people are alive today because of RadLab's work. And the contribution of the universities was not limited to the scientists. In Britain, humanities dons were heavily involved in clandestine warfare, serving with great courage in agencies such as Special Operations Executive (S.O.E.). If today's "progressives" had been around in the 1940s, would they have called for boycott of RadLab and S.O.E.? Sadly, I'm afraid that the answer is "yes". Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Dana Zimbleman Date: 08-09-02 10:09 One of the many criticisms leveled against the U.S. government regarding its involvement in Vietnam is that policymakers knew very little about Vietnamese culture specifically and Asian culture generally. Few individuals in a position to advise leaders actually spoke Vietnamese, nor had they devoted much effort to understanding the Vietnamese people. Consequently, it is puzzling why academic institutions would object to the government's attempt to ensure that employees of the Pentagon and Department of Defense had an in-depth knowledge of the language, customs, and culture of the countries about which they professed to be experts. Would these institutions boycotting the program prefer that Pentagon and DOD experts be completely ignorant of these matters? Surely the boycotters cannot be so naive as to believe that the U.S. government will cease to be involved in the countries in question if there are no field experts to rely on. My husband works for the DOD, and I believe it is utter folly for academics to put up such a fuss about this matter. Apparently, many cannot get beyond stereotypes once they hear the words "Pentagon" "Intelligence" and "Department of Defense." Despite their objections, having better trained language experts in the field goes beyond the ability to spy. It may mean better communication between locals and our folks on the ground as they gather all sorts of data--mapping information, for example Better trained experts may directly affect whether a bomb hits a strategic target or a civilian villiage down the road. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Jennifer Nichols, Assistant Director Date: 08-09-02 14:48 Boycott if you like. However, it is an excellent opportunity for young college students to experience other cultures through language and study abroad. As for exposing them to danger abroad, if the student tells many many people that they are studying on a fellowship through the National Security Agency (which is what I hear one student tell a group when I was in Egypt this year when he was showing off), there is plenty of potential for this to be dangerous, but no more so than some one in France, England or Spain. One thing I have noticed about this 'scholarly' debate is that many 'scholars' don't have their facts straight. I would suggest actually reading the scholarship guidelines which are posted on the internet at http://www.ndu.edu/nsep/ and are distributed along with all the advertising for the scholarship instead seeing the words 'national security' and automatically assuming something sinister. The guidelines specifically state that the recipient is only required to APPLY for a security related position - if hired, the person then has the opportunity to work for them. It guarentees no jobs and no salary figure. They are under no obligation of service, only an obligation to go through the application process. Having gone through the process on two occasions, it isn't fun, but what job hunt is - especially for those of us in the humanities. And what would the results be if one of the scholarship recipients actually got a job working for an American intelligence agency? We might actually have someone working for our government who knows Arabic or Turkish or Farsi or Pashto or Urdu. As scholars, do we really think that would be bad? I certainly don't! Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: V. V. Raman Date: 08-09-02 22:52 Receiving government funding for the study of foreign languages tarnishes the integrity of a scholar because he might turn into a spy? What about those who have learned the languages independently and choose to serve their government? They have no integrity or self-respect either? Only the self-righteous academics who would look down upon anybody who would work for the DOD are pure of heart and mind? To use a hackneyed phrase, give me a break! V. V. Raman Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Junius W. Peake-Professor of Finance Date: 08-10-02 13:21 What's wrong with being a spy? The very same people who are boycotting the DOD program have been the first to demand answers on why 9-11 could have happened. A few more spies with appropriate linguistic skills might well have prevented it. Is the lack of intestinal fortitude and absence of patriotism, coupled with anti-governmental paranoia, so widespread in academia today that we can't use higher educational institutions to teach foreign languages to people who have indicated they will serve the government after their education has been completed. Where are the policy makers of these institutions? This kind of fuzzy-headed decision making should not be left to those who spend their time solely in the ivory tower instead of the real world. The presidents and boards of trustees should make these kinds of decision. These are policy decisions, not academic ones! The very survival of our country is at risk if we don't have enough trained linguists. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Patricia Kerry, Buyer, FYA Inc. Date: 08-12-02 09:54 Actually what should be bocotted is the classrooms and institutions of these extreme leftist professors and "scholars". These people hate America and everything it stands for. I find it ironic that the extreme leftists in academia do everything they can to denigrate and tear down this great country---but they relish and exploit her freedoms every chance they get. They are hypocrites and deserve our scorn. I believe what should happen is the FBI should investigate these professors and "scholars". There was a professor at a south Florida university who was let go after it was determined he had ties to middle-east terrorist organizations. I wonder how many of these oh so noble professors and "scholars" have similar backgrounds... Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: David Longanecker, Executive Directore, WICHE Date: 08-12-02 10:42 During my tenure as Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, I served on the NSEP Board. I was not there by proclivity or intensity of interest, but simply because of my position at the time. I accepted the role with some anxiety, because I was concerned that the U.S. role in international graduate education be kept academic and not political. My concerns moderated, however, as I became more familiar with the program. Sure, it is run by the Department of Defense. Even more anxiety provoking, the CIA is involved. But, the Board, which closely monitors the staff, had great advocates for academic integrity involved. People like Manuel Pacheco, who simply would not countenance any efforts to "corrupt" the program. We often discussed the perceptions of the program, and the possibility that such perceptions could place scholars at risk. Such, are the realities of the modern world, however, and better to live with them and around them than to concede to them. I, too, hope for greater support for other international education programs, but I am convinced from my experience that the NSEP Board and staff are working hard to maintain the integrity of that program and to live up to Senator Boren's lofty goals for the program, when he originally crafted the support for the program before leaving the Senate. Not much interest.. Author: David Foster Date: 08-12-02 11:42 Judging from the lack of comments on this board, this doesn't seem to be a subject of much interest to Chronicle readers (compared to such burning issues as the unionization of resident assistants). If anyone is interested in the topic, take a look at National Review Online, which has a discussion and a number of links. Get the facts straight first Author: Joel Beinin/President, Middle East Studies Association, Date: 08-12-02 12:42 Anne Marie Borrego's article on the position of the Middle East and African studies Association towards the National Security Education Program and its National Flagship Language Initiative - Pilot Program (August 16) is full of errors and misleading statements. Her assertions are unsupported by any direct reference or quotation from the relevant resolutions of the boards of these scholarly associations. Her claim that, "some scholars are fighting a government effort to pump more money into language programs that federal officials say are key to U.S. security interests" is false. As far as I know, not a single scholar opposes enhanced federal funding of foreign language programs, especially not the Middle East Studies Association. When Ms. Borrego interviewed me I emphasized that the April resolution of the Board of Directors of MESA regarding NSEP and NFLI-P clearly states, "We fully endorse the most broadly defined aim of the program, Œto address the need to increase the ability of Americans to communicate and compete globally by knowing the languages and cultures of other countries.'" (http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/boardletters.htm#427NFLI-P) The principle point of difference between the MESA Board of Directors and the federal government concerning NSEP and the NFLI-P is who should administer the programs. The MESA board - in concert with the boards of the African and Latin American studies associations - believes that this is best done by the Department of Education, not by the Department of Defense and the CIA. Ms. Borrego misstates MESA's position on the national service obligation of individual grant recipients. As our resolution states, "NSEP was instituted specifically to address the personnel needs of federal agencies responsible for national security. Students accepting NSEP fellowships have a national service obligation. We regard this as a matter of individual choice and have urged simply that students be made fully aware of their contractual obligations under the program. However, we are apprehensive that the proposed establishment of university programs will link all participating students by association with Defense Department language study funding through the institutional grants that NFLI-P has announced." MESA recognizes the freedom of choice of individual grant recipients to work for the government. That is a different matter than a university accepting a grant which implicates all of the relevant faculty and students whether they choose to be associated with the Department of Defense and the CIA or not. It is misleading to characterize the position of the MESA Board of Directors as a boycott of NSEP and the NFLI-P. There is a difference between a boycott, which is an organized effort to prevent any trafficking with an individual or group, and a recommendation of non-participation, which individual members of MESA are free to follow or not as they choose. Our resolution concludes: "We recommend that MESA members and institutions not seek or accept funding for the NFLI-P as presently defined, constituted, and administered." The MESA Board of Directors cannot and does not seek to impose its views on the membership. Ms. Borrego does not explain that one of the concerns of the MESA board is that "if the full-fledged NFLI-P is funded and established in years to come, according to the description of the Pilot Program, participating universities Œmust be ready and able to accept those students, as well as U.S. government personnel, who may not be matriculants or degree seekers.'" Wouldn't many university faculty and administrators view with concern the possibility of direct government participation in deciding who may be admitted to university programs? Some of those interviewed by Ms. Borrego suggested that the MESA board's resolution is the product of an unpatriotic agenda. While many MESA members disagree with US foreign policy in the Middle East, others are employees of the State Department, the CIA, and the military. Does anyone doubt that this is a healthy state of affairs in a democracy? Joel Beinin Professor of Middle East History Stanford University MESA President, 2001-02 Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Carlee Romagnoli Date: 08-12-02 15:23 Joel wrote - "The principle point of difference between the MESA Board of Directors and the federal government concerning NSEP and the NFLI-P is who should administer the programs. The MESA board - in concert with the boards of the African and Latin American studies associations - believes that this is best done by the Department of Education, not by the Department of Defense and the CIA." Why? NSEP and NFLI-P programs are designed to facilitate our National Security. As such, it makes sense that oversite remain within the DOD/CIA. NSEP and NFLI-P programs under the DOE would permit questionable organizations like MESA to influence program objectives. As a result, this is nothing more then a grap for power and influence by MESA. BTW, how can MESA ...an organization dedicated to the understanding of Middle East culture....miss the threat from radical Islam. Maybe MESA should quit handing out rose covered glasses from pristine ivory towers that threaten our National Security. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: David Foster Date: 08-12-02 15:25 Your organization specifically says "We recommend that MESA members and institutions not seek or accept funding for the NFLI-P as presently defined, constituted, and administered," according to your own post. I don't understand why you don't think this is a boycott. Maybe you have confused a boycott with a secondary boycott (which would occur if you recommended action against institutions which fail to comply with the primary boycott). Under the current circumstances, the government urgently needs intelligence resources. I don't understand why you think universities shouldn't participate in this effort, even if it means they lose some "purity" by accepting non-degree seekers. Others (firemen, soldiers, etc.) have lost a lot more...ie, their lives. Do you believe that you have any responsibilities to the society in which you live? Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Junius W. Peake-Professor of Finance Date: 08-12-02 17:31 Professor Beinin: Don't you understand that this is not an academic issue, but a policy issue? Why does the: "the MESA board - in concert with the boards of the African and Latin American studies associations - believes that this is best done by the Department of Education, not by the Department of Defense and the CIA."? If the only problem you have is the source of the funding, why is this an academic issue? I'm looking forward to your answer. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: S. Christopher LaRue/Director of Public Affairs for Date: 08-12-02 18:02 Ms. Borrego's article seemed fairly even-handed in representing both sides of the argument. But your comments seem misleading. I re-read the article and re-read your comments twice to make sure. The inconsistencies seem to be on your part. First, you state, "Her claim that, 'some scholars are fighting a government effort to pump more money into language programs that federal officials say are key to U.S. security interests' is false." You're wrong but the semantics are clever. The "a program" part of that quote is clearly the NESP & NFLI-P as described in the article. Either you didn't understand what you were reading -- which I find difficult to believe -- or you are intentionally trying to mislead others about your stance. To wit, in the VERY NEXT paragraph you state, "The MESA board - in concert with the boards of the African and Latin American studies associations - believes that this [program administration] is best done by the Department of Education, not by the Department of Defense and the CIA." So, yes, you and MESA would like to see a different program, one that you and MESA would support. For clarity, you're against this one in favor of another. Therefore, Ms. Borrego is correct in her statement. Second, you claim, "Ms. Borrego misstates MESA's position on the national service obligation of individual grant recipients." Professor, she doesn't even refer to MESA's position on the national service obligation. She does however refer to a statement urging your membership to avoid seeking or accepting funds. She quoted the statement -- which I noticed you didn't contradict -- "A government-funded program that emphasized cooperation between the U.S. academy and government agencies responsible for intelligence and defense will increase the difficulties and dangers of such academic activities, and may foster the already widespread impression that academic researchers from the United States are directly involved in government activities." Third, you state, "It is misleading to characterize the position of the MESA Board of Directors as a boycott of NSEP and the NFLI-P." Let's not mince words here. MESA clearly is recommending to students and institutions not to seek or accept NSEP and NFLI-P funds as you noted. How is that not a boycott? Heck, even Webster's defines boycott as "to abstain from using, buying or dealing with to express protest". Re-defining the word isn't going to change the fact that MESA is boycotting the NSEP and NFLI-P program, professor. In your final paragraph, you bemoan the idea that MESA's board of directors' recommendation to boycott -- there's that word again -- is the "product of an unpatriotic agenda." Again, professor, you obfuscate. The accusation was that the opposition, which includes MESA, was largely political. She quoted Martin S. Kramer, "It has everything to do with self-important professors who pose as guardians of the radical, third world-ist flame of the 1960s." I believe he may be right. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Martin Kramer, Middle East Quarterly Date: 08-12-02 18:15 The facts about MESA and NSEP are simple enough: from day one, MESA has opposed the program with this rationale or that, in the hope that the funds might be made over to the Title VI program of the Department of Education. Title VI is effectively run by academic peer review--i.e., by the professors themselves. Over the decades, they transformed Title VI from a defense program into part of the academic reproductive system. It was precisely the total failure of the DoE-run Title VI to meet any national security need, which led then-Sen. Boren to create the NSEP. The NSEP has been an immense success over the past decade, despite the snarls of MESA and radical faculty. In fact, it has been such a success that the higher education lobby actually pushes each year for more funding. And it hasn't compromised or endangered anyone. The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story on the program a couple of years ago Under the apt headline: "Sheep in Wolf's Clothing" (April 7, 2000). Is there any reason, then, to think that the leftover-left radicals who run MESA aren't just crying wolf again? The universities are not being asked to do classified research, plan military operations, or dabble in counter-insurgency social science. They are simply being asked to do what they already do--teach Arabic--to people who are committed to serving their country. It is, quite literally, the very least they can do, post-9/11. So the question for MESA is this: if you aren't willing to do this bare minimum, then what are you willing to do? Especially since you have already pocketed a fat 9/11 windfall: a 26% increase in Title VI funding, your no-strings semi-entitlement? If MESA cannot envision doing anything more than gorging itself on more government subsidies, its board should at least have the decency to stand aside and let each university reach its own determination about the NSEP. The boycott decision--and have no doubt, it is a call for a boycott--is really nothing short of a scandal. In the last week of November, MESA will convene its annual conference in Washington. Some of the MESAns will trawl Capitol Hill, arguing that their enterprise serves the nation's interest and deserves federal support. They should be shown the door. As long as the boycott of the NFLI stands, the U.S. government should boycott MESA in return. Martin Kramer Editor, Middle East Quarterly Author, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America MESA's smokescreen Author: Peter W. Wood, Associate Professor of Anthropology Date: 08-12-02 18:48 It is fascinating to see Joel Beinin split hairs in an attempt to deny plain facts. The Middle East Studies Association is on record in its recent attempt to organize a boycott of NSEP. But the debate should not be limited to MESA's new anti-NSEP initiative. As Anne Marie Borrego points out in her article, both MESA and the African Studies Association have been attempting to thwart the spirit of NSEP from its start. The African Studies Association has been, if anything, even more obstreperous than MESA. The concern over student safety is a mere smokescreen, which MESA has laid down because it realizes that its brand of post-colonial anti-Americanism is not likely to win friends to its cause. NSEP funding is not now a stigma for most students and scholars, but clearly MESA would like to make it so. NSEP serves a crucial and legitimate national purpose. We are in need of individuals who speak the languages and understand the cultures of peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere; and we are especially in need of American citizens who are willing to dedicate the necessary years of hard effort to acquire this expertise. That's becuase our national security is best served by individuals who are deeply committed to American values and can bridge the cultural divides. The resentment that drives MESA and some individual scholars to oppose NSEP centers on the notion that our government, our economic institutions, and our culture in the larger sense aim to exploit and dominate the rest of the world. A genuinely honest debate with the boycott's proponents would put that thesis on the table and invite the public to judge it on its merits. After all, it is avidly discussed within the academy. But I doubt MESA is really interested in having that debate. Who's afraid of Arabic? Author: Sean McMeekin Date: 08-12-02 20:33 I've joined this debate a bit late, so please forgive me if I don't have my acronyms straight. I am a two-time recipient of FLAS awards for language study (which are administered by the Dept. of Ed.), but until I saw this article I was unaware that similar DOD- or CIA-administered programs existed. Frankly, I find it deplorable that MESA would try to sabotage language study programs so obviously crucial to national security after September 11. And yet it doesn't surprise me in the least. When I was a graduate student at UC Berkeley in the 1990s, I noticed the appearance of a rather peculiar academic fad: "translation" classes, designed for humanities students who wanted to pass their department's language exams by learning little tricks you could perform with a dictionary - without actually learning the languages. While I don't profess to know who began this fad, it seems wholly representative of the anti-intellectual atmosphere prevailing in humanities departments these days. So much easier to master Foucault and Bourdieu and Lacan and Barthes and Baudrillard (all in English translation, mind you) than to master the idiosyncrasies of French, not to mention German, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, Persian, or Arabic. These powerful professors boycotting NSEP and NFLI may indeed be putting our national security at risk partly to assuage their own feelings of "moral superiority," as David Foster suggests. But I think much more than this is at stake for them in the academy. If students actually began to learn Arabic and could thus ingest the daily diet of anti-semitic poison served up in the press from Marrakesh to Islamabad, they would no longer take Edward Said's latest screed in Harper's on faith as the definitive word on Middle Eastern politics. Or if they learned Russian, they might actually read some of Lenin's blood-curdling "kill the class enemy" decrees in his own language - and begin to doubt their professors' neo-Marxist sympathies. In short, humanities and social science students armed with an actual intellectual skill - fluency in a difficult foreign language - might begin to (gasp) think for themselves. If I were a lazy Middle Eastern studies don faced with the prospect of young students surpassing my own mediocre foreign language skills and beginning to question the worldview I'd been ramming down their throats, I would tremble, too. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Randy Delind Date: 08-13-02 11:15 This is one of the few Colloquy exchanges where there is virtual unanimity on a topic. Leaving aside leftist academics whose mission is to condemn everything their government does, it is rather surprising, or perhaps it should not be, that among the many voices on this issue, there is not a single Arab-American scholar's (that one can recognize). Is this a reflection of their commitment to their country?, one wonders. Randy Delind Re: Dangerous arrogance Author: T. Cooler Date: 08-13-02 12:30 The MESA dons have been exposed and well described by previous commentators. I would add that, opposing opportunities for second and third language acquisition in the Academy is redolent of self-hate: how could genuine seekers of knowledge and understanding deny that privilege to others? Perhaps only if they were not the honest enquiriers they purport to be. Their paternalism is highly suspect. The half million International students in this country are functioning quite well in English, their second or maybe fourth or fifth language, and using the opportunity to learn about us,while our National commitment to other language learning, though personally valiant, has been too little regarded both in the Government AND in Academe. Remember when many schools deleted the Foreign language requirement for the BA? DOD needs our support, appreciation and encouragement to explain to those of an open mind, not only the utility, but also the insights gained and the sheer pleasure of reaching a degree of fluency in a chosen second language. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: V. V. Raman Date: 08-13-02 14:39 When the government offered some funds to learn Burmese and Hindi and Persian, I thought it was a good way to earn A degree in cultures Asian. They added Arabic, and Turkish and such, And even the language of Pushtu. But they did not include German or Dutch, Or even the language called Urdu. I was going to answer the government's call, When a colleague said I'd be in a way, Not a student of tongues, not a scholar at all, But an agent of the C.I.A. "Help not you country, it shouldn't be so strong," Is what some academics say. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong: But they're all part of the U.S.A. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: S. Christopher LaRue/Director of Public Affairs for Date: 08-13-02 16:30 What does it say about Beinin when he won't respond to anyone who questions him, his organization or his stances? Clearly, the idea of academia is to encourage open mindedness, consider alternative ideas and encourage inquiry, yes? Apparently, you're only open minded and intellectual if you agree with Beinin and his collegues. How long will it take for him to say that these comments are mean-spirited and that it was all a conspiracy to cast him and MESA in a bad light? Not long, I'm sure. Professor, if you read this, respond or defend your claims. Hiding behind the skirts of your postmodernist claptrap with your likeminded collegues is shameful. I might not agree with you, but if you'd stand your ground, I would at least respect you. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Stephen DuVal Date: 08-13-02 18:54 I find the terms of your debate almost ridiculous. It is time to turn the table on those academics who are dead set on destroying our society as we know it. These people supported the Soviet Union and China despite the massive loss of life which occurred under these totalitarian regimes. They are unwilling to concede their errors even after these regimes have imploded. There is no reason for a society to fund people intent on destroying it. The federal government should withhold all funding from any department which supports the boycott. If the university takes steps to offset this departmental reduction in funding, then the entire university should be cut off. This reduction in funding should apply not only to grants but to all types of funding including student loans. For many years the left has engaged in a vicious slander of anyone who attempts to exercise free speach which is not politically correct. They have been remarkably successful in their campaign of intimidation and ostracization within the universities. Many departments within the universities have been overrun by these people. If the academics who do support our country are unwilling or unable to ensure that these institutions become part of the solution rather than part of the problem, then the country is better off without these institutions. During WWII, the universities played a critical role in the success of the democracies over the forces of totalitarianism. Something has happened to these institutions over the last 50 years. It is time to start fixing this problem. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: David Foster Date: 08-13-02 22:25 Actually, I'm very encouraged by this discussion. Almost everybody has spoken out strongly against the MESA nonsense. That said, there is clearly something seriously wrong in academia. I'd like to suggest a root cause, to wit: The set of people with the interest and ability to do university-level teaching and scholarship is, as a proportion of the population, a fairly limited number. As the universities have expanded vastly over the past 30 years, the demand for faculty has outstripped the pool of those suited for the job. (We have seen something similar in the business world where, in the late '90s, the number of public companies formed arguably exceeded the number of people with the ability to run them.) The effect of this has been to bring a lot of people into faculties who don't really belong there. Many of these people, for whatever reason, are fascinated by the concept of "power". Their interest in power is an almost pornographic one, as they do not typically have the personality attributes to seek power personally. In their academic work, they attempt to reduce everything..whether social change, or art, or gender relations, or quantum physics...to issues of power distribution. This is just as false as reducing everything to economics or to sex, and arguably much more harmful, due to the endless conflicts and resentments it creates. I make this hypothesis tentatively, not being in academia myself. I'd love to hear from those on the academic front lines...does anything about this explanation ring true? Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Scott Zion Date: 08-14-02 01:02 "What does it say about Beinin when he won't respond to anyone who questions him, his organization or his stances?" MESA like the Arab leaders scurry as if cockroaches under a spotlight. Thanks to Allah for the likes of: Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami and Daniel Pipes who truly understand the ways of the Middle East. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: V. V. Raman Date: 08-14-02 11:47 I am not so sure, as David Foster suggests, that people in academia are hankering for power. I rather think that a great many thoughtful people in our colleges and universities are inclined towards liberal and progressive views, in the best sense of the terms. In the best sense means that such views are inspired by genuine caring for the weak and the disenfranchised, intolerance for injustice and unfairness, a willingness to look from the opponent's point of view, striving for the greater good for more people, opposition to over-exertion of our military power in uncalled-for contexts, concern for the environment and long-range interests of humanity as a whole, and the like. I feel that these perspectives among scholars, teachers, and intellectuals (which I share) are among the best strengths of our system, and are to be commended. They contribute to the greatness of this nation. However, as with everything good, whether technology, religion, free speech or whatever, some practitioners of the system can and do, unwittingly more often than intentionally, distort or damage the system by taking it to absurd and hurtful extremes. I like to think that in this particular case, again, the motivation of the people involved in calling for a boycott was perhaps not as sinister as it might seem. Unfortunately, it sprung from one of the extremist tenets of leftist liberalism which is to be always suspicious and condemnatory of one's government. This too is an important in principle in any democracy, but it can be dangerous if it is applied indiscriminately without considering the context or the issue, and this is where, in the view of so many of us, they grievously erred. Perhaps they would regain the respect of many if they admitted that this was a rash and knee-jerk reaction on their part. V. V. Raman August 14, 2002 Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-14-02 11:59 It has long been my hope to avoid further submission to "Chronicle" colloquy, and I have been successful in this for more than a week. Yet this discussion cannot be allowed to stand exactly as it is now, so I reenter the list, in more than one sense. It is a matter of record, even in the discussions of this series, that, among other things: I find a great deal of postmodernism nonsense, stemming to my mind from exposure to a few anthropological ideas, without much understanding of the greater anthropological context; I have criticized those who find only flaws in American policy; I have criticized the ideas of a number of members of MESA, and specifically criticizing some who have seen it a mark of honor to refuse to provide knowledge which would be useful to Americans, but also Professor Beinen stange, postmodern belief, that the purpose of knowledge of other cultures is ONLY to understand thse cultures in their own terms; I believe there is notable corruption, in American academe, and have pointed to particular cases which, for those who know the circumstances, may possibly be evidence of such corruption; I have criticized the boycotting of any scholars for any reasons; and I might add, "and so on." None of these views are views which endear me to large segments of academe, and are views which have potential for doing me personal damage as well. Behind these views, however, there is one great consistency: The greatest obligation of scholars is to the advancement and diffusion of knowledge. This is far more important than anything which befalls the individual scholar. In the present discussion, I am not at all certain that it is entirely correct to call the MESA, et cetera, "boycott" of the government language program a boycott. At the moment that is not a pressing concern with me. It certainly would be should I have to think out all the alternatives which might be offered up for the "best" solution to the situation. And while I am one who believes that, insofar as there are no seriously conflicting scholarly obligations, a scholar should aid in providing background information which is of use to policy makers, I recognize situations where it would be entirely unethical (and possibly immoral) to do so. Whatever reasons may lie behind Professor Beinen's stance, it is simply wrong to say that necessarily his position provides evidence of the wrongheadedness of postmodernism, that the issue is a policy (not an academic) question, that this is further proof of the corruption of academe, and so on. The question is, I think, much more deserving of serious consideration, at least for scholars who truly believe that the advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the scholar's highest goal. The absolute integrity of American researchers must be maintained, especially in a world where there is an announced intention of covert action in other countries, sometimes at least, without the knowledge of the governments of those countries. In a situation which requires immediate settlement, to balance the counter-claims of those (such as myself) who recognize the integrity of knowledge as the highest scholarly concern, against those who speak only of the greatest good of our society, far-ranging discussion of these matters may well lead to a solution which will be amenable to all. The raising of such issues, then, is not only important, but could well be a blessing in disguise. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: S. Christopher LaRue/Director of Public Affairs for Date: 08-14-02 12:41 "Thanks to Allah for the likes of: Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami and Daniel Pipes" Don't forget Stanley Kurtz. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: AS/Assistant Prof Date: 08-14-02 14:06 Joel Beinin's embarrassingly dishonest letter says all one needs to know about the state of Middle East studies. It also says a lot that I feel compelled -- as an untenured professor in the field -- to write in just using my initials. I take enough heat for my academic positions without facing the ostracization which would come with publicly disagreeing with this boycott. One, Professor Beinin -- to put it kindly -- ignores the definition of boycott which is available in any dictionary. It is indeed a 1984-ish world in which he can claim that this is not a boycott. Two, Professor Beinin dishonestly represents the arguments in Borrego's article, as has been parsed elsewhere on this thread. Three, NSEP is precisely the sort of funding which should be encouraged and MESA puts forth not one substantial argument against it. We should want more funding for foreign language training. We should want better trained academics. We should want better trained policy makers. There is no argument put forth by MESA disputing this point, and that this is the basic aim of NSEP. Instead there is only obfustacation and side issues. Four, the only thing resembling an argument put forth by Beinin is that MESA disagrees with who administers the program. This is hardly substantive in terms of justifying a boycott. Five, it is worth pointing out that earlier versions of NSEP included the possibility of teaching as fulfilling the NSEP's service obligation. In fact, I personally received both FLASs and an NSEP and fulfilled my NSEP obligation through teaching. Horrors at the damage this did to my academic integrity. Yet there were also calls for boycotts of even the NSEP which simply called for recipients to teach in order to repay their grant. Six, the notion that receiving an NSEP represents any danger to a recipient student is ludicrous and, frankly, bigoted. MESA is supposed to be an organization dedicated to knowledge of the Middle East, but it sounds like they are simply spreading scary rumors about terrifying Middle Easterners. One, there's no particular reason to share the particulars of one's grant and, even if one does, the idea that this will result in violence is a fantasy that will please only the most Islamo and Arabphobic among us. I look forward to the day that MESA becomes an inclusive, tolerant organization which aims to further academic knowledge and free discourse. Its current Stalinism, however, is simply depressing in its small-mindedness and lack of intellectual integrity, and Professor Beinin's post is an example of that. AS Academics and power? Author: David Foster Date: 08-14-02 14:44 V.V.R...just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that all people in academia, or even a majority, are power-hungry. My suggestion is that there is a *subset* of people in academia who, for the most part, are not interested or equipped for serious teaching and scholarship...and it is these people who tend to be the power-freaks. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-14-02 15:01 My submission was posted before having the benefit of the post by Professor AS. And in response to that submission, with which I agree in the main, although certainly not entirely, it is necessary to make one clear distinction. There are different kinds of linguistic training, of course, but at least two kinds need to be clearly distinguished in the context of this discussion. There is training which involves only classroom work (whether by "immersion" or not) , while there is training which involves work in a foreign country. The source of funding is perhaps largely irrelevant in the first case, at least in regard to the problems of student and research integrity. The second, however, presents very, very complicated problems. It is not uncommon for scholars returned from lands to get requests for "debriefing" from government agencies, especially (at least as far as my familiarity through word from colleagues goes) from CIA. There is, I would say, a moral and ethical obligation to "do no harm" to people studied and with whom one studied. This, I would say, presents huge, huge problems for any thoughtful person. One other thought Author: David Foster Date: 08-14-02 15:02 You say that "in the best sense means...such (progressive) views are inspired by genuine caring for the weak and the disenfranchised, intolerance for injustice and unfairness, a willingness to look from the opponent's point of view." I suspect that (in most cases) this is largely true. To be critical of the faults of one's own society, for example, is a very good thing. But many present-day 'progressives' are now able to see *only* the faults of their own society, while being blind to its virtues and also to the faults of other societies. And, as C.S. Lewis has pointed out, this kind of "self-criticism" (at the level of one's whole society) is not really self-criticism at all at the individual level..quite the contrary, it is tightly coupled with a sense of superiority of oneself and one's coterie. Most seriously -- when one wears blinders and willfully refuses to see what is actually there... one violates what Trilling called "the moral obligation to be intelligent." Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Junius W. Peake - Professor of Finance Date: 08-14-02 17:14 Dear "AS": Why is it that the academic freedom that higher education cherishes so highly always hides behind anonymity whenever an untenured academic wants to make a controversial statement that may not be politically correct? Having read this colloquy, it seems to me that everyone (except, of course, Professor Beinin from that California center of liberalism) is in agreement that the boycott (or whatever else it may be called) is wrong, unpatriotic and has nothing to do with scholarship. I cannot believe that signing your name could possibly put your tenure track career in danger. If it could, dear AS, you should get out of an academic morass that doesn't believe in academic freedom. And ostracization beats ostrich-like behavior any day! With "heat" comes light. Carpe diem! Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-15-02 09:03 While I share Professor Peake's concern about anonymous commentary (since my high school journalism class), there are legitimate reasons for an untenured person to have considerable concern when criticizing the leading figures in the field, as misguided as they clearly are sometimes. And this brings me to the only other comment I wish to make in this discussion. Desiring "power" (in one's field) is not necessarily bad. In my experience, in my own field, the best scholars are divided between those who want as much power as they can get, and those who are totally unconcerned with anything but their own work. And usually the former use their power with great responsibility. On the other hand, there are a few very powerful incompetents, who use their power to their own benefit, to further the influence of their incompentent ideas to the detriment of real scholarship. These are the ones who are dangerous to the untentured of talent. I do not know if AS is justified in his particular assessments of personnel in his field or not, but if he is, he is wise to post anonymously. On the other hand, if his assessments are in error, hiding his identity is despicable. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Junius W. Peake-Professor of Finance Date: 08-15-02 12:07 Mr. Thurman: I understand your concern about the "...few very powerful incompetents, who use their power to their own benefit, to further the influence of their incompentent ideas to the detriment of real scholarship. These are the ones who are dangerous to the untentured of talent." But is it in academia's interest to give such people a "bye," rather than exposing them? My favorite quote is Edmund Burke's: "For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good men [and women] do nothing." Silence is assent. Anonymity equals silence. I rest my case. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: AS/Assistant Prof Date: 08-15-02 17:44 Thanks for the comments, but I'd prefer NSEP remain the subject rather than myself. I will quickly note, however, that I fully agree with the sentiment Prof Peake expresses and I do, in fact, stand by my academic positions publicly, let the chips fall where they may. On side issues such as this, however, I'd prefer discretion -- as anyone in academia knows, too often disagreements on such side issues can have a serious impact on one's career and as this is by no means a core intellectual issue but still one that is politically sensitive, I've chosen to remain anonymous. Those familiar with the Perestroika manifesto (and subsequent movement) in Political Science will know that such a choice is by no means rare in contemporary academia. To return to the subject of NSEP, in my own experience with NSEP there was no request for a debriefing and, in fact (if memory serves, it's been a while), I was expressly forbidden from passing on information to a U.S. security agency or some such clause. I can't swear by that (and it may also have changed), but I do recall something along those lines and thinking it rather ironic. But the bottom-line point on such issues is that the decision should be made by a fully informed student. The push for a boycott by MESA really implies that they will substitute their judgement for that of individual students. I fully agree students should be informed of any political complications or dangers (though I still find that the assertion of danger implies a laughably stereotyped view of the Middle East) of such a grant, but the decision as to accept it or not should be theirs. I should also add that I in no way meant to impugn the scholarship of all of those in MESA. Most MESA members do terrific work and I can only hope to live up to their standards as my own career progresses. It is on political issues such as this that, at times, scholarship can become confused as to its priorities. And, lastly, I used the term "Stalinist" in my original post, and, in retrospect, that was far too strong a term. I apologize for that and retract it. The internet has the strong negative quality of encouraging speedy communication in which one sometimes expresses oneself too hastily and harshly, as was the case in this instance. I apologize to Professor Beinin. AS Untenured Author: Sean McMeekin Date: 08-15-02 18:41 Professor Peake, Let me guess. You have tenure. I suggest you desist from your rather unfair attacks upon our colleague who is posting here anonymously. If he (or she) is in Middle Eastern Studies, then this person has EVERY RIGHT to fear future stabs-in-the-back from the powers that be. You are only shooting the messenger. Let me give you some news from the untenured front in history. I have been publishing my views about campus politics online, under my own name, for several years now. Some colleagues have praised my courage. Others (mostly tenured professors who, unlike you, know just how corrupt the current regime is at most universities and have my best interests at heart) advised me that I was committing career suicide. Well, I kept on publishing my views, consequences be damned. And the naysayers were right. I was on the job market last year, and I was "googled" by nearly every university I applied too. Despite a sterling research, teaching evaluations, etc. record, and a book deal with a major academic publisher that came with a substantial advance, I got very few interviews. Those who did bother to interview me let me know that my articles had ruffled everyone's feathers. Those who agreed with my views--and there were quite a few--told me so in hushed whispers, looking over their shoulders. Literally. Typical was a sort of awkward head-shaking apology, with someone telling me, "I totally agree with you and I'd love to have you, but you should know--I wouldn't send my own children to school here..." A nice excuse for not fighting for me in committee? Or a confession that all is truly lost? A few brave souls, bless them, even voted for me. But they were inevitably out-shouted by people who came to my interviews with angry, pre-planned assaults. Among the choice comments I remember: -"conservatives aren't welcome in this department"; -"you better not use THAT word around here" -"You may not be aware of it, but all the students want gender studies/media studies/peace studies these days. I just don't see you engaging with that." -"Do you have any idea how much trouble you've caused? What you've gotten yourself into?" So there you have it. I published my views. Would you like me to name names now, and tell you which tenured fat cats uttered these shameful things? Fat chance. Enough damage already done. Sean McMeekin ps I have an untenured friend who, unlike me, writes on academic affairs under a pseudonym. I envy him now. True, he gets death threats, but then his would-be silencers don't know where he lives. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-15-02 20:48 I applaud AS for seeking to return this discussion to the matters of central concern. I have nothing more to say on those central matters, however, and write only to answer my old friend, Professor Peake, who has often been a wonderful opponent in "Chronicle" debates. To my way of thinking, the Burke quotation is not wrong, but leaves too much unsaid-- even supposing that there could be universal agreement as to what particulars would consititute "evil." It is a far more difficult thing to demonstrate the existence of an evil than to assert it. And the main theme which has run through most of my submissions to "Chronicle" discussion is that most contributers to these discussions simply assert the existence of an evil, without any real attempt to subsubstantiate their assertions. In this discussion, for example, I believe that the MESA position is misguided in the main, but that there is a very substantial point which could be made in favor of their position, which has not been made by that organization. And that is what really troubles me about their position-- that it has not been defended by them with intellectual vigor. But given the existence of substantial arguments which could be used to defend that position, even if MESA itself has yet put formal only a trivial defense, there are no real grounds for arguing either that MESA is self-evidently wrong in taking its position, and even less to say that it has pepetrated an evil. It is the triviality of the MESA arguments which makes their position look bad. No matter how gross a single case may appear, it provides little meaningful evidence of wrong-doing in itself-- a pattern must be demonstrated to do otherwise. It is extremely difficult, in any scholarly discipline, to gain wide enough knowledge to demonstrate the existence, or past existence, of "evil" patterns in academe. So there are many 'good men [and women]" who do nothing, because they are unaware of undemonstrated evils. Further, I would say at least, the "good man [or woman]" should not take up the cudgel until he or she has good evidence in hand. And that is one of the things that has been so troublesome in "Chronicle" discussions-- the degree to which so many people put forward their opinions without any substantial consideration of the particular facts. Re: Untenured Author: Junius W. Peake-Professor of Finance Date: 08-15-02 21:55 I do not have tenure, nor would I ever accept it if were offered. I believe in its present form it stifles academic freedom, as you have demonstrated so well. Sorry, that dog won 't hunt. Re: Untenured Author: V. V. Raman Date: 08-16-02 08:15 On Sean McMeekin's revelation It is sad and sickening that it has come to this. When the pendulum of political correctnes swings to either extreme - left or right - it does not bode well for justice, freedom, and democracy. One of the many terrible consequences of 9/11 is that slowly the pendulum might now swing to the other extreme. The 'MESA boycott call' has not been helpful here. V. V. Raman Re: Untenured Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-16-02 09:25 Professor Raman's statement of 8:15 this morning is espcially well put. Rescind the boycott Author: Martin Kramer, Middle East Quarterly Date: 08-16-02 16:11 This colloquy seems to have reached point final, and opinion has run very strongly against the position adopted by the board of directors of MESA on the National Security Education Program in general, and the National Foreign Language Initiative--Pilot Program in particular. I find this heartening. Readers of the CHE article will notice that while it reported that NFLI-P grants had been rewarded to several institutions last month, it did not report which institutions received grants for which languages. I've been informed by the administrators of the NFLI-P that the University of Washington, Seattle, received the NFLI-P grant for Arabic. The recipients are to be commended for defying the MESA boycott, and congratulated for winning their grant. Less heartening is the thundering silence of MESA's leaders and members. In addition to Professor Beinin, president of MESA, the board includes eight other members: senior faculty from Columbia, MIT, Boston College, American University, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, U Mass, and the University of Illinois. One member, the president-elect of MESA, is the dean of a prestigious school of international relations. All of them have been silent. With the exception of Professor Shaw, no professor in the field has contributed to this colloquy or made a statement elsewhere. (The one junior faculty member who did participate preferred to remain anonymous.) This does not speak well for the field, and suggests what I have argued elsewhere: Middle Eastern studies are characterized by immense pressure for circle-the-wagons conformism. Debate is about as free in MESA as it is in the less enlightened countries of the Middle East. The MESA boycott of the NSEP was passed at a spring board meeting, without input from the general membership. At the next MESA conference, in November in Washington, there will be a general meeting of the membership. One only hopes that someone will have the good sense--and the gumption--to stand tall, tell the board that they made a mistake, and demand that the boycott of the NSEP be rescinded. Let there be no doubt: Washington will be watching. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: S. Christopher LaRue/Director of Public Affairs for Date: 08-16-02 16:12 I will have to agree with your assertion that "so many people put forward their opinions without any substantial consideration of the particular facts." It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion when the "intelligent" part has to go out of the window from inception. For clarity to those who think I'm name-calling, I use the word intelligent to indicate a discussion guided or motivated by intellect and studious knowledge. But my problem with MESA and Beinin is their continually misleading people by not admitting their true motivations. Their boycott appears to be political, not anti-American or unpatriotic as they claim their detractors are saying. But their detractors for the most part -- and I'm one of them to be sure -- haven't been saying that they're anti-American or unpatriotic at all. It would anti-American to say that they were anti-American. They are certainly entitled to their opinions. I may not agree with their opinion, but I'll fight to death for their right to hold it. They should fight as vigorously to defend it. Sunstantively tough, they -- and specifically Beinin -- have obfuscated from the beginning about their opposition to the NESP and NFLI-P. When under scrutiny, they scurry back to their tenured comfort and refuse to engage in substantive debate -- do not take the "calumnies" head-on, as Beinin said. What ignominy. Side note: What was Beinin THINKING when he started his thread? He does everything but call Ms. Borrego a liar, and yet the article was just a click or two back on the browser. Did he think we wouldn't go back and check him? There's your arrogance in acedeme. Re: Rescind the boycott Author: S. Christopher LaRue/Director of Public Affairs for Date: 08-19-02 12:58 I have to agree with Martin Kramer here. Rescinding the boycott -- while probably humiliating to Beinin, et al -- is the moral and intellectually honest thing to do. But why not take it a step further? Perhaps it time to topple the regime. Professor Beinin's comments Author: Junius W. Peake-Professor of Finance Date: 08-19-02 13:07 Professor: Many of us are waiting for your rebuttals to our comments. Where are they? Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Fred Donner, Prof. of Near Eastern History Date: 08-19-02 14:49 I returned from vacation over the weekend to find that some of my comments on NSEP had been published in The Chronicle, and to read the outpouring of dismay that MESA, or anyone for that matter, should be opposed to NSEP. What most struck me about many of those comments, however, was not the airing of different views, which is to be expected, but the vituperation and intolerance towards those who, like myself, have some reservations about NSEP. The fact that some us of fear, as I do, that accepting an NSEP grant may expose the holder to greater risk of being suspected of being a spy, that the explicit association of NSEP grants with the Department of Defense may cause agents of foreign governments or their citizens to suspect that other recipients of Federal grants (e.g., Fulbrighters) have DoD connections, and the like, does not necessarily imply that we individually, or MESA as an organization, are "lefties," "Marxists," or that we are "people who hate America," guilty of "anti-government paranoia" and an "absence of patriotism," "intent on destroying our society," "redolent of self-hate," "paternalistic," or "lazy Middle Eastern studies don[s]" with "mediocre language skills." Not to mention likening us to cockroaches. The tone of such comments suggest that those holding them have, themselves, big problems with dissenting views. For the record, I think our system of government is the best yet devised by mankind, and would gladly defend it, as I did when I served in the U.S. army from 1968 until 1970. I say this just so one of the interlocutors above does not include my name on her list when she calls for 'FBI investigation of these professors and "scholars"...' Contrary to what was stated in the original Chronicle article by Ms. Borrego, I neither support nor oppose the boycott of NSEP, but think that like most things this is a matter of personal choice. Universities and individuals should, in my opinion, be free to decide for themselves whether to accept NSEP funding or not--their decision being guided by their own judgment on whether it is worth the risk, as a researcher abroad, of being identified, however weakly, with the Department of Defense, or whether the service requirement seems personally onerous or not. I personally have problems with the image NSEP funding might create for a student abroad, and if a student asks me I will say so. I have myself on a few occasions (over the past 35 years) been pulled aside for questioning by suspicious policemen or soldiers in various Middle Eastern countries who thought, because I was carrying a xerox of several pages of a medieval Arabic manuscript they could hardly read, that I might be engaged in espionage. (In the Middle East, as here, policemen and soldiers do not tend to be recruited from the top echelons of the educational system.) If I had had to tell them at the time that my funding for research was provided by the American Department of Defense, I am not sure these incidents would have been as insignificant as, happily, they have all been in my case. I have, however, no objection to well-informed people working for the U.S. government, even DoD, if that is what they want to do; indeed, as I think at least one commentator remarked, the more people in the DoD who are well-informed about the languages and cultures of various world regions, the better. And I certainly have no objection whatsoever to the idea that the government should provide more funding for area studies and especially foreign language study; nor, I believe, do my MESA colleagues. I merely think that this additional funding, rather than coming explicitly from the Department of Defense, could have been just as effective in buidling a national cadre of trained linguists if it had been funneled through the Department of Education, which would have created no problems of perception abroad. Such is the case with the National Resource Fellowships (Title VI), which have been around for years and have been supported warmly, as far as I know, by MESA and almost everyone in it. We all recognize and are grateful for the vitally important role the NRF program has played in enabling young American scholars to attain levels of mastery in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish that were generally unknown in the American academy five decades ago. The bottom line is this: NSEP exists, and there will inevitably be differences of opinion among academicians on whether their students or institutions should participate or not in NSEP as it is currently formulated. Some will, some will not, and that is, in my view, as it should be. The fact that more than 2400 NSEP awards have been granted to date shows that the program is working, so why are its supporters so upset by the concerns of those of us who feel that NSEP grants may carry unacceptable consequences for some of our students? It is legitimate to debate with one's colleagues the pros and cons of this matter, as of others; it strikes me as beyond the pale, in this country, to call for the dismissal of those who are opposed to NSEP or (as one correspondent suggested) the dismantling of universities that do not want to participate in the program. Prof. Donner Author: Jim Ryan, philosophy prof. Date: 08-19-02 20:27 Very nicely said, Prof. Donner, good show. Sorry that you've been wrongly subject to mean-spirited comments. Still, your own principles commit you to being against the boycott. As you say, it's a matter of individual choice whether to take a grant. Yet, you say, "I neither support nor oppose the boycott of NSEP." So, you might want to rethink that. Just go with the option you so nicely articulated: that grad students should be carefully advised of the risks and then be able to make the choice themselves. By the way, wouldn't you admit that many of the supporters of the boycott do indeed hate the country you defended during your military days? Are they as supportive of individual liberty as you are? If there's a boycott, aren't there going to be some grad students who would prefer to accept a grant but cannot due to their radically anti-American professors having made the choice for them? Reply to Prof Donner Author: David Foster Date: 08-19-02 22:20 Prof Donner seems surprised at the anger which has greeted MESA's stance. Well, let's see. Large numbers of Americans have been killed by a terrorist attack and there is every reason to believe that other such attacks are planned--possibly on a much larger scale. Our best defense against such attacks comes in the form of intelligent, multilingual intelligence specialists. A program has been (belatedly) established which will support the training of such specialists--and MESA appears to be discouraging people from participating in this program. If MESA's efforts should be successful, then arguably they will contribute to further intelligence shortfalls and to the deaths of real human beings. Is there anything in this to be angry about? Thought experiment: Britain, 1940. London is under air attack. The government (through the War Department) asks the universities to aid in training German linguists who will help intercept communication. The German Culture and Studies Association urges professors not to participate. Would the people of Britain be angry? The question answers itself. Is there any fundamental, moral difference between this scenario and the present issue? I submit that there is not, unless one believes that the U.S. does not have moral standing to defend itself against terrorism. Prof Donner also objects to those who want proponents of the boycott fired. Fair enough. I hope he is also concerned about those who *oppose* the boycott and who are being denied their free-speech rights by the power structure in their disciplines. One contributor to this colloquy felt that he had to remain anonymous for fear of professional retaliation; another tells of retaliation that has already occurred. Yet another case of intimidation was discussed in the original article itself. The primary danger to free speech on campus today lies on the campus itself, and senior academics need to do a much better job in speaking out against such a climate. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Scott Zion Date: 08-20-02 01:03 Come on professor, you can do better then that. Let's take a closer look: What most struck me about many of those comments, however, was not the airing of different views, which is to be expected, but the vituperation and intolerance towards those who, like myself, have some reservations about NSEP. You imply this board is intolerant because the consensus opinion differs from the MESA collective. How about a different take: if you support an asinine position expect some criticism. With taxpayers funding NSEP and Title VI initiatives, the public has a right to ask questions and demand answers. does not necessarily imply that we individually, or MESA as an organization, are "lefties," Let's review the letters from MESA's BOD (http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/boardletters.htm). Sadly, MESA has become a PAC to represent Middle East interests. How would these letters play to the "rube" American public. My guess: Not Well. With Americans sending their sons and daughters to far off lands to fight a mysterious enemy; true objectivity of this enemy is required. As documented by Martin Kramer, MESA's ability to identify this threat (Militant Islam) has been sorely lacking. think that like most things this is a matter of personal choice. Great, I look forward to you standing up to MESA and opposing the boycott. I personally have problems with the image NSEP funding might create for a student abroad A red-herring in my opinion. Even assuming your premise is correct, do the advantages of a well-informed linguistics base of DOD/CIA employees outweigh the perceived risks of NSEP students abroad? I believe they do. I merely think that this additional funding, rather than coming explicitly from the Department of Defense, could have been just as effective in buidling a national cadre of trained linguists if it had been funneled through the Department of Education I disagree. DOE oversite of NSEP would permit MESA via proxy to influence the NSEP curriculum. Let there be no doubt, oversite by MESA would result in a divergence of DOD/CIA program objectives. Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Fred Donner Date: 08-21-02 11:03 I reply here to Messrs. Ryan, Foster, and Zion. To start with the last-named: Mr. Zion, you seem to have missed my point. I said I did not object to people having different opinions, e.g. in this case supporting NSEP, but rather objected to the insulting comments and innuendo that was sometimes directed at those opposed to NSEP (including, Mr. Zion, your own allusion to "cockroaches," which it seems to me is unacceptable regardless of what you think of MESA and its members--yet I do not see any apology to date from you for this comment.) That remains true: those of you who support NSEP are, in my opinion, quite welcome to do so. I simply wanted, and want, to make clear to you why some of us have misgivings about possible unfavorable consequences of the program, consequences that like some others I think could have been avoided entirely by funneling the funding through DOE rather than DOD. Second point: like some others, Mr. Zion seems to have a greatly overinflated view of MESA's power. In fact, MESA (like most such professional organizations) has almost no real power to control anything. A bit of influence, perhaps, but no real power. The MESA board can issue a statement saying it supports or opposes a policy, but NO ONE is bound by such a pronouncement to obey. This is quite different from many other boycott situations. If a labor union decides to boycott an employer, every union worker must obey or risk losing his union membership and benefits; but if MESA announces its opposition to NSEP, no individual MESA member, no university, nor any other person or entity is thereby forced to follow its lead. There is much loose talk of the "power structure in the discipline" with MESA somehow cast as the "heavy," but in fact Middle Eastern studies is not a single discipline--it is a congeries of people from many different disciplines, such as history, literature, anthropology, political science, education, sociology, film studies, geography, etc., and the power to make or deny individual appointments is fairly firmly rooted in the structures of university politics at individual institutions. This, as some interlocutors have suggested, may in some cases need to be cleaned up, but that is true for all disciplines and areas of study and has nothing to do with MESA. I agree with Messrs. Foster and Ryan that it would be outrageous for someone to be denied his right to support NSEP if he or she wished to, but I don't think that has happened (if it has) because of the MESA board's expression of its own considered opinion on NSEP; if it has happened, it has probably happened because of the narrow-mindedness of a particular person in a position of power (e.g., a department chair) at a particular university. Third point: The attack on the US and the nation's security interests, some feel, override the concerns I expressed in my initial letter. I simply disagree. Try turning the tables: suppose you met an Iranian or Syrian in his twenties who was living in the Washington area for a year "in order to learn English" and "in order to do research on American history". Then you discovered that the funding for his year of "study" came not from his university or from his government's Ministry of Higher Education, but from the Iranian army or from the Syrian air force. Would that not make you a little suspicious of what his "real" mission here was? Particularly if you found out that his grant included signing an agreement to at least apply for work with his government's intelligence services after he graduated? I think most Americans would quickly conclude that this person was probably a spy or spy-in-training, and alert the FBI! Please note that we are dealing with a question of perceptions here, not so much of realities: I do not think that NSEP is actually recruiting spies (and yes, I do accept the need for espionage in the world we live in!), but I think that the way NSEP is set up may obscure the distinction between espionage and straightforward academic research in the minds of people in countries where some of us want to pursue our research. Just as funding from the Iranian army might cloud such a distinction in our minds. Fourth point: amazing that I have to say this at all, but I am quite confident that virtually all MESA members strongly support the U.S. and what it stands for (I have been a member for about thirty years, and know hundreds of MESA colleagues passingly well, though of course not all!). A good number of MESA members are themselves originally from the Middle East, know at first hand the repression and the lack of freedom of expression that are to be found there, and are deeply grateful for the fact that in the U.S. they can work and speak freely. But they also have a strong sympathy for the people of the Middle East and sometimes oppose specific American policies that, in their opinion, are oppressive or injurious to those people--particularly the embargo on foodstuffs and medicines to Iraq, and America's increasingly lopsided support of Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza. [I do not wish to open these contentious issues for debate, but offer them simply as examples.] The real red herring in this discussion is the suggestion that somehow most MESA members are not loyal to the U.S. I think that my old friend Martin Kramer may be in part responsible for this with his broadside against MESA, but I think his distaste for MESA has more to do with the fact that many MESA members are critical of Israel's policies than with anything else. I do not want to get further into this bottomless pit of rancor and disagreement, but thought it should be at least mentioned; it is sort of like the elephant in the room that no one talking about MESA was speaking of. I assume of course, that all interlocutors, who have expressed themselves as strongly in favor of the right of all to speak out even on unpopular issues, will also support the right of people to disagree with the embargo on food/medicine to Iraq or with Israel's policies (or to support them) as their conscience dictates. Final point: To repeat what I said in my first posting, I think it is very important that the U.S. have a strong cadre of people well-trained in the languages of the Middle East, as of all world areas. This is why the Title VI/National Resource Fellowship program was set up many, many years ago. If our government wants to increase the number of such trained people generally, particularly at universities in the U.S., it seems to me that providing more ample funding for the NRF program would be the best way to go (although, logically, it should also fund faculty positions in these fields at universities, so the increased flow of students would have academic jobs available to them when they finished their training). If our government SPECIFICALLY wants to draw trained linguists into service with NSA, DOD, etc., on the other hand, perhaps working through the regular academic institutions is NOT the way to go. For many years, the DOD has maintained the Defense Language Institute, with branches in, I believe, Monterey, CA, and Washington, D.C. The government could at any time greatly increase the teaching capacity of the DLI, issue an appeal for students to come on good stipends to study there as an entry-gate for well-paid jobs in DOD, NSA, CIA, or whatever. The accusation that those of us who express reservations over NSEP are somehow thwarting our government in its goal of getting the trained people it needs for a crucial defense-related function thus really has no merit, for the government can very well help itself in this matter via DLI if it wishes. So why is the government insisting on using the university system through NSEP? Maybe the government prefers to work through the university network because the teaching of languages there is better than at DLI, or because they can do it more cheaply by exploiting the dreams of perennially-poor graduate students who are willing to live on a pittance while they study rather than paying higher stipends/wages to train people for defense-related work at their own defense-affiliated language academy, the DLI. But those are, to echo the sentiments of one of the earlier interlocutors, issues of policy, not of morality or patriotism. I have said more than enough on this. I apologize if I didn't respond to every point raised above. Please note that I WON'T TALK ABOUT THIS ANY MORE! So no matter what insults someone may send my way, don't expect a response. I have enough work on my plate already and can't spend so much time debating this issue, interesting though it is. As I said in my original posting, NSEP exists, some are for it and some agin' it. So be it. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: AS Date: 08-21-02 22:13 Excellent response. A few quick notes. -Paragraph breaks. Learn to love them! -I think it's quite true that the rhetoric of "cockroaches" and such was way overblown and out of place. -I agree with much of what Donner says and if it comes down to saying that students should be made fully aware of any possible/supposed dangers before they choose to accept an NSEP, I fully agree. I think the dangers have been absurdly exaggerated but, real or imagined, there certainly are perceptions of Americans about which any student should be informed before he or she accepts any sort of fellowship, including an NSEP -- including how an NSEP might conceivably exacerbate that. How that slides into seemingly supporting MESA's call for a boycott still eludes me and, despite the verbiage, I'm not sure I follow the logic. The dangers are minimal, at worst, and it should be up to the individual students to determine whether they fall for scare tactics of this sort. -Which leads to the point that -- after two long and entertaining messages -- I remain unclear exactly how Prof Donner feels about the boycott. He states that he neither supports or opposes a boycott, but then spends much time arguing in favor of MESA's boycott. I take it that the quite strained claim underlying this is similar to that of Beinin -- the claim that this is not, in fact, a call to boycott. I can't believe, however, that this is meant to be taken seriously. The analogy to a union shop is a strained one -- we all know of common forms of boycotts (such as UFW's grape boycott) which are no more enforceable than that of MESA's call for a boycott. It puzzles me that both Beinin and Donner continue to insist -- against the plain meaning of the word -- that MESA is not calling for a boycott. That they (thankfully) don't have the ability to forcibly implement their call is a different matter. The dictionary definition of boycott was quoted earlier in the thread, and it is peculiar that this basic definition is ignored. This lack of plain speaking leads me to one parenthetical comment (though I no more than Prof Donner wish to enter into side issues): there is no "embargo of food/medicine" on Iraq and to say so is to simply state an untruth. Again, I suggest using a dictionary to look up "embargo" as well as a reading of the relevant U.N. resolutions (including the food-for-oil program -- note the word "food"). I hope Donner is more careful with his Arabic usages than he is with his English. -Lastly, I completely agree that accusations of anti-Americanism are unfair. MESA represents a far-flung group of academics whose views cannot and should not be pigeon-holed. That said, the flimsiness, vagueness, and slippery nature of the argument for an NSEP boycott is likely what leads to an assumption of a hidden anti-American agenda. I respect that Prof Donner has expressed himself at length and has no intention of returning to debate further. I'm in the same boat on that. But I would suggest that if he and his colleagues would like to convince others of the merits of their case, they come up with direct arguments that make clear what exactly in the NSEP justifies a boycott and precisely answers counterarguments. Comment on Ryan Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-22-02 04:47 My comments here solely address those of Professor Ryan. They are sent only because others have chosen not to do so. And like Professor Donner, I should prefer to be involved with other things. But there are important matters here, and it would seem to be a necessary scholarly obligation to discuss Professor Ryan's position. I am quite surprised by some of Professor Ryan's criticisms directed to Professor Donner, particularly this: "By the way, wouldn't you admit that many of the supporters of the [MESA et cetera] boycott do indeed hate the country you defended during your military days? Are they as supportive of individual liberties as you are?" It would seem from this that Professor Ryan has reverted to the fallacious mode of argument which he has employed in some other "Chronicle" discussions. In an earlier discussion, for instance, he argued that anyone who said the United States "deserved" to be attack, was making a statement tantamount to threating American citizens, and, apparently, he recommended that such people should be locked up and tried by American authorities. (For those who are not familiar with the earlier discussion, I wish to make it clear that I do not share the view that America "deserved" to be attacked on 9/11/2001/) I analyzed, in considerable detail, the various versions of this argument put forward by Professor Ryan. I showed, among other things, that speech has a cultural component, which involves various sorts of prior-knowledge on the part of the speaker and the audience, so-- given different cultural contexts-- the same words do not necessarily always convey the same meanings. At last Professor Ryan accepted this position, although not attributing it to me-- even though I was the only person in the discussion to argue this position at length. Professor Ryan's apparent reversion to his uninformed earlier position-- in his recent criticism of Professor Donner--is most strange, even if he has done more reading and now rejects the "cultural meaning" argument, which he had come to in our last long opposition. (We were both on the same side in the Evolution debate.) Being in philosophy, Professor Ryan must understand, for example, that the conclusions of a syllogism should follow necessarily from the premises. But he should also understand that different sets of premisies can necessarily lead to the same conclusion. Hence, it should finally be clear to him that it is totally irrelevant to the present discussion whether or not the advocates of the MESA board position argue as "haters of America" or as "defender of America." It is not the reasons that lead people to a stance which should be of interest here, but the intellectual import of that stance itself. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Gregory Starrett, Associate Professor of Anthropology Date: 08-22-02 11:45 It's refreshing to see that academe has its own version of the daytime talk show: the CHE colloquy. Aside from the thoughtful contributions of Fred Donner and a few others, there's little here but name-calling. (As an aside, the idea that Joel Beinin is a "postmodernist," or the idea that understanding cultures on their own terms is a "postmodern" one, is ludicrous. If you want to use the word as a term of abuse, that's fine, but at least direct it at the right target. As for understanding cultures in their own terms being "postmodern," we can trace that notion back at least as far as the eighteenth century, and in its modern anthropological form to the early twentieth. If you're concerned about responsible scholarship, start at home). Few contributors have addressed substantively the issue of "danger" to students who identify themselves as being funded by the USDoD or other national security agencies. In what does that "danger" consist? There are several possibilities. First, and least interesting, there is the "danger" that such students will be discriminated against in hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions because of the NSEP designation on their CVs. This implies that all language or area specialists are interchangeable, and that the funding source for early graduate study trumps subsequent research focus. If SAIS or the Kennedy School of Government--or the CIA, for that matter--choose to hire political scientists interested in military affairs, rather than specialists in medieval Andalusian poetry, are the textual scholars being discriminated against? Obviously not. Likewise, if an anthropology or literature program chooses not to hire someone who used their NSEP language background to study Islamist groups, does this mean that this scholar is being discriminated against, or that they might be applying for the wrong sort of job? Some of the fears raised earlier by junior scholars about specific political positions they take in their work have nothing to do with the question at hand, which is the advisability of having military and intelligence agencies rather than educational ones funding foreign research. Second, there is the issue of "danger" to the physical and interpersonal security of students studying abroad, if they are identified with national security funding. Suffice it to say here that an enormous proportion of Middle Easterners are willing to believe that any American studying in their countries is already a spy, regardless of their funding. Admitting to DoD/CIA funding would only confirm those suspicions. But, importantly, it would demonstrate for the people of the region that the pervasive rumor and paranoia about the ubiquity of foreign spies is true. Since this paranoia is one of the major complaints of many critics of Middle Eastern political culture, it's unclear how having the CIA pay for our students to study abroad will help belay those rumors and help those poor benighted conspiracy-mongers to think rationally. Would this kind of "taint" prove physically dangerous to students? One doubts it. When, as so rarely happens, things are so bad that foreigners are harmed, it tends not to matter what they're doing or who paid for their trip. But it could potentially interfere with any number of research activities. Gaining access to interviews, to archives, and to many sorts of institutions in Middle Eastern countries could be endangered. Ironically, it is probably these very institutions and personal contacts that might prove most useful in advancing our understanding of the nature of Islamic politics. I speak from some experience here. In the late 1980s, while doing research in Egypt, I tried to obtain permission to observe classes in a private Islamic school, but was turned down after a full day of informal interviews by half a dozen school staff, on the grounds that I was probably a spy (for the dangerous people at Fulbright). The previous week, two Egyptian physicians had been arrested by state security for passing information on Islamist groups to the American editor of the English-language magazine Cairo Today; he left the country when it turned out that he did in fact seem to have been their CIA handler. The real danger here is that by placing its imprimatur on certain students, the very information that American intelligence is after might become even less obtainable because of the doubt and distrust such a label bestows. Third, and most troubling from my point of view, is the danger that this labelling might pose to the Middle Eastern friends and acquaintances of students who participate in the NSEP program. Guilt by association is not a stance confined to the Middle East--look at so many of the previous posts on this topic, which accuse area scholars of complicity in 9/11--but its consequences could be severe for young men and women who befriend an American student, only to find themselves under suspicion by their own governments of being complicit in intelligence gathering activities. As in any highly charged political situation, it's not the reality that matters here--whether an NSEP student is a spy or not--but the perception. There is evidence that the acquaintances of American Christian missionaries are subject to prejudice and harrassment in some Middle Eastern countries, and there's no reason to suppose that the acquaintances of "foreign spies," whether real or not, would be different. Should we have more speakers of Middle Eastern (and African and Asian) languages? Of course we should. But let's leave the funding for language study to the Department of Education. Jobs for those speakers in the defense and intelligence community won't become any less numerous or any less attractive or any less important as a result. Finally, for those correspondents who see MESA as a pernicious (yet oddly ineffective) entity, and its "dons" as turncoats, fellow-travellers, and crypto-Islamists: get a life. If you want to blame someone for death and destruction in the Middle East or in lower Manhattan, blame religious nutcases who believe whatever their leaders tell them, as well as the whole range of vile politicians in Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Teheran, Baghdad, and Islamabad, whose cynical, corrupting, and decades-long traffic in oil, cash, and weapons serves primarily to keep themselves and their cronies in power. Don't blame MESA, a bunch of historians and literature scholars who can't even manage to get their op-ed pieces into local newspapers most of the time. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-22-02 12:38 Professor Starrett is quite correct that the view that the proper study of other cultures is concerned ONLY with understanding them in their own terms is not necessarily a postmodernist one. The view goes way back in various lines of anthropology. It became one of the essential presupositions of much symbolic anthropology, however, and a number of theoretical points of symbolic anthropology have been postulated on this. Nevertheless, as I have stated in another Chronicle discussion, it is questionable if Clifford Geertz, who with David Schneider is usually seen as the co-developer of symbolic anthropology could in any meaningful way be himself referred to as a postmodernist. This is despite the fact that much postmodernist anthropology makes great use of Geertz's work. It should also be pointed out there is an established usage among some anthropologists (although mostly not social anthropologists) which would include the view that to concern with only knowing cultures in their own terms is a "diagonostic" of postmodernist anthropology. I have no interest in debating Professor Starrett. If, however, he should wish to persist, I say this to him: "Provide me with your considered definition of postmodernism. Then I will see how well you can defend yourself." Re: Get the facts straight first Author: Scott Zion Date: 08-23-02 01:35 Professor Donner, a couple of points. First, I commend you for having the courage to defend your position. Second, a careful reading of my post ("scurry as if cockroaches under a spotlight") will show that I set forth an analogy to demonstrate how the members of MESA have an anathema to defending their positions in a public forum. A simple review of the posts on this board will support my thesis. It was NOT a personal attack at individual members. Third, you claim that MESA lacks influence. With the dearth of organizations dedicated to Middle East studies, MESA becomes a natural conduit for those seeking knowledge. To only be presented with Edward Said's "Orientalism" or Professor Beinin's reciting of Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, Ted Rall, Robert Fisk, Arundhati Roy, and Barbara Kingsolver speaks volumes. Forth, you claim the elephant in the room is Israel. Why, oh why must it always be Israel? Dear Professor, the elephant in the room is that 19 Arab men in the name of Allah hijacked four planes with an attempt to decapitate our national government and destroy our national treasures while incinerating 3000 Americans in the process. These barbarians continue to seek weapons of mass destruction and would rejoice in the death of millions more. Lest we forget how Middle Eastern regimes use anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Semitic incitement as an instrument of government policy that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Until we deal with this reality objectively and honestly we will get nowhere. Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: mdthurman Date: 08-23-02 16:12 Would someone explain a few things to me, please? We are told, among other things: that the MESA board has no power to enforce its recommendations; that MESA members can't even get op ed pieces published. Does this mean that MESA, and its board, has no influence of any kind? If that is the case why would anyone want to be an officer of such an organization?-- to grovel in non-entity status? Why does the MESA board even bother to make recommendations? Why does The Chronicle take note of the recommendations of a non-infleuntial board? Why does a junior scholar polish apples with MESA officers? Something doesn't smell right here. Fred Donner doesn't get it Author: Martin Kramer, Middle East Quarterly Date: 08-24-02 11:26 My old friend Fred Donner has made some interesting points in his two postings. And like the MESA mandarins, he too doesn't get it. American scholars, he says, have an image problem in the Middle East, and the NSEP compounds it. Well, Middle Eastern studies have an image problem right here in the United States, and their acceptance of the NSEP (and its new offshoot, the NFLI) would help to alleviate it. The prudent way to deal with this double bind would be for MESA to support both Title VI (through the Department of Education) and the NSEP (through the government's security agencies)--the first, to assist those interested first and foremost in academic careers, and the latter, for those interested in government careers. (The American Council on Education supports and lobbies for both programs.) But the sad fact is that the MESAns have no clue how badly their image has been dented in this country, and they sail on in blithe ignorance of the changed context. They are likely to wake up and discover that the NSEP decision has done them more damage than they now imagine. And so it is in the spirit of our thirty-year friendship that I urge Fred Donner to be the one to stand up at the next MESA conference in Washington, and say what he has said in this colloquy: that the NSEP issue is one that each individual and institution should decide on its merits. As it stands, MESA has attached a stigma to a choice in favor, and that is wrong. Fred makes this very valid argument: "The government could at any time greatly increase the teaching capacity of the Defense Language Institute, issue an appeal for students to come on good stipends to study there as an entry-gate for well-paid jobs in DOD, NSA, CIA, or whatever." Indeed. So why not redirect the additional $20 million allocated to Title VI last January to just that purpose? Congress justified the Title VI windfall in these words: "Our national security, stability and economic vitality depend, in part, on American experts who have sophisticated language skills and cultural knowledge." Given the fact that the acute and documented shortfall is in government agencies, and given the demonstrated unwillingness of the MESAns to assist the government in alleviating the problem, why shouldn't that $20 million have gone to the DLI? It seems to me that MESA has entered into a logical cul-de-sac with its opposition to the NSEP. Its position simply makes one wonder whether additional funding for Middle Eastern studies should bypass the universities altogether. Can it be too long before some members of Congress reach just that conclusion? I am sorry that Fred chose to impugn my motives in raising these issues, by claiming that my "distaste for MESA has more to do with the fact that many MESA members are critical of Israel's policies than with anything else." Let me assure Fred that if this had been my only problem with Middle Eastern studies, I would not have bothered to write a book about them. In any case, few people would take an interest in the preferences of MESA's members, were it not for embarrassing episodes like the NSEP resolution. It's something MESA's membership should begin to ponder--and seriously--if they really care for the welfare of their field. Martin Kramer Editor, Middle East Quarterly Author, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America Re: Tarnished as a spy? Author: Melburn D. Thurman Date: 08-29-02 12:10 Professor Kramer's last comment makes a conclusion inescapable. This submission deal with that one point, and adds another which I wished to make, but was unable, on reading the submissions of Professor Donner. This submission should be viewed as commentary rather than rebuttal of other submissions. 1) There is a good deal of ethnocentrism evident in comments, in the sense only of an inability to transpose oneself into the thinking patterns of other groups-- which need not be other ethnic groups, other culural groups, or even Ameican "sub-cultures.: Professor Kramer's comment that if MESA has an image problem abroad, it has no idea of the extent of that problem at home, may well be true. Indeed, I would say, it is likely true. But if MESA should follow Professor Kramer's views, to increase its image at home, that would certainly do little to improve MESA's image in the Middle East. In this discussion more than one person has noted something like the "politics of paranoia" which is found throughout the Middle East. This was brough home to me in the 1960s when it was virtually inconceivable to an America that a post-office could be though of as a strategically important governmental facility, yet at that time there was a sign outside the central post office in Cairo which told how one would be arrested, et cetera, should one take a photograph of the building. In a number of "Chronicle" discussions, there have criticisms of Middle Eastern scholars for not providing the U.S. government their expertise. O.K., in this case at least a clique (the ruling clique) of MESA has done just that, and it is criticized for that advice. Yet this is hardly the whole matter, as there is the question of the way the advice was put forward-- as a putative boycott. The problem would thus seem to be a question of whether or not the ruling clique of MESA has used sound judgment in this instance. I myself think it has not. Further, if one examines the biographical information on some important individuals in MESA politics one finds some very interesting things. More than one has shown abrupt changes in their politics, religions, or so on, and have become pronounced critics of what was once seemingly most dear to them. In other words, there are a number of reasons for a number of important figures in MESA to think that their judgments are often not the soundest. I do not think that what U.S. government agency controls a particular program is necessarily a small thing. On the other hand, there are a priori reasons to wonder about the way MESA may put an issue. 2) In "Chronicle" discussion I have frequently criticized "charismatic institutions" where prestige is associated with mere membership or affiliation. Some of the worst features of the intellectual life are associated with these, and I have criticised specifics from time to time, because of the magnitude of the problem. Yet I must add now, some of the very best features of the intellectual life are also associated with these institutions. In my opinion it is much to simple to write off the opposition to the admiinstartion of the various language programs from the faculties of a number of the great American universities as being due to "leftist" or "Commie" troublemakers. Places like Chicago have a great deal of intellectual capital invested in the Middle East. Chicago has Chicago House in Luxor, which a decade ago or so (I am not certain the situation is the same now) had perhaps the finest library on Egyptology in the world. It also had a research unit at Nippur, in Iraq (but I do not know what has happened to that). The point is that having had a long commitment to the scholarship of the region, building up a reputation for concern only with scholarship, all of this could be lost through simple carelessness. And standing up for scholarship as such, need not be castigated as simple expedience. If one stands is truly standing up for scholarship per se, one need not be-- is not likely to be-- selling one's country down the river in the name of expedience. And I do not think it is helpful in the manner at hand to suggest that such is NECESSARILY the case. |
Copyright © 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education