The Professors & The Essay

Ruth Wisse has a piece in the Wall Street Journal today on the Walt-Mearsheimer "Israel Lobby" paper. According to the indispensable Daily Alert, she points out that the essay -with its thesis that "a loose association of special-interest groups has persuaded the country to sacrifice its interests to a foreign power"- does not address why the "Israel Lobby" formed in the first place, nor does it reference -or even admit to- the political agency of 21 Arab countries and 1.2 billion Muslims world-wide.I'd say that's a pretty damning reproach.

Rick Richman has an even more scathing review, in which he accuses The Professors of Academic Malpractice. You'll have to read it all in order to appreciate the painstaking integrity of his research, but it's well worth it, as Richman proceeds step by step to show exactly how the authors "misstate primary sources and ignore others." He writes,

No one contests their right to their opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Money quote, as they say.

I am a cynic, and not a painstaking one. I admit it. I am not only cynical, but reactionary (as in, characterized by reaction... not as in, an opponent of progress). However, this in and of itself does not make me wrong, so let me share with you my reaction to Walt and Mearsheimer.

I've been in academia. For eight years I was involved in graduate-level study of anthropology at Hunter College in NYC. I know that academia is corrupt and not the Great Honest Inquiry for Truth that we all want it to be, but I also know that shoddy scholarship does not get you to the top.

So here we have Stephen M. Walt, with a BA in international relations from Stanford, MA and PhD in political science from UC-Berkeley, taught at Princeton, served as Deputy Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, presently Belfer Professor of International Affairs and Academic Dean at Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government and John Mearsheimer, West Point graduate, Cornell University Ph.D. in political science, research fellow at the Brookings Institution, post-doctoral fellow at Harvard, Whitney H. Shepardson Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, recipient of the Clark Award for Distinguished Teaching and the Quatrell Award for Distinguished Teaching, Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar and member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, presently the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and co-director of the International Security Policy program at the University of Chicago.

These two did not become preeminent in their field by publishing works that could be reasonably condemned as "academic malpractice." That would have been impossible. Yet take a look at what's being said about this current controversial essay:

"riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations ...[and] ignores previous serious work on the subject" -- Alex Safian

"pseudoscholarly" .... "Mearsheimer and Walt throw distortion and defamation like rice at a wedding" --Scott Johnson

"a collection of innuendo, half truths, and outright misrepresentations [failing] the test of academic integrity and honest research" -- Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky

"a highly misleading picture ... anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent" -- James Taranto

So what's up with this? Could The Professors have been so intent on achieving a certain result, that they disregarded the norms of assiduous scholarship, ignored the very methodology which one must assume has been the fulcrum of the work of their lifetimes? It makes no sense, unless they were that passionately devoted to the result, to their (foregone) conclusion that Jews the "Israel Lobby" run the world controls US foreign policy... even to the extent that U.S. support for Israel has "jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world."

I was talking to the Husband about this at dinner tonight, and he said it's the same story he's been hearing since he was seven years old, and it goes all the way back to Pharaoh. The Jews run the world, control whatever, the economy, the media, in this case the foreign policy of the world's only superpower... I think it can be, and in this case is, that simple. It's just another "Jews have too much power" rant. What bothers me most is that with the next breath always comes, like day after night, something along the lines of an enslavement, a pogrom, an expulsion... a proposed Solution, if you will, of one sort or another.

So my reaction is this - the work is antisemitic, and it doesn't make much difference if that's by way of intent, or effect, or both. If The Professors weren't guilty of academic malpractice, if they hadn't bent and twisted the facts and abused accepted methodology in order to reach their conclusion, if they had made a true evidentiary case as befits their position, people might disagree with them but no one could possibly make such a pointed accusation as that of bigotry.

It is apparent -and utterly sickening- to me that these highly influential men are infected with classic, pedestrian antisemitism. It is rearing its ugly head in our time, in our generation, in our society, in our country, in our most noble institutions. And because antisemitism is highly contagious and deeply resonant, I cannot but dread the ripple effects of what might have been, in some other context, just an inconsequential bad piece of work. I think we can all agree, and perhaps The Professors will be happy to hear, that their essay is - at least potentially - highly consequential.

While Walt and Mearsheimer seem to have failed to show that supporters of Israel have placed the security of the United States in jeopardy, they may very well have succeeded in putting the Jewish people at greater risk of peril ... in America.

We'll have to see, but I do not think the "next breath" can be too far behind.

UPDATE(S):

CAMERA reports that Harvard is backing away from The Professors.

OTOH, the Saudi Arab News gives the essay a positive review. It describes Walt and Mearsheimer as "two of America's top scholars," "leading figures in American academic life" and "recognized American authorities" and says they have published "a blazing attack on the power of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States."

Comments

[hass]

Congrats -- you've managed to 1- conclude that M&W were committing "academic malpractice" - simply because they were accused of it (by not exactly objective sources) 2- Apply the Guilt by Association tactic of pointing out that Arab News agrees with M&W. 3- Resorted to accuse M&W of anti-semitism 4- claim that M&W had failed to "reference or admit to" the existence of an Arab lobby -- which is false as th MW essay does in fact mention it. .... all without actually refuting a single sentence of the M&W essay.

[J Klein]

I have read several comments on the paper as well the paper itself, and your post is the best. You are the only one who points out the operational conclusions of the paper: the Jewish lobby is nocive to the the country (and the word), and it is necesary to find ways to curtail their power. The professors are thinking more in the line of numerus clausus in the academe (you forgot the paper´s attack on Jewish influence and control of the universities) rather than a violent but inefficient pogrom. If the professors are antisemitic or not is a question of semantics. They are against Jewish influence, Jewish activities in the university and foreign policy, against Jewish economic power that facilitates Jewish influence, etc. They are, in a word, against the Jews. We in Israel shall manage, but American Jews may face some discomfort in the future.

[westbankmama]

Excellent post. (look for my link)

[Scott]

They were not "accused of it", they were quite thoroughly proven to have done it via shoddy scholarship. Of course, since the poster who wrote the quote below was arrested for wife beating (my source was a little bird that flew past my computer), his opinion is somewhat questionable. > Congrats -- you've managed to 1- conclude that M&W were committing "academic malpractice" - simply because they were accused of it (by not exactly objective sources)

[Yael]

Responding to JKlein, using your numbers: 1. It's not like the accusation of academic malpractice is unfounded. In fact, Richman's post takes one simple "factual" statement from the W-M essay and clearly substantiates that it is false. You might actually read these things before making a judgement. 2. Guilt by Association. Yes. I think it's important for supporters of Israel to know what the Arabs think and perhpas realize how how useful this essay is to them for purposes of (further) demonizing Jews. BTW, did you know that "Jewish People" the world over cannot obtain a tourist visa to Saudi Arabia? Nor can anyone with an Israeli passport, nor anyone with a passport that has an Israeli stamp. See http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_057202251.html 3. Yes, I think it's antisemitic. I'm a Jew and it gives me a stomachache. That's a sure sign. You don't have to agree with me, in fact I would appreciate if you could convince me that it's NOT antisemitic. 4.I didn't say it, Ruth Wisse did. Go complain to her. On second thought, don't bother, if you what you say is true, I'm sure it's already been brought to her attention. And LASTLY, I didn't undertake this post to refute the essay sentence by sentence. Others, smarter than I, had already done that so I linked to and quoted them. I'm not blogging here to meet your personal desires. I'm trying to bring people information they might not get otherwise, and I enjoy "thinking out loud" as I go along. If you disagree, then you can present an actual argument, rather than just complaining.

[Yael]

Whoops, I was responding to "haas" - NOT "JKlein." My mistake, I'm sorry. Also, I thought the comments were out of sequence, but "haas" is writing from 11 pm when it's 11 AM where I am. Where would that be?

[J. Lichty]

Let's not forget that jew-hatred merely took a short break at Harvard. Sadly this is just another chapter in a very old story.

[anon]

You state: "I cannot but dread the ripple effects of what might have been, in some other context, just an inconsequential bad piece of work." The "ripple effects" likely include encouragement of the Arabs to further attack Israel, and the Lebanon war was likely one result. Walt and Mearsheimer, thus, can be seen not just as bad academics, but as accessories to murder.