I used to have so much respect for academia. Like many of us, I find the anarchy and fascism so prevalent on our campuses to be utterly devastating. For the moment, though, let's put aside any discussion of the implications for the future of our country, and just consider a couple of specific situations...
First, Barnard College. According to this report at Phi Beta Cons (an NRO blog that supplies "the right take on higher ed"), if one seeks the truth in the academic world, one had best remain anonymous.
*The statement of the Va’ad ha Emet (Truth Committee) was composed by scholars familiar with the fields relevant to an evaluation of Facts on the Ground (Israel Studies, archaeology of the ancient Near East, and toponymy.) They feel a need to remain anonymous because of the vituperative political climate on the campuses where some of them are employed.
The Va’ad ha-Emet feels that this statement is a useful contribution despite the anonymity of its authors, because the assertions are specific and verifiable, and, therefore, do not depend upon the reputations of the individual authors.
In other words, veritas as sine qua non.
So what's the Va'ad ha Emet statement all about? Uncovering the Truth about Nadia Abu El-Haj.
You may remember that Nadia Abu El-Haj is an assistant professor of anthropology seeking tenure at Barnard.
A graduate student at Duke University, she turned her doctoral thesis into a book: “Facts on the Ground: Archeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society.” One admiring reviewer (from the University of Chicago) said the book offers “an anthropology of colonialism and nationalism, which follows Foucault and Said” in which “she points to the convergence of archeology’s project with that of colonialism.” Others have not been so kind.
For this book is not really about archeology at all. Rather it is a relentless attack on how and why Israelis, Jews really, have done archaeology in the land they have the audacity to call Israel. For the past, like the present, is merely a cruel and daring fiction foisted on the world at the expense of Palestinians, a social construction, as the orotund phrase has it. Ignoring or destroying whatever got in their way, Jewish archaeologists have been relentless in their pursuit of the Jewish past to claim the land and its history for modern Israel, and of course to dispossess Palestinians and their “claim” to the past.
But El-Haj, it seems, is not really an archeologist. There is not the slightest evidence that she has ever seen the work of Israeli archeologists, ever visited a dig, ever studied the history of the development of Israeli archeology, ever inquired as to how Israeli archeologists choose the sites they do choose for digs (do they get instructions from the Jewish Agency? The ZOA? The Mossad?). She appears not to have any record of the kinds of artifacts the Israeli archeologists, often working with Western, non-Israeli and non-Jewish colleagues, have discovered, catalogued, and meticulously studied.
Albeit anonymous, the Va'ad offers a "Brief Evaluation of Methodology and Use of Evidence" in Abu El-Haj's book. They cover
- command of the Hebrew language (she has none)
- familiarity with previous scholarship ("she demonstrates no awareness")
- use of anonymous sources and unsourced assertions (she repeatedly makes assertions - "shocking, if they were true" - based on unnamed sources or no sources at all )
- slander (based on stories from unnamed sources, she conducts a "direct, personal attack" on someone who otherwise should be considered a colleague)
Their summary:
Facts on the Ground exhibits an inability to understand the language (Hebrew) of the nation that the author pretends to study, a broad failure on the part of the author to encounter the scholarly work in her field, a failure on the author’s part to understand the use of evidence, and, finally, descends to the baseless slander of a highly respected scholar.
It's obvious that this woman does not merit tenure
anywhere, but those who agree with her anti-Israel sentiment are - at least temporarily - held to be more powerful than truth. And the few who still value the truth are afraid. Maybe I should have more sympathy for them, more understanding for their desire to protect their livelihoods, but as
someone once said,
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
Now then, Columbia. You no doubt remember the riotous behavior of students who objected to the speaking engagement of Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, back in the fall.
What do you do if you don't agree with an invited speaker? Well, if you're a student at what is considered a top tier university you rush the speakers, shout so they can't speak, wave signs condemning the speakers as racist or some other evil politically correct ist while proclaiming your goodness and self righteousness and then whine, complain and whine some more if threatened with punishment for disruption.
Ethel Fenig reports at The American Thinker that these students have received their punishment. Three students
"were charged with simple violations of the University's Rules of Conduct. The resulting warnings, which will be notated on students' transcripts and remain there until the end of 2008... place no financial or academic constraints on the person[s] charged."
Wow.
Three other students - including one whose conduct placed another "in danger of bodily harm" - faced more serious charges but were given equally light "disciplinary warnings."
Read Ms. Fenig's article. I can't bear to blog this anymore (the students are gloating over their "victory").
I am convinced that if the world had cared about busloads of Jews getting blown to bits in Jerusalem, we wouldn't be facing global jihad like we see today. Likewise, if we as a society had responded appropriately when a moral giant (and visiting foreign dignitary) got a pie in the face at Rutgers back in 2003, we wouldn't see the arrogance and chutzpah of these jerks at Columbia today.
Last I heard, the moronic delinquent who attacked Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky had his degree "delayed" six months by Rutgers and was fined $200 for disorderly conduct.
And here he is, four years later, demonstrating against the war in Iraq. Why he's still on the Rutgers campus four years after graduating, I don't know.
All I do know is, he should have been expelled and or thrown in the slammer... years ago.
Rutgers University graduates Abe Greenhouse, right, and Tom Howard strike a pinata labeled "Happy Birthday Iraq War," during a demonstration against the war in Iraq on the campus of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., Tuesday, March 20, 2007.... (AP Photo/Mike Derer)