I was a student at London University’s School of Slavonic and East European Studies between 1995 and 1999. The college was based in Senate House opposite the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) –the scene of some recently abhorrent behaviour by anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian activists. I passed SOAS every day during my four years at university. I loved the atmosphere in and around the place which seemed much more vibrant than my tiny college.
During those four years there were a couple of occassions when anti-Israeli leaflets were handed out to passing students. I remember a couple of times when the accusations located within bordered upon the offensive. But I let them pass, thinking it was nothing more than harmless student radicalism.
So I was heartened to read that an attempt by the same SOAS activists and the SOAS Student Union to block a talk by Israeli embassy political councilor Roey Gilad was defeated. I was even more impressed when I learned that the union was overruled by SOAS director, Colin Bundy, and that Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, turned up unannounced and delivered an impromptu talk on freedom of speech. For more details see Norman Geras.
It’s about time Jewish students and pro-Israeli students were given some backing at SOAS.
But it also made me wonder about the recent troubles at Columbia University in relation to pro-Palestinian professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi has been the target of a prolonged attack by the David Project and the New York Sun for months now because of anti-Israeli bias in his lectures. However, I hear that a number of Jewish students at Columbia are extremely annoyed at the way Khalidi and the university are being portrayed. They feel the whole thing is being blown out of proportion and is damaging the reputation of the university.
The most recent attacks on Khalidi in the New York Sun led to him being barred by the New York City Board of Education from teaching public school teachers about the Middle East. Columbia has criticized the City for its knee-jerk reaction but why isn’t it doing more to defend him?
Surely universities should be places of debate, where people with different views (however radical) are free to express them as long is it is done in a constructive manner. The more universities welcome Israeli councilors and Palestinian lecturers the better we can all understand each other.
For a balaced view of the situation see this recent article in The Forward.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from the latest salvo printed in the New York Sun opinion page on Friday:
Nat Hentoff is quoted in the Forward as suggesting that instead of dumping Mr. Khalidi, the city “should have brought in a team teacher for the course so that it wouldn’t be one-sided indoctrination.” He’s a First Amendment expert who reckons the American Constitution requires New York taxpayers to pay for two Middle East teacher-trainers, one who says, wrongly, that Israel’s “occupation” is the longest in modern history and another that says it is not; one that says, wrongly, that shooting Israeli soldiers is legitimate resistance and one that says it is not. Maybe the First Amendment requires having a teacher trainer who says the Earth is flat and another who says it’s round.
This article also appears on Betty The Crow News.
UPDATE 5:00pm EST: I just found this in today’s Columbia Spectator
No TagsThe University Senate returned to its discussion of improving Columbia’s grievance procedures on Friday in response to the ongoing MEALAC controversy, but it began with President Bollinger’s first public criticism of the New York City Department of Education’s recent dismissal of Rashid Khalidi from a program for secondary school teachers on instruction about the Middle East.
Bollinger called the dismissal of Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, a “very, very serious matter” and said that the University believes the Department of Education’s actions were “wrong.”
Thanks for the update on SOAS, EINY. I spent a year down the road studying at LSE and the stench of anti-semitism i used to smell each time i passed by was rivaled only by the (sweeter) stench coming from the student pub. Queen’s law, right?
The parallels to Columbia are interesting but limited. Shocked as I am to admit it, the NYSun editorial seems to have a reasonable point - does free speech require having every point of view represented all the time, even those that are just wrong? Should a university be vulnerable to charges of academic bias because it doesn’t have a member of the flat earth society on its faculty. I’m honestly not sure where the line is drawn, but it seems that to me that just because SOAS may be right in forcing the Union to allow a pro-Israel speaker on campus, it does not mean the Dept. of Education is necessarily wrong in booting a radical critic of Israel from a course meant to help others teach the Arab Israeli conflict.
Yes…and no, Anguswit. The Forward article makes two extremely valid points in relation to Khalidi and the City.
1. The course is a twelve week program with a different lecturer each week. According to the Forward:
2. The second point is summed up in the article by a quote from Susan Brown, a spokeswoman for Columbia, who says:
In other words, they didn’t even let him or the university defend themselves. They just got rid of him.
As for the broader point of balance among professors. It’s true that it seems a waste of time to balance anti-Israeli academics with pro-Israeli academics. But it’s equally silly to suggest that academics should be impartial. The root of the argument at Columbia is that some anti-Israeli academics were harassing Jewish/Israeli students in lectures and not allowing them to argue their point. That should be addressed. But as the Forward notes
It also notes that:
The question you have to ask is why has the city barred him from the course if some pro-Israeli students say he is a model professor, if the class he was teaching did not touch on the subject, and if his teaching was highly regarded among Columbia students in general?
The reason the city fired him, I would assume, is because some powerful Jews with lots of political muscle decided to flex. But on the original question, I concede. The issue with the Sun’s editorial is that it portrays Khalidi as a crackpot flat-earther, which he’s not. All this talk of Khalidi is a distraction anyway from the real meat of the issue which concerns two other professors, both of far lesser profile. While I think those accusations are probably overblown as well, the fact is Khalidi is, by my reckoning, a serious scholar, and suggesting that his views on Israel are just ‘wrong’ is, well, wrong. Though I do think the city has an obligation to make sure that it trains teachers in a diversity of views, just as I think Columbia, if it is to truly educate its students, must ensure that a diversity of opinion exists amongst the faculty. The truth is, I only posted because I wanted to talk about the other odors at SOAS (ahem), which you have tactfully ignored.
I made sure never to inhale when I passed the place therefore I do not have the slightest idea what you could be referring to
[…] Paul Berger @ 10:49 am
Strong words from Alisa Solomon in The Forward about the Columbia/Khalidi/schools chancellor row. Khalidi has spoken of discriminatory laws within Israel that favor […]