Kesher Talk

Academic Integrity and the Middle East: the continuing controversy. Previous entries on this topic here, here, here, here, here, here, and description of the conference and speakers here.

Campus-J's stringers at Columbia and Columbians for Academic Freedom are on the front lines of this controversy; check both sites for updates.

A timeline of events that led to the current conflict, with many links to primary sources.

Joining Charles Jacobs and Alan Dershowitz, the Columbia Chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) (which sponsored the conference last month) issued a critique of the Columbia Ad-Hoc Committee report.

More on the Times' collusion with the university:

The Times has a clear preexisting relationship with the university’s administration. That fact was made clear yesterday in the way the world-renown newspaper was employed as Columbia’s personal press agent. The Sun has been highly critical of the atmosphere on campus and has supported the students in their campaign from the beginning. Nevertheless, despite claims to the contrary by Professor Massad and other CAF detractors, the Sun, unlike the Times, brokered no deals with anyone to ensure biased coverage. The opinions expressed in the Sun or any slant to its reporting is an indication of the paper’s personal interpretation of the events on campus and not, as many would like to claim, a result of manipulation by “neo-Conservative organizations” like the David Project.

. . . In a show of the Columbia Spectator’s commitment to balanced journalism, it printed an opinion highly critical of the committee report alongside its own Op-Ed echoing the university’s desire, as articulated in the report, “to restore norms.”

After making a deal with Columbia to publish a story on the report without talking to the students whose complaints instigated the investigation, the NYTimes then reported on the students' reaction to the report. However, the article takes at face value claims by other students that the university

overemphasized the problem of not having adequate grievance procedures and underemphasized the problem of coordinated, focused attacks from outside interest groups at the university. "Why are there no recommendations on that point?" said [Brenda] Coughlin, who was one of a handful of students calling for Mr. Bollinger's resignation last week because they felt he was not defending academic freedom forcefully enough. "Clearly, the administration has jumped when the David Project and Campus Watch criticized them," she said. "What are we to expect from them the next time a shoddy video gets a secret release?

Brenda Coughlin seems to be one of the ringleaders of an organized effort to recast the MEALAC problem as "outside agitators pressuring our university" rather than unprofessional behavior on the part of professors:

. . . a small group of graduate students began circulating a petition yesterday calling for the resignation of Columbia's president, Lee C. Bollinger, because he "failed to defend our faculty, thereby nurturing an environment of fear and intimidation throughout the university."

Some professors expressed surprise that anyone was calling for Mr. Bollinger's resignation. And few appeared to have any interest in signing such a petition. But Columbia's faculty is clearly divided about Mr. Bollinger's performance since last fall, when a small group of pro-Israel students created a videotape charging that some professors of Middle East studies were intimidating Jewish students in classes and on campus. Some professors say they are disappointed that top administrators have not made a vigorous defense of academic freedom and professors' right to express views publicly, no matter who might take offense.

As the students interviewed in "Columbia Unbecoming" made painstakingly clear, the issue is not "offense," but outright misrepresentation of facts, bullying of students, and inadequate grievance procedures. (The call for Bollinger's resignation seems to have intensified following a speech he recently gave on academic freedom.)

A student responds to the "outside agitator" charge.

A MEALAC student defends the critique of the department, placing it within the context of intra-departmental competition and academic politics.

. . . by reducing the pedagogical conversation to “Zionist!” vs. “Anti-Semite!” we seem to have forgotten that the students involved in this crisis hardly used terms like these. In fact, their published accounts are sprinkled with statements that are surprisingly apologetic and even generous. They liked the courses, they said; they liked the professors, respected them, and certainly didn’t want anyone to lose their jobs. They even liked MEALAC and learned a lot. And I don’t recall any of the students saying freedom of inquiry should be curtailed. In the context of what is going on, this is rather astonishing, and little noted. What, then, were the students saying? I’m not sure, but I think they were saying something a little more nuanced, and thus much more important, than the simplistic charge of bias.

An interview with Alan Dershowitz about the Columbia U situation, including some comparisons with the way Harvard handles such things.

UPDATE: After giving Steven Weiss the run-around for five days, the NYTimes runs a "correction," conceding that it should have sought responses from the students as well as the professors.

posted by Judith @ 4/04/2005 07:36:00 AM