|
Middle East Studies Under Siege
by: Joan W. Scott
January - March
2006
The Link - Volume 39, Issue 1
Page 8
In 2003, President Bush nominated the hawkish Pipes to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally-sponsored think tank dedicated to the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. Several Democratic senators expressed opposition to the nomination and a committee vote on the nomination was delayed, following which President Bush bypassed the senate and proceeded with a recess appointment. In his second term President Bush did not renew Pipes’s appointment.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
Some signs are not encouraging. Pressure from conservative groups, including pro-occupation activists, led the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to introduce measures in the reauthorization of the higher education act that would require Title VI programs (international studies programs) to have politically appointed monitoring boards to supervise their activities. Conservatives on the committee argued that many Title VI programs (Middle East studies programs were the case in point) reflect an anti-American bias and discourage students from working for the U.S. government. The new boards would monitor the content of programs — the first step in recent memory by the federal government to exercise such control (states have done this, but not the federal government). During House debate on this bill, Rep. Norwood (R-GA) moved to eliminate any Title VI programs that present an “anti-American point of view.” The committee defeated that motion. But the Senate version of the bill, while it does not include the external advisory board, does require that Title VI programs “reflect diverse and balanced perspectives.” These provisions are still under discussion.
A November 25, 2005 report on a hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adds interest to this story. The Commission “rejected calls from Jewish organizations for federal oversight of government-funded Middle Eastern studies programs....” The calls came at a hearing devoted to the issue of anti-Semitism on campuses. The representatives of the Jewish groups “argued that many Middle Eastern studies programs are biased against Israel.” (Note the conflation of anti-Semitism—the topic of the hearing—with criticism of Israel.) They urged support for advisory boards to monitor Middle Eastern studies programs for “balance.” In the name of academic freedom, the members of the Civil Rights Commission refused to endorse either the oversight boards or the call for balance.
Moving from the federal arena to the foundation world, extraordinary pressure from some of the same groups who appeared before the civil rights commission led the Ford Foundation to advise its grantees of the following policy: “By countersigning this grant letter, you agree that your organization will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities.” Although the language is general, it is clear that the state in question is Israel. Indeed, the Anti-Defamation League had cited an instance of a Ford Foundation-sponsored conference at which an Arab speaker, himself not a Ford grantee, made comments considered by some to be anti-Semitic. The prohibition applies to all of the organization’s funds, not just the Ford grant. The Rockefeller Foundation quickly followed suit, and no amount of argument from A.A.U.P., A.C.L.U., and other organizations has convinced the foundations to alter their language.
I wish I could end this article on more of an upbeat note, but I’m afraid I cannot. Although there are examples of brave university administrators who, understanding the importance of protecting academic freedom from the kinds of attacks it has been under, resist the extraordinary pressures that have been brought to bear, there are many other examples of administrators capitulating to the pressures, sometimes, ironically, in the name of academic freedom!
Even more difficult to track, and thus more insidious, is, as I’ve mentioned, the climate of fear that has been created, a climate that leads to caution, self-policing, and a careful avoidance of controversy. Until recently, there has not been enough high-powered reaction to this climate, but—and maybe there is an optimistic note on which to end after all—recently there have been signs of resistance. Jonathan Cole, the former provost at Columbia, has written a brilliant defense of academic freedom which appeared in Daedalus (Spring 2005). In the wake of his paper, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has created a committee to talk about how to respond to the attack on higher education I’ve just described. Other voices are being raised by various associations of higher education administrators, civil liberties groups, professional associations and the like. But there is a lot more to be done if we are to protect universities from what Richard Hofstadter many years ago, in the era of McCarthyism, described as a deeply rooted strain of “anti-intellectualism” in American life. This is a tendency that is easily mobilized against the values and ideals that it is the job of the university to embody and defend. ■
Joan W. Scott is Harold F. Linder professor of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. Her most recent book is “Parite’: Sexual Equality and the Crisis of French Universalism.” She served as the chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure until June 2005. She remains active on the committee as a consultant.
 Printer Friendly Version of this Article
|
![[Skip to Page Content]](graphics/skip_sliver.jpg){kind=small}
