The brawl at brown

BRAWL AT BROWN UNIVERSITY

In my last post, I wrote about the ambush by Dolores Umbrage, er, I mean Elise Stefanik, ostensibly to expose antisemitism on college campuses. Her true purpose, in my opinion, was to score points with the MAGA base and make Trump’s short list for vice president.

It’s unclear at this writing whether her plan worked.

There’s a lot of “politics” being played as a result of the current war in the Middle East. We see it in the nations directly involved in the conflict (e.g. Netanyahu’s clinging to power), some in this country with pro-Israel and pro-Palestine members of Congress advancing their respective viewpoints, some in our country’s upcoming national elections in November, and in stunts like Stefanik’s referenced above.

University and college campuses have become venues of conflict between students on both sides of the fighting in Gaza. There have been demonstrations and marches, speeches and teach-ins, and charges of harassment levied by each side against the other.

It’s kind of like the ‘60s all over again.

What seems different today is an effort to control how schools are administered and perhaps more importantly, what is being taught in the classrooms. Like so much in our time, outside influences, often invisible to the public and well financed and organized, are attempting to influence, if not control, the operation of our higher ed institutions.

In my prior piece on the subject, I wrote about the efforts to remove university presidents from their positions because they didn’t properly answer Elise Stefanik’s loaded closed ended questions. Especially brutal was the assault on Harvard’s president Claudine Gay’s scholarship and reputation. I previously noted the role of Christopher Rufo in spearheading the effort to remove President Gay but omitted his partnership with hedge fund billionaire and Harvard graduate Bill Ackman.

Ackman, a major donor to his alma mater, reportedly prevailed on members of the Harvard Corporation to remove President Gay and is currently supporting four candidates in an effort to take over the board in order to advance his socio/political/cultural agenda. Ackman also donated $1 million to Joe Biden’s democratic opponent, Rep. Dean Phillips, so make of that what you will.

Maybe he’s not good with money after all.

And if that’s not enough, on Martin Luther King Day, in a conversation on X formerly known as Twitter (that’s a clunky name for a social media site) with Rep. Phillips and free speech champion Elon Musk, Ackman said that King’s iconic I Have A Dream speech was “precisely about a world where people will be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. And when I came to learn about the DEI movement, which is an ideological movement, it’s really the reverse of that…I think Dr. King would be very opposed to this sort of ideology, even though you know, diversity is a good thing, even though of course, a culture where everyone feels comfortable and included is critically important.”

Who ordered the word salad?

Prior to this breathtaking insight, days earlier Ackman claimed that DEI initiatives were racist and worried about “reverse racism (?),” and claimed that DEI is “a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large…”

It’s a pity that Mr. Ackman’s business intellectual acuity doesn’t translate to the field of higher education, or more broadly to efforts to create a more inclusive economy and society.

Also, it was reported that major donors to UPenn agitated for the removal of President Liz Magill. At least they got what they paid for. And for good measure, Ackman has turned his anti-plagiarism crusade to MIT where his wife, an MIT professor, had to weather allegations of plagiarism of her own work. Coincidence?

Such a big bank account for such a little man.

In my mind, it’s bad if any small group of well-heeled alumni and other donors are able to exert an outsized influence over how a college or university should be administered. It’s worse if organized outside groups issue “studies” or “reports” designed to influence what is taught.

On the week of January 8, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) released a report entitled “Anti-Israel Extremism and Corrupt Scholarship at Brown University: How Middle East And Palestinian Studies Fuel Antisemitism.” Evidently, CAMERA doesn’t believe in burying the lead.

This wasn’t a “study,” nor was it a “report.” This was an attack on one of America’s great universities. When this publication was first reported, I read it in GoLocalProv, my first question was “what is CAMERA?” CAMERA was formed by Winifred Meiselman in the early 1980s as a reaction to what Ms Meiselman considered inaccurate reporting on Israel’s incursion into Lebanon.

Over the past 40 years, CAMERA has responded to what it considered misrepresentation by various media reporting on Israel’s policies and actions. It has often labeled criticism of Israel as biased, such as it did regarding Jimmy Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.”

And now this group has branched out to pressure Brown University to alter, if not suspend, what by most accounts is a legitimate subject of academic inquiry. The “report” can be accessed at https://www.camera.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Brown-Report-with-Cover-Page.pdf.

Let me be clear, the basis of my reaction to this publication is not anti-Israeli or antisemitic. Nor is it pro-Palestinian. I am anti-censorship regarding what is taught and studied in our schools, whether they be public schools or institutions of higher learning. And this is especially pernicious when the censorship is an attempt to foist an agenda upon others. The CAMERA publication is just one of many attempts at censorship, but this one has come to our doorstep.

And I’m putting this out there, I have no affiliation with Brown University. However, over the years I’ve occasionally bought some books at the University bookstore.

The more that individuals and organizations try to impose a strident viewpoint on others, the less likely we will be able to come together, as is our duty in a democracy, to address and resolve issues and conflicts in our communities. Too often, the natural minor divisions that exist in all communities are exploited by those with narrow and rigid agendas in hopes of imposing those agendas on the rest of us. This is antithetical to a healthy democratic process, but more often this is the world we now live in.

This report is a case study on how we got to this point. Let’s start with how they they conducted this “report.” From the “report,”

“Concerns expressed to us by Brown University students and alumni prompted CAMERA to begin investigating antisemitism and extremism at Brown University earlier this year. What we found emanating from Brown University’s Center for Middle East Studies (CMES) was profoundly disturbing. But more importantly, what we found helps explain why 47 student organizations at Brown University have openly declared that the 10/7 atrocities – including the murder, torture, rape, mutilation, burning alive of 1200 Israelis and other innocents and the kidnapping of hundreds were a ‘just’ action by Palestinian terrorists. The extremist and morally reprehensible rhetoric flows directly from the teachings we uncovered at Brown University, which espouse antisemitic narratives and conspiracy theories while justifying terrorist violence against the Jewish state.

This report is based on a review of dozens of course syllabi and dozens of recordings from CMES events from just the last few years. In particular, it focuses on the Palestinian studies initiatives and courses within CMES. What we found is that rather than studying the Palestinian people, professors and guests spend an inordinate amount of time weaving antisemitic conspiracy theories, denying Jewish peoplehood, and engaging in overt antisemitism, including blood libels. Instead of engaging in the objective, disinterested, and rigorous study of the role indoctrination and terrorism have played in Palestinian society, terrorists and their organizations are glorified and legitimized. 

The original aim of this report was to highlight the disturbing way in which Palestinian Studies, nestled underneath the university’s Middle East Studies department, has worked to indoctrinate students in bigoted and extremist worldviews, rather than educate critical thinkers well versed in the facts, issues and events facing Palestinians, Israelis, and the broader Middle East. There is no greater evidence of this failure than the morally obscene reaction of far too many Brown University faculty members and students to the 10/7 Massacre.”

Let’s look at a couple of points: “Concerns” by whom? Well Brown University students and alumni of course. Seems to me like Trump, when he’s fudging known facts, utters “some people say…”

The authors use the term “we” and at least once the word “authors.” But who are they? What are their credentials? Surely if an organization was to release, under its name, a publication attacking the integrity of a major academic institution, it would list the name(s) of the publication’s author(s). Authors with appropriate credentials would provide a level of gravitas to the published work.

To me, serious publications, and over the years I’ve read my share of serious publications and reports, are all attributed to an author or group of authors. Identifying authorship permits the reader to gauge what s/he’s reading for intentional or unintended bias. The lack of attribution raises red flags.

It’s clear that CAMERA doesn’t like what the Center for Middle East Studies (CMES) is teaching and how material is being taught. But one thing is also clear, this report was written then finalized under the shadow of the horrible events of October 7.

After laying out the sections of the study:

“The report then provides an overview of the antisemitism and extremism that have characterized Middle East and Palestinian Studies programming and curricula at Brown University. The examples provided are by no means exhaustive. Moreover, while the available course material provides important information about the direction of the courses, the rhetoric used in the classes themselves, behind closed doors, is unavailable for the public. Based on the materials reviewed, there is little doubt that the associated commentary by instructors/professors, who have elsewhere expressed extremist anti-Israel views, are amplifying the themes outlined.” [Italics mine]

The examples are by no means exhaustive? Then I have to assume that the author(s) used their best evidence. My reading is that many “examples” are taken out of context, cherry-picked, or are conclusory in nature. But what struck me is that while the author(s) cite course materials as the basis for many of their assertions, they have no clue what’s happening behind the classrooms’ closed doors. So, this leads me to believe that the author(s) rely on secondary information without examining much, if any, in the way of primary sources – i.e. students in the classroom.

In my former profession, this would violate the hearsay rule.

This raises the question of what students expressed concerns about classes taught under the CMES umbrella? By their admission it wasn’t from students actually in the classes, nor was it based on any public information.

Then it’s on to attacking members of the Brown faculty. Upon establishing the CMES in 2012, Beshara Doumani, Ph.D.  was appointed its first Director. Shortly thereafter, Doumani established New Directions in Palestinian Studies (NDPS). NDPS held annual conferences, endowed fellowships, and sponsored a book series relevant to Palestinian studies on such topics as “Enduring Palestinian Political Factions” and “Rethinking Statehood in Palestine.”

These activities are relevant to the mission of the CMES, and hardly the radical bomb-throwing curriculum and activities that the CAMERA “report” wants its readers to believe. And while Dr. Doumani was born in Saudi Arabia in 1957, he came to the United States in 1970. He received his B.A. in history from Kenyon College in Ohio, and his Masters and Doctorate from Georgetown University. Pretty standard fare in academia.

Prior to coming to Brown, Doumani was a member of the faculty of the University of California, Berkeley from 1998-2012, and prior to that was a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania from 1989-1998.

The “report” says nothing about his scholarship or teaching experience and instead directs the reader to Doumani’s Cardinal sin – in 2021 he became the president of Birzeit University located on the West Bank, Occupied Territory. Apparently Birzeit tends to be pro-Palestinian. Who’d have guessed?

[Not so surprisingly, the “report” made no mention of a report by Scholars At Risk of the November 8, 2023, forcible entry by Israeli forces into Birzeit. Evidently numerous items were confiscated by these forces, including flags and students’ property, along with damaging university property.

For clarity, Scholars At Risk (SAR) is an American based organization, formed at Chicago University in 1999 and relocated to New York University in 2003. SAR joined other organizations to serve as a clearinghouse for information on academic freedom and educational rights.]

In 2018, Professor Shahzad Bashir would succeed Doumani as the CMES director, before himself being replaced by Professor Nadje Al-Ali three years later. Bashir received his BA from Amherst College, and his MA, MPhil and PhD from Yale University, neither being well known hotbeds of radical scholarship.

Professor Al-Ali was born in Germany, immigrated to the United States where she received her BA from the University of Arizona. She would relocate to Cairo Egypt where she would earn her MA from the American University in Cairo. Then on to London where she earned her doctorate from the SOAS (School for Oriental and African Studies) University of London.  

From the “report”: “Under NDPS, ‘Visiting Fellows in Palestinian Studies’ have also been brought to Brown University, including Noura Erakat, Rema Hammami, and Ruba Salih. Erakat, the most notable of the three, is a professor at Rutgers University and is well-known for her inflammatory and often outlandish claims, with a tendency to redefine Zionism as being akin to Nazism.”

Two things about Ms. Erakat. First, she received her BA from the University of California, Berkeley, followed by her earning her J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law and her L.L.M. from the Georgetown University Law Center. She was a Freedman Fellow at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and taught international studies at George Mason University and is an associate professor at Rutgers University. She was also a legal counsel to the House Oversight Committee in 2014 when the Republicans controlled the House.

This is not the resume one might expect from an antisemitic radical. Granted Berkeley has a bit of a rep, but George Mason is as conservative as any university not named Liberty can get. The Ph.D program in economics is granted through the Mercator Center, funded by the Koch Foundation. The University’s Law School is named after Antonin Scalia.

Which brings me to Erakat’s “Nazi” statement. The “report” indicates Erakat has a “tendency” to redefine Zionism with Nazism. To establish credibility for this allegation, the “report” attributes this assertion to a piece identified in footnote 6. The link is to an article in the April 21, 2022 edition of the Algemeiner. This on-line news publication stated, “‘Palestinians have basically said … that Zionism is a bedfellow of Nazism and antisemitism,’ claimed Rutgers professor Erakat.”

[NOTE: The Algemeiner is a New York based news publication covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. It has a circulation of approximately 23,000 and is a pro-Israel publication. For instance, it criticized the George W. Bush administration’s efforts to convince the Israeli government to stop, if not roll back the Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank.]

Note that the article doesn’t say Erakat equates Zionism with Nazism but rather she said that Palestinians made that comparison. That said, in a backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations (October 26, 2023), it was noted while Arabs comprise 20% of Israel’s population, and that with a few exceptions had the same rights as non-Arabs, “they tend to live in poorer cities, have less formal education, and face challenges that some experts attribute to structural discrimination.”

I refer you to the full article at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel#:~:text=Arab%20citizens%20have%20the%20same,experts%20attribute%20to%20structural%20discrimination.

CAMERA wants to focus on misstating what someone says rather than focus on an independent analysis of current conditions in modern day Israel. Throughout this “report,” the author(s) decry the lack of objectivity at Brown while showing little of that value themselves.

CAMERA complains about what it sees as postmodern and critical theory approaches to teaching Middle East studies at Brown. Postmodern academic approaches look at the the historical and social contexts in analyzing a given subject rather than merely accepting an absolute, unquestionable “truth.” Critical theory looks at the ideologies and dominant social structures as applied to, in this instance, Israel.

I’m at a loss as to why either approach should be an anathema to CAMERA or to anyone else seeking a more nuanced analysis to try to understand the seemingly intractable issues confronting the region.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made. This “report” is not an attempt to increase any understanding of the Middle East. This is a blatant attempt the chill academic inquiry that might make some people uncomfortable.

Don’t get me wrong, there may well be issues at Brown that ought to be exposed and addressed. But this screed doesn’t do that. CAMERA is content to publish and distribute an imbalanced “report,” containing cherry-picked “facts,” while admittedly having limited access to the overall instruction scheme in the classrooms and allowing the use of footnotes that don’t support the comments allegedly made by faculty and visitors at Brown.

[I tend to read footnotes. I cited footnote 6 above as being a dubious source supporting the assertion in the body of the “report.” Lest you think it was merely one instance of sloppy “scholarship,” let me offer another, footnote 12. This was a link to a one paragraph reaction made by CAMERA to a statement allegedly made by Brown University professor Ariella Azoulay at a program at Cornell in 2020. CAMERA used its own three-year-old statement to support a present assertion to discredit Professor Azoulay in its current report. CAMERA uses no independent source for such support.]

With so much at stake, with lives in the balance, with a history to be written and a future to be forged, all of us – no matter who or where we are – deserved better than what CAMERA gave us.