Available at:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pub/tenure.html
Katherine Baker, Associate Professor,
Environmental Microbiology, Penn State
Mother of Benjamin Blutstein, Murdered by Terrorists, Hebrew University
Cafeteria Bombing
First, a disclaimer: I am an academic. I am not a scholar in Middle Eastern Studies, Israel Studies, Jewish Studies, or any of the traditional areas in which discussions of Israelor Zionism might arise. (I am a microbiologist. The closest I get to a discussion of Israelin any of my classes is a mention of the connection between Chiam Weitzmann, Clostrium, and the Balfour Declaration). Thus, my evaluation of Mitchell Bard’s Tenured or Tenuous: Defining the Role of Facility in Supporting Israel on Campus is limited to the observations of a neophyte in this area.
Overall, I found the publication presented a clear, concise, and readily accessible picture of the current state of anti-Israel/anti-Zionist activities on college campuses. The background material (Sections I, IV) provides a brief, but thorough, overview of campus culture, academic departments, and even first amendment issues. These sections will be particularly useful as an introduction for an individual new to this area. In addition, it can serve as a handy and quick review section for someone who has been involved actively for years. The lack of references or other documentation, however, limits the usefulness of this material. Perhaps the author(s) could provide a bibliography, if not as a part of the manuscript as a web page with the URL provided in the Introductory Material.
The middle sections of the publication (Sections V and VI) present case studies and suggestions for dealing with University Administration. This is the weakest part of the publication. The case studies are limited to three studies; in two of which the “instructor” was a graduate student. All three of the problems presented in the study were resolved. The descriptions of the issues in the case studies are sketchy; but much more seriously, the descriptions of the method for conflict resolution is not covered in detail. For example, in the University of Wisconsin case it is simply stated that two graduate students (who had been speakers in the class) requested a meeting with faculty in the department and that Hillel staff intervened several times. What was the response of the faculty to the student concerns? Did they even meet with the graduate students? How did Hillel become involved? What actions finally lead to resolution of the conflict? None of these questions are answered. The case studies should be modified significantly to include more detail regarding the process of conflict resolution. If there is insufficient space to do this, the overall number of case studies should be reduced to allow for more depth in the discussion of the remaining cases. Finally, in the discussion of working with the University’s Administration the suggestion is made that one should try to get to know the senior administration (President of the university, Provost, Dean of Students etc.) This type of advice is obvious and borders on trivial.
To my mind, the most useful parts of the publication are the last sections of the report, including the appendices. These provide information and access (in the form of contact information and email addresses) for additional resources that will be useful to the reader both in planning initiatives and actions of their own and, also, in facilitating the networking and information exchange essential in approaching such widespread problems. The authors have provided an extremely useful resource to the entire Jewish Community in compiling this information.
At times, the author(s) seem unsure of the target audience they are trying to reach. Thus the reader is required to select, from the information presented, the relevant portions for her situation and role. This fuzziness in direction is an outcome of the wide audience the publication is intended to reach student activists, faculty, campus professionals, and the community. Given the diversity of these intended audiences, a singly publication of only 45 pages cannot possibly meet all of their needs. I urge readers to simply skip over the simplistic parts (the information provided for another type of reader), but not to discard the publication because of these parts. The information provided to all audiences vastly outweighs the faults in the publication.
The title is an example of style over substance. In their eagerness to get a catchy, alterative title, the author(s) have given the publication an unclear title. Initially, the title lead me to expect a report on anti-Semitism relating to academic hiring and promotion issues, not the broadly written guide it really is. In addition, there are two errors in the Appendices that struck me. (There are probably additional errors.) Andrea Lieber, not Liever, holds the Sophie Ava Asbell Chair in Judaic Studies at DickinsonCollege. (Andrea is a neighbor of mine and was my son’s advisor when he was a student â/œ Judaic Studies major” at Dickinson). Also, while there may be a Department of Holocaust Studies at PennsylvaniaStateUniversityat Harrisburg (PSH), it must be the best-kept secret on record. I teach at PSH and I have never heard of the department. Neither have the Academic Records personnel or the Schoolof Humanities. These are minor mistakes and certainly do not negate the overall value of the publication.
In summary, Mitchell Bard and his steering committee have provided a concise compendium of information, ideas, and individuals useful to a broad range of audiences concerned with supporting Israelon Campus. I thank them for their work.
Publication Review:
Tenured or Tenuous: Defining the Role of Faculty in Supporting Israelon Campus
Prepared by Mitchell G. Bard Ph.D. by
Peter J. Haas
Abba Hillel Silver Professor of Jewish Studies Chair,
Department of Religion
Director, The SamuelRosenthal Centerfor Judaic Studies
CaseWestern Reserve University
The passions surrounding the current al-Aqsa intafadeh in the Middle Easthave made the struggle between Israeland the Palestinians a hot issue around the globe. Not surprisingly, these passions have also made themselves felt on colleges and universities across North America. The emergence of vocal and almost violent anti-Israel demonstrations and outrageous claims made in classrooms, with strong support from leftists groups, caught Jewish students and faculty off-guard and ill-prepared to respond. The pamphlet “Tenured or Tenuous” by Mitchell Bard was compiled to better prepare students to respond to such onslaughts. While overall this is a helpful pamphlet, I do have some reservations.
Let me start by saying that one characteristic of the current level of Middle East is that criticism of Israeli policy now slides ever so easily into anti-Zionism and then into broader anti-Semitism. The reason is that the rhetoric has become so ideological that a Manichaean binary opposition has taken shape: if Israel is (deemed to be ) wrong in one aspect, it and its supporters are taken to be systematically evil and even Satanic while if the Palestinians are seen suffering undue hardship, they are deemed to be pure and innocent victims (of Israel, the West, the Jews, Colonialism…). Certainly one of the tasks we academics are charged with is training students to complexify any such neat binaries and to show them that simple cookiecutter answers are never adequate in the real world. It is in light of this situation that I regard, Tenured and Tenuous as both a help and a hindrance.
Let me address the hindrance part first. One thing that needs to be pointed out is that it is possible to be against Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, and even to talk about the “Israeli occupation” without necessarily being anti-Israeli (not to mention anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic). In fact, large portions of the Israeli Jewish population disagree with their own government’s policy and do indeed talk about their relation to “the Territories” as an occupation. This is how any democracy works. I bring up this point because the pamphlet at times fall into the dualistic trap set by the Left. As an example, one of the pieces of evidence cited by the pamphlet for anti-Israelism (and so anti-Semitism?) on campus is the fact that over 1,000 academics signed a petition critical of Israel’s security fence. It is important to realize that just being critical of something like the security fence is itself not in and of itself being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic.
To make this assumption is to fall into the very rhetorical logic of the extreme Left. It is always possible in a democracy to disagree with a government without meaning to call for the eradication of the government or the extermination of its people. We in fact do our student’s a disservice by making them feel that criticism of any part of Israelis criticism of all of Israel.
Our students need to feel comfortable in saying that a) yes I dislike Israel’s policy in such-and-such a case but b), there is a broader context in which the policy has taken shape and c) in any case disagreeing with a policy arrived at by a democracy does not invalidate that state’s (or its people’s) right to exist. This is why I find also troubling reference to Aish HaTorah as part of the good news on campus in promoting “pro-Israel” activity. There is no need to make our students feel that the only way to counter anti-Israel or anti-Semitic rhetoric is to buy into a worldview like that of Aish HaTorah. In fact, Aish HaTorah may tend to cement the notion that criticism of Israelis tantamount to anti-Semitism, precisely the rhetorical trap we, as academic should be teaching against
To reiterate, our approach as academics, it seems to me, should be not so much “pro-Israeli” no matter what, but to educate people in the history and complexity of the current situation, a situation in which both sides have legitimate claims and legitimate faults. Neither side is totally right in the conflict, but then again, neither side is totally wrong and illegitimate either. The message in academia, as always, ought to be that simplistic or monochromatic answers are by definition wrong. The pamphlet does not of course call for the Israeladvocates to be as one-sided, simplistic and uncomplicated as the pro-Palestinian side often is, but I think the rhetoric of the situation makes it all too easy to slide into this kind of Manichaeism. I would have liked the pamphlet to be a little clearer that what we need is open expression, debate, and complexification, not simple, absolutist answers.
Given these concerns, I must say I find the practical advice in the pamphlet to be largely correct and on target. Incidents of blatant and systematic Israel-(or Jew-) bashing should be noted, carefully documented, and brought to the attention of appropriate administrators, as the pamphlet outlines. The argument is not that we disagree, but that such one-sidedness and oversimplification is simply poor teaching and bad academics. What we have a right to expect in the classroom and on campus in general is not always ratification of our point of view, but scholarly integrity, fairness in presentation, acknowledgment of other points of view, and critical analysis. Grandstanding and suppression of other voices is simply out of place on any campus. Period.
But the corollary of our expecting the “pro-Palestinians” to be open to critical analysis of their claims and to acknowledge that there is another legitimate point of view, is that we also have to acknowledge that the pro-Palestinians have some legitimate points to make as well. But just as we can despise Arafat and his policy without calling for the extermination of all Palestinians, we have a perfect right to demand of people who dislike Israel’s current policy to express that view without calling for the extermination of all Israelis (or, needless to say, all Jews).
In the end, as an academic, a department chair, and one who teaches the current conflict, I find the pamphlet more helpful than not. It gives the student resources and a plan of action. My only concern is that in places it seems to descend into the “them” against “us” dualism that has made the current atmosphere so toxic to begin with. I hope the current situation makes the very need of this kind of pamphlet unnecessary, but in the meantime, it is a good resource to have around.
Katherine Baker, Associate Professor, Environmental Microbiology, PennState
Mother of Benjamin Blutstein, Murdered by Terrorists, HebrewUniversityCafeteria Bombing
Copyright 2004 Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. spme.org
These reviews may be distributed electronically and distributed for academic purposes only. Any other use of this review must be with written permission from Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Inc. Contact Scholars for Peace in the Middle East
