President@Columbia.edu

Lee Bollinger is President of the University, in case anyone wants to share an opinion of this course.

"Who is this Condoleezza Rice? How could she possibly be the descendent of a black slave, and yet stand there and with such barefaced vulgarity say that it is too soon for her to intervene..."

Massad is no scholar, and he is also no gentleman.

That one is Dabashi, but the remark can still stand, of course.

"The headline is not a joke or an attempt at sarcasm."

Amazing how often something like this needs to be emphasized, in one sense or another; the real in perpetual conflict with the unreal, for ascendancy. The educational system itself very much helps to lay the groundwork, then the iconography and print propaganda, further still the endless repetitions. It's difficult to overstate all that since it operates at both conscious and less conscious levels and is so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and such an elemental aspect of the warp and woof of general information flows.

And if something is said of this, such as what I've noted above? For the ideologue the dismissive scoff is ever and always available, i.e. a totalizing dismissiveness and the leveling of brute contemptuousness and similar forms.

Jews should boycott Columbia. End of story.

If Jews did boycott Columbia, Massad, Dabashi and Khalidi would still spread the poison of anti-Semitism among hundreds of college students every year.

I think the thing to do is for almuni and other donors who have a conscience to refuse to give money to Columbia, and tell Lee Bollinger why they are giving money to morally decent institutions instead.

Off topic, but you _must_ listen to this audio clip of a prank played by some Israeli radio DJs:

http://bangitout.com/blog/?p=297

(I got to it via this

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=29444 )

How about a course on the violent expansion of Islam? Can it be called colonialism if the the invaded area has had its previous history erased so that the invaders leave little or no memory of what went before. Witness the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, the recent attempt of the destruction of the Coptic churches in Egypt. the attacks in Thailand, and so on.

if the yids stopped donations these fellows would actually be forced to consider teaching in bir zeit.

Do any of you actually read things?

"examines two case studies on nationalism, Arab unionist nationalism and Zionist colonial-settler nationalism."

It covers both Arab and Israli nationalism. Harry: does that satify your comment? It's not "violent", but it is on Arabs too.

I'm sorry, but the zionist movement IS in a lot of cases regarded as extreme nationalism. Look up the definition of "nationalism" and also the definition of Zionism (which IS Israeli/Jewish Nationalism).

Why would the study of this be offensive or in need of censorship?
Pam: perhaps you could answer this?

ChillWinston,

I'll answer it. Yes, Zionism is Jewish nationalism. "Colonial-settler" is the offensive part.

"I'm sorry, but the zionist movement IS in a lot of cases regarded as extreme nationalism."

Capitalize your z's, and note that it's not sufficient that there exist some people out there who "regard" Zionism as "extreme nationalism." You have to ask yourself why it's Jewish nationalism in particular that they call "extreme," and whether there are any other nationalisms at all that they would label "extreme." By all sorts of measures I can think of, _Arab_ nationalism would seem to qualify as "extreme," and it's not clear to me what you mean to suggest through your use of that particular adjective with regard to Zionism. It might just be that you wanted to use a two syllable word to describe nationalism, and that by "extreme" you meant "indeed." What you mean to say, perhaps, is that Zionism is indeed a form of nationalism.

The difficulty you face, though, is that no one is denying _that_. What people are taking issue with is the "colonial-settler" part, and since _those_ are the words Massad uses, it seems fair to throw back at you the question you asked at the beginning of your comment, but to refine it a bit:

do you read, em, not just "things," but specifically the things you comment on?

GuffNontaker:
Last I checked there is currently an outstanding UN resolution requiring the withdrawal of Israel from lands they occupied and "colonised" by shifting in settlers. What part of that doesn't fit "colonial-settler"?

I've heard countless times talk in the media about "Israeli settlers" and "Jewish settlers", so I think that that would make it part of the vernacular when talking about the situation.

As for my use of the word "extreme", well anything resulting in force and conflict related to nationalism by any nation would indicate something a bit beyond hosting the flag and being proud of your country.

Just because some group or person uses the expression doesn't make it off limits. I think you're being rather too sensitive about what I'd regard as a non-issue. Except of course if you're merely wanting to remove from a course offering any mention of Israel/Zionism that may paint the situation in a less than favourable way.

You said: "You have to ask yourself why it's Jewish nationalism in particular that they call "extreme," and whether there are any other nationalisms at all that they would label "extreme.""

The course description doesn't mention "extreme" though, so what's your issue with a course talking about it?

There have been many cases of extreme nationalism throughout history, why would you think Zionism is somehow better, immune to criticism or more noble than other forms of nationalism deemed "extreme" that have committed barbaric acts in the name of protecting/expanding/enhancing the nation? Or do you you mean why would anyone call it "extreme nationalism" full stop?

Again, I see no reason why you would regard the course description as so "offensive". Sounds to me like a fair enough course topic (although myself: my chances of taking that one would have been zero but still).

Again the attempt at the end to belittle by casting assertions on my intelligence (a tired approach used on this site in the face of any perceived criticism): "do you read, em, not just "things," but specifically the things you comment on?"

Yes, yes I do. Also: Capitalise that sentence and comma should be outside the quotes on "things". Or maybe I know that you're writing a response *online* and that isn't important considering the decent quality of my writing. I also use Australian/British spelling in my responses so you'll have to excuse my unfamiliarity with the letter "z" in general.

Try, if you can, to formulate a response without resorting to derision. It really isn't necessary.

Chillwinston

There are two problems with this course: the premise and the teacher.

Calling Zionism "colonial settler" nationaliam is a denial of the Jewish right to natinhood. Forget the Bible, firm archaeological evidence proves that the Jewish nation arose indigenously in the Land of Israel in ancient times. In modern times, it returned by purchase and by UN vote - not by conquest (until attacked.) Ask yourself why the Arabs, who came into posession of the Middle East by violent conquest are not characterized as "colonial settler" nationalism and the Jews are and you will see the problem.

The second problem is Joseph Massad - read the "crack scholarship" link to get the gist of why he is unqualified.

As to your assertion that Zionism is an especially violent nationalism, you show your ignorance of history. All wars are violent, of course, Israel's many wars of defense were wars. But Israeli nationalism has not been expansionist, and unlike, say, Turkey, Israel was not bonrn in the genocide of another people. Are you opposed to the existence of Turkey?

President@Columbia.edu

Lee Bollinger is President of the University, in case anyone wants to share an opinion of this course.

ChillWinston,
"As for my use of the word "extreme", well anything resulting in force and conflict related to nationalism by any nation would indicate something a bit beyond hosting the flag and being proud of your country."

Hoisting the flag and being proud of your country are manifestations of _patriotism_, but in any case, most nationalisms have at one stage or other involved more than that. Further down you yourself write that

"There have been many cases of extreme nationalism throughout history."

Now, the fact is that "many" doesn't fully cover it, since _most_ nationalisms have been extreme by your low threshold criterion: _most_ nationalisms have involved force and conflict. I think that's a bad criterion for "extreme,"--'cause I think that term should be reserved for particularly bad cases and that otherwise its use tells us very little--but even if we go with it, it's odd that you don't use it in reference to the other nationalism in the Israeli-Arab conflict: Arab nationalism.

"Why would you think Zionism is somehow better, immune to criticism or more noble than other forms of nationalism deemed "extreme" that have committed barbaric acts in the name of protecting/expanding/enhancing the nation?"

First, there's a difference between protecting, expanding and enhancing. Even protecting doesn't justify everything, but more is justified for the sake of protecting than is justified for the sake of expanding. As it happens, I do think Zionism's had a better, nobler history than some other nationalisms--Arab nationalism not least among those others; the others include some European nationalisms--but by no means do I think that it should be immune to criticism. The question is whether the criticism is fair. Both the "colonial-settler" bit and Massad's record ought to lead anyone fair minded to conclude that his course is _extremely_ unlikely to be fair.

I don't doubt that you're intelligent. (..Or, anyway, I didn't mean to express any greater doubt about that than you were expressing about the intelligence of the others commenting here when _you_ asked whether they read things.) But are you fair minded? Have you looked at Massad's record?

Columbia has long been al Qaeda University, so nobody should be shocked about this.

"Calling Zionism "colonial settler" nationaliam is a denial of the Jewish right to natinhood."

The course description does not call Zionism in general "colonial settler" nationalism. The case study is about the nationalism of the Zionist settlers of disputed territories.

GuffNontaker:
The fact that there have been "jewish settlers" moved into areas known as "occupied territories" in my mind justifies the use of the term as an area of study. There are obviously a lot of Israelis who believe that the settlers shouldn't have been moved back out of those territories. I remember the footage of the soldiers with waterbottles dragging the protesters out one by one, the chanting "Jew doesn't turn against Jew". I think the society/human response on that day alone warrants some examination and discussion.

The reading I was talking about was in response to the people who were saying "blah blah.. Why don't you do it on Islamic/arabs instead" when the line (although selectively bolded) indicated it was examining more than just Zionist nationalism.

Whether someone finds an isolated term offensive or not does not impact upon it as a discussion point. I think the fact that you and I are having a discussion about what it means and the situation that it grew from would give enough materials for a set of lectures and discussion topics.

Case in point, if you will.

Anna: I'm not asserting any relative violence between nationalisms, I'm just saying that there has been violence/massacres/segregation etc. I can post you links to show that it was indeed violent at times (thus proving I am not ignorant of history). I'm not, nor have I ever disputed Israel's right to exist.. It's the methods, policy and approach that I may call into question, but that's not unique to Israel. I have lots of questions about lots of nations actions (including my own).
To label every action of Israel's as defence is as accurate as saying any action against Israel is an act of defence by another party (or retaliation for the conditions imposed by Israel). The cycle never ends and there are any number of interpretations of who is responsible..

As for the teacher: well I would imagine that students and staff within the actual university would be a better more accurate authority on whether he is doing his job. Academia is supposed to have people who might be a bit controversial or critical, if you don't have anyone like that then you have the US media essentially. That is unable to ever ask any real questions, no real debate, no thought process..

Pam: we heard you the first 3 times. I'm sure the president is glad they now receive viagra spams thanks to you posting their email twice here, and the same thing on the previous blog post rather than actually contributing anything to the discussion. Again: why do you think that it warrants censorship and why would someone email to complain about it.

ChillyWillie, a hypcritical colonist-settler of Aborigine land in the "Land Down Under".

What right does an exiled dreg from the United Kingdom have to Aborine land in the "Land Down Under"?

Less right than a Jew has to live in the land of Israel.

Joseph Massad is an adamant opponent of the right of Israel to exist. When he uses the term "Zionist colonial settler nationalism" he is referring to the entire Zionist movement, from the mid-nineteenth century onward - to every Jew who ever went home to Israel.

People who object to him object not because of a single prase or position, but because his scholarship is inadequate. Take a look at that "crackpot" quotes list.

It is absurd that someone teach the history of Zionism who knows not a word of Hebrew, Yiddish or any other Jewish language.

And the whole point here is that columbia and several other universities have appointed faculty not on the basis of their scholarly credentials but specifically because of their radical plitical credentials. Massad does not keep his jpb because he is a competant scholar. He keeps it because he is part of a a department (MELAC) dedicated to the annhiliation of the Jewish State. Lee Bollinger and alan Brinkley know that Massad is an propagandist, not a scholar, but they are afraid of a rebellion on the part of the radically anti Israel columbia faculty of the kind that lost Larry Summers his job.

and please clean up your language, some of us do not live in the gutter.

Anna: "It is absurd that someone teach the history of Zionism who knows not a word of Hebrew, Yiddish or any other Jewish language."

If you were talking about a language course on Hebrew/Yiddish or other Jewish language, I would agree with you. But I think there are enough texts and materials out there in other languages to render that point irrelevant. Additionally I believe the media coverage and history of what is being taught is within the last 100 years and reported widely.

So in short I completely refute your assertion that you need to speak a certain language to be able to teach that topic.
What you're saying is effectively that if someone cannot write egyptian hyroglyphics that they are not able to teach the history of Egypt. If someone does not speak an African tribal language then they are unqualified to talk about the medical implications of AIDS in Africa (or should the person have to HAVE the disease to talk about HIV?). I think that "you must speak the language" to be quite absurd really. You are talking about suitability of a teacher/lecturer, but are you a lecturer at that university or taking a course there, or have children taking a degree which might include that course? If not, by your own logic you are unsuitable to make any comment.

For your other comment: "When he uses the term "Zionist colonial settler nationalism" he is referring to the entire Zionist movement"

I don't see any proof that the course is saying that. Even if he DID think that, then that doesn't mean that a course taught by him would be a poor educational experience. Many math teachers might find calculus boring or irrelevant for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that they will teach it incorrectly.

Your part about questioning the whole department of a university.. I'm not so sure that would seriously stand up to any real scrutiny. I think selective quoting and then tarring the whole deparment is what you're perhaps doing there. I seriously doubt that an education department would appoint people not on academic credentials or ability to do their jobs, perhaps your criticism is just a little over the top. Saying that the deparment is "dedicated to the annhiliation of the Jewish State" sounds a bit paranoid and excessive or driven by a personal grievance.

The language comment: I assume that directed at eddie? I don't see any language of mine that needs cleaning up.

"Anna: "It is absurd that someone teach the history of Zionism who knows not a word of Hebrew, Yiddish or any other Jewish language."

If you were talking about a language course on Hebrew/Yiddish or other Jewish language, I would agree with you. But I think there are enough texts and materials out there in other languages to render that point irrelevant. Additionally I believe the media coverage and history of what is being taught is within the last 100 years and reported widely.

So in short I completely refute your assertion that you need to speak a certain language to be able to teach that topic."

You "challenge" it, you don't refute it. In fact, yes, if you're going to instruct at the university level, you need to be able to assess and access primary source material. That's what PhD's are supposed to be able to do. This isn't community college. He needs to speak Hebrew.

I don't see any proof that the course is saying that. Even if he DID think that, then that doesn't mean that a course taught by him would be a poor educational experience. Many math teachers might find calculus boring or irrelevant for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that they will teach it incorrectly.

"Zionist Colonial-Settler Nationalism" is a well-worn phrase with a known pedigree, as is Joseph Massad's use of it which Anna is well aware of. It is a highly-charged, some would say purely political statement, and to have it in someone like Massad's hands it's even more obviously so. Again, Joseph Massad is a known quantity and people are right to be concerned about his teaching of a course like this.

MEALAC is also a known-quantity, like Massad, so Anna has some basis for making that statement.

Not only well worn with a known pedigree, but it's juxtaposed with "Arab unionist nationalism," a benign and innocuous sounding assignation which serves to mask a far more "interesting" reality.

Solomon: no, I was not challenging, I believe I was refuting the argument (as in I overthrow by argument, proof or reason) as I gave examples which proved it to be wrong.

As I said: do all history teachers have to know each language of each civilisation they teach: no. Do you have to be a certain race to teach a course on that race: no. Does someone teaching a course on using word processors need to know about integrated circuit design and semiconductor physics: no.

As I said the coverage of the timeframe that would be considered in the course would be able to be found in a variety of languages.

An additional point: the course could be based on a text book (as many are). Unless that text book was in a jewish language I doubt it would be a requirement. The course could also be an existing set of materials, in which case all you really need is someone to stand up and read the notes and be able to handle any questions/mark papers/come up with a final exam. Again, nothing in ANY of this that requires jewish background or language skills. When would someone teaching a course on biology for undergrads have to dig into the original research papers on experiments that discovered DNA? Never, because there is a certain level of abstraction required for teaching and violating that would generally indicate that the course is bogged down on minute detail or completely off track.. Minute detail is what a masters or a PhD is for.

Also: the course is taught in the US, which has the official language of English. So no need to deliver the course in a jewish language would be required..

To give some background: I have actually taught at the University level (in an Australian University) so I'm not exactly talking out my *rse on this matter and I can assure you that the process for selection of lecturers is not based on whether they can read whatever language or have specialist knowledge, it's whether they have time in their research to teach, and whether they are interested enough to teach. There's also NO requirement that the course a person is teaching be a subset of their PhD, or be able to actively research primary sources. Sure for their PhD they will need to do this, but for an undergrad course: no way.
So I *refute* that assertion too. If you have some inside information that clashes with my personal experiences I'd be interested to know it.

If you're thinking that a subject at University is really going to involve the lecturer having to refer to primary sources or track down eyewitness accounts by hand, then you're expecting a little too much out of a simple uni course.

If all that is mortally wounding people is "colonist-settler" then Ithink that just flies in the face of the facts on the matter. Fact: the media has referred to "jewish settlers" or "israeli settlers". They have also often referred to "israeli colonies" particularly in the disputed areas and the occupied territories. Again, I fail to see why this would be so offensive when it is common speak in the media and an observed thing.

Your're kidding, right?

You seriously thing that it is ordinary to teach a course at a first rank university in this country about the national independence movement of a nation whose language you do not speak?

Your questions: As I said: do all history teachers have to know each language of each civilisation they teach: no.

They sure as heck do at our premier universities.

Do you have to be a certain race to teach a course on that race: no.

Certainly not - was somebocy racist enoughh to suggest this?

Does someone teaching a course on using word processors need to know about integrated circuit design and semiconductor physics: I haven't got a clue, not being a EE professor.

But, to be serious, your second point is iteresting. In the glory days of American Academic greatness, knowledge of the subject was the sine qua non. You had to know your stuff, certainly the language in which the relevant original documents are written. If you did, no one gace a tinker's dam who your grandfather was.

This was, actually , an innovation ofhte mid ttwentieth century. Earlier in the century, being Jewish was enough to get your not hired. The first Jews permitted to teach Old Testament in a secular univesity in this country are still alive. We got over that kind of ethnic qualification/disqualification and have been richer (and wiser) for it.

Part of the malaise now affercting our universities is that the idea that you have to be one to teach about one is creeping back in. Try getting an appointment in African-american studies without being African American - no matter how brilliant you are.

Ward Churchill, you may recall, got his appointment partly on the strength of his claim to be Native American.

And this is increasingly true of Islamic studies. The assumption is that you ought to be Muslim. This, coupled with a booming demand for courses n this field, has led to pressure for Universities to appoint some really weak candidates.

but the short answer is, yes. to teach the history of the national libeation movement of any nation in a first rank university, you really do need to know the national language.

I think the standaards are lower than that ar Bir Ziet and al Quds.

Er, I hate to use ad hominem arguments, but did you ttend or ever teach at a first rank university? I ask because the summer after my second year I worked in a place with a lot of students from BU, not as strong a university then as it is now. It was a bit of a shock because several of them were taking Philospply 101 and they were using a textbook. I'm not making this up. they had this textbook and it had sections marked Plato or Hegel with little summaries of what Hegel or Plato had said. Withe little short excerpts. Even photos of a bust of Plato and a portrait of Hegel. I was stunned by the concept. Philosophy 101 at my school meant that you read Plato and Hegel. In English, but whole books. without pictures.

And the professor knew German, Greek and French.

Your write: "An additional point: the course could be based on a text book (as many are). Unless that text book was in a jewish language I doubt it would be a requirement. The course could also be an existing set of materials, in which case all you really need is someone to stand up and read the notes and be able to handle any questions/mark papers/come up with a final exam. Again, nothing in ANY of this that requires jewish background or language skills. When would someone teaching a course on biology for undergrads have to dig into the original research papers on experiments that discovered DNA? Never, because there is a certain level of abstraction required for teaching and violating that would generally indicate that the course is bogged down on minute detail or completely off track.. Minute detail is what a masters or a PhD is for."

So, at a first rank college like columbia, no way this course would use a textbook. It would use monographs and original documents translated into English. The idea that "all you really need is someone to stand up and read the notes" is almost as shocking to me as my first encounter with the concept of a summarizing textbook of wester philosophy was. One of the things that students at first rank universities are entitled to expect is that a course in Arab and Jewish nationalism will be taught by professors who know Arabic and Hebrew, and probably Yiddish and German. This is why they are sometimes team taught. Or split into seperate courses, the historical influences on Jewish nationalism being so disparate form Arab nationalism that combining the two is odd formsome perspectives.

First rank universities simply do not hire professors to teach subjects unless they can read the original documents with which the course deals.

"So no need to deliver the course in a jewish language would be required.."

don't be sily. No one suggested this. But the need to read the original documents requires knowledge of a Jewish language. Not only is not everything translated into English, a scholar often needs to go back and check the translation since old translations may carry obsolete assumptions, or have been mistranslated for political purposes, or by simple incompetence.

"To give some background: I have actually taught at the University level (in an Australian University)"

I don't believe you. I know people who teach in australia, and they could never have made the errors you have made.

Shabbat Shalom

and now, if you will excuse me, I am going to greet Shabbat in by praying, in Hebrew.

Anna: you can doubt all you like, I have lectured (although not in history/arts fields).
Also what errors have I made? To tell you how universities work and it doesn't fit with what you expect?

If you knew about how universities work you would know that teaching is just one aspect of a university. Research is the other (more important as far as funding is concerned). Some universities are good teaching universities with lecturers who spend a lot of time listening to students complain about marks etc etc, others are good research universities (with corresponding lower emphasis on keeping students happy, courses tuned etc).

Funds are generally allocated not on teaching prowess, nor is funding allocated based on student satisfaction. Commercial sponsorship is for research, not "MATH101". In fact "the best" universities tend to sh*t all over the students because they are about research and teaching is really just a distraction except that you have get a certain percentage of students who go on to do masters, and then on to do PhDs, both of which result in funding (albeit a much smaller chunk of cash than the big research grants divvied out).

You said: "First rank universities simply do not hire professors to teach subjects unless they can read the original documents with which the course deals."

Actually they don't generally hire professors/lecturers to *teach* (I'm not sure whether you're using "professor" to indicate rank, as in Professor, associate professor, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer, Associate lecturer etc etc Someone at professor level is hardly hired to teach, they're hired to inspire and give academic direction within the department and to bring with them PhD students, research grants and reputation). They hire them to perform research, pump out papers and make their publication history look impressive.. Teaching students is NOT what most universities care that much about. Harsh but true I'm afraid. Publishing rates, papers in respected journals, a good set of PhD and masters students and presentations at seminars, big research grants for groups is "success" in academia. Whether a bunch of undergrads comes out with HD's all the way is not in itself going to bring in that 10million dollar government research grant to pay for a bunch of PhD students and airfares to conferences.

Researchers/lecturers are mere mortals. They also have finite time available which is divided between research and lecturing duties.
Research is what you are known for in academic circles, whether you had a class of HD students or not does not get you invited to talk at seminars.

Brilliant researchers quite often make lousy teachers because the drive in them is to investigate, not explain some relatively simple concept to 1st year students. Likewise: great teachers are often lousy researchers because the joy in teaching is from imparting knowledge (something which I quite enjoy).

I think you're overvaluing the students and misunderstanding how academia works. I too had the view that students were *all*, until I was on the other side and witnessing first hand how the machinery works. Researchers teach because they have to to earn their keep so to speak. Someone at professor level will generally avoid teaching if possible to devote more time to writing papers, overseeing PhD students, collaboration with industry and so on..

Ask yourself: if at a high level in a research field, do you really think that person would waste their time teaching undergrads? The answer is "only if you have to" and unless you're very conscientious you are unlikely to be burning the midnight oil hand transcribing ancient parchment and referencing original texts all night when you have "serious research" to do.
If there are materials from the previous year, then you would use them, perhaps build in some new material as you go to keep things fresh and interesting. If you are making the course from scratch then that would cost extra time (and therefore would require extra budget).
Don't believe me: check out the open courseware put out by a bunch of the top universities. Do you think that is created from scratch each semester? Do you think textbooks are just written for the hell of it? No, they are written as a guide and information on a particular subject matter (just like a university course funny enough!).

Soo.. Back to what I was saying: teaching of courses tends to have very few restrictions on it other than you have to roughly know the field you're teaching. In some cases people might be "stuck" with something they aren't so interested in (e.g. a lot of the intro courses). Those tend to go to the junior lecturers who usually have enthusiasm which makes a course by itself almost. Other times you get free reign on creating a course as it might be "your baby" as far as area of expertise.

Can you imagine someone trying to teach a university-level course in Arab history without knowing at least how to read Arabic? Or a course on Latin America with no knowledge of Spanish? It's absurb.

Sorry, I meant "absurd."

Not only is "professor" chillwinston disingenuous enough to claim that one does not need to be fluent in Hebrew to comment on documents WRITTEN in Hebrew, in a first rate University setting,

"professor" chillwinston is also hypocritical enough to continue his COLONIZATION and OCCUPATION of Aborigine land in the "Land Down Under".

Please "professor" chillwinston, take the hint in the Union Jack part of your flag and return to your ancestral home in the Northern hemisphere United Kingdom.