Tenure Wars and Burned Books: Middle East Meets Ivy League
It's been a busy week in terms of Middle Eastern politics on Ivy League turf. Harvard and Yale refused to sign a petition in support of Israeli universities, and now Columbia is joining the fray with yet another petition-based controversy, this time surrounding an Arab anthropologist's tenure.
Nadia Abu El-Haj, assistant professor of anthropology at Barnard is the author of Facts on the Ground, which questions the archaeological record behind Israel's Jewish origin. The ancient kingdom of Israel and Judah, Abu El-Haj writes, are "pure political fabrication." Citing lack of academic rigor and throwing the "pure... fabrication" label back at Abu El-Haj, the "Deny Nadia Abu El-Haj tenure" petition had 1240 signatures at press time, nearly all of which were accompanied by the undersigned's academic qualifications, mostly from Columbia and Barnard. Petition author Paula Stern Barnard '82, runs the Stern Group, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, D.C. runs blog A Soldier's Mother.
Some say Stern's position in international business and policy as the mother of an Israeli soldier gives her petition ulterior motives (edit: whoa. this stuff gets crazier by the minute.). "Grant Nadia Abu El-Haj Tenure" had 266 signatures at press time, nearly all boasting impressive academic affiliations. "Grant" also gestures to racial prejudice, claiming Abu El-Haj "has been singled out from among many other authors who make the same points essentially because of her last name." "Grant" petition author Paul Manning of Trent University writes, "We believe that these attacks on Ms. Abu El-Haj are part of an orchestrated witch-hunt (reminiscent of course of McCarthyism) against politically unpopular ideas."
Manning is the second Ivy academic to cry "McCarthyism" this week. On Tuesday Harvard sociologist Neil Goss announced his finding that "A greater percentage of social scientists today feel that their academic freedom has been threatened than was the case during the McCarthy Era," with Middle East researchers leading the quashed-freedom brigade. Yesterday Yale University Press narrowly escaped a lawsuit that, in the UK, forced Cambridge University Press to pulp its stock of Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, by Matthew Levitt (meaning the American edition remains in print). Abu El-Haj's criticism comes mostly heavily from Jewish organizations, whereas Levitt's detractor is KinderUSA, a pro-Palestine non-profit that claimed libel.
EDIT no. 1: Thanks Professor Manning. Ivy or not, you can edit our essays any day.
EDIT no. 2: This is ridiculously complex. Just go to the comments; Paula and Paul are letting their hair down there.
Academia remains divided over Facts On the Ground, published by the University of Chicago Press. JTA, a Jewish news organization, reports,
Scholars are divided on the book's merits. David Ussishkin, a Tel Aviv professor and one of Israel's most celebrated archaeologists, has defended the excavation methods Abu El-Haj criticized. William Dever, an emeritus professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona and the author of many books on the ancient Near East, told the New York Sun late last year that Abu El-Haj should be denied tenure, calling her work "faulty, misleading and dangerous." On the other side, Michael Herzfeld, an anthropology professor at Harvard, characterized Abu El-Haj's work as "meticulous scholarship and even-handedness" in a blurb published on the book's back cover. Others have lauded Abu El-Haj's contribution to understanding how national priorities shape academic work on history and archaeology.
JTA also reports on Barnard's stance:
Neither Barnard nor Columbia would reveal any details about the status of Abu El-Haj's tenure application, though Barnard has confirmed that the tenure process is under way. Abu El-Haj and Barnard President Judith Shapiro denied requests for comment. The wall of silence has fueled speculation that Shapiro, herself a professor of anthropology, has secretly endorsed the tenure application. If correct, final approval would rest with a committee appointed by Columbia Provost Alan Brinkley, sources familiar with the university said. Brinkley's office also declined requests for comment.
No matter what, though, this can't get as bad as the time Columbia accidentally invited Iranian president and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a guest speaker. Poor Barnard -- always second place to Columbia, even at politically insensitive faux pas. --MAUREEN O'CONNOR
From the Nadia Abu El-Haj's Facts On the Ground foreword:
26 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Barnard, Columbia, guest editors, Matthew Levitt, Nadia Abu El-Haj, Yale University Press
Email – 
Search
About
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
August 18th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Does Barnard count? Book burning sucks, as does Islamic terrorists.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Since when did Trent University in sleepy Peterborough Ontario become ‘Ivy’, making me an ‘Ivy Academic’? I guess I’m flattered.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
do people take Nards seriously?
August 18th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Uh, please bring back the last 2 editors– this is just not cutting it!
August 18th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
someone brought to my attention that you have the wrong Paula Stern. The Paula Stern who started the petition is a technical writer who works with Israeli firms, who runs a website entitled ‘paula says’ (http://www.paulasays.com/).
August 19th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Thanks Paul and others who have pointed out the mistaken identity. There is a Paula Stern who heads the Stern Group…the only Stern group I head…or at least 50%, is my family of 5 kids (see one that makes me proud at: http://www.israelisoldiersmother.blogspot.com). I am indeed a technical writer - with a B.A. from Barnard College in Political Science. I learned at Barnard, the need for careful research. This was done before posting or approaching Barnard College with my opinion that they should not grant tenure to Nadia Abu El Haj. Two different Barnard graduates - both known friends of Judith Shapiro, told me she hadn’t even read the dissertation. In a letter to me, President Shapiro acknowledged that she’d read “most” of it and planned to read the rest over Winter Break…this was long after the controversy had begun. While you can’t expect a university president to read every manuscript a professor coming up for tenure writes, there are some important issues here. First, Abu El Haj only wrote ONE book…so there isn’t much of a track record and it wouldn’t have been hard to do a quick review. Secondly, this is a Palestinian woman writing on Israel…how much intelligence does it take to send up warning signals? Had she written a Native American burial rites and practices analysis using anthropological and archeological sources, fine…But she’s a Palestinian writing on Israel - it would be logical to assume that she would carry some prejudice and Barnard had a responsibility to determine whether that prejudice influenced her ability to write a factual, academic analysis. The answer is that it did…and so Abu El Haj simply did away with facts…as easily as the Palestinian mobs she so respects did away with the Tomb of Joseph…just a “fact on the ground” that they “eradicated.” I hope everyone will take the time to sign the petition against granting Nadia Abu El Haj tenure…not because she is anti-Israel and most likely anti-Semitic as well - but because her scholarly work lacks integrity, honesty, proper research and protocol. She is…and will always be…a tremendous embarrassment to a university that should lead the country in its dedication to the highest educational standards.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:55 am
1) One book is pretty much the maximum limit needed at any university to get tenure, Paula.
2) But even so, university presidents really can’t be expected to read any of those books, they have other jobs, and besides, that is the job of the external reviewers, who make the recommendation to the tenure committee. These are the people who are supposed to review the materials. Do you know anything? This is what makes the tenure process autonomous from mccarthyites like you.
3) You are _just_ some kind of bigot if you think that a person’s ideas should be prejudged on the basis of their identity (why can’t a palestinian woman write about Israel? Much better than a technical writer with a BA writing about how universities should run their tenure process! Why is that more problematic than a white person writing about Native Americans?)
4) The rest of what you write illustrates this point rather well: I rather think Barnard will be embarrassed that people like you managed to graduate with a BA from their institution.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Obviously Barnard didn’t teach you how to be concise.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Ms Stern should perhaps not lecture Mr Manning on the virtues of concision when her own post is by far the longest one in this set of comments (and includes irrelevant information about her family, a plug for her own blog, etc.).
More important, she explicitly assumes that Ms Abu El-Haj must be prejudiced against Israel for the simple reason that she is Palestinian–this assumption is itself a perfect example of prejudice!
Most important of all, she persists in trying to interfere in and contaminate the tenure evaluation process using the time-honored tactics of innuendo and guilt by association (”known friends of…”), hearsay, misdirection (the “Native American” non sequitur), and the kind of inflammatory language (”eradicate[d],” “mobs she so respects”) that recall nothing so much as McCarthyism. If the use of online petitions is a technology-assisted kind of virtual “mob” action, then add that to the list.
Here’s the point: Alumnae who have no qualifications in the field are not legitimate participants in the process of evaluating academic professionals for tenure. The elephant is a noble animal, but is not consulted in tenure decisions for faculty in departments of zoology, so far as I know.
Why doesn’t Ms Stern trust her _alma mater_ to weigh the facts of the case fairly and carefully, according to accepted professional standards?
August 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I’m just a student amongst professors and technical writers here, so I don’t know if my opinion carries any weight, but here’s what I think.
1) Was it racist of Ms. Stern to bring up the fact that Ms. El-Haj is Palestinian? Well, if an Israeli were to write a book questioning the historical authenticity of Palestine — and I’m sure some have — I think a great many people would look askance, and rightly. Ms. Stern is not asserting that all Palestinians are sloppy academics; she is not assuming that all Palestinians hate Israel. She is saying only the truth: that Ms. El-Haj is writing about an issue in which her origin probably gives her a serious emotional stake. Those of you who accuse Ms. Stern of ethnic prejudice are using the term “racism” — a word that should not be bandied about — with extraordinary irresponsibility. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
2) Mr. Manning, you submit that “university presidents can’t be expected to read any of those books.” I wouldn’t expect Ms. Shapiro to read every treatise a professor of hers writes. But I WOULD expect her to at least skim a volume so astoundingly controversial as this one. Barnard College is getting more press for this fracas than probably for anything else they’ve done in the last decade. And it’s not good press. She needs to read the book.
3) I may have been born towards the end of the Cold War, Mr. Moore, but I still have a pretty good idea of what McCarthyism is, and I don’t think this is it. See, McCarthyism is when the government persecutes you for what you think. Warning signs include — oh, I don’t know, THE GOVERNMENT being involved. This is not HUAC coming down on a filmmaker for having a Communist girlfriend. This is not the FBI taking a writer in for questioning because he believes in socialism. This is a movement of civilians and academics who are questioning the scholarship of Ms. El-Haj’s work. QUESTIONING THE SCHOLARSHIP, Mr. Moore. As far as I know, that is still a legitimate reason to oppose a professor getting tenure.
4) Ms. Stern, you have the eloquence and rhetorical subtlety of a sledgehammer. You also managed to piss a few people off. When you’re trying to persuade people, that’s a bad idea. Accusing Ms. Abu El-Haj of directly supporting Palestinian terrorists, for example? Not good when you’re trying to appear reasonable.
5) This book by Ms. Abu El-Haj claims that “the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah…’are pure political fabrication.’” This is a preposterous claim. The existence of Israel and Judah has been accepted by Western society for centuries. It is most certainly not a product of Israeli propaganda. Fifty years of the existence of the State of Israel is not enough time for lobbyists to rewrite the Bible. You want to say the Bible is wrong? Fine. I disagree; I believe Israel and Judah existed; but if you can back it up, fine. But you want to say it’s a figment of Zionist propaganda? No. That just doesn’t make any sense.
I’ll be completely honest with you folks: I’m Jewish myself. I won’t think you’re racist if you consider that when you read this post. And, again, I’m just a student. But if you people are the best authorities on the subject, it’s clear to me that it doesn’t take much of a mind to offer an opinion.
P.S. Sorry for the length of the post. They must not teach us how to be concise at Dartmouth.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
@dartmouth10: you’re obnoxious.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
“Secondly, this is a Palestinian woman writing on Israel…how much intelligence does it take to send up warning signals? Had she written a Native American burial rites and practices analysis using anthropological and archeological sources, fine…But she’s a Palestinian writing on Israel - it would be logical to assume that she would carry some prejudice and Barnard had a responsibility to determine whether that prejudice influenced her ability to write a factual, academic analysis.”
Thank you, professor manning, for destroying her on that.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Paula, let’s get this straight, I neither am an Ivy Academic nor did I go to an Ivy league school such as Barnard. Concise enough for ya?
August 20th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah…’are pure political fabrication.’”
Before we get all excited about this quote, can someone who’s actually read the book clarify what she meant? As far as I know many societies have created or embellished aspects of their history over the course of centuries. It’s absolutely preposterous to suggest that the modern state of Israel made up the ancient kingdom of Judah for contemporary political purposes, but the idea that less ancient Judaic rulers fabricated/exaggerated the ancientness of their kingdoms is not surprising at all.
As for the racism issue, well, to suggest that Abu el-Haj’s work should “raise red flags” simply because of her origin, is indeed prejudicial, especially teh way Ms Stern puts it: “it would be logical to assume that she would carry some prejudice”. That is the logic of prejudice: to blindly assume attitudes based on a person’s origin, and exhort others to do the same. Does Ms. Stern believe that a work on the reliability of the archeological record by an Israeli or a Zionist would truly bear less potential for bias than one by a Palestinian?
August 20th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Ms. Stern’s petition is ultimately about nationalists — to be precise ethnoreligious nationalists — objecting that their nationalist mythologies are being challenged by a scholar. In general, scholarship on nationalism today (at its best) stands outside nationalist historiography, be it Israeli, Egyptian, Indian, or American. Nationalists generally don’t like the move and attack scholars who simply de-naturalize the nation’s narrative of itself. The difference here, of course, is that Israeli ultra-nationalism (aka Zionism) has become mainstream in foreign policy, journalism and academia in the US today. As a result, the debate on Israel/Palestine has been profoundly narrowed by silencing any critique of the nationstate of Israel and its policies. (In my opinion this is not in Israel’s long-term interest, but that’s another debate we can have.)
I’m sure there is much to debate about Prof. El-Haj’s book. But under no circumstances should ethnoreligious nationalists such as Ms. Stern have any say whatsoever about who should or should not get tenure at a university in the US.
The good news is that these petitions — in support of Prof. El-Haj or against — her won’t make any difference to her tenure review committee. All that those who have signed Ms. Stern’s petition have accomplished — as a quick read of many of the comments on it sadly demonstrate — is betray themselves as bigots and unite academia against them.
Not a smart move, Ms. Stern. You do your country no service.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
BARNARD IS NOT AN IVY
August 20th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Bernard Bate is correct that there appears to be little room for questioning nationalism when it concerns Israel. In American Studies we poke as many holes into the American nation-state as possible, but the same cannot be done be done to Israel. I’ve had some interest Judith Butler’s work on thinking through Levinas in relation to the Palestine/Israel conflict.
The idea of non-academics or even outside (uninvited) academics involving themselves in the tenure process is ridiculous and a disgrace.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hey Paula, I see you now challenge me on your stupid web site paulasays.com. You are factually in error there: I do not have a degree in anthropology but linguistics, and never overlapped with Nadia Abu El-Haj, I do not know her personally either. The idea that data in science is socially constructed and related to state formation and legitimation in archeology is well established and indeed obvious, for Georgia see Philip Kohl and others, for Soviet archeology, see Trigger, V. A. Shnirelman, and on my petition many people have listed others who have writren about israeli archeology specifically. I add this here because you do not have a place on your _stupid_ website to respond to your challenge.
August 21st, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I interviewed to be Prof. abu el haj’s nanny last summer–I know this has nothing to do with the current topic, but she was dripping with diamonds and pearls and lives in Kensington Gardens in London in the summer with her hedge fund manager husband (who commutes to NY on the weekends to see her and their child during the school year). So she kind of embodies the Barnard dream of doing whatever you want, regardless of how well you’re paid to do it, while your husband brings home the bacon…
August 21st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
So she’s rich like a typical Ivy league student is? Look in the mirror often?
August 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
1) Get off this blog, it is not for you - “I neither am an Ivy Academic nor did I go to an Ivy league school.”
2) Close to half of ivy league students are on financial aid. Not only is being rich not typical, but your decision to deal in cheap and also false generalities is yet another indicator that you are not worth our time. Go create your own forum for self promotion.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Whether or not I agree with him, Mr. Manning has every right to be here. Further, his mention in the preceding article gives him plenty of *reason* to be here. As for his self-promotion, I think we can all judge how well he’s representing his views here.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I’m Spartacus!
August 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
No, I’m Spartacus!
(i.e. IvyGate: time to make username registrations possible)
August 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I’m Superman. I’m the king of the world! I’m on top of it. I’m going to be sick.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
If the real Paul Manning ever actually posted here, I’ve gotta wonder what possessed him to slum with a bunch of college students. Doesn’t he get enough of that at his real job?