Yale University Press recently announced that it would not publish the twelve caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in “The Cartoons That Shook the World.” The infamous cartoons, first printed in a Danish newspaper, which also got the entire Muslim community’s panties in a twist in 2005 were supposedly banned in the new book  to prevent any more angry reactions and controversy. Written by Brandeis professor Jytte Klausen, the book will also not include any other artistic representations of Muhammad. Solidifying Yale Press’ reputation as the pansiest university publishing house ever, director John Donatich told the NYT:

…[T]he recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was ‘overwhelming and unanimous.’ The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words… so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

Not-so-happy with Yale Press trying to cover its own ass, Klausen rebutted:

Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.

But Yale Press probably deserves a little sympathy, what with this being its second brush with touchy Islamic subjects. Expect another Love Conference this year.

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.

Read the rest of this entry »