Posted on 02/22/2005 4:53:57 AM PST by SJackson
For more than 150 years Yale University's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (NELC) has been one of North America's most important centers for study of the ancient and medieval Near East.
Its scholars have been pioneers in Arabic, Islamic and Graeco-Arabic Studies, Assyriology, Egyptology, and the Christian Orient.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Islamic Studies at universities across America were expanded rushed to meet the increasing interest in South Asia and the Middle East. But Yale University's Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations (NELC) has been slow to respond. Traditionally concentrated on ancient and medieval Middle Eastern cultures and languages, Yale's NELC department is coming under fire from students hungry for more contemporary offerings. While the department has hired several new faculty members in an attempt to modernize their ranks, critics insist that it's "too little, too slow." Critics charge that the NELC department, mired in funding disputes, bureaucracy, and ideological rifts, is losing relevance in the context of the modern Middle East.
Yale's exceptional reputation in ancient and medieval studies makes the wisdom of responding to shifting academic currents questionable, even if they are in response to student interest. A variety of courses on the modern Middle East are available through Yale's History department and its Judaic Studies and Islamic Studies programs, as well as some others. Yale students are hardly deprived when it comes to the Middle East. In this context, the desire to modernize NELC in response to apparent market demand seems as much an effort to capitalize in an economic and political sense as it does a well-thought out program of intellectual development.
But whatever the curricular oversights, the wisdom of making curricular changes at Yale is even more problematic given that members of the faculty have had little difficulty shifting direction following 9/11, and not, as one might imagine, toward U.S. interests or sympathy for the victims of terrorism. Rather, it has become commonplace for Yale professors to express open hostility towards the United States and Israel, while belittling the threat of terrorist regimes and dictatorships throughout the Arab and Muslim world.
At a panel discussion on terrorism and the Middle East held immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state under Bill Clinton and director of Yale's Center for the Study of Globalization, insisted that it was "from the desperate, angry and bereaved that those suicide pilots came."
Abbas Amanat, a professor of Middle Eastern history, chalked up Osama bin Laden's popularity in the Middle East to "an arrogant U.S. foreign policy," including of course, "support for Israel."
The panel's conclusions were so outlandishly one-sided that other faculty members felt compelled to respond. Professor of Classics and History Donald Kagan was quoted in the Yale Daily News: "Our schools have retreated from encouraging of right and wrong -- with the exception of an education in moral relativism that borders on nihilism."
In April 2003, yet another panel was convened, this time to debate the war against Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq. The sentiment expressed at this "teach-in," which was sponsored by the Yale Coalition for Peace, the Muslim Students Association, and the Students for Justice in Palestine, was overwhelmingly anti-American and anti-Israel, and occasionally anti-Semitic.
Dmitri Gutas, Professor of Graeco-Arabic Studies and Chairman of the NELC department, used the occasion to push anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He attributed the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq to a cabal of Jewish neo-cons, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol. "These people," Gutas claimed, were the sole shapers of U.S. foreign policy, while Israel, he maintained, was the main recipient of its success. An American victory in Iraq, according to Gutas, would result in Israel's "expansion over the local population." Unsurprisingly, Gutas has consistently advocated for divestment from Israel.
Glenda Gilmore, C. Van Woodward Professor of History, delivered an especially paranoid diatribe about the international conspiracy of "right-wingers" she seemed to think were out to get her. Her villains included Daniel Pipes, simply because he had highlighted her rabidly anti-American views. In fact, Gilmore herself made such views quite clear in an opinion piece for the Yale Daily News (Oct. 11, 2002), in which she called the U.S. "an imperial power in the most sinister sense of the term." But in Gilmore's insulated world, criticism is not allowed; it is simply someone trying, as she put it, to "shut you up."
In October 2003, long after the fall of Baghdad, the NELC department organized the second installment of a panel series titled, "Iraq: Beyond the Headlines." The panel focused on the U.S. occupation and Iraq's future, which, needless to say, was not portrayed as particularly rosy. Panel members included five NELC professors, who all but proclaimed the destruction of Iraq's cultural heritage at the hands of the U.S. occupation. The U.S. was blamed not only for the looting of Iraq's museums and archeological sites, but also for stealing the country's oil, censoring the media, and perhaps most curious of all, preventing democracy from taking root.
Professor of Graeco-Arabic Studies, Dimitri Gutas, accused America of "killing the heritage of Iraq and also killing the truth," despite the emergence of a free press for the first time in Iraq's history, and unfettered Western press access, something unknown in more than three decades. NELC faculty members have even politicized departmental finances. While encouraging students enrolled in Arab and Islamic Studies to study abroad in Arabic speaking countries, the department—citing safety concerns—stopped all funding for study in Israel. Archaeological projects are maintained in Egypt and Syria, but are refused to Israel. The university has cited State Department advisories to avoid funding travel to Israel. But Yale has no qualms about funding trips to Cuba despite the fact that they are required to obtain special annual licenses from the State Department for each "structural educational program" in that country. The 2003 "Reach Out Cuba Spring Break Trip" was billed as a way to cover "the history and legacy of the Cuban revolution."
While objectivity may still exist outside the field of Middle East Studies, Yale's reputation as a pillar of higher education is seriously undermined by the anti-American, anti-Israel politics of the NELC department.
The university must decide to meet the needs of a changing world and a politically diverse student body, or it will fade into irrelevance. How to go about doing so, given both student pressures for 'relevance' and faculty pressure for a single political view, is far from simple.
A name like Cinnamon Stillwell I thought only existed in a Bond novel. Great analysis by the writers.
There are many colleges and universities that can provide a much better education yet lack the unwarranted shine that emanates from an Ivy degree. The nepotism of student acceptance combined with a host of entrenched and secure anti-American professors does not bode well for America.
Ping
Just what I was thinking. I wonder if she has a sister named Marjoram?
He's now with the Hoover Institute.
When they closed down the State Mental Hospitals, the ejected inhabitants likely migrated to Yale's NELC Studies Department.
Take this article with a grain of salt. I knew several of these people (not the Middle Eastern studies crowd) when I was studying there. But a few of these people are moderate Democrat/liberal Republican types from what I know, with quotes probably being taken out of context.
The Middle Eastern studies department may be another issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.