Skip to comments.Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper
Posted on 03/23/2006 4:21:41 PM PST by veronica
A controversial research report, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, that faults the Israel lobby for allegedly distorting the foreign policy of the United States to the detriment of U.S. interests, and which has been severely criticized as inaccurate and wrongheaded, no longer sports the Harvard or Kennedy School of Government logos that previously appeared on its front page.
The original first page, with the Harvard and KSG logos, and the usual small disclaimer. The revised first page no Harvard logos and a much stronger and prominent disclaimer.
In a further sign that Harvard and the University of Chicago are distancing themselves from Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, the report also no longer includes the pro-forma disclaimer used for all other research reports on that Harvard website. In its place is a far stronger disclaimer, in much larger type. The original disclaimer read:
The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only.
The new, much more prominent disclaimer reads:
The two authors of this Working Paper are solely responsible for the views expressed in it. As academic institutions, Harvard University and the University of Chicago do not take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty, and this article should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of either institution.
It is especially notable that while the original disclaimer merely stated that Harvard did not necessarily share the views expressed in the article, the revised disclaimer goes much further, stating that:
1. The two authors are solely responsible for the content. 2. Both Harvard and the University of Chicago do not take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty.
Now, since universities do indeed take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty all the time (when deciding on hiring, tenure, raises, etc.), this can only be viewed as a devastating vote of no confidence by their respective universities in the work of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer.
Harvard should take the obvious next step and remove the paper from its Website pending correction of numerous errors of fact, logic and omission.
Score one for AIPAC!
Score one for truth, and against anti-semitism.
Herverd, "Devolution personified".
'Smatter Harvard? Your trial balloon go thud?
Maybe you should hire some more anti-semite "ethnic studies" teachers; the propaganda meme hasn't propagated thru the culture yet.
Judge Gridley (questioning young John Adams - from The Adams Chronicles): "Harvard? That citadel of riot and dissipation!!!?"
Summers was pretty good about defending Israel and the Jews. Now that he's been pushed out for political incorrectness, look for them to move further to the left. More antisemitism, more radical feminism, more LGBT nonsense.
And a lot more pro-Muslim, pro-Palestinian nonsense.
Does that mean the authors and their assistants worked on it on their own time?
Hope the Saudis don't stop payment on next month's check.
They're worried about their endowments...
Okay, but maybe this updated Protocols is what happens in Harvard when you kick out a voice of consience such as Lawrence Summers.
"Thank you very much!"
Appreciated, but a little too little too late, I think. Soon, well-respected, elite and prominently conservative universities will arise (or re-arise).
Supply and demand, baby. It's only a matter of time.
This a--hole is a former professor of mine. Claimed to be a "realist" but was in fact an Islamophile. Not that nice of a man either (although I still got an A in his class).
Anyone with a few minutes who wants to understand things about the eeeevil Israelis and the poor, downtrodden Pali's need only look at a mid-east map. I use the Utexas site which has great maps.
The Israeli's occupy a tiny piece of dirt and sand which was trash when they were given it by the U.N. in 1947. It was little more than barren ground. The Israeli's improved that little piece of drek immeasurably -- now the Arabs think they can't live another day unless they get that piece of land back. In my book, that's called robbery.
The Pali's were thrown out of all the other Arab countries and exiled to the area they and Israel now occupy; they've always been pains in the tush, even to other Arabs. Yet the Pali's are so angry because Israel occupies a part of the land that they never made liveable themselves. If the Pali's want an enemy they should bitch about the U.N. which was the donor of that garbage pit to the Israeli's in the first place.
Lastly, on the map ref, the Israeli's occupy a teeny piece of ground and number a few millions. They are surrounded by gazillions of Arabs and huge numbers of square kilometers of sand and dirt - yet the Arabs think that that specific site needs to belong to Arabs again after the Arabs demonstrated zero desire for that territory for centuries?
To the Arabs, I say use a ready resource, pound sand.
"And a lot more pro-Muslim, pro-Palestinian nonsense."
A recent $20 million dollar donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, the man Giuliani refused to take money from after 9/11, will help smooth the transition from the Summer's era.
Too bad we don't have a way to secure another important US entry point, other than ports, from Arabs.
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.