Posted on 09/27/2002 8:43:42 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Furor erupts over Web site monitoring of Middle Eastern scholars
By RON TODT
The Associated Press
9/27/02 10:22 PM
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A pro-Israel organization has set up a Web site to monitor professors and universities for pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias -- a move some academics are decrying as campus McCarthyism and attempted intimidation.
The Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum said it organized the Campus Watch site to counter pervasive bias in universities' Middle Eastern studies.
The site names schools and specific professors. Forum director Daniel Pipes said the think tank hopes eventually to monitor 250 North American academic institutions.
"Our goal is to monitor, critique and improve Middle East studies," Pipes said. "We're not at universities because our views are not welcome. We're trying to create an alternative voice within the field."
Scholars whose articles are compiled into dossiers on the Web site include Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad of Columbia, John Esposito of Georgetown, Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Snehal Shingavi of University of California at Berkeley. Dossiers are also listed on those institutions as well as a dozen others, including Stanford, Northeastern, the University of Chicago and the University of North Carolina.
Opponents immediately called the effort "McCarthy-like" and an attempt to stifle opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Professors listed on the site said they were bombarded with e-mail over the weekend.
In a show of support for those named on the site, about 100 other academics have asked to be added to the list.
Judith Butler, a gender theorist at Berkeley, wrote that she would like to be included in the list of U.S. academics "who oppose the Israeli occupation and its brutality, actively support Palestinian rights of self-determination" and support an informed view of Islam.
The Campus Watch site accuses American Middle Eastern scholars of generally being biased against the United States and being apologists for unfriendly regimes.
University of Chicago historian Rashid Khalidi, who is quoted on the Web site as sympathizing with the Palestinian cause, called the site "slimy" and intended to chill opposition.
"What they're trying to do is exclude from public debate opinions that go against the neo-conservative consensus that dominates discussion of policy on Iraq or policy on the Israeli conflict by smearing us and calling us aliens," he said.
Pipes said he will not remove a "Keep Us Informed" page on the site that opponents say is an attempt to get students to turn in their professors. He said it gives students a place to complain about mistreatment.
"What you have in university is exclusion of alternate points of view," Pipes said. "You've got to subscribe to the party line and then you can make your career; if you don't, you're out."
------
On the Net:
http://www.campus-watch.org
My problem with your approach is the hint of circular logic that I find in this statement. Presumably you speak for the truth. So you indicate "My stance is X because X is the truth." And when I offer information that has at least a possibility of truth that does not correspond with X you imply, "It can't be true because it doesn't support X." That is circular. It's like the Scotsman defense.
Absolutely. And so does Admiral Thomas Moorer. A few of the US "investigations" offered no conclusions to their investigations. The one important investigation that has never been performed is really the only one that counts: A full Congressional investigation. There's plenty of evidence to rebut Israel's story.
The British were hostile to the Jews?
I have to admit, I was teasing a bit. And we'll just say that Alger was in the top three at State.
Luck had nothing to do with us winning the cold war. Winning the cold war took a lot of lives, and the bravery of President Reagan. He taught me about confronting evil. Sheesh. and I was over 21. ;>)
/john
I'm sure we'd all be better off with algore in the WH, right? Maybe our country isn't perfect, but I don't think most of us would be happy elsewhere.
Uhh....I cited US code and provided a link. Do you consider the US Code of federal regulations a "wierd web site"?
I agree. People think that he's not really dangerous. That the patriot act is really a good thing. That expanding the federal government is good for us all. He's an extremely dangerous man and his evil nature should not be "misunderestimated."
And if you meant to say "I THINK that some of the current administration is so socialist, they seem like communists to me..." you should have said it that way... not with the flat out assertion that the current administration is full of them.
Did you mis speak? Or, do you KNOW something we don't? OR, is it just your opinion?
I don't agree with everything this adminisration does... but that hardly merits the broad stroke painting them as "full of communists"!
Please.
If you dont agree that the whole friggin GW cabinet is Commie/Zionist then you must be a BushBot!
And I wish so much that I had been paying attention during the Reagan years, but I was still asleep--though it was hard to know what was going on before there was access to all the information that we have these days.
I understand so much more now that I did then, and so many things have been cleared up.
Demi, you're skatin' on the edge again.
Gee...Sorry I should have been more specific. Condoleeza Rice, George Bush, Colin Powell. There's two or three. Ever remember Powell's speeches and statements when it was rumored he might run for President?
(Are you Ross Perot?)
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.