Sadly, in spite of my support for Juan Cole’s right to blog without an attorney at his side, he decided to ignore my post in his roundup of blogger support.
Possibly it might have had something to do with my critical remarks about him; as TalkLeft has shown us, my Left – the one that believed in free speech – isn’t so much a part of the left any more.
UPDATE: Click through for an explanation of my withdrawal of support for Prof. ColeWow, was I off base in supporting Juan Cole.
I just got an email from RG pointing me to Martin Kramer’s website, where he reproduces a SLAPP threat by Professor Cole against Kramer and Daniel Pipes.
The money graf:
If you do not immediately remove my name from your monitoring Web site, cease maintaining a “dossier” on me, and cease and desist from calling upon others to spy on me and repudiate your earlier calls to do so, I reserve the right to pursue all legal remedies, criminal and civil.
Sincerely,
Juan Cole
Professor
Department of History
Go read the whole thing.
Now, I’ll email Professor Cole and ask him for an explanation of why what’s sauce for the goose apparently isn’t – in his cuisine – for the gander.
But until I do I’ll completely withdraw my support of his position. If you’re going to be a ‘playa’ and threaten to lawyer up in response to political criticism, you don’t get to go publicly wrap yourself the First Amendment when someone does it to you (as opposed to wrapping oneself in it in court, which you obviously do get to do).
I’ll reproduce my email to Professor Cole tomorrow morning.
The plural of anecdote …
Well, are you really surprised by this? It’s a nature of the beast kind of thing – surely you knew all along that Cole wouldn’t hesitate to do the same thing to somebody else. His ilk imagine themselves to have a monopoly on free speech to begin with, and their righteous politics make them immune to charges of hypocrisy – or any other kind of criticism.
Which still doesn’t make it right for MEMRI to take Cole to court. I take it that you mean you are no longer enthusiastic in defending him, which I understand. But the principle of the thing is unchanged.
What leftist state ever allows a free press ?
Isnt it the left that invented the purge the gulag and the progrom, doing just that at every university news room and agency they control ?
Leftism = Totalitarianism, and if a bullet thru your head to nudge you into a mass burial ditch is whats needed to shut you up, thats what you get.
for them “Tolerance” means you cannot identify or mention anything they are doing wrong, you must be “Tolerant” of all evil, and in this they are Intolerant in the absolute.
They are convinced of their superiority and so no standards apply to them, they are only tools to undermine and destroy all institutions standing in the way of their Cambodian/Soviet.Maoist style utopia.
What Glenn said. There are many reasons to oppose the MEMRI suit, not least of which is that they probably don’t have a case. I’m distressed to see an organization which I respect and rely on take a course of action which I cannot defend.
As for Cole, well, frankly Scarlett… rather than waste perfectly good bits on the professor, A.L., I’d be inclined to follow up your emailed post to Yigal Carmon. There are better ways of countering Cole. Perhaps ‘Winds’ can be of assistance.
Somewhat on topic, it appears CAIR has engaged in SLAPP.
No, I don’t think that what MEMRI did was right; but I do think now that Professor Cole is certainly not someone I’d defend.
That requires a moment of explanation – I’ll defend people who’s views I bitterly oppose if they’re participants in an open and fair dialog about politics. But I won’t defend the right of free speech of people who want to silence others.
A.L.
Cole has an explanation up on his site, AL. I don’t think we know enough to make a determination as to whether he’s being hypocrytical or not.
That said, either Cole has an absolute right to free speech or he doesn’t … so I find your willingness to change your position all of a sudden to be disturbing, frankly. The First Amendment don’t got no asterisk.
The right is unqualified, P, but it does not entitle one to support from any individual – only the absence of government coercion. Cole’s acting as a hypocrite in respect of Kramer and Pipes, and has apparently been dishing out BS content at least in part, per the Iraqi bloggers. Doesn’t look like a good actor that we should be hustling to support, at least from here. If it were government action, I’d feel differently, but as it is – let him fight his own fight.
I think Cole is also worried about CampusWatch as a stalking horse for government monitoring, given HR 3077. I think he overreacted, but it’s best that these sorts of efforts be strangled in their crib.
As for the Iraqi bloggers, as I said before, Cole didn’t make any strong claims about Fallujah–he said it was “celebrated in Iraqi history and poetry for its defiance of the British in the Great Rebellion of 1920.” Leachman was killed in Fallujah by the al-Dhari clan, something not disputed by Ali. And it’s true that this event is seen as symbolically important. If you read Cole’s other writings, it’s clear that he’s well aware of the role played by the Shi’ites in the rebellion:
Sistani believes that the Shiites made a strategic error in 1920 when they revolted against British colonial rule after World War I. The British turned to the minority Sunnis for support, ensconcing them in power for the rest of the century. Sistani believes that by showing patience, the Shiite majority can come to power in Iraq through the ballot box if it avoids alienating the Americans.
The full story is spelled out in Yitzak Nakash’s excellent book, The Shi’is of Iraq as well as Toby Dodge’s Inventing Iraq, both of which are available from your local library. Nakash is on Campus Watch’s recommended scholar’s list, so he’s safe.
I grok where A.L. is coming from re: hypocrites on freedom not deserving active support. As Tim says, the rights exist but in a libel case, he can fight his own battles. He’s obviously happy to play SLAPP himself, so I assume he understands his options on the other side quite well.
I’d still send that letter to MEMRI, advising them that they’re doing a dumb thing.
Were I in MEMRI’s place and wished to cease, however, it would be through quietness and inaction, not any sort of climbdown. So there may be no clear closure on this one, unless MEMRI really does elect to continue. Personally, I find that unlikely.
The best thing to do, as MEMRI, is just keep on keeping on. The articles do appear in the Arab Press. Their translations are accurate. Let the dog bark, the caravan rolls on.
Am I the only one who finds these two statements by praktike at odds with each other?
“The First Amendment don’t got no asterisk.”
vs.
“…it’s best that these sorts of efforts be strangled in their crib.”
Seems to me you can’t present oneself as being against legal action to cull free speech, then a couple of posts later suggest that legal action to cull free speech is a good idea just as long as its being used against something you find objectionable.
HR 3077 should be strangled in its crib, as it represents a threat to the First Amendment.
Praktike – thanks for the clarification. As Tim notes, I don’t see putting an asterisk on the 1st Amendment, but my private support for a participant in a private dispute over speech is certainly elective. And while I’m even willing to give to people whose speech I find wrong and odious – as is his – I won’t give it to people who feel free to use to courts to quash other’s political speech and actions.
If the government was trying to charge him with a crime for having spoken, I’d be standing in line to defend him.
A.L.
Well, Cole says his threat was about personal harassment, not libel, so the cases aren’t directly comparable. IANAL, nor do I know the facts at hand WRT Campus Watch. Perhaps he was harrassed? I don’t know. If he was, in fact, getting harrassed, what was the proper recourse?
I guess we’re all feeling a bit bloated today. Of course it does. There are no absolute rights. Remember the old “yelling fire in a crowded theatre”? And the libel laws and slander laws remain on the books.
For a slander suit to succeed Professor Cole would have had to make an untrue statement knowingly would he not? And for a libel suit to succeed not only must the statement be untrue but it must have been published with actual malice, no?
A casual reading of the Cole article in question suggests to me, at least, that both parties are overstating things somewhat and that the grounds for a suit either for slander or libel are probably not that great.
I don’t think much of the MEMRI folks mau-mauing Cole but, then, I don’t think much of Cole doing the same thing to them.
Regardless of the implications of conservative fascism and danger to free political speech Cole is not just an ordinary Filthy Leftist, he’s responsible for shaping hearts and minds of youth in American society. I applaud MEMRI for taking the low road and hitting the bastard where it hurts; public opinion. Neo-con’s are hated and feared by the Left precisely because they were Left and know the drill. GO TEAM!
Most of us–wherever we are on the political spectrum–have by now been savaged a lot, sometimes in print, sometimes by email. This should be no surprise to Prof. Cole, who has handed out plenty of nasties to those with whom he disagrees.
He’s chosen the worst possible way to turn off the attacks on him. Threats don’t work in this rough-and-tumble society, and it’s virtually impossible to win a court case, whether for libel or some other form of slander. The only remedy is to keep on writing, and hope that in time most people will recognize the quality of your work.
From time to time I respond to some of my nastygrams, and sometimes it even helps. He might try that, too.
#11 praktike on November 26, 2004 06:15 PM
HR 3077 should be strangled in its crib, as it represents a threat to the First Amendment
************************************************
First. Which of the three versions do you object to?
Second. What portion of “grants to institutions of higher education or consortia of such institutions for the purpose of establishing, strengthening, and operating–
`(i) comprehensive foreign language and area or international studies centers and programs; and
`(ii) a diverse network of undergraduate foreign language and area or international studies centers and programs.’;
Alarms you?
NC3
“Neo-con’s are hated and feared by the Left precisely because they were Left and know the drill.”
Dead on target, you da man!
And all of the “NeoCon” chafe and smoke in the air has nothing to do with their stated objections
In Praise of France http://diplomadic.blogspot.com
“No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! No blood for chocolate! Where are the mass protests in the streets of the world’s capitals against France’s military intervention in the Ivory Coast?”
For example, look at what France is doing in Ivory Coast, or the Rawanda holocaust for example, to say there is a double standard is not really strong enough because of the implication that lefties have standards, but only lower. But this is not really the case, the fact is they have NO standards at all. And that values, standards, laws, rules of conduct, morality et all, are only seen as tools to be used to destroy western institutions.
When our founders said that the american consitution would only work for a good god fearing people, that is what they meant. They knew that an enemy within (like the left), could and would turn its instututions to their own distruction.
The enviromental movement isnt about the enviroment, its about removing sources of strength from the country to weaken it.
Its not about gay marrage, its about the distruction of the family, a source of strength, Peter Singer wants Adult Child sex not directly to bring in Roman hedonism, but because the left knows it will rot the evil west.
http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=9987
” The New York Times, explaining how his views trickle down through media and academia to the general populace, noted that “no other living philosopher has had this kind of influence.” The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had “more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior” than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell. The New Yorker called him the “most influential” philosopher alive. “”
None of the stated venom about “Neocons” has anything to do with anything except the fact that disaffected leftists Like Horowitz, or Ronald Radosh who saw that anybody that was looked on as annoying in Cuba got a lobodomy, know all full well what leftist tactics are, and can expose the methods of leftist agiprop and how they are attacking America from within.
And thats why they are hated so much.
I’m talking about the version that’s been reported to the Senate.
The government cannot be trusted to make a fair determination as to what constitutes “diverse perspectives and the full range of views on world regions, foreign language, and international affairs.” I think it’s a very bad thing for an an appointed advisory panel of seven people that has the power to yank Title VI funds if people say things they don’t like.
#19 praktike on November 27, 2004 05:56 AM
I’m talking about the version that’s been reported to the Senate.
The government cannot be trusted to make a fair determination as to what constitutes “diverse perspectives and the full range of views on world regions, foreign language, and international affairs.” I think it’s a very bad thing for an an appointed advisory panel of seven people that has the power to yank Title VI funds if people say things they don’t like
*************************************************
OH I see the Government should just give my tax dollars to anyone who wants them and if they decide that they have made a mistake in giving a grant have no recourse about pulling it?
LOL you trust the Government to dispence Grants but deem it not to be trusted whether to withdraw funds. I suppose you would prefer a comittee that are benifiting from Grant moneys to decide these things?
So cut the program altogether. This is a terrible idea, to have Cabinet secretaries exercising some kind of oversight on university campuses.
Praktike, Title VI grants were instituted by the government for a specific purpose. Of course the government has the right to yank supplementary grsnts from people who, in its judgment, aren’t meeting those criteria… and yes, the criteria can in fact be anything the government decides.
This is called “accountability.”
A foreign concept the the academy in general and the whole so-called “Middle Eastern Studies” field in particular, I know.
The Juan Coles of the world don’t like it? Tough. Guess they’ll have to apply for other grants. Maybe they have a few out there for speech-suppressing loons who push a single point of view and hate “Israel” – in fact, judging by the state of the “Middle Eastern Studies” field there must be a lot of those. I’m sure the Saudis can always spread a few more dollars around for that.
#21 praktike on November 27, 2004 07:38 AM
So cut the program altogether. This is a terrible idea, to have Cabinet secretaries exercising some kind of oversight on university campuses.
***********************************************
You think the Government should NOT have oversite of funds it supplies?
Just cut the program altogether? Cut all government purchases and financial distributions period makes sense then.
You are a Libertarian’s wetdream. 😉
PS the campuses can do ANYTHING they want to do themselves can’t they? They just have to pay for it themselves.
I get really tired of seeing the First Amendment distorted to cover things and actions that do not seem to appear in the wording of it.
If Cole doesn’t like the conditions, he could also refuse to accept the funds. Sort of like Hillsdale College.
A.L., if you have tactical reasons for withdrawing support from this guy, fine, although I suggest that your original instinct — that what MEMRI did was wrong — is still valid. One very old phenomenon, in civil liberties issues, is that the defendant doesn’t have to be likeable: what’s important is the issue that s/he is being tried on.
Larry Flynt “once observed that”:http://www.legalunderground.com/2004/11/larry_f.html, “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you–because I’m the worst.”
Zola supposedly told Alfred Dreyfus that, “If you think I’m doing this for you, you are crazy. I am doing this for France.”
Maybe this case isn’t important enough, maybe the tactical issues aren’t going to make this another New York Times v. Sullivan, but whether your professor is unlikeable or hypocritical is not the key. Sooner or later every civil libertarian winds up facing the Skokie test.
Bob –
I still think MEMRI is doing the wrong thing, there’s no issue with that. But in a wrold of finite attention and credibility, I’ll choose where I spend mine, and simply I’ll choose to spend them defending people who don’t need to have others defended from them.
Again, if the government were to silence him for anti-American speech, I’d be standing up and waving to attract all of your attention.
But the reality is that they aren’t (even under praktike’s hated HR 3077 – they are simply deciding how money they spend will get spent.
A.L.
A.L., well, yes, if the defendant insists on continued wrongdoing than his/her advocate may have to withdraw from the case. In our discussion of “Lynne Stewart”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005813.php, you indicated where you parted company with her. I was still willing, then, to argue in the abstract that defending the case may still defend the 6th Amendment. If I’m admitted to practice I would be swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.
Trouble is, she said, “in cross-examination”:http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/33790.htm on Nov. 9, that political violence and revolution are sometimes necessary. That’s a breach of oath, and probably of ethics rules, as well, and that’s where I get off the bus. I still think that the disciplinary committee of the NY bar should deal with her but that’s another matter now. The abstract became reality, but we still need a client who can serve as 6th Amendment case law.
As for HR 3077, there’s “three versions”:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3077: out there at the moment. Whether it stifles free speech, represents prior restraint on publications or professors, or creates gov’t involvement remains to be seen. Even “HR 3077’s detractors”:http://ga.berkeley.edu/academics/hr3077.html don’t seem sure what it will do, and I could find no mention of HR 3077 on the “ACLU website”:www.aclu.org.
Anyway. You may have to part company with this guy, but let it be because he was legally indefensible, and not simply a jerk. It’s the same debate the ACLU had over the St. Paul cross-burner. End result was this decision, RAV v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, “Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.” (Scalia, J., majority)
If someone like Antonin Scalia will protect the 1st Amendment, if I may borrow a phrase, then so should all of us.
Maybe that isn’t an argument for defending this professor, but there may be others.
There’s a difference between putting decisions about grants in the hands of career civil servants and putting it in the hands of political appointees. I can see the difference. Can you?
The political appointees are responsive to the people from whom the money was taken involuntarily and are accountable to them (second hand) through regular elections. Civil servants are accountable to no one other than their union steward and could care less about the people from whom the money is taken.
There’s a difference between putting decisions about grants in the hands of career civil servants and putting it in the hands of political appointees. I can see the difference. Can you?
Yes. At least I get some modest say in the ideology promoted by the political appointees. The civil servants are untouchable and unaccountable to anyone. (Hence the modifier “career.”) And since the issue with area studies is federal funding of virulent anti-American ideology (rather than, say, the training of capable linguists and diplomats), ideology matters a great deal. Frankly, I’d put the power to cut it off in the hands of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or Howard Dean (or their cabinet appointees) before I’d let any of the nameless bureaucrats at State–whose beliefs are both unknown and unlikely to be tempered by electoral necessity–control it.
I’m half with you: cut it off altogether. But it is certainly in our national interest to have more linguists and cultural experts to help with our weak public diplomacy, so I’m not entirely ready to go that way yet.
#28 praktike on November 27, 2004 10:05 PM
There’s a difference between putting decisions about grants in the hands of career civil servants and putting it in the hands of political appointees. I can see the difference. Can you?
***********************************************
Yes there is much more accountablilty with appointees, a civil servant is forever, no matter how incompetant.
I detect the impression you, for some reason think that a civil servant would be more competant by definition, I am rather sanguine on that position.
As for political views. LOL maybe all who receive income from the Federal Government, civil servants, academic holders of Federal Grants, etc should be under the same restrictions as the military? 😉
Ah, yes. Forgot I was talking to Trostkyites.
Trotskyites! LOL.
Wow, Praktike, way to elevate the discussion…
I think you’re a bit better than that. Or is your response to criticism just to thow sand in the hope that it’ll get in someone’s eyes?
A.L.
Jeez, Praktike, I mean Joe Katzman had raised the bar so high… It’s almost funny how fast Cole has gone from mere ideological foe to “hate-monger sucking on the government teet” here:
The Juan Coles of the world don’t like it? Tough. Guess they’ll have to apply for other grants. Maybe they have a few out there for speech-suppressing loons who push a single point of view and hate “Israel” – in fact, judging by the state of the “Middle Eastern Studies” field there must be a lot of those. I’m sure the Saudis can always spread a few more dollars around for that.
But the reality is that they aren’t (even under praktike’s hated HR 3077 – they are simply deciding how money they spend will get spent.
How far would you be willing to see this precedent extend then, A.L.?
Obviously this very same arguement could easily be used to justify complete supervision or total control of every facet of public education by the political appointees of the president.
Since I’ve just gone off the rails (free speech issues on this site tend to do that for me; I recall being accused of wanting to bring back Communism and Fascism for suggesting that maybe Michelle Malkin was making things up and a reputable news organization would recognize that …)
Let me put this another way.
Imagine you’re designing this Title VI policy behind the veil of ignorance; not knowing whether a Democrat or Republican were in power. Would you feel comfortable giving a board of political appointees such power? Would you want, say, Madeleine Albright to be able to yank control academic budgets?
Praktike, I could just as easily turn it around: by what mechanism would you propose that the government be accountable to the taxpayers for how their money is spent on research? Oversight by career bureaucrats is an unsatisfying answer. Bureaucrats tend not to be accountable to the voters but to the bureaucracy.
In short I’d rather see some funding oversight in the political space than the bureaucratic. With politicians I at least have a chance to vote out the people who set spending policies I disagree with – kinda like the rest of government.
Apparently MEMRI vs. Cole isn’t an isolated phenomenon. There seems to be CAIR vs. Frum as well.
Would you want, say, Madeleine Albright to be able to yank control academic budgets?
I’ve already answered that question, in my first post, and the answer is a cautious “yes.” Or at any rate, better Albright, whose boss is subject to electoral pressure not to be or fund extremists, than unaccountable civil servants who face no such pressures.
The reality, praktike, is that we are more or less behind a veil of ignorance with regard to the civil servants making the decisions, and I’m not at all pleased by that situation. How do you know they aren’t all Pat Robertson’s love slaves? What could you do about it if you discovered they were?
Obviously this very same arguement could easily be used to justify complete supervision or total control of every facet of public education by the political appointees of the president.
Indeed, and I don’t see any legal/constitutional impediment to such a movement, which is already well underway. I’m not happy about it, but again, better the political appointees than unelected, unfireable bureaucrats currently in charge.
I guess what it comes down to is this: I think the bureaucrats are just as ideologically blinkered and adgenda-driven as political appointees. They are human, after all, and they took jobs as government bureaucrats rather than Wal-Mart middle managers to have a hand in saving the world according to their predilections. But at least we know the ideology of the appointees and have some hope of throwing them out of power if we don’t like it.
I’d have no problem with the Albright example. She’s a political appointee, and hence accountable for those actions. Just as those seeking Title VI grants are accountable for theirs… and if the program is under Albright’s ultimate jurisdiction, then she’s ultimately responsible for having it work as intended.
Title VI are supplemental grants. There are no presumptive entitlements to grants, which require criteria. Public officials, including the political officials responsible for the system, should be able to act and enforce consequences when those criteria are not fulfilled. Very, very simple.
Depending on “the process” and seeking to insulate it from accountable politicians is the EU way – but it’s also been standard M.O. for the lib-left for a long time, More to the point, it’s a primary reason for the conspicuous failue of many of their social programs over the last 35 years. This dynamic has become notable for breeding situations where bad actors + regulatory capture = a system that often performs the opposite of the things it was funded for, and where the inmates run the asylum.
That’s certainly what we have now in “Mideast Studies.” A field that demonstrates (unsurprisingly) the same pattern that inspired this post. Suppress dissenting views, support and teach hate, then complain and hide behind the rights you deny to others if anyone steps on your toes for doing these things.
No wonder Middle Eastern Studies has such affinity for Islamists and their agenda. One wonders who learned the pattern from whom.
One problem: there is a right to free speech, but there are no “rights” to grants. So the ‘hiding behind the rights you deny’ part fails as long as public officials have the guts to act.
Good. Time to stop playing the old games, make the changes required, and let public dollars go to the places that will produce the intended returns instead.
Belmont Club noted a long time ago that this front, too, was part of the war. Let the snakepits of hate and indoctrination within academia reform, or face real consequences.
“Snakepits of hate”
Can we preemtively ban this guy? j/k
I went to some of the most liberal schools in the US and Canada (including the ominous “snakepit,” Concordia) and nothing in my experience ever approached your description.
How exactly does Juan Cole have an affinity for the Islamist agenda, Joe? Can you show me an example where he sympathizes or supports radical jihadists?
SAO –
You must have missed the pro-Palestinian riots at Concordia a year or so ago. And the overwhelming, severe, really really serious response by the administration there.
And as to Cole, go dig a bit into the writings/speeches of his buddy Joseph Massad.
A.L.
Sorry, A.L. I’m waiting for Joe to provide an example of when Juan Cole showed support for radical Islamists. Opposing the censure of an anti-Israeli academic does not qualify as such. Nor does opposition to Israel’s policies (including it’s ethnic policies.)
Until then I believe this charge is scurillous and (judging by links to hate-sites on this website) hypocritical. They also demonstrate a very nasty proclivity, both in Katzman and A.L., to paint all their enemies with a single brush.
I’m also aware that a cadre of Montreal Muslim activists turned a protest against Netanyahu into a riot, but tell me what that has to do with the Concordia faculty or staff? The response was draconian, but it affected pro-Israel and Palestine alike. I took courses in Middle East history and politics at Concordia, all of which were very fair and open-minded.
Rob,
Except for the fact the the federal government has no constitutional role in education, and as long as that’s so there is hope that we might start forcing it to act that way. BTW, that doesn’t mean I object to the feds creatubg the kind of grants that are under discussion here, in their own legitimate interests of foreign relations and national defense. Rather, I mean to encourage you not to give in to the notion that they could rightly take “total control of every facet of public education”.
And whoever it was that brought up Albright as bogeyman, I for one have no problem with giving appointees like her the power, because I’ve noticed something you might have missed: Albright isn’t in office any more. How many of the mid-level folks in the federal bureaucracies can you make that same claim about?
Kirk,
I agree with you in principle, but in practice 1) grants can be tantamount to control, and it’s trending in that direction, and 2) Questions of the text of the Constitution aside, you will only be able to win this and most similar battles electorally, not in the courts.
Perhaps a more cumbersome but more accurate way of making my point would have been, “Although the Constitution doesn’t include a mention of education among the enumerated powers of Congress, the courts are highly unlikely to strike down Congressional involvement in education, and thus the only impediment to total Federal control of education is the voters and the representatives they select.”
SAO,
I noted the parallels between Cole’s M.O. and the Islamist M.O., a different claim than the one you erroneously attribute to me. This is clear in the text.
Reading the text for comprehension would also note that the term “snakepits of hate” was not applied to Cole specifically, but made as a general reference the unnamed institutions in the academic community. To understand what I’m talking about, I recommend looking more closely at universities like SFSU and Concordia (recent events demontsrate that they’ve effectively given the hater coalition a veto on all speakers), reading Kramer’s “Ivory Towers on Sand” about Mideast studies generally, and reading up on Mr. Massad (and wondering exactly how he gets hired by a major university if my phrase doesn’t describe his department).
There are real and serious problems in Mideast Studies as a discipline, and in a number of American and Canadian universities. I stand by my “snakepits of hate” comment, and by the need for action and accountability when it comes to tax dollars.
I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.