The trustees of the University of Illinois have voted 8-1 against providing Steven Salaita a tenured appointment in the department of American Indian Studies. As I have written before (here and here), I think that was a bad decision – bad for the university, and bad for academic freedom – although not necessarily a breach of contract or a violation of his constitutional rights. In this post, I am going to focus on some of the responses to the decision, which have been, shall we say, infected by stereotypes.
There has been an unseemly rush to attribute the board’s decision to the influence of so-called “wealthy donors.” For example, Maria LaHood, Salaita’s attorney from the Center for Constitutional Rights, stated that the decision had been prompted by “the whims of wealthy donors,” and that claim was repeated in CCR’s subsequent press release. Likewise, Corey Robin, a prominent Salaita supporter and an important political science scholar, says that “our principles proved in the end not to be enough to match the donors’ purse strings.” In fact, nearly every statement in support of Salaita assumes that only financial pressure can explain the decision to rescind his appointment. There has been virtually no recognition that the trustees might actually have been repelled by Salaita’s scurrilous tweets, or that they might have acted on their own principles (even if they were misguided).
As it turns out, the evidence of donor pressure is weak. While it is true that Chancellor Wise received scores of letters and emails protesting Salaita’s appointment, and some of them threatened to withhold donations, that sort of thing is par for the course when a university makes an unpopular decision. Moreover, it appears that Wise personally responded to only one of the donors, an alumnus who had once made a $500,000 contribution to the business school. Yes, half a million dollars is a lot of money, but no one can seriously argue that it is sufficient to influence the policy of the University of Illinois, which has an annual budget of $4.4 billion.
Significantly, trustee James Montgomery, a prominent civil rights lawyer who cast the sole vote in favor of Salaita’s appointment, has denied that donor pressure was responsible for the majority’s decision (the video of his interview is in the comments here).
Why is it taken as an article of faith that stereotypical “wealthy donors” are to blame for Salaita’s rejection? At least part of the reason, I think, is the persistent refusal to confront the truly vile content of his tweets. It is much easier to defend Salaita as merely a passionate and “unfiltered” critic of Israel (as he puts it), than to admit that he has celebrated violence and trafficked in anti-Semitism.
But really, his tweets drip with contempt and invective. Take this one, for example, which he tweeted on April 25 (that is, well before the recent fighting in Gaza): “I’ve had a horrible influx of Zio-trolls today. It’s like getting a case of the scabies. They burrow in and you want to rip off your skin.” Or this one, from July, “There’s something profoundly sexual to the Zionist pleasure w/#Israel’s aggression. Sublimation through bloodletting, a common perversion.”
Now, those are simply disgusting things to say about any human beings, but it is especially repulsive to refer to Jews (any Jews, even the hated Zio-trolls) as vermin, or to add a salacious twist to the ancient anti-Semitic blood libel accusation. Salaita is a smart guy, and he surely realized the historical implications of his “unfiltered” word choices. Is it really beyond imagination that the Illinois trustees would have reacted viscerally to such obscenities, to the point of doubting Salaita’s fitness as a teacher?
Alas, it is much easier to engage in coded conspiracy theories (Yikes! Wealthy! Donors!) than it is to confront the fact that Salaita happens to be both a bigot and an avatar of academic freedom. Well, the truth is that we sometimes have to defend bigots in the name of free speech. But that is no reason to defame the Illinois trustees as financial sycophants, when their only offense is taking anti-Semitism seriously (if perhaps even too seriously). Truly open-minded discourse ought to run in both directions, and yet Salaita’s supporters cannot bring themselves to believe that his detractors might also have legitimate and non-venal concerns.
Shorter Lubet: it's a conspiracy theory to infer from emails in which donors threaten to withhold donations from the University of Illinois that Salaita was fired because donors threatened to withhold donations from the University of Illinois, but it's fine to assume that Salaita was fired because the trustees "tak[e] anti-Semitism seriously" even though the trustees have specifically disclaimed acting because they believed Salaita is anti-Semitic.
Got it.
No one has discussed the students. Why should students be subjected to someone like this? What parent sends his/her child to college expected him/her to be subjected to the views of this type of individual?
I would like those of you who would have no problem with your child sitting in his classroom or being subjected to this "views" to respond.
Steve, excellent post.
Shorter Heller: When people disagree with you, it is okay to impugn their motives without evidence.
Even shorter Lubet: No, it is not.
Steven Salaita, for YEARS now, has ranted an endless hateful stream of demented, sometimes antisemitic, extremist, lunatic hate in the direction of Israel, Israelis, and anyone who even THINKS of defending ANYTHING about Israel.
Salaita has, for years, promoted bigotry, discrimination and boycotts against Israelis and Israel.
He did not, as some reports said, merely "criticize Israel" and it wasn't just "during their recent conflict with Hamas/Gaza." Salaita contributes articles to extremist websites that promote the idea that Israel should be erased from existence.
Salaita is a bigoted loon.
Why would any university want to give a job to an unhinged, bigoted loon?
The only people loudly sticking up for him are the couple thousand Israel-hating "academics" out there who seem to support just about anything that attacks Israel in some way. Actual normal people who aren't bigoted psychopaths against Israel have no interest in being around the likes of Steve Salaita.
Luke: I deleted your last two comments because they do not meet this site's standards of civility. I left the first one alone, although it is questionable, because it is more closely related to the subject of the post.
Comments are welcome, but I will delete those that are impolite or ad hominem.
Just saying,
Salaita has years of teaching evaluations at Virginia Tech — not exactly a campus overrun by bomb-throwing anarchists. That feedback was, without exception, phenomenal:
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/teaching-political-motivation
As for Lubet's comment: we actually have considerable evidence, in the form of emails the University was forced to disclose, that donors pressured the trustees. We even know that Chancellor Wise met with one of the particularly important ones.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2014-09-02/salaita-prompted-donors-fury.html
That evidence of the trustees' motivation for firing Salaita may be circumstantial, but it is evidence. By contrast, your explanation of Salaita's firing has been publicly and formally disavowed by the trustees. So it's not even accurate to say you are speculating about the trustees' motives — we know that you are simply wrong about them.
I'm glad to know, though, that you don't believe in impugning the motives of people you disagree with. Your claim that Salaita is an anti-Semite and not simply anti-Zionist could be confusing on that score.
Lubet: "I will delete those [comments] that are impolite or ad hominem."
Luke: "Salaita is a bigoted loon"…. "an unhinged, bigoted loon"… "actual normal people who aren't bigoted psychopaths against Israel have no interest in being around the likes of Steve Salaita."
I can only speculate what the deleted comment was like if those comments are neither "impolite" nor "ad hominem."
Some claim he hasn't lost yet. Numerous law professors argue the courts will force the U. of I. to hire him because it agreed to hire him conditional on approval of the Bd. of Trustees, everyone knows the Bd. of Trustees is just a rubber stamp, therefore the U. of I. has to go through with the appointment. Simply put, the Bd. of Trustees doesn't know its place. Its supposed to rubber stamp faculty decisions not question them. As Salaita has explained this is a teaching moment, in particular for the Bd. of Trustees who will shortly be put in their place by a judge. Or at least that's what a large number of prominent law professors believe.
Reading so many of the posts and comments on this site, one would necessarily conclude that this affair exposes the entire administration of the University of Illinois – the Chancellor, the President and the Board of Trustees – as ignorant fools who don't realize that they have clearly violated the First Amendment, breached a contract, and wrongfully deprived a reputable scholar of his academic freedom.
We are told by some that this is a clear matter. I would therefore suggest that the "wronged party" here should refuse any settlement of this matter (if any is offered).
After all, job offers will be flooding in, and settlement money won't last as long as the satisfaction of obtaining vindication in court. Given the brilliant analysis by his supporters to date, this case is a SLAM DUNK! Again, he is such a great scholar, and with all his cogent and persuasive "support," it should be only a matter of a few weeks before some prestigious university hires him.
Then, a lawsuit may proceed to certain victory!
Remember, legal academia has ruled on the merits of this case, for strictly principled reasons that will apply to the next case and the case after that. Who knows better how a case like this will play to a jury?
The sage advice of law professors cannot be questioned. They know better than ANYONE how juries rule in cases such as this. They say this is a clear matter. Why, this action violated the FIRST AMENDMENT! It is a slam dunk case of PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL! It violated ACADEMIC FREEDOM!
So, one can only say, with all sincerity, that it is dearly hoped this man will try his case.
To the Plaintiff-to-be: Go for it. Try the case. You can’t lose. It is a sure thing. A jury is going to LOVE you.
People are missing the real point here. This is not really about anti-Semitism. It is about academics fearing public recognition of their own unimportance. Thus, when academic supporters of Salaita rush to his defense, they are really saying: "what we say here in academia is so incredibly important that we cannot be confined by any obligation to be civil, for that might interfere with the sacrosanct importance of our message." The American public patently disagrees since no one pays one iota of attention to academics, and for good reason.
There is plenty of room for across the board viewpoints about Israel's conduct without resort to the vile characterization employed by Salaita. The University showed great character by firing him.
Steve,
Great Post. Thank you for digging into Salaita's tweets. I hadn't seen these before, and they make even clearer his reliance on traditional antisemitic stereotypes and dehumanizing rhetoric.
Under these circumstances Chancellor Wise had every reason to assert, "What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them." I read through some of the the emails written to her, and many of them were from students rather than donors.
If I may posit a guess into where this is heading: I think that Illinois will settle with Salaita, the settlement will require Salaita and Illinois to not speak about the affair nor derisively about each other, and there won't be a lawsuit. But only time will tell.
Alex
The situation has moved beyond one between Chancellor Wise and Professor Salaita. Even if there were a settlement between the two, a larger boycott of University of Illinois is in process, and it's not clear how a settlement would/could affect that. In other words, it's not clear that a settlement would vindicate University of Illinois' academic integrity and would change boycotters' minds about the situation at the university.
It's revealing that Lubet claims to enforce a comment policy that requires civility and avoids ad hominem attacks, yet permits Luke to call Salaita a "nutty, bigoted wackjob," but apparently refuses to let me post Salaita's teaching evaluations at that oh-so-far-left Virginia Tech (absolutely stellar), the emails Illinois was forced to reveal (dozens from important donors threatening to stop donating if Salaita wasn't fired, powerful circumstantial evidence as to why he was fired), and trustee statements that make clear that, contra Lubet, they did not fire Salaita because of his "anti-Semitism." I guess we know how confident Lubet is in is position.
Chancellor Wise admitted yesterday that she initially approved Salaita's appointment. Good luck in court, University of Illinois.
Heller has a point
Heller's comment was caught in the spam filter, which I had already stopped checking for the night. It is now posted (as of 5:53 a.m. CDT).
Really, let's stop impugning people's motives.
Various people have questioned whether a Jewish student might be made uncomfortable by Salaita. However – it seems pretty transparent to me that the charge of anti-semitism is flung around very easily by Israel's defenders in academia – too easily and often dishonestly at anyone who criticises Israel. Being accused of anti-semitism is pretty serious – as we can see from Salaita's situation, it can be a career ender. One has to wonder how a student feels when confronted by some of the noisy Israel defenders on this and other fora who are willing to casually fling an epithet that is regarded at this point as pretty well like calling someone a paedophile.
So perhaps there needs to be an honest debate about the other question – should someone who misuses the anti-semitism accusation, or trumps up a charge, or distorts and selectively quotes someone be considered as having a chilling effect on students and on debate. Should students have to fear that a professor might make such a comment or statement, or that it might effect their grades, their post-college employment prospects? Should such a person be denied tenure, or have their tenure revoked? I certainly think that this is a serious question in light of this debate. I certainly see how the very arguments that many of those who attacked Salaita would, well, bite back…
We're about to see proof that Salaita's "scholarship" is worthless. No university is going to hire him and everybody knows it. If we were talking about someone who did worthwhile work, universities would be in a bidding war for him, as they get into for top scholars.
Of course, no one who supports Salaita ever talks about his "scholarship" either. Which is more proof of its worthlessness.
If you're wondering why he got a job offer, the head of the department was his dissertation advisor and works with him in a movement to boycott Isreal.
But if you disagree, let's see if any university hires him.
Anon The value of Salaita's scholarship can't be determined in the manner you've put it. For one "no university is going to hire him," can mean that there might be academics who'd like to hire him, may be trying to, or may now be feeling that their administration would be too concerned about bad pr to do the deed. Part of what we're witnessing is the fact that "the university" is riddled by a large and ever yawning gap between what faculty take as their rights and responsibilities and what administrators take as their rights and responsibilities, including their responsibility to listen to threats by wealthy donors. It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that Steve Miller's voice, along with others, constituted political pressure that was brought to bear on Chancellor Wise. One principle that Wise and her Foundation officers adhere to is that money talks.
As for the "truly vile" nature of Salaita's tweets, I think Salaita's tweets are a response to the truly vile nature of the Israeli denial of Palestinian rights for decades.
Deborah
Great post! Here we see the real reason for the "support" this man enjoys!
(Hint: it has nothing to do with his scholarship in the Department of American Indian Studies.)
Again, for all the self righteous posturing here, let's see the proof: a job offer at a prominent university in the Department of American Indian Studies, and a successful lawsuit.
As to the latter, again, one can only hope that lawsuit proceeds. Really. It will be enlightening.
I wonder how much of this acrimonious charge and countercharge of bad faith, lack of empathy, hypocrisy, etc. is really just a matter of differing definitions of anti-Semitism talking past one another. If one defines anti-Semitism to require self-identified hatred of Jews or overt expression of extreme antipathy or violence, you'll view things very differently than someone who allows for a broader range of inegalitarian attitudes to qualify, versus someone who includes subconscious prejudices or aversive prejudice, versus someone who does not view anti-Semitism as speaking to the attitudes or intent of the speaker at all but rather (to take three examples of prominent non-intentionalist theories) the cultural meaning of the statements, the meaning as ascribed by the targeted class, or the actual compatibility of the statement's content with political and social arrangements which enable Jews to participate in the polity as equals.
I have my own preferred understanding (one which, incidentally, would separate out saying a person is anti-Semitic and saying some of their statements are). But regardless of what I think within the field of anti-discrimination studies how to define various "isms" is a subject of much debate; and even if we were to settle on a definition we'd debate over applications. So I suggest that recognizing the sharp divide in starting points is a better explanation for the widely different interpretations of the alleged anti-Semitism in Salaita's tweets, rather than the current debate we're seeing across the web of "you're being deliberately obtuse because it's Jews" versus "yet another example of dishonest Jews dishonestly crying anti-Semitism."
anon @ 2:51 PM
Interesting that you are an anon. Most of the posters here have no knowledge of Native American Studies, or for that matter limited knowledge of Palestinian issues (other than the usual "rag-heads deserve it" stuff (that I suspect you post under your own name.) So what you are indulging in is an unsubtle accusation that Salaita's supporters are anti-Semites. For which see my earlier post – which explains your anon status (I'm sure you read it.)
Chilling huh!
@David Schruab
I understand your point – but the charge of antisemitism (I prefer Jew-hating because antisemitism was a "respectable" word for it) is both an extreme charge and one used both in the "differing definitions" space you describe, but also easily towards critics of Israeli policy (along with the very odious accusation of being a self-hating Jew.). It has in effect been purged of its otherwise appropriately derivative connotation by its abuse by pro-Israel commentators. It is in that regard richly ironic that a comment making this point has been the favourite meme of Salaita's accusers – self awareness is not their "schtick"
I think it really matters to various of this group – shall we say AIPAC types that Salaita is seen to pay the price – because they deal in fear – and had Salaita survived, the fear would have been punctured. And of course the question, should random or baseless accusations of anti-semitism be harshly treated is well – fear right back. Which is why there are no direct answers – none can be made.
I know – and have encountered real anti-Semites – and tackled them, probably at some professional cost … So I know they exist – but people who call every Israel critic an anti-Semite are perhaps more prevelant.
I don't know how relevant this story is – but as a child I met Con Cremin who had been a diplomat from Ireland in 1943-45 at the Irish legation in Berlin; he was enormously respected by my father. Cremin used to tell an interesting story, perhaps apocryphal:-
A German friend asked that they had a dinner party and suggested certain guests, including a high Nazi, a "golden Pheasant." It may have been Goebbels. At the dinner party the German who had suggested it eventually asked about a Jewish friend or colleague, it may have been the family doctor – trying to get some sort of dispensation. To this the senior Nazi responded with a rant about "good Jews" :-
"you know, every German has their 'good Jew,' but you know, if we let every 'good jew' go, we'd get nowhere, there'd be none left…"
The Nazi never understood the point he'd just made.
(Incidentally, there are multiple "anons" here, and I am not the one to which MacK refers, thankfully, because I usually find myself agreeing with much of what he writes).
As a child growing up who was regularly spit on and called a "dirty Jew," forced to push a penny with my nose thru spit on the ground, beaten and harassed by the low lifes who populated my education thru high school (including, btw, many of the teachers, one of whom struck me so hard that I fell over backwards), I think I know what "anti Semitism" is. I don't need an academic dressing all this up in ridiculously over intellectualized terms and theories.
What I want to say here is that I have also heard, on many occasions, law profs openly stating sentiments about Jews that are chillingly reminiscent of those low brow oafs of my youth. They posture and preen, but their sentiment is obvious, especially when it comes to hiring. As you all probably know, this anti Jew sentiment has been so pronounced and open, at times, as to lead to student demonstrations about "another Jew" getting hired or obtaining tenure.
Do you think that my experiences were ever deemed to be "obstacles" that I had to overcome? I would have been laughed at had I said so. Do you believe that anyone takes seriously the pain that Jews suffer as a result of anti Semitism? Jews are all rich, right?
I know that in conversations, people have told me that it is senseless and wrong to compare the pain I suffered with the pain suffered by others. I've been told that, as a Jew, at least I could try to hide my identity as a member of a hated class (which I confess I have done at times). I don't claim that my personal experiences match in every respect those of every other person who has experienced bigotry, prejudice and irrational hatred. I know that others have had it much, much worse.
But, I do wonder: Where are all the paragons of moral virtue who endless pontificate here and elsewhere about Israel but seem to ignore what goes on in the countries around it?
Imagine a country of refugees, surrounded by tens of thousands of medieval barbarians, clamoring for their blood, simply because they dare to live among them (on a tiny piece of land). Hundreds of thousands dead in Syria, etc. Atrocity after atrocity all around that little country of Israel. But nary a peep from the moralists who so love to posture on and on about Israel.
What about the plight of women in the countries surrounding Israel? Gays? Christians? Where are the specialists in human rights on those subjects?
Instead, all we seem to hear here about, in the most obnoxious manner, loudly and repugnantly, is the sort who sort of ignorantly proclaim the moral superiority of the conduct of the countries surrounding Israel, while completely ignoring or discounting the plain and obvious truth about the conduct of so many persons in those countries (including ethnic cleansing on a scale that dwarfs any complaint by them about the conduct of Jews).
I don't know why Jews have been historically so hated, but nothing much is different now. The irrational focus on the conduct of Israel, on its every action in the face of such hatred and barbarity, is not based solely on objective, proportionate, and balanced analysis.
I don't question a decision that, in the face of so many negative consequences, was taken by so many accomplished and reasonable people.
An appointment has been rejected by the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Trustees. Are we to believe that they are ignorant, malicious fools, who are manipulated by the rich Jews, because they haven't gone thru with that hiring decision?
The hated come to know the haters. As to the hiring decision here, it isn't even close. As I've said above, in some ways the best outcome would be for this man to bring a lawsuit.
No one can predict, but IMHO, jurors won't be able to stand for long the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of this man's supporters. The outcome will likely teach those haters a very expensive lesson (a lesson that they apparently can't learn otherwise, because their distorted views seem to be insulated from the daily news about the world in which we all must live).
anon –
You are assuming that I do ignore what happens in the rest of the Middle East – I don't. I personally detest Hamas and have no sympathy for any of the behaviours you listed in the countries surrounding Israel. But that Israel is surrounded by violent and nasty regimes is not a justification for anything Israel does. It is not an answer to criticism of Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians that other regimes treat their people badly or indeed much worse.
I personally have never proclaimed the "moral superiority" of any country in the Middle East over Israel – find an instance where I have; criticising the morality of some of Israel's conduct – or the underlying judgment behind it is not the same as declaring say Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya or any other country to be morally superior – can you give an example of someone making such a moral comparison?
I have read Salaita's tweets – and they are certainly intemperate – but are they anti-Semitic, or are they harsh criticism of Israel and Zionism (they do conflate Israel and Zionism.) I have listened and read (on this forum) to Israelis and Israel's supporters ranting on about Palestinians – about "those people" and "you know what those people are like" and to sweeping generalisation about Palestinians, broad "they deserve" it arguments when civilians are killed. Indicting people as a group for the conduct of a small number is pretty close to anti-Semitism don't you think? It is about as rational.
It is almost inevitable that anyone who criticises Israel's conduct will face insinuations that they are Jew-haters, that criticism of Israel will be compared to playground bullying and thuggishness.
Anon
Great post! Here we see the real reason for the "opposition" this man enjoys!
(Hint: it has nothing to do with his scholarship in the Department of American Indian Studies.)
Again, for all the self righteous posturing here, here's the proof: a job offer at a prominent university in the Department of American Indian Studies. A university named the University of Illinois.
One can only hope that lawsuit proceeds. Really. It will be enlightening.
MacK
My comment above was not directed to you, except to say that I was not the "anon" to whom you addressed a comment.
KJH
Not so clever. As usual, your logic is twisted. And, you show again the heartless nature of those who are oblivious to the pain of those they loathe so deeply. It is this obliviousness that allows the haters of Israel to ignore all that is done both to Israel by perpetrators of hate and violence, and to so many other minorities in the countries that surround it by these very same persons.
It is often these hateful perpetrators who complain the loudest, and the most obnoxiously, about anything done in response to their atrocities.
A bigot may not see the words and deeds of those with whom he agrees as bigoted, but one would hope that calls for violence against groups and individuals would be condemned by everyone.
My comment addressed comments above regarding Jew hate. I should have been more clear that the decision, on its merits, was not even a close call, and, IMHO, clearly did not turn on the candidate's Jew hate. This discussion has drifted into the matter of Jew hate, and I have participated in it. But, that was not intended to provide a justification for the hiring decision.
Again, you may believe that the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Trustees are all (save one) ignorant, malicious fools, who are manipulated by the rich Jews, because they haven't gone thru with that hiring decision, but that calls into question your judgment, not theirs.
You refer to a "job offer." This reference is obviously false. Tis is the heart of the matter, on the merits.
You say you too wish for a court trial. On this, we are in complete agreement. I, for one, wish for this matter to result in the full airing of the merits of the decision in question.
Again, no one can predict, but based on experience, my sense is that jurors won't be able to stand for long the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of this man's supporters, and will come to a swift and fair decision that delivers appropriate consequences.
MacK: Respectfully, I think you are illustrating some of my concerns. I am very dubious of the claim that Jews systematically make false or bad faith charges of anti-Semitism against any critic of Israeli policy. I've written about this a ton over at my own blog, so I'll just say here that this is a charge that has been leveled against Jews since at least the 1940s (and, in the form of its cousin "the race card", against racial minorities for just as long), and generally is more of a way of evading having to reckon with particular claims of anti-Semitism by lumping them all as, paradigmatically at least, made in bad faith and thus not requiring serious consideration.
As a practical matter, your framing expresses *a lot* of confidence in your ability to spot the difference between "claim of anti-Semitism I disagree with" and "claim of anti-Semitism made in bad faith" (not to mention confidence that "claim of anti-Semitism I disagree with" = "claim that is wrong"). I'm not sure where you claim the right to have such confidence. But I suggest this framing is also an anti-Semitic formulation on its own terms. Under an "inegalitarian attitudes about Jews" definition, it asserts that large quantities of Jews are either pathological liars and/or delusional about their own experience. And under an "inconsistent with structures which provide for equal Jewish inclusion in the polity definition", the framework acts to brush aside Jewish claims of inequality prior to dealing with them on their merits; a dynamic which renders it impossible for Jewish concerns to be taken seriously. As Salaita himself put it in another tweet, he now views the claim of anti-Semitism with "bemused indifference"; hardly a position consistent with taking Jewish concerns seriously and engaging in deep grappling with their implications.
All of this, I think, flows out of a larger mistake — the idea that it is problematic to define anti-Semitism in a way that encompasses more than an "extreme" charge. Like racism, anti-Semitism is not (or does not have to be) solely the product of "extremes" — the Klansman in the process of a lynching. Anti-Semitism is often quite ordinary; characterizing common-place and (to their adherents) quite unremarkable attitudes about Jews. I've written in both blog posts and scholarship about how defining racism as an "extreme" evil often acts to shield contemporary practices from critical scrutiny (while simultaneously allowing the speaker to hold themselves out as taking racism "very seriously") — see, e.g., Sticky Slopes, 101 Cal. L. Rev. 1249, 1300-01 (2013). There is no particular reason to think anti-Semitism manifests only in extremes, and a lot of reason to be wary of limiting our inquiry only to the so-called extreme cases. A neo-Nazi is undoubtedly a "worse person" than someone whose anti-Semitism manifests in less vitriolic ways; but the struggle against discrimination is not fundamentally about identifying a set of bad guys and chiding them. It's about identifying conditions — often pervasive and "normal" conditions — that are incompatible with the full inclusion of various groups as equals, and struggling to remedy them. The widespread belief that anti-Semitism is mostly a false charge used solely as a shield for this or that Israeli action is an example of such a condition.
"Instead, all we seem to hear here about, in the most obnoxious manner, loudly and repugnantly, is the sort who sort of ignorantly proclaim the moral superiority of the conduct of the countries surrounding Israel"
WHO, David? Please, identify who has been proclaiming the moral superiority of Syria, or Egypt, because I see this accusation slung all the time and I just can never figure out who is doing this. The same people criticizing Israel now for their actions in the occupied territory are also criticizing almost every other country in the region. Amnesty International is one of Israel's most prominent critics but they also criticize the Palestinian Authority.
MacK
A few points in response. But note please, this has nothing to do with the appointment at issue. Now, you are debating anti Israel sentiment, which was NOT the reason for the hiring decision.
"But that Israel is surrounded by violent and nasty regimes is not a justification for anything Israel does."
Yes, it is. Compare the response by the UK or US, and what those responses would be under like provocation.
"can you give an example of someone making such a moral comparison?"
Yes. By condemning Israel, but mostly ignoring what the "violent and nasty regimes" that surround it do and believe, one impliedly excuses and supports the vile nature of the barbarism that surrounds Israel. It is incredible how some (not MacK, mainly) dwell so obsessively on Israel's conduct, while never mentioning the actions of those who would destroy every living Jew in the world if given the chance.
"I have read Salaita's tweets – and they are certainly intemperate – but are they anti-Semitic …"
Again, this is now almost THE issue here, though this was not the reason for the hiring decision.
"Indicting people as a group for the conduct of a small number is pretty close to anti-Semitism don't you think?"
My gosh, MacK. I know that you know that it isn't a "small number" of the persons in the countries that surround Israel that hate Jews. If fact, it is reaching the point where it can be no longer said that only a small number engage in barbaric acts against innocents of almost all minority groups still living in those countries.
"It is almost inevitable that anyone who criticises Israel's conduct will face insinuations that they are Jew-haters, that criticism of Israel will be compared to playground bullying and thuggishness."
I related some of my personal experiences because the tone deaf, callous and irrational way that some argue against Israel reminds me of all the mostly bogus excuses the haters have always had for hating Jews. It is a historic fact. I don't claim that Israel has acted perfectly; nor can anyone make that claim on behalf of any country or any people. But, as stated above, the disproportionate response by some to any misdeed by Israel is telling.
IMHO, Israel's misdeeds have been almost always in response to constant attacks based unquestionably on the notion that Jews must be purged from the land and not permitted to live among the morally superior people who demand Jew cleansing. Ignoring the motivation to wipe Jews off the map, while simply repeating over and over "but this is not anti Semitism " is unseemly to my ears, and does bespeak a certain attitude and a certain set of attitudes shared by the Jew haters.
"Imagine a country of refugees, surrounded by tens of thousands of medieval barbarians, clamoring for their blood, simply because they dare to live among them (on a tiny piece of land)."
Simply because they dare live among them? It's difficult to fathom how someone who knows anything about the Nabka could write that sentence.
As for the "tiny piece of land" — it's become considerably larger since 1948. Which is, of course, part of the problem.
As for "surrounded by tens of thousands of medieval barbarians" — how sad that someone who so eloquently describes being the object of horrible anti-Semitism can write something so profoundly racist without (seemingly) a second thought.
KJH
Been following the news?
My responses are not being posted, but I will say this and hope that it gets thru: funny that you are calling someone else a "racist" for noting that tens of thousands are presently engaged in what can only be described as barbarism on the level of Genghis Khan.
I apologize to those whose comments have been delayed. This site has a very aggressive spam filter — as a guest, I have no control over the settings — and I am not able to check the folder more than once every few hours.
That said, may I suggest that this conversation has run its course. You are all free to continue posting comments, but I will no longer be checking to see if any have been caught in the spam filter.
Please keep it civil.
Characterizing someone's actions as barbaric is not necessarily racist. Characterizing someone as a barbarian usually is.
For example, I find the Israeli governments' use of almost indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets and the resulting deaths of thousands of men, women, and children barbaric. I wouldn't characterize them as barbarians, though. See the difference?
That is an excellent distinction, twbb. Good for you. I trust, therefore, you would agree that Salaita's comparison of Israelis to "scabies" was indeed racist. Yes?
Well, he didn't apply the term to "Israelis," he applied to "Zio-trolls," which is based on a political position rather than a race or ethnicity. I'm sure the people he's referring to do not represent a single race, ethnicity, or nationality.
Additionally, I have never in my life heard the term "scabies" used as a racial slur against any group, while we have 2,000 years of the use of the word "barbarian" as a racial and ethnic slur.
twbb
Where do you get this stuff?
First, "Zionism" is generally used to refer to a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel. Your point that when most Jew haters say "Zionists" they don't mean Jews is risible. Who do you think the Jew haters think "Zionists" are, if not the conspiracy of world wide Jewry which should be opposed by every right thinking person?
Second, as if you don't know (perhaps you don't), the reference to Jews as vermin, and specifically vile insects, has a very long and well established pedigree. That last time a movement was gaining success in exterminating Jews, the leaders of that movement specifically justified their conduct by reference to ridding themselves of flies and cockroaches. You are apparently unaware of this, and oblivious to the fact that the scabies mite is a vile insect. The reference was plain to anyone with an ounce of sensitivity.
Third, if you don't call the army of tens of thousands now slaughtering innocents in the countries surrounding Israel "barbarians" please tell us: what word would you use?
Twbb,
Funny to watch anon desperately try to spin his overtly racist statement. Having been called out on his racism, he now claims he was just referring to ISIS — and who doesn't hate ISIS? Of course, ISIS does not operate anywhere near Israel (other than being in the Middle East), much less "surround" Israel. So we all know about whom anon was really talking…
It's sad how many of my fellow Jews feel comfortably making blatantly racist comments about Arabs while systematically eliding the difference between criticism of Jews and criticism of Israel in order to brand the latter anti-Semitic. Indeed, David Schraub above essentially claims that it's anti-Semitic to claim that there is a difference between criticizing Jews and criticizing Israel, a wonderful piece of meta-apologia for Israel's behavior.
Zionism a political movement. However, there has been a systematic campaign to conflate Zionism with Judaism by two camps – anti-Semites, but also cynically, by extreme Israel supporters – who suggest that any Jew who is not a Zionist (and any Zionist who does not unquestioningly support Eretz-Israel, the Likud, Settlements, etc.) is to use that awful phrase a "self hating Jew." anon at 03:34 PM comments reflect the latter point of view, which, along with the "who is a Jew" debate has alienated many jews I know from Israel.
anon went further, with this dishonesty:
"'Indicting people as a group for the conduct of a small number is pretty close to anti-Semitism don't you think?'
My gosh, MacK. I know that you know that it isn't a "small number" of the persons in the countries that surround Israel that hate Jews. If fact, it is reaching the point where it can be no longer said that only a small number engage in barbaric acts against innocents of almost all minority groups still living in those countries."
MY GOSH – I did not you would try to twist my statement so far to demonstrate your taste for distortion to make points. My reference was to deaths of civilians in Gaza – even the IDF admits that 55% of the Palestinian dead were civilians – 616 "militants" to 706 "civilians." Notably that 55% datum from the IDF was achieved by excluding 805 "unknown," i.e., the IDF did not have enough information to say who they were. You know that this is who I was referring to – but you chose to twist the reference. So now – answer the question – should an academic who makes false accusations of anti-semitism be denied tenure? Bet you won't?
Finally, " Israel's misdeeds have been almost always in response to constant attacks based unquestionably on the notion that Jews must be purged from the land and not permitted to live among the morally superior people who demand Jew cleansing."
I know the family of a UN peacekeeper – who was killed (with two others) when an Israeli tank drove up to the heavily marked UN Bunker he was in and fired a shell point blank into it. How was he someone "who believed the Jews must be purged from the land?" Was he an anti-semite? Really – you know that?
Frankly, when you make sweeping characterisations of peoples to justify their deaths, you are in very nasty company. You really need to think abut that – hard. Are your views that different from the people in the surrounding countries, and the Palestinians you now fulminate against – that they deserve it. Where have we heard that before?
anon-
It seems that you are now promoting the argument that a Jew that is not Zionist is not a Jew? Tell me, duo you sue that awful phrase "self hating Jew" as well?
You seem to have deliberately twisted my words regarding dead Palestinian civilians to be support for Isis – charming. I now know why you have not answered the question about an academic making a false accusation of anti-Semitism.
Kevin Heller, the classic As a Jew. http://cifwatch.com/2011/06/23/as-a-jew-explained/
As for David Schraub, I think the point should be this. There are some people who oppose political correctness and think it's important to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they make seemingly racist comments, or are accused thereof. Progressives are usually not among them, EXCEPT that the same people who don't give accused racists the benefit of the doubt do so when the racism in question is anti-Semitism. Schraub is consistent–he argues for broadly accepting claims of racism, and for trusting the experiences of those who claim to be subject to it. It would be equally consistent to be skeptical across the board. What's not consistent, and is itself a form of anti-Semitism, is for progressives to be ultra-sensitive to every type of racism but anti-Jewish racism.
MacK: "Various people have questioned whether a Jewish student might be made uncomfortable by Salaita. "
So far, 'civility' means conformance with the establishment views. It will be a cold day in the Infernal Regions when somebody gets in trouble for statements implying that piling up Muslim/Arab bodies in the Middle East is desirable, or that there is no such thing as the Palestinian people, or that slaves were treated well, or that torture of prisoners is a good thing (or flat out doing it).
I'm trying to get a bead on what KJH is asserting to be my position. If he's saying that I think there is no difference between criticizing Jews and criticizing Israel (both being anti-Semitic), then that "essentially" is doing an impressive amount of work, given that (a) I never said anything close to that (I said — and I stand by — that it is anti-Semitic to claim that Jews systematically make false accusations of anti-Semitiism to shield Israel from criticism, but that argument isn't in the same time zone as the one ascribed) and (b) I regularly "criticiz[e] Israel" — not surprising, given that the current government is very conservative and has an alarmingly high contingent of MKs I find repulsive — and yet have thus far resisted the urge to call myself anti-Semitic.
But perhaps what was meant is that I think it is anti-Semitic to reflexively *respond* to any allegation of anti-Semitism by immediately claiming "there is a difference between criticizing Jews and criticizing Israel" (i.e., that I'm claiming the Livingstone Formulation is anti-Semitic). The claim that "there is a difference between criticizing Jews and criticizing Israel" is obviously true, obviously uncontested, and obviously not responsive to any actual claims of anti-Semitism that are made (indeed, as Mayor Livingstone proved, it is a response that can be made to allegations of anti-Semitism that have nothing to do with Israel at all, like calling a Jewish reporter a "Nazi" when he catches you drunk at a party). It's like responding to a claim that something is racist by saying "not everything Black people dislike is racist." Well, yeah; but who is arguing that position? It's ludicrous and patronizing to act as if that's all that's motivating the claim. Rather than seriously reckoning with the assertion, this move substitutes an easily dispatched strawman and then mocks the claimant for being so unsophisticated. So yes, I'd say that argumentative maneuver isn't compatible with claiming that one takes either people of color or racism seriously.
Clearly any time a Jew calls something anti-Semitic they think more is going on about it than that the statement is "criticizing Israel", if for no other reason than that every Jew who has opinions about Israel is critical about it at least some of the time. They must think something more is going on — whether it be disparate treatment, or incompatibility of the *particular* critique with full Jewish inclusion as equals in global society, or something else. And maybe they're wrong! But the way we figure that out (and the way we show in deed rather than in platitude that we do in fact take anti-Semitism seriously) is by taking the objection seriously and drilling down into its merits.
KJH
Your understanding of which countries surround Israel is of a piece with your apparent hatred of anything that doesn't support your view of Israel.
If tens of thousands of persons in the countries surrounding Israel engage in barbarism (you have cited but one example), and there is no mistake about that, then one need merely claim that these countries do not "surround" Israel to support your point that any reference to this barbarism is racist?
YOu are revealing yourself to be everything you claim the supporters of Israel to be: a person who cries "racism" when valid observations of vile behavior are directed at those whom you support.
If KJH is to be believed, Israel is surrounded by countries where peace prevails, human rights are respected, violence is not tolerated, and Jew hate is absent.
Loony, but there you are.
Oh, and btw, KJH, please identify the "race" of the tens of thousands of persons (perhaps more) engaging in ethnic cleansing, war crimes, slaughter of literally hundreds of thousands of persons, attempted genocide of religious minorities, rampant violations of human rights, etc. – i.e., acts of barbarism – in the countries that surround Israel.
After all, KJH, this is just a discussion about the conduct of political entities, right? Any reference to the conduct of the substantial numbers of persons (in fact, armies and governments) involved in these countless atrocities in the countries that surround Israel can't possibly be construed as any form of "anti race" sentiment … right?
Anon,
You made a viciously racist statement and then desperately tried to spin it as something else. You could at least own up to your hatred of Arabs. We all know you were talking about them when you condemned the "medieval barbarians."
One need only google "medieval barbarians" +arabs to see that anon's use of the expression was anything but accidental.