Oberlin College has gone from fecklessness to overreaction in response to Professor Joy Karega’s anti-Jewish Facebook posts, thus turning a sorry situation into an outright crisis. What should have been an invitation for anti-Zionists to repudiate the anti-Semitism in their midst, has instead been diverted into an unnecessary feud over academic freedom. Nobody has ended up looking good, including Karega’s strongest critics and her adamant apologists, and least of all the college itself.
To recap the mess at Oberlin: Joy Karega is an assistant professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin College, who became infamous last February when it was discovered that she traffics in blatantly anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Her Facebook page has featured claims that ISIS is a “Mossad Operation,” that Israel shot down Malaysia Airlines flight 17 over Ukraine, and that the Jewish state was behind both the 9/11 attack on New York City and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. (“This ain’t even hard,” she wrote, “They unleashed Mossad on France and it’s clear why.”) Another post, illustrated with a sinister caricature, proclaimed that the Rothschild family owns “your news, the media, your oil, and your government.” There is more, but that’s the general idea, as reported in more detail here and here.
Oberlin president Marvin Krislov was no doubt taken by surprise when Karega’s Facebook posts surfaced. There had been a series of complaints about an anti-Jewish atmosphere on campus – much of it, although not all, related to Israel – but Karega’s ravings were of a completely different nature. Krislov could therefore be forgiven for not anticipating that an Oberlin professor would indulge the sort of anti-Semitic bigotry that would be more at home on a white supremacist website such as Stormfront. His initial reaction, however, only made things worse.
The first response from Oberlin was an unsigned statement from the Communications Department, that said virtually nothing about the content of Karega’s posts. Here it is in full:
Oberlin College respects the rights of its faculty, students, staff, and alumni to express their personal views. Acknowledgement of this right does not signal institutional support for, or endorsement of, any specific position. The statements posted on social media by Dr. Joy Karega, assistant professor of rhetoric and composition, are hers alone and do not represent the views of Oberlin College.
Jewish students, alumni, and parents were rightfully appalled by what appeared to be a brush-off. It seemed as though Oberlin found nothing especially noteworthy about anti-Jewish racism, or at least nothing sufficiently objectionable to mention, while Krislov said nothing at all. Nobody had ever thought that Karega’s statements might actually “represent the views of Oberlin College,” so distancing the school was pretty much the equivalent of stating the obvious, while ignoring the underlying problem of Karega’s bigotry.
An appropriately strong statement from Krislov might have dampened the outrage, while perhaps heading off the predictable calls for Karega’s dismissal from the faculty. Instead, the anodyne announcement only intensified the criticism and demands for disciplinary action.
More after the jump.
Krislov’s next move was not much better. He issued a personal statement as “a practicing Jew” and the grandson “of an Orthodox rabbi,” in which he said that he “cannot comprehend” how any person could endorse “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.” “Regardless of the reason for spreading these materials,” he continued, “they cause pain for many people—members of our community and beyond.”
Once again, Krislov missed the point. Nobody cared about his “comprehension,” or his observation that Karega’s posts caused pain for “many people.” The reasonable expectation was that a college president, whatever his background, would issue a statement condemning the blatant expression of racism by a faculty member. Several presidents of Northwestern have issued statements about the anti-Semitism of an electrical engineering professor, the most recent of which called Holocaust denial a “contemptible insult to all decent and feeling people.” Other college and university leaders had done the same thing in similar circumstances.
President Krislov, however, said nothing of the sort. Pain, he explained, is just an aspect of “cultivating academic freedom.” His closing line seemed to suggest (no doubt unintentionally) that Karega’s paranoid theories – that could have been lifted from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – ought to be discussed and investigated, rather than rejected outright: “Our community will address the issues raised in this situation by honoring the essence of liberal arts education at Oberlin by interrogating assertions with facts and deep, critical thinking from multiple viewpoints.”
Nature abhors a moral vacuum, such as the one Krislov produced at Oberlin, so it was only a matter of time before the school’s trustees superseded his equivocal authority. Alas, they too succeeded in making things worse.
At the trustees’ fortuitously timed spring meeting, Oberlin finally issued a statement that took a firm position on Karega’s posts, calling them “anti-Semitic and abhorrent.” Unfortunately, they did not stop there. Board chairman Clyde McGregror announced that disciplinary action against Karega had to be considered, and he called upon “the administration and faculty to challenge the assertion that there is any justification for these repugnant postings and to report back to the Board.” A situation that might once have been resolved with a strong statement of condemnation had now turned into a full-blown crisis of actual academic freedom.
The move to consider firing Karega had the predictable effect of building support among her friends and political allies, even as she steadfastly refused to apologize or retract her statements. People who might have been expected (one hopes) to recoil at her racism, have instead defended her as “a dynamic writing teacher” and an admirable activist. One otherwise thoughtful and highly regarded professor even suggested that Karega’s conspiracy theories should not be “too quickly” dismissed, as they might in time prove “revolutionary.” Unlike President Krislov, he seemed to mean it.
And if that were not enough, Oberlin recently announced that Karega would be suspended with pay, and not allowed to teach in the coming semester, pending a faculty governance review of her “professional fitness.” This drastic and unnecessary step had the effect of moving the Association of American University Professors into Karega’s corner.
As the AAUP has long (and in my opinion, appropriately) held, interim suspension should be reserved for cases that threaten imminent harm either to students or the institution. For all of her extramural bigotry, Karega has been teaching at Oberlin without known incident for about two years since posting the anti-Jewish comments. Consequently, there seems to be little or no reason not to delay action until the conclusion of the faculty review. It is possible that her posts will be found to render her professionally unfit – she teaches “social justice writing,” which is a poor fit for for a bigot – but perhaps she has successfully kept her noxious views out of the classroom.
The larger issue here, however, is the loss of a teachable moment. Jewish organizations have long tried to point out that anti-Zionism sometimes bleeds into, or may even be motivated by, anti-Semitism. In Prof. Joy Karega, we seem to have a prime example of the phenomenon: an outspoken Israel critic whose personal posts are filled memes that she could have borrowed directly from David Duke. She is a one-person demonstration of the relationship between hostility toward Israel and Jew baiting.
At Oberlin, it should have been possible for well-intentioned critics of Israel to realize that their movement has a tendency to encourage fanatics like Karega. Perhaps they might have been persuaded to issue their own statement of rebuke, or even condemnation. Regrettably, the precipitous decision to remove her from teaching – in advance of a full hearing – has derailed might have been an opportunity for deeper understanding.
Disciplining a faculty member is a binary proposition. Karega will either be fired or not, meaning that lines have been drawn. Karega’s lawyer charges that the Oberlin administration has engaged in “relentless persecution” of her, by “pandering to the dictates of a handful of vocal and wealthy religious zealots.” Another of her defenders believes that her troubles are due to the “Zionist and pro-Israeli extremists” who found her Facebook page, rather that the nature of the posts themselves.
I don’t want to absolve Karega’s Oberlin sympathizers from responsibility. They should still have the humanity to condemn anti-Semitism when they see it in such stark relief, even when coming from a valued colleague, and no matter how the administration has handed the situation.
But at this point, the situation appears to be virtually unsalvageable. If Karega is fired or disciplined, it will be taken as further evidence of a Zionist conspiracy. If she is retained, she will brag about defeating the same powerful forces. In either case, the important message about viral anti-Semitism, and its presence among Israel's critics, will be drowned out by the noise.
“pandering to the dictates of a handful of vocal and wealthy religious zealots.” ... i.e., Jews.
Again the issue here seems to be the loose standards. the AAUP refers to conduct outside the academy in only the most vague terms, the most applicable of which seems to be "dishonesty" (which the AAUP relates in examples only to plagiarism) and perhaps "immorality" (which is basically impossible to prove except in the most egregious cases, and probably irrelevant here).
Perhaps in cases where the political consensus is such that almost all would agree, e.g., the KKK Grand Wizard, a case could be made. But Jew hate is, of course, an entirely different matter. Many in the academy consider this an important corollary of Israel hate (perhaps, in some instances, the other way around).
The question here should be whether I can be a vocal, vicious bigot in my free time and retain my position on a faculty. If the bigotry is against a politically disfavored group (e.g., Jews), the answer would appear to be yes without much more, "wealthy religious bigot donors" notwithstanding.
References to whether the bigotry is germane to the academic subject of the faculty member are just a smoke-screen, and completely irrelevant, as any such openly expressed hostile bigotry will affect students one way or another. (A Calculus class for the neo Nazi students taught by the Grand Wizard, a Physics course for the militants of other groups taught by their chosen rep, ? Lovely.)
The applicable standards are so vague as to be meaningless. It should not be so, but it is.
It appears to this reader that Oberlin is in big trouble here.
Posted by: anon | August 09, 2016 at 03:40 PM
As a Jewish Oberlin grad who is now an academic, I have followed this story with some interest. A couple of quick questions.
First, you write, "but perhaps she has successfully kept her noxious views out of the classroom." My understanding (admittedly from conversations I can't cite) is that this is not, in fact, true. We do know that there was an investigation. If it had turned up evidence that she had not kept her noxious views out of the classroom (or in other exchanges with students), would that alter your position as to whether a suspension was justified?
Second, you write: "If Karega is fired or disciplined, it will be taken as further evidence of a Zionist conspiracy. If she is retained, she will brag about defeating the same powerful forces. In either case, the important message about viral anti-Semitism, and its presence among Israel's critics, will be drowned out by the noise." I am trying to imagine writing something similar if the professor had promoted truly vile racist propaganda -- and I don't mean something like criticizing affirmative action, I mean something equivalent to the straight-up "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" on race. Would we be concerned -- and I mean sufficiently concerned to question discipline -- that actions taken against that hypothetical professor would be "drowned out by the noise" of folks claiming some sort of "PC conspiracy"? I'm skeptical.
Posted by: JosephSlater | August 09, 2016 at 03:51 PM
Joseph Slater: Thanks for your comment and sorry about the delay; it was stuck in the spam filter and I didn't see it until a few minutes ago.
As to your questions: Yes, evidence of bigotry in the classroom -- which includes teaching unfounded conspiracy theories -- would make an obvious and enormous difference, both to me and (I assume) to the AAUP.
However, I have gotten emails with accusations against Karega that turned out to be untrue upon investigation. For example, one very highly regarded former academic wrote to me that her dissertation is full of the same stuff. I read the dissertation, and it contains nothing of the sort. I am not saying this to exonerate her -- far from it -- just saying that one must be careful about these things.
My "drowned out by the noise" remark was a lament about the manner in which Oberlin has handled the situation, not a recommendation to ignore it.
If there is evidence of misconduct, it should be released at the same time as removal from teaching, not afterward. The "noise" is the academic freedom issue, which I fear is going to overshadow the noxious anti-Semitism which is far too common among Israel critics.
Posted by: Steve L. | August 09, 2016 at 06:39 PM
Fair enough (I'm puzzled by the spam filter, but maybe it knows something I don't). I suspect that the several-month investigation did turn up some evidence of this sort of thing filtering into the classroom. I'm not as certain as I read you as being that this sort of evidence should be released publicly, but I can see arguments either way.
I think there would be "noise" no matter how Oberlin handled it. It appears to me that at the end of the day, the college did the right thing: it did a lengthy (which I hope means careful and thorough) investigation, and it issued discipline only after that investigation was complete. Now I'm also an old union lawyer, so I have no problem with the AAUP ensuring that academic freedom concerns are given their proper weight and that evidence of these crazy views negatively affecting her interactions with students (Jewish or otherwise) is really there. My only point was that academic freedom concerns should be weighed against countervailing concerns about professors explicitly endorsing Nazi views of Jews in the same manner that academic freedom concerns should be weighed against countervailing concerns in cases of, e.g., explicitly vile racist speech against African-Americans.
Posted by: JosephSlater | August 10, 2016 at 11:22 AM
I just released your comment, JS. I have no idea why the spam filter catches you, but you are not the only one to whom this happens. Sorry.
You are wrong, however, that Oberlin issued the suspension "only after that investigation was complete." In fact, it was an interim suspension, issued by the administration without further explanation, pending the completion of the faculty review.
In other words, the administration preempted the usual procedure for faculty review of alleged academic misconduct.
Posted by: Steve L. | August 10, 2016 at 04:03 PM
I think Joseph is right about the different reactions between anti-Semitism and anti-Black racism. But I wonder if some of this involves the unique nature of some anti-Semitism, which is based on the myth not of inferiority, but of secret Jewish power and a conspiracy to rule the world. There is no Black equivalent to the Protocols.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | August 10, 2016 at 05:49 PM
OK re the word "complete," but the investigation/review has been ongoing for some time now. Why do you assume they don't have enough evidence already to justify a suspension? In labor relations generally an employer can know (or at least reasonably believe) enough to justify a suspension pending further investigation.
Posted by: JosephSlater | August 10, 2016 at 06:35 PM
HOward:
I think Black males would disagree that anti Black racism against them is not based, at least in part, on a perception of power. This stereotype is so ubiquitous that it would be sort of hard to disagree.
Jew hate is based often on the perception that Jews are money grubbing. In fact, this is the usual reason people cite to hate Jews, I think. I've seen some German propaganda from the 1930s that questioned the reason that so few Jews worked with their hands, for example. Germans toiled, in other words, while Jews profited on their labor (so the story went).
The Jew hate referenced above seems to be of a different type, however: the perception that Jews are, as a famous actor once said, responsible for all wars.
This overlaps nicely with another thread on this site, praising the study of Islam. There seems to be a connection between Sharia law, permitting dishonesty in dealing with those with whom one is "at war," and the promulgation of the meme that all wars are a Jewish conspiracy (of course, this circles back to the main reason to hate Jews, as the reason Jews promote war, it is said, is to profit from the misery thereby caused.)
What is so shocking is the prevalence in legal academia, among supposedly educated persons, of persons who really do believe this stuff. One finds that their affinity for the cause of the Palestinians, about whom some seem to know so much but understand so little, may drive this to some extent. To a greater extent, I fear, is that they are just bigots and prejudiced people (as I hear so often their hate speech about other groups, such as "middle aged white people," etc.
Posted by: anon | August 10, 2016 at 09:20 PM
A couple of questions here, to which I'd like views.
You have someone who openly and notoriously expresses virulent hatred of a group - e.g., racism, religious, xenophobia, nationality, homophobia, misogyny, misandry. To me this presents two questions, especially when it comes to students in a university, or if this person is a supervisor (in the US say in government.)
1. How do you address the problem any person from the group to which hostility is expressed will experience in dealing with such a hater, their sense of insecurity, of threat. Let's turn it around and say the academic is a close analogue of Pamela Geller - surely having a Muslim and Arab forced to deal with Ms. Geller as a supervisor would be outrageous (Joy Karena's comments are, if you changed the labels very like Geller.) At what point do you have to conclude that the expressed views makes it impossible to put a student or subordinate in that position, and that the hater therefore cannot do their job?
2. It seems that a widespread view is that provided the hater does not allow their views to intrude into their interactions with students or subordinates, then they cannot be dismissed for those views. However, this does present two difficulties. First, it is essentially says someone has to be victimised before we can address the problem, i.e., it allows harm to take place. Second, if someone is a frothing antisemite, it seems to me that the victim would have a claim against the college or employer who put them in a position where victimisation based on race, religion, orientation etc. was highly likely. Third, suppose you do monitor the hater closely - at what point will the hater be able to complain that the close monitoring is discriminatory. Fourth, consider the cost and burden of the monitoring.
Views?
Posted by: [M][@][c][K] | August 11, 2016 at 05:00 AM
On point 1., what if the budget has room for only one person in the Hater's role - i.e., there is no alternative to dealing with Hater.
Posted by: [M][@][c][K] | August 11, 2016 at 05:02 AM
For one, as expressed above, the notion that "relevancy" to the academic's course work is farcical. All would probably agree that the Grand Wizard teaching Calculus doesn't mean the KKK affiliation is irrelevant. The problem here is that Jew hate is acceptable to so many in academia, especially if it is dressed up as "anti Zionist" (a "Zionist" being a "Jew" in the mind of nearly all, see, e.g., "world wide Jewry", the Rothschild reference above, etc.).
The cause of the "Palestinians" (that word actually once used to refer to the "Jews") is just a cover, given how obviously lopsided that way of approaching the "Jew problem" becomes. (Favor those who are committed to genocide and destruction of Israel because the target of their hate is the never-ending irritant of Jews in their midst - we relate to this irritant, because it exists in academia as well, where Jews are a constant irritant! We thus fly speck Israel's response to those committed to its destruction and ignore the actions that call for such response.)
So, we have these periodic battles about profs who are accused of having expressed anti Semitic memes. The profs win, generally. The AAUP expression of "rules" is risibly vague and there is no way to enforce anything like what some would demand if the Grand Wizard found himself teaching Calculus. The "rules" rely on the good faith of academia, which is in short supply these days. Objectively, fairness, equal regard for all persons: nah!!!! We have "morals" to enforce, and OUR notion of morality doesn't call for such tripe.
Posted by: anon | August 11, 2016 at 01:21 PM
Professor Lubet,
In you last post, you mentioned Electrical Engineering Professor Butz. I believe the distinction is that at least Butz has an original "theory." Odious as it is. Professor Oberlin here parrots what she heard or read. I heard the exact same things last May when I brough my car to the dealer to be fixed. One of the sales people I befriended showed me all of these websites that showed the Jewish relatives of ISIL memebers. He also told me that physicians and drug companies don't want to cure cancer because of lost income. He also told me that the levies in New Orlenas were blown up... I schmooze with everybody...and gave him my card.
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | August 13, 2016 at 04:08 PM
99% of the time, the posters on the net after claiming they are not antisemites just "antizionist" praise hitler and laugh about genocide. No one really beliwves the nonsense bandied about like "obama is a mossad agent" "all the cia chiefs are jews", "the mossad killed kennedy" and "isis is an israeli org" but people who dislike jews - and there are many of them - use this to rationalize their hate.
As to jew power it is true that many high tech companies are jew dominated like facebook and google but so what, there are others christian dominated.
The phenomenon of dislike for jewish folks is not going away it is intensifying.
Posted by: Guest | August 14, 2016 at 07:29 AM
Thank goodness that legal academia - populated by educated, privileged (some would say over privileged), exceptionally hard working, fair minded persons - is a bulwark against invidious discrimination and prejudices for and against any persons based on age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Posted by: anon | August 14, 2016 at 03:18 PM
Gosh, it is truly amazing what I learn on this blog!!!! Obama is not a Mossad Agent!!! What a relief! Thanks Guest poster. Seriously, this raises another issue: Who comes up with this "stuff" and why would a learned, accomplished professor, with a good high PAYING gig and a pension risk everything for obvious drivul?
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | August 14, 2016 at 03:42 PM
Dear Captain,
As you yourself mentioned you hang out with all types. What makes you think that others such as myself do not and/or that we do not view what various opinions are out there. Moreover, what risk are you alluding to? Reading the conspiracy nonsense does not end up in the topics of my publications. There are people who believe in many things that you and I would find comical and entertaining yet is accepted by large numbers of people.
Dear Anon,
The problem you folks have is that those you look to, to be a bulwark will transform in a flash if it is to their self-advantage. Also,, the bulwarks are greatly outnumbered.
Posted by: Guest | August 14, 2016 at 05:02 PM
Guest
My comment was totally sarcastic.
Posted by: anon | August 14, 2016 at 05:08 PM
Guest,
I do not hang out with all types. I only hang out with Mitt Romney and Donald Trump among their 956 mansions and binders of women. Thank You. Now, back to the debate. If some folks believe these conspiracies, is it "nonsense?" It makes sense to them. The question is why? What attracts them to it and why?
Posted by: Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King | August 14, 2016 at 10:36 PM
Mr. Captain, Sir, "binders of women"? Mansions? It is manifestly clear that these hang outs are quite the experience. (Intellectually stimulating of course.) If you can obtain an invite for me at one of these gatherings I would be most appreciative. Thanks.
Posted by: Guest | August 15, 2016 at 04:26 AM