Why Won't the Middle East Studies Association Retract Its False Accusation against Fresno State University?

On June 2, 2017, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) falsely accused the Fresno State University administration of violating “generally accepted academic procedures and standards and thereby undermin[ing] academic freedom” by suspending a search for the Edward Said Professorship in Middle East Studies. In an open letter to Fresno State’s president and chancellor, MESA alleged that the university had been “unduly influenced” by “inappropriate and prejudicial comments,” and suggested that the administration had “’caved’ to racism because the four finalists were of Middle Eastern ethnicity.” That was an extremely serious charge, lodged by MESA’s Committee on Academic Freedom, but it was simply not true.  I have repeatedly offered MESA definitive documentary evidence that its claims were unfounded, and yet the organization has refused to retract or correct the letter, which remains on its website.

The underlying controversy surfaced on May 21, 2017, when Vida Samiian, Fresno State’s former Dean of Humanities and an emerita professor of Middle East Studies, announced her resignation from the university in protest of the suspension of the Said Professorship search.  In a statement posted on her Facebook page, Samiian attributed the closure to a “documented campaign of harassment and intimidation of search committee members [conducted] by Israel advocacy groups.” Fresno State officials denied the charge, explaining that the search had been postponed for procedural and administrative reasons that had nothing to do with either the finalists’ ethnicity or outside lobbying. MESA did not accept the explanation.

 Stressing the “Arab and Muslim origins” of the four finalists for the position, the MESA letter – signed by then-President Beth Baron and Executive Director Amy Newhall – asserted “good reasons to believe” that the search suspension had been prompted by prejudicial comments from unidentified Fresno “faculty colleagues and emeriti.” Although it did not mention Samiian by name, the MESA letter included obvious references to her Facebook statement, both with and without quotation marks.

 The MESA letter was quite evidently premised on the suspicions expressed in Samiian’s resignation, without considering contrary sources. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA), I recently obtained the university’s full 458 page file on the suspension of the Said Professorship search, which reveals that MESA made no written inquiries or document requests from Fresno State administrators before posting its open letter. If MESA representatives had ever sought to verify Samiian’s statement, they would have learned that virtually the entire substance of the complaint was untrue (as I previously set out in considerable detail in The Forward), and that their own letter was therefore groundless.

 For example, the MESA letter states that there had been no administrative concerns about search procedures under the Academic Policy Manual “until the names of the four finalists, all of whom are of Arab and Muslim origins, were announced and invited for campus interviews,” thus implying that ethnic prejudice had played a role in the suspension.  In fact, as is plainly evident in the Fresno State records, procedural problems in the search process had been raised internally for months prior to the suspension.  (A selection of relevant documents can be seen here; the full set is posted here; all of the CPRA requests are here.)

Likewise, the MESA letter notes that “the Anthropology Department had unanimously voted to house the prospective hire,” without acknowledging that the Edward Said Chair had been designated for an appointment in the College of Arts and Humanities, which precluded, under the administration’s view of the existing search authorization, an appointment in the separate College of Social Sciences. 

As the Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities repeatedly told Samiian before the search was closed, it was not possible “to reconcile the discipline [of the finalists] within the college.” The eventual appointee, he explained, would have to be “capable of participating in all functions” of the home department, including the RTP (retention, tenure, and promotion) process, which would not be possible for a social scientist, no matter how well qualified in their own field. Perhaps that was an ill-considered or unnecessary decision, but it was based wholly on intramural academic considerations rather than external pressure.

It is clear from the university documentation that the search was suspended due to inter-departmental turf disputes completely unrelated to the ethnicity or religion of the candidates. There was absolutely no communication, much less interference, from outside groups, pro-Israel or otherwise. This information has always been readily available to MESA, both before and after it accused Fresno State of caving to racism and undermining academic freedom. 

Anyone can make a mistake, so MESA’s hasty endorsement of Samiian’s complaint is somewhat understandable. And at least the MESA letter was relatively restrained, compared to the anti-Israel advocacy organizations  that blamed imaginary “bullying by Zionists” and “strong lobbying from the American pro-Zionist lobby” for closing the search.

 It is incomprehensible, however, that MESA has resolutely declined to correct the record. I sent multiple emails to Professors Baron and Newhall, over a period of several weeks, detailing the erroneous accusations in their letter and offering to provide them with the full Fresno State file so that they could check the documents for themselves. Regrettably, I have received no response.

 According to its website, MESA is “a private, non-profit learned society that brings together scholars, educators and those interested in the study of the region from all over the world.” Its Mission Statement promises to promote “high standards of scholarship,” “public understanding,” and “intellectual exchange,” while the Committee on Academic Freedom “seeks to foster the free exchange of knowledge as a human right.” These crucial values were badly compromised when MESA publicized groundless charges of racism, intimidation, and outside interference at Fresno State, and the problem has been exacerbated by MESA’s ongoing refusal to look at disconfirming evidence.

 Political advocacy organizations reflexively stick to their guns without regard to actual facts, but learned societies owe more to their members and the public. For the sake of intellectual integrity and professional responsibility, MESA must retract its false accusations against Fresno State University.

Comments

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

They sell a book bag for $15.00. I suppose its better than a MAGA hat for $22.00.

[anon]

Looking through the relevant documents, I don't see any incontrovertible proof that MESA was wrong. The process stopped suddenly, and the excuse - that there was some bureaucratic hoops that hadn't been passed through PRECISELY right - seems a little jarring. The Chair was not restricted to arts and sciences, and if anthropology was willing to host them it makes very little sense that the chair could have just been located in them. Departmental self-rule goes both ways; if the money has been allocated, the candidates have been selected, and a department is willing to take them, then it makes very little sense to stop the process. And, suffice it to say, any improper pressure coming from donors would not be something the university functionaries would put in the record.

[Steve L.]

It is a hallmark of classic conspiracy thinking that the absence of evidence is interpreted as proof of the conspiracy's vast reach.

Thus, invisible Zionists must have been so powerful that they were able to influence the university's decision without leaving any fingerprints, while convincing the administrators to create a false documentary record of their reasons for suspending the search, and simultaneously suppressing all records of their own communications.

And of course, the invisible "donors" were so powerful that the university was willing to do their bidding, even at the cost of offending the known donors who financed the Edward Said Chair in the first place.

And all of this took place with the collusion of multiple senior officials -- the president, provost, vice-provost, department chair, and dean -- without any leaks or defections.

[anon]

"Political advocacy organizations reflexively stick to their guns without regard to actual facts, but learned societies owe more to their members and the public."

This is about as good a statement of my position as possible in this environment. Thank you for stating plainly the difference, so lost today on the mass media, and, lamentably, academia.

As for the piece above, what stands out, IMHO, is the ease and rapidity of going from zero evidence to self-righteous accusations. Never mind the facts: my side is all that matters, and I will accuse the "other side" at every juncture, right or wrong.

What is the cure for this ill? How can this society function when so many believe that, even if incorrect, what is important is to relentlessly attack?

[Scott Fruehwald]

The problem is cognitive biases: the bias blindspot, the bandwagon effect, the overconfidence effect, the confirmation bias, and the Semmelweis effect. I have recently published a book on this subject: Understanding and Overcoming Cognitive Biases For Lawyers And Law Students: Becoming a Better Lawyer Through Cognitive Science (2018).

[Steve L.]

As it happens, Scott, I ordered your book earlier this week.

Here is a link: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Overcoming-Cognitive-Lawyers-Students/dp/1985130130

[anon]

Scott

I don't know where you stand on the issues of the day, but, I find that each of the biases that you identify above apply with more force to academicians than almost any other group.

The academy is a very homogeneous place these days, at least, ideologically. There is a dogma that overshadows almost every discussion.

Steve has on occasion exposed wrongful accusations of "Israeli Lobby" influence in the academy, but, by and large, like "Russian meddling" the academy is extremely prone to demonizing others (even by ethnicity) when it suits a political end that matches the dominant ideology.

How then to explain this? Why is it that the putatively most educated folks are the most narrow minded, dogmatic and hypocritical (e.g., rejecting ANY proposition from the "other" party, even if one proposed in the past by Democrats, demonizing, as stated above, ethnicities while decrying this in "the other party" (e.g., "the Russians" "the Jewish Lobby"); decrying economic inequality while living in a very selfish, often lavish way, exploiting minorities to do work of the "help", engaging in demonizing every "Russian" speaker in a way that would make Joe McCarthy recoil, etc.

Perhaps, as we look around the world at "socialist" countries, we can see, quite clearly, what is afoot. Those who espouse socialism often fall into certain patterns (see, e.g., Animal Farm).

Personally, socialism appeals to me as much as the next believer in ideals. But, in practice, I find the "left" to be quite awful in their naked opportunism, and, attacking Jews (under the guise of "Zionism") is one of the most revolting aspects of the current zeitgeist in academia.

[Scott Fruehwald]

Anon. Cognitive biases affect all types of groups--Democrats and Republicans, men and women, all racial groups, etc. Cognitive biases are not related to intelligence. Very intelligent people suffer from cognitive biases. However, there is no evidence that intelligent people suffer from cognitive biases more than the rest of the population.

[anon]

Interesting ...

Intelligence may not be the measure I was thinking about, though.

I was thinking more about education, civic interest, wealth and position. Aren't these attributes among those that are supposed to promote enlightenment, tolerance and wisdom?

Tenured law professors are, by and large, a VERY comfortable, well-educated, and, especially in this economy, very privileged group. This condition seems to have influenced most of them - many aged baby boomers who referred to the "little red book" in their youth but never read or understood it -- to believe that the "left" has the eternally correct side of the argument, and that is where the thought processes seem to have stalled.

What bothers me is that this group, in particular, has the wherewithal to speak of "the bias blindspot, the bandwagon effect, the overconfidence effect, the confirmation bias, and the Semmelweis effect" etc., but never seems to apply these analyses to themselves.

I don't mean to imply that you fit that bill; I honestly have no idea about that and don't mean to suggest that you do; it's just that I know so many law professors who are, as alluded to above, absolutely oblivious to their own narrow minded and often hypocritical stances, all dictated by some sort of shared hive mind that requires a large measure of adherence to ideology and, let's face it, anger toward those who dare to disagree (even as positions change, see, e.g. gay marriage positions in the 2008 primary).

I wonder if I'll ever meet a law professor who actually thinks for himself/herself, and doesn't judge and dislike (or worse, favor) people based on their gender/sexual orientation/age/religion/political beliefs, etc. It seems hard to even imagine, I'm sorry to say.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

Any group of people can form an association here in America and say what ever, the hell they please. That is why we are great. It doesn't mean they are mainstream, legitimate or have any influence beyond their membership. Any putz can form an association. I am chartering the Three Bill Retail Theft Lawyer's Association for Respect and Much Better Fees. (TBRTLARMBF) First meeting tomorrow, website on Saturday. Ashtrays and t-shirts with our logo on Sunday. Issue a Statement on Monday.

[anon]

I am amazed at the strawmanning going on here. My claim that the record does not show incontrovertibly that pressure was not applied -- indeed, some of the participants talk about political pressure they personally witnessed (are they presumed to be liars?) -- has been turned into me believing a massive convoluted conspiracy theory. Occam's razor, Steve. You don't need a massive conspiracy with falsified records and multiple administrators sworn to secrecy to indicate pressure was effective. A single administrator was allowed to make the decision, and he could have simply seized upon a bureaucratic snafu when confronted with discreet pressure from influential donors. The vast conspiracy you hypothesize would not be required.

In any event, let's see how they handle the search this year, whether it still goes on, and if so what kind of scholar they pick.