Cornel West Blames It on the Zionists

Cornel West has held prestigious positions at many institutions, including at least two endowed "University Professorships" -- the highest academic rank -- at Harvard and Princeton, and chairs at Yale, the University of Paris, and the Union Theological Seminar, and he has lectured widely at universities around the world. He left Harvard in 2002 in a very public dispute with then-president Lawrence Summers, taking an endowed chair at Princeton. In 2017, he rejoined the faculty of the Harvard Divinity School in a non-tenure track position as Victor S. Thomas Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy. Evidently nearing the end of his five year contract, West applied to be switched to a tenured position. He was turned down, which West considers disrespectful. In an interview with Chronicle of HigherEducation, he said: "My ridiculous situation at Harvard is a symptom of a much larger crisis in higher education. First, Black scholars and too many others are too often disrespected, devalued, or dismissed."

I have no strong opinion about West's situation. He apparently joined Harvard in a non-tenure eligible position, and he has now been offered a ten year extension at a high salary. West is surely an important and highly regarded public intellectual, so perhaps there was an implicit understanding or assumption that he would later be able to switch to a tenured position.

So why would Harvard create yet another public dispute with West, given his his history and stature. West thinks he knows the reason. It was the Zionists. Seriously, he has said repeatedly that his request for tenure was rejected only because of his critique of Israel. Although he has offered no proof or even specifics of the conspiracy, he told CHE:

In my case, my controversial and outspoken views about and critiques of empire, capitalism, white supremacy, male supremacy, and homophobia are tolerated, but any serious engagement around the issues of the Israeli occupation are rendered highly suspect and reduced to anti-Jewish hatred or prejudice.

And, regarding disapproval by "he powers that be at Harvard,"

So, I surmise it must be my deep Christian witness based on the idea that an ugly Israeli occupation of precious Palestinians is as wrong as any ugly Palestinian occupation of precious Jews.

Also,

[T]wo brilliant scholars critical of the U.S. empire and Israeli occupation — a Black Dominican woman and a Jewish Israeli woman — have been denied tenure. I see a pattern here.

He also put it this way in a tweet:

Is Harvard a place for a free Black man like myself whose Christian faith & witness put equal value on Palestinian & Jewish babies- like all babies- & reject all occupations as immoral?

The beauty of the anti-Israel conspiracy theory is that it requires no actual evidence. Once something bad or unfavorable happens, blame reflexively falls on Israel or Zionists (or among certain company, Jews). West, for example, repeatedly states that his other radical beliefs are acceptable to Harvard, including his critique of capitalism, which might be most offensive to donors, and his "joyful support" of Bernie Sanders. Thus, having eliminated all of the other possible objections, the only remaining source of his woes among the "powers that be" must be backers of Israel. The CHE interviewer did not follow up or ask West for proof of his supposition. The complaint proves itself. West does not specifically name the "powers that be," of course, though he once referred to Lawrence Summers as "the Ariel Sharon of American higher education."

To quote Cornel West: I see a pattern here.

Comments

[STAN NADEL]

When was the last time that West produced anything of sufficient scholarly value worthy of tenure at a major research university? He has been very active producing political works, some of which we might well agree with, others not so much, but I think nothing in the way of real scholarship. His complaint here reeks of an overweening sense of entitlement, and when balked he naturally blames Jews because that's the way he ticks.

[anon]

Ask anyone who knows Harvard if Harvard is a bastion of Jewish influence and a comfy home for Jewish individuals ... please.

Stan, I would wonder, at least with respect to law schools: When was the last time the VAST majority of law professors (the "highest academic rank" Lubet helpfully notes) produced anything of sufficient scholarly value worthy of tenure at a major research university?

[LawProf John Banzhaf]

“When was the last time the VAST majority of law professors . . produced anything of sufficient scholarly value worthy of tenure at a major research university?”

Here is one answer which I wrote not too long ago:

As a law professor, I have often pointed out to my colleagues that, something like half of all law review articles - which have been estimated to cost (law students through their tuition) about $100,000 each - are never cited even by other academics, and most have virtually no impact in the real world of law.

They are thus increasingly seen by many - including the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice - as increasingly irrelevant, and often useless.

Moreover, as I have noted in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other lay and legal
publications, those who believe that law professors can only have influence by writing scholarly articles - rather than persuasive legal briefs, effective filings before administrative agencies, proposals for new legislation, etc. - are “myopic legal eunuchs''; unwilling to use (and incidentally to test) their legal abilities in the real world of law where they can advance the public good, rather than simply accumulate page counts and pad resumes.

There, in the real marketplace of ideas, scholarship is not judged by law students who are as much in an ivory tower as their professors, but rather by those qualified to assess the value and relevance of the ideas in the real world of law, and to act on them if the scholarship is persuasive.

[anon]

John

Absolutely.

I'm not sure if you are limiting the 50% comment to those law review articles garnering even one citation. I would say that far more than 50% of law review articles are never read by anyone beyond a very small (perhaps 30) cadre of persons who are interested in some way in the author, not the writing.

And, even among those that are cited, painfully few are "of sufficient scholarly value worthy of tenure at a major research university."

In fact, nearly none, in terms of proportion.

That won't stop the "highest academic rank" from looking down their noses at practitioners, however.

The sort of shocking part of the West story is the position that Harvard offered. I, for one, agree that it was insulting to West, who has had a long academic career.

I don't often agree with West, and especially not about the subject mentioned, but, he is, in my view, worthy of tenure.

As for his animus toward Jews, I am quite sure that he doesn't actually feel that way at all. Unfortunately, many intellectuals are able to convince themselves that animus toward Jews is simply "objective reality" ...

And, again, Harvard is a really really messed up place, full of bigotry and prejudices, IMHO. So, West should perhaps aim a bit broader in his reproach.

[Doug Richmond]

Law professors are not "the highest academic rank" and Prof. Lubet never suggested anything to that effect. He correctly pointed out that the "highest academic rank" at Harvard is "University Professor." In fact, as Prof. Lubet notes, West was once a University Professor at Harvard. See Richard Bradley, Harvard Rules 96 (2005) (reporting that in 1998, then-President of Harvard Neil Rudenstine "elevated West to the position of University Professor, the highest status a scholar can obtain at Harvard").

[anon]

Amazing not only how law professors (and other academics) bestow upon themselves endless litanies of titles (Game of Thrones-style), but then take care to correct others who don't appreciate their nuanced usage. Mea culpa, most honorable Richmond, sir, mea culpa.

Who cares what fine distinctions someone places on the title "highest academic rank." Status and attention seekers, mainly. Or, those just wanting to quibble on irrelevant grounds.

If you don't think it was sufficient to simply state that West was worthy of a tenured position, as I did above, that fine. You may wish to point out that reference to West holding the "highest academic rank" at Harvard holds some special significance now, because that title was awarded at the University level.

One is not even sure of the meaning you attribute to the source you quote.

In any event, whether awarded at the law school or University level -- this title appears to have had no bearing on the subject at issue, as Harvard has made painfully clear.

[anon]

Incidentally, and so predictably, the Wikipedia research approach to find pull quotes used to support some marginal but pointless, inaccurate and irrelevant quibble, turns out to be wrong.

As quoted in the Harvard Crimson on this issue: "“He was a University Professor before he left Harvard the first time, which is [Harvard’s] most distinguished academic position ...”

One finds this formulation to be standard: "distinguished positions" (mostly endowed, i.e., bought) not the "highest academic rank" (like some militaristic authoritarian society of bombastic executives).

Even the little quote above, which was used to support the phrase "highest academic rank" refers to "status" -- nothing is said about "rank."