Yale dhimmitude watch: Talibulldog's days may be numbered, but they're hiring...Juan Cole

In "Cole Fire: Yale is set to ditch Taliban Man and may hire a notorious anti-Israel professor," John Fund in the Opinion Journal (thanks to Romy) brings us a Rahmatullah Update: the former Taliban spokesman may be on his way out at Yale, but not because anyone there has had an attack of conscience.

This is abundantly demonstrated by the fact that they considering hiring the dhimmi academic Juan Cole. One small indication of Cole's sense of academic objectivity is indicated by the fact that he printed his comrade-in-arms Mark LeVine's reply to my article about him, but declined to publish my further reply (yes, I did send it to him). (For the record, I would not perform the same discourtesy. If either Cole or LeVine dared to debate me, I would print their full remarks here.)

Cole also purveys howlers such as this: "Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians." Then he quotes a few verses that indeed do not preach violence against Christians, but, predictably enough, he makes no mention of Qur'an 9:29, which -- you guessed it -- preaches violence against Christians: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

As Juan will tell you, the People of the Book that Muslims must fight in this verse are primarily Jews or Christians.

Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi's luck is running out. Eight weeks ago the Taliban diplomat turned special Yale student made a media splash on the cover of the New York Times magazine in which he proclaimed: "In some ways I'm the luckiest person in the world, I could have ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Instead I ended up at Yale."

But the continued outrage over the news that an unrepentant former official of a criminal regime whose remnants are still killing U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan is part of the Ivy League is catching up with him. Yale is about to establish tougher standards for the program under which he is applying to become a degree-status sophomore next fall, and the consensus is that Mr. Hashemi won't measure up.

Taliban Man's days as a Bulldog look to be numbered. But Yale may be about to stir up new controversy as it appears to be on the verge of offering a notorious anti-Israel academic a faculty position....

Meanwhile, Yale faces a new challenge. In the next few days the university may hire Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, to fill a new spot as a professor of contemporary Middle East studies.

Mr. Cole's appointment would be problematic on several fronts. First, his scholarship is largely on the 19th-century Middle East, not on contemporary issues. "He has since abandoned scholarship in favor of blog commentary," says Michael Rubin, a Yale graduate and editor of the Middle East Quarterly. Mr. Cole's postings at his blog, Informed Comment, appear to be a far cry from scholarship. They feature highly polemical writing and dubious conspiracy theories.

In justifying all the time he spends on his blog, Mr. Cole told the Yale Herald that "when you become a public intellectual, it has the effect of dragging you into a lot of mud." Mr. Cole has done his share of splattering. He calls Israel "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." That ties in with his recurring theme that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee effectively controls Congress and much of U.S. foreign policy. In an article titled "Dual Loyalties," he wrote, "I simply think that we deserve to have American public servants who are centrally commited [sic] to the interests of the United States, rather than to the interests of a foreign political party," namely Israel's right-wing Likud, which was the ruling party until Ariel Sharon formed the centrist Kadima Party. Mr. Cole claims that "pro-Likud intellectuals" routinely "use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv."

Read it all.

| 6 Comments
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

6 Comments

Damn it! Harvard is gonna get another one.

But what do you expect? If the Director of the Whitney Center for the Humanities, Maria Rosa Menocal, has not been taken to scholarly task for her ill-informed feelgood "Ornament of the World" (with no mention of the relevant authorities, such as Levi-Provencal, in her bibliography), but rather has just been rewarded with a Sterling Professorship (one of four such appointments, and the only one outside of science, with its more rigorous no-nonsense standards), that says a lot about Yale.

As for Juan Cole, everything Martin Kramer has written about him should be digested thoroughly by those at Yale who are even thinking of touching Cole with a ten-foot=-pole. Then read around: go to the Yale Library, check out Joseph Schacht, C. Snouck Hurgronje, David Margoliouth, Arthur Jeffery. Start with those four. Or, if you prefer, read the samples of a few dozen great Western scholars of Islam, those included in the tremendously useful "The Legacy of Jihad." Ask a few European scholars -- say, Alfred de Premare, or Hans Janssen -- or for that matter those who have received their scholarly formation in Europe but are presently in the United States, such as Bernard Lewis, Patricia Crone, and Michael Cook -- what they think of the level of Cook's "scholarship."For that matter, since the subject at hand is "contemporary" political developments, surely Fouad Ajami and Kanan Makiya should be asked (for there they will be truth-tellers) what they think of Juan Cole's "scholarship."

If this charlatan is appointed, it would be a final nail, or rather several final nails, in several coffins. One would be the coffin of MESA Nostra, and the American government would simply have to set up institutes to teach Americans about Islam and the Middle East, going carefully around the universities -- or perhaps carefully vetting every department that would wish to get in on th emoney. The second coffin, a far more luxurious affair (possibly on display at the Frank E. Campbell Funeral Home), will be that of Yale itself. Universities live and die now by phony "prestige" and by working up would-be students into a frenzy about it, and keeping "in touch" with Alumni to remind them of how prestigious their prestigious university prestigisously is, and how all that prestige comes at a price -- the price that generous and loyal alumni, basking in that never-ending "prestige," should be happy to pay, and pay, and pay. (Have you gotten a call, or ten, or fifty, from your university yet? Have you had the good sense to tell them to stop their endless begging, and you choose not to swell their endowment still further?). If a charlatan, a complete nonentity, is appointed in the "full light of history," when his work can be easily compared with that of real scholars (Jeffery, Snouck Hurgronje, Schacht, etc.) of the past, and present scholars -- Cook, Crone, Lewis, De Premare, Janssen -- can give their opinions (and don't tell us that John Esposito, or Roger Owen, or Hamid Dabashi -- please don't tell us that these have been the people supplying references, and of course there are also the apologist-lite school of such as Roy Mottahedeh). For god's sake, this kind of thing cannot continue.

Donations do not matter to MESA Nostra. But they do, very much, to Yale, and it should be made to suffer, suffer, suffer, if the apotheosis of MESA Nostra and all that is wrong with it, one Juan Cole, is rewarded for his non-stop nonsense by being elevated to the "prestige" of "prestigious" Yale. It is bad enough that the Mearsheimer-Walt parody of scholarship is allowed to go about the world as a "Harvard" product (the imprimatur was removed too late). To have "Professor Juan Cole" of Yale -- that's more of the same.

It may not be possible to re-create an atmosphere in American universities, or in other universities of the Western world, in which disinterested study, rather than transparent apologetics, is offered to innocent students. Certainly the number of schools where such study is possible has diminished over the past 30 years. Esposito is the rule, not the exception. But one should at least try. And administrators at Yale, and members of other departments, such as the history faculty at Yale, now have a duty to inform themselves fully of the extent of the scandal, and not to permit the fellow-travelles of MESA Nostra already ensconced at Yale to manage to smuggle in one more of their number. This was, incidentally, tried recently at Harvard Divinity School by Leila Khaled, trying through her tools William Graham and Diana Eck, to push through the appointment of Omid Safi. Fortunately, she was foiled. Surely those pushing, pushing, pushing for Juan Cole -- because he is one of them, and they are with him all the way -- can also be foiled at the last minute. They must be -- for the sake of Yale's innocent students, and for the continued support of Yale. For all of the faculty will suffer, in the end, from a decline in financial support that such an appointment, made if the relevant department (Middle Eastern Studies?) is allowed to run wild, will at this point, and fortunately, automatically trigger.

They might start by googling the phrase "MESA Nostra." They can even, if they wish, enter the "MESA Nostra Contest." Yes, thweir entries will be given special consideration.

Many universities are sadly in a state of deteriorating scholarly standards and dwindling worth of scholarship, as Hugh points out.
Is the academic decline a harbinger of the decline and ruin of the civilization?

Not everyone at Yale is enamored with Cole:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32755

Never in the history of mankind have so many risen so far on so little. This is the age of mediocrity.The modern academy is no longer the cultural center of the west, and is no longer committed to anything resembling dispassionate scholarly excellence, but is has become the redoubt of so many destructively untalented partisain hacks and apologists for this and that trendy cause. To answer Eliyahu's question I would venture to say that the academic decline is a harbinger of the decline and ruin of the civilization. It seems that the only qualification as an academic in elite western Universities is some kind of hatred for the West, its histories,peoples and its cultures.

It is quite encouraging to see more and more attention being given to the sad state of academia by the blogosphere. It is also quite entertaining when MESA NOSTRA 'scholars' eagerly expose themselves.

Here, Dr. Silverstein provides his take on Mr. Cole's petition at his blog
Gallery of the Obsolete Academics. . .

A web petition entitled "Freedom of Speech on the Israel Lobby" has appeared, submitted by Juan Cole , according to the petition site. It has been signed as of this posting by just over 300 people, appearing to be mostly academics.

The petition is addressed to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and stares:

We note with dismay that when eminent political scientists John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published their “The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy” in the London Review of Books, they were subjected to a barrage of ad hominem attacks. In particular, they were smeared as “anti-Semites”. This epithet was hurled at them by the Anti-Defamation League, Eliot A. Cohen, Alan Dershowitz, Representative Eliot Engel, Richard L. Cravatts, and many others ... We also fear that an impression is being created that elements in the American Jewish community are hostile to academic freedom of speech and inquiry, and are hostile even to the first amendment of the US constitution. As admirers of the historic role the American Jewish community has played in furthering civil liberties in the United States, we are concerned and saddened at this development.

Inherent in this paragraph are the symptoms reflecting the growing obsolescence of its originator and signatories.

There are standards for quality in academic inquiry and paper writing. Competent academics are very familiar with those standards; they use them in critically evaluating the inquiry performed by students and colleagues. In the paragraph above, for example, the Jewish community is being accused of creating an impression that they are 'hostile to the first amendment.' (The petition graciously expresses admiration and concern for the 'misguided' Jewish community. Very touching. Juan, how charitable of you.)

Now, here is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment talks about what Congress shall and shall not do. As I am as yet unaware of the U.S. Congress taking a stance on the Walt/Mersheimer paper that is at the foundation of this controversy, this statement in Cole's petition is a non-sequitur:

This term, literally translated, means "it does not follow." A non sequitur is an illogical statement, one which seems to draw a conclusion not supported by the premises. All fallacies are on the most elementary level non sequiturs, but many can be related to some more specific logical error. The term is used for the general absence of logical coherence.

Non sequiturs have no place in academia. Those in academia who indulge in logical fallacies such as this and who publish them raise questions in the public's mind as to whether academia is a source for societal advancement, or societal regression.

The Walt-Mearsheimer paper on the Israel Lobby is a poster-perfect example for poor scholarship, as I mentioned in previous posts. It commits multiple sins of basic errors in logic, selective quoting of information, presentation of material out of context, presentation as facts of material that is simply and with trivial effort shown to be false, and other flaws that make it appear as likely that this paper was written by an incompetent undergraduate as by a dean of a Harvard college.

Insomuch as the signatories to the Cole petition ignore this and are therefore implicitly condoning poor scholarship as "freedom of expression", at a time when (quoting the AAAI):

... recent advances in computing, communications together with the rapid proliferation of information sources and services present unprecedented opportunities in integrative and collaborative analysis and interpretation of distributed, autonomous data and knowledge sources and services in virtually every area of human activity ...

It becomes clear that the signatories are themselves obsolete. As an information scientist, formerly at Yale, more recently as the head of scientific research libraries at a large pharmaceutical company, and now back to academia in a college of information science, it is clear the standards for academic research in the humanities lag far behind that of the hard sciences, or that of corporate research. This has implications towards the 'predictive value' of such research.

It would not surprise me if the signatories are largely unskilled in computing and unknowledgeable about the tools and resources that are available to them for conducting research in any field of human endeavor or thought, if only there were not languid or resistant to change.

Sad to see are signatories from Yale, where I learned the information science and Medical Informatics craft in pioneering programs in the early 1990's. (Of course, Yale is not always a pioneering organization, sometimes conducting itself in the well-worn style of academic brutality - "because the stakes are so low.")

Also disappointing are comments such as this:

* Jason Hodin - Stanford University To quote Mearsheimer and Walt: "Silencing sceptics (sic) by organising blacklists and boycotts - or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites - violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends." (boycotts? blacklists? "open debate" - when the academic 'debaters' refuse to engage on the issue of research quality? - ed.)

Those in academia who are apologists for academic research mediocrity in the 21st century are luddites (the term used to refer to a group of early 19th century English workmen who were campaigning against the automation of the power loom).

Thus, the Cole petition is largely a Gallery of Obsolete Academics.

Finally, I am emailing some of the signatories, asking them to show their colors through signing my petition that asks Walt and Meirsheimer to resolve this dispute honorably, affirm the importance of rigor in research, and affirm that --

they understand that people of the Jewish faith are a heterogeneous group socially, politically and financially, are represented across all walks of life, with most being ordinary citizens leading ordinary lives; that they understand that some small fraction of people of the Jewish faith, along with others of multiple other faiths, support Israel and a strong US-Israel relationship through active involvement in politics and political "lobbying"; that they understand those people do so in entirely unremarkable competition with other lobbyists and interest groups as is customary in our society; and that they understand that faulty scholarship and propaganda over such a volatile issue has, throughout history, had bloody consequences, and therefore the highest rigor in such inquiry is especially crucial.

I am not optimistic.

Join the club!