« What Investigation? | Main | Spectator Being Careful With MEALAC »

November 10, 2004

Voices from the Net, Mostly on the Attack

The reactions throughout the internet have been telling. In response to the allegations raised by Columbia Unbecoming, writers for the most part have ignored the message and attacked the messenger, following Massad's line and calling the charges against him part of a "racist witch-hunt." No matter that it is Massad who discriminates according to national origin, but we'll leave that aside while we view the responses.

One of the major points emphasized by the writers opposed to the film is, as Adam Federman writes in Counterpunch, "Remarkably, not a single student featured in the film has filed a complaint with the dean of students, the provost, or the department chair." This is seconded by a nasty letter to the Harvard Crimson by a Columbia Student saying "It’s surprising the Crimson Staff would miss such an obvious point. And it’s troubling the staff issues normative claims when they’re so conspicuously ill-informed."

But, as this site has stressed again and again, these claims are disingenuous. Not only have the students in the documentary tried to issue formal complaints, but we have a number of testimonies by students who have--and are still too afraid to come forward--who have gone through all of the proper channels and been humiliated every step of the way.

The next tactic writers use to score rhetorical points is to say "but only 4 students were shown." NYC Indy Media--which in any other non-Israel case would on the side of the students--writes that "much of the story has been misrepresented or untold," since other students interviewed weren't abused, picking up the line from the Jewish Week article. One question: if only one woman was sexually harassed, does that mean the perpetrator should go free? Setting aside that there are over a dozen other testimonies that cannot be released due to the sensitivities involved, if only 4 students were ideologically harassed, does that mean that the professors should be free to go along their business?

Next to those who have taken up Prof. Massad's cause, and in some cases reprinted his statement in full, such as Znet or World Crisis Net. It is funny how these same places claim that Prof. Massad is being intimidated into silence. Not only does he have a regular column in al-Ahram, but such vaunted professors such as Juan Cole have jumped to his rescue. The thing I do not get is this: why are these self-described champions of academic freedom signing a petition to save Massad, but allied with Mona Baker who fired two of her employees simply because they were Israeli? And, if they are so sure that the criticism of Massad has resulted in his silencing, as my comrade Monic Dols writes, what type of criticism is permitted in their eyes? Or would she rather we be silenced in order for him to feel free to scream at students?

Not all voices are negative, though. Molly Schranz writes in the University of Chicago Maroon that she "initially felt that the students might be mistaken in their complaints. Surely, professors have earned the right to share something of their opinion in classrooms. However, the problem at Columbia is not that professors hold and express these positions but that they impose them on the students." Indiana State's editorial board, in a very balanced editorial, writes that "All professors should be beware; The university environment does not support the use of verbal force to change a student's mind. Great teachers teach change instead of preach change, and they do so without projecting their hate upon the students in their classroom." And they all end on the same note: Columbia should investigate.

I hope the rest of the Blogosphere gets on this and forces the administration to do just that.

Posted by ArielBeery at November 10, 2004 09:14 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://arielbeery.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/571