Comments on Professor's Attendance at 'Conference' Stuns Canada

• Posted by Stephen Downes on December 14, 2006 at 6:50am EST

• The headline says 'stunned' and the article says 'shocked' but it is a lot more accurate to say, as the Globe and Mail article cited does, that the visit "has raised eyebrows" in Canada. That's it. It's not a big issue here. Nor should it be.

• Posted by Margaret on December 14, 2006 at 7:30am EST

• I would add 'sickened' to 'stunned' and 'shocked'.

• Iranian conference
• Posted by Diana Relke , Professor at Univ. of Saskatchewan on December 14, 2006 at 7:40am EST

• The Canadian Jewish Congress is our very own Jewish lobby here up north--and it's just as obstructive, just as prone to going off half-cocked. By their own admission they know nothing of the content of Prof. Dossa's paper--didn't even check out his scholarship before rushing to the nearest media outlet. But, hey, details are sooo boring. If, as the CJC says, "This conference was nothing more than a vicious public attempt to whitewash the proven facts . . . ", then they should have been delighted that at least one Canadian professor was there to dilute some of the antisemitism. Too bad more professors with alternative points of view didn't have the chutzpa to pitch up to give the antisemites a bit of intellectual exercise. I find it deeply ironic that by overplaying their hand with their holocaust mongering the Zionist community has not only forfeited a big chunk of the moral highground but also emboldened the revisionists. That is tragic.

• Posted by K.T. on December 14, 2006 at 7:40am EST

• You might modify the word "professor" in the title with the word "ignorant." If he was "surprised to find that the conference attracted Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis," he isn't a terribly well-informed individual. There must be a lot of rocks to hide under in maple leaf land.

• The Holocaust Conference
• Posted by feudi pandola on December 14, 2006 at 8:51am EST

• Professor Dossa said:"... now that whole issue (The Holocaust) plays into the war on terrorism, which is essentially a war on Islam". What nonsense! President Bush has stated many, many times that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by radicals. Dossa and moderate Muslims could do the world immense good by taking back their religion from the lunatics instead of complaining when the world fights back against the jihadi.

  Dossa also referred to The Holocaust as a "political construct"...i.e, a scholarly, PC way of saying it didn't happen. He was historically observant enough to admit that there was a "Jewish loss at the hands of the Nazis"...mighty decent of the good Professor to admit at least that much.

  If this is an example of competent Canadian scholarship, PLEASE keep it north of the border.

• Just like O.J.?
• Posted by The Old Curmudgeon , Outstanding Professor at Mediocre State U on December 14, 2006 at 8:51am EST

• Did O.J. move to Canada? Or just his ideas on book publishing ("I didn't do it -- but if I did ..")?

  Or, perhaps his next act, the professor is going to play piano in a house of ill-repute -- then deny any knowledge of what happens upstairs? With all the grunting, thumping, etc.?

  What a load a moose-manure. The Middle East has been at war since my birth -- and, at this rate, will be until my death. Great.

• Under the Guise
• Posted by Martin on December 14, 2006 at 9:01am EST

• I am, unfortunately, not shocked by this story. I was shocked that anyone attended the conference, especially from the West in that to do so would surely draw the ire of a nation. It is a big deal when people from supposedly academic backgrounds attend conferences which were publically advertised as a means to discredit not only an entire race of people, but all of those who fought and died in World War II. The Holocaust was not an event that only affected Jews, it was our lowest point as a human race. Did it teach us anything? Unfortunately, no it did not. We are still allowing genocide throughout the world, especially in Africa. Perhaps it is time we revist the Holocaust and this time put it into perspective to current events and use it as a powerful reminder of the inhumanity of man.

• Academic Freedom
• Posted by Mary on December 14, 2006 at 9:25am EST

• Here we go again... everything and anything said by professors under the guise of "Academic Freedom". Please someone... come to your senses and get rid of these so called professors hiding under tenure and teaching our children anything and everything in the far left category. My thought? Those who can't do, teach (sorry decent professors).

• Posted by Donne Kampel , Dr. on December 14, 2006 at 10:28am EST

• I am torn between wanting to deny webspace and other forms of publicity to individuals who are clearly inciting terror and needing to know what the fear mongerers are plotting next. Quite a dilemma in our age of information!

• Should Not Surprie
• Posted by Mitchell Langbert , Associate Professor at Brooklyn College on December 14, 2006 at 10:28am EST

• The modern university has its roots in the early 19th century German university. Nazism and anti-Semitism also have their roots in the early 19th century university. The romanticism of Fichte, who was an important figure in the 19th century university and created the categories that led to Nazism as well as counter-arguments against Fichte, such as Marx's "On the Jewish Question", which argued that the capitalist was the "real" Jew, retaining the equivalence of "Jew" with despicable other, was not the only soil on which subsequent Nazism and anti-Semitism rested. In addition, the chief American advocate of the German-style university, John Dewey, was primarily a Hegelian, who in turn was a product of the 19th century German university mindset, which was rife with anti-Semitism. Dewey went on to found the American Association of University Professors, which was recently discovered to be including a paper by an anti-Semite in one of its conferences.

  Hence, it would be expected that anti-Semitism is common in modern universities, and indeed this is the case. It should not be surprising that Professor Dossa is willing to attend a conference that was widely described in the press as being a "holocaust denial" conference and then state that he was "surprised" that there were holocaust deniers there. Nor is it surprising that in the fascistically politically correct post-modern university, where a man's glance at a woman is grounds for a left-wing lynching, that many of the responders to this article are supportive of Professor Dossa's association at a conference also attended by neo-Nazi David Duke and, to Professor Dossa's surprise, many holocaust deniers. Since the attendance of holocaust deniers was discussed days or even weeks before the Tehran conference, Professor Dossa's competence should be questioned on ability alone. He would have to be stupid to not have known.

  Stupid, left wing bigots on college campuses? Is that a surprise? Given that university professors have been anti-Semitic bigots since Fichte's day, and the precursor to the modern university is in fact the source of the intellectual basis for the Holocaust, that fact that there are numerous apologists for Professor Dossa on this site should not surprise.

  Sieg Heil, Professoriate!

• Holocaust
• Posted by Amy on December 14, 2006 at 10:55am EST

• Why would Holcaust be a subject closed for discussion? Like other historical events, shoudn't what happened to Jews and others in Nazi Germany, and how it has been framed politically, be open to discussion? One wishes that the media would report more of the actual content of the papers and discussions that took place at the conference rather than repeat anathemas and condemnations. Leave the judgment up to the readers, please, not to those in power to control the discussion and flow of information. What has happened to freedom of expression, which is one of our sacred rights? Freedom of expression requires tolerance of views one does not like. Untruths, must be rebutted using scholarly arguments, not through techniques of shaming and excommunication,like they used to do in the Middle Ages.

• Their wrong beats his right hook
• Posted by David on December 14, 2006 at 11:15am EST

• It's totally valid, and necessary, to discuss abuses of Holocaust imagery. It's totally valid, and necessary, to discuss the way in which the Holocaust has affected Jewish and Israeli identity. It's totally valid, and necessary, to discuss the way in which the Holocaust has been used to excuse actions of Israeli cruelty.

  Yet this academic (and a sect of Orthodox Jews reported to have attended the conference on similar "grounds") calls the entire nature of his supposedly worthwhile topic into an abyss of disrepute by attending a 'conference' whose STATED GOAL is to mitigate or erase historical fact.

  It's tragic and it's infuriating. The Holocaust's abuse as an "ideological weapon" needs to be discussed, openly and honestly, for there to be any hope of peace in the Middle East. But this professor's 'conference' attendance constitutes a de facto legitimization of an assault on truth. There should be an equivalent of disbarring for the professoriate. He's crossed that line.

• Amy Opposes Campus Speech Codes
• Posted by Mitchell Langbert , Associate Professor at Brooklyn College on December 14, 2006 at 11:30am EST

• I agree totally with Amy. I don't think anti-Semitic bigots should be suppressed. However, that would mean repealing campus speech codes. Campus speech codes (see www.thefire.org) have been adopted on every campus not in response to holocaust denial, but with regard to anti-gay, anti-black and sexist remarks. Amy, if you favor open speech on campus, do you also feel that campus speech codes should be repealed? Or, like most leftists, do you reserve your special privileges for bigoted attacks on Jews, Christians and males?

  If you are going to allow left wing bigots to run wild, which I don't mind by the way, then why do you suppress all other bigots? Don't you think, Amy, that you are being somewhat, well, bigoted?

• Dear Mr. Langbert:
• Posted by Joseph Cardenas on December 14, 2006 at 11:30am EST

• You almost got us with that one. Nice try.

  Your argument undermines itself. If the Academy is rife with anti-Semites and other such trash, then what basis is there for seriously considering your own argument? "Sieg Heil, Professoriate!" Heil yourself bub.

  You yourself are steeped in the University, with multiple degrees from a variety of institutions. Assuming you take seriously your own post, why bother?

  Oh, and Mary, teaching is itself a "doing." That particular comment has always been a contradiction, parhaps designed to be a mental test of the intelligence of the speaker, who may on occasion actually believe it.

• Wow!
• Posted by cacambo on December 14, 2006 at 1:20pm EST

• "The modern university has its roots in the early 19th century German university. Nazism and anti-Semitism also have their roots in the early 19th century university...Hence, it would be expected that anti-Semitism is common in modern universities, and indeed this is the case."

  This has got to be the lamest thing I have ever read on Insidehighered.

  A slovenly syllogism if there ever was one.

  Hey, let's all play! OK, Hitler was reported to be a vegetarian, and so was Gandhi, ergo Gandhi was a fascist!

• We are given the opportunity for reflection, and we shit on it
• Posted by ANT on December 14, 2006 at 2:00pm EST

• The responses to this article are supremely illustrative of the problems with any "discussion" concerning the Holocaust - namely, that there is no discussion at all. Instead, we have the privilege of being treated to knee-jerk, ad hominem, illogical sound bytes and attacks.

  For a moment, don't even ask yourself whether the Holocaust happened or not - you will believe, against all arguments to the contrary, whichever side of this coin you want. For that reason, it is pointless to even "consider" or "debate" it. You will only ossify your own position.

  Instead, do as Professor Dossa has done - question your actual reaction. Question the rhetoric that has sprung up around the issue. Question speech, understanding, politics, religion, hatred, and manipulation. Look at the issue, and, more importantly, look and understand people's reactions to it. Look at the historical and political repercussions of the Holocaust.

  In this way, perhaps, you can actually begin to be intellectuals and academics, not merely animals reacting instinctively to a foreign animal.

• To Mr. Cardenas
• Posted by Mary on December 14, 2006 at 2:00pm EST

• Professors who teach in higher education would NEVER, let me repeat, NEVER make it one week if they had to work in the "real world" outside of academics. Just my opinion, which I am entitled. I think many non-faculty people who have to deal with faculty on a day to day basis, would agree.

• Free Speech vs. Academic Standards
• Posted by Prof. Weller on December 14, 2006 at 2:06pm EST

• Most people accept the principle of free speech. We all have the right to think and say what we please. This right is only limited by whether or not what you do is detrimental to another's rights.

  However, does the discussion simply end there? Especially as it concerns university professors? Unfortunately for many, it seems you have bought the idea that academic freedom and freedom of speech trump scholastic integrity and academic honesty.

  Yes, professors are afforded the same right to freedom of speech and ideas that we all enjoy. Yet this right does not exist in a vacuum. Professors have a job. They are charged with one of the most impirtnat roles in our society. Numerous roles in fact. Education of future leaders, counsel to federal and state leaders, production of actionable research, etc. Do we not have expectations of them in this capacity?

  We cannot simply presume that because one has been hired as a professor, that he or she necessarily deserves that title. When a professor utters some completely ridiculous statement, or attends a clearly anti-intellectual and bigoted "conference," do we simply presume that we must not understand something that the esteemed professor does? Must we automaticallty give the benefit of the doubt that they are exploring a potentially valuable path towards greater enlightenment?

  Certainly, there is great need to protect faculty from truely political attacks on their scholarship. But there also exists a need to protect the rest of us from some faculty members' bad scholarship. Currently there is little or nothing that ensures that a professor who teaches nonsense will be called to task for such abuse of rank.

  Free speech on campus has become a one way street. Professors, and the "right" students, are protected to spout whatever their minds come up with, however asinine it may be. Yet if you utter one word of criticism from outside the ivory towers, you will be accused of McCarthyism silencing free speech and chilling academic freedom. Is that a free exchange of ideas?

  And in light of actions such as those of the professor who presented a paper at the Iranian "conference," are we not required to begin to reject the status quo on the relationship between the professoriate and the public?

  I mean seriously, forget whether you disagree with the prof's general thesis on the abuse of holocaust imagery. If he thought, even for a moment, that this conference was not going to feature anti-Semitism as the driving force behind it, then this person has no business teaching others how, or innapropriately but common, what to think.

  Either the guy didn't care enough to pay attention, which is itself a deriliction of duties, or he knew exactly what was going on and chose to attend anyway. I happen to strongly believe in the latter of the two circumstances. It is hard for mew to believe that the Holocaust cartoon competition Iran sponsored a number of months ago simply flew under the prof's radar. This is his area of interest, if not expertise. He attended to conference to report on how the Holocaust is portrayed and he didn't know the conference would be problematic!

  I, personally, find it nearly impossible to believe that this professor is being honest in his protestations of innocence. It just seems implausible. But then again, perhaps I am suffering from the same problem I outlined. I am giving him too much credit when I should accept that, sad as it is, I shouldn't be all that surprised if such willful blindness exists among the faculty.

• reply to Mary and Prof. Weller
• Posted by Larry on December 14, 2006 at 4:00pm EST

• Mary, I realize that it is hip to say that professors couldn’t make it in the real world, but consider this:

  1) Academe is the “real world.” People have jobs, and are expected to “produce.” Like people in other industries, their amount of production is a often a question of self-promotion and social skills. Perhaps it is not the “real world” of people world of people working at Walmart, or Sacha Baron Cohen, it is as real as anything else. Moreover, since most people that matter have some connection to academe, it seems to be quite a valued part of the “real world.”

  2) In my experience, academics can make it outside academe, but likely in fields that require a high degree of competence in one area. Indeed, in many fields there is a high degree of cross-over between academics and practitioners (e.g. economics, law, medicine, physics, etc.).

  Prof. Weller, I agree with most of what you said. But, I do need to take issue with one statement You said, “Yet if you utter one word of criticism from outside the ivory towers, you will be accused of McCarthyism silencing free speech and chilling academic freedom. Is that a free exchange of ideas?” I think it is. Accusing people of McCarthyism is definitely an idea. McCarthyism is a shorthand for a body of discredited (or unpopular) political thought. To draw an analogy between someone’s behavior and that thought is pretty much as valid an exchange of ideas as it gets. Otherwise, I agree: this guy was being disingenuous. Moreover, since the conference wasn’t really about people exchanging ideas, but was represented the political viewpoint of the government of Iran, I can’t take him too seriously.

• Professor Relke: No Subject Should Be Barred
• Posted by Janet Rose on December 14, 2006 at 4:55pm EST

• Dear Professor Relke: I agree with you that more points of view should be expressed. Then don't you agree that arguments such as women's lack of mathematics ability should be encouraged in universities? Or do you believing in suppressing the politically incorrect views with which you disagree, and encouraging the anti-Semitism with which you do agree?

• let them talk
• Posted by Larry on December 14, 2006 at 5:10pm EST

• Ms. Rose, Count me as one who doesn’t mind if people proclaim that women can’t handle the math. If they can construct an intellectually coherent, yet sexist argument, they can, and should do so.

• That Reminds Me
• Posted by RWH on December 14, 2006 at 5:45pm EST

• Some years ago I presented a paper titled, “Six-sigma Quality: A Logically Indefensible, Practically Unimportant Quality Improvement Strategy” at a at a meeting in Dearborn, Michigan devoted to the quality of American automobiles. Of course, the dozens of other speakers on the program were extolling the virtues of strategies like Six-sigma and Taguchi Methods, and promising that implementation of their procedures would assure the preeminence of the American automobile industry.

  So what’s the connection? Well, I don’t mean to excuse these nuts who claim there was no Holocaust, but there are lots of really weird academics out there delivering papers at meetings devoted to topics that are almost equally out of touch with reality.

  You’ll have to excuse me ... I’m off to watch Dr. Wayne Dyer ... and then after that is my favorite program, Dr. Phil of course.

• To Larry
• Posted by Mary on December 15, 2006 at 12:16pm EST

• You make me yawn...

  "People that matter..."? Come on, get real!! You are obviously one of those people who thinks you're better than others. News Flash: You're not! End of comments from me.

• Round Two
• Posted by RWH on December 15, 2006 at 2:35pm EST

• It looks to me like this discussion is over, so let me get in on the tag-team match between Larry and Mary.

  First, I agree with Larry that “Academe IS the real world.”

  Second, I agree with Mary that there is something a bit odd about academicians that would make it more than a little difficult for most – emphasis on “most” -- of them to succeed in that part of the “real world” that is not academe. I’ll explain.

  No doubt Larry and Mary have heard of the famous “RWH Theory of Why Some (Most) Choose Academic Careers.” It essentially draws a parallel between why Army colonels choose the Army as a career and why young assistant professors opt for academe; to wit ...

  STEP 1. At some stage of the game – grade school, junior high, high school, somewhere – I find that I have an aptitude for succeeding in school (not to be confused with either having a great mind or having an interest in studying matters of significant importance).

  STEP 2. I go to college ... not necessarily because I was “successful” at Step 1, but because EVERYONE goes to college. Oh, wow, for a reason I may or may not understand, I do fairly well in college.

  STEP 3. I graduate from college. Ouch! I’m confronted with a difficult choice. I guess I can go out into the hard, cruel world or I can – because I’ve got a feel for this sort of thing and it’s pretty easy for me – go to graduate school.

  [Note: Some go on to professional schools and, although there’s a fork in my theoretical development here, take my word for the fact that the theory still “works” for those who take that route. Of course, only a very few go to graduate school to get master’s degrees. Master’s degrees are consolation prizes for those who are not up to “accomplishing” what is required to get a Ph.D. Those with master’s degrees go on to be high school teachers (and coaches, counselors, and assistant principals). Those with master’s degrees in philosophy become taxi drivers.]

  STEP 4. I get a Ph.D. Ouch! I’m confronted with another difficult choice. I guess I can go out into the hard, cruel world or I can – because I’ve got a feel for this sort of thing and it’s pretty easy for me and because I was required to do some teaching/research as a graduate student – become a professor.

  I know I won’t make much money – teachers are notoriously “underpaid” – but society at large has these wonderful misconceptions about us selfless professors who eschew the financial rewards of our educations to devote our lives to their children. They also have the mistaken notion that educated people – and we’re all educated aren’t we? (that’s the easy part) – are also intellectuals and scholars. So I won’t tell if you won’t.

  STEP 5. I become a college or university professor ... and please call me RWH, Ph.D. Blaaauuugh!!!

  The End

  Unfortunately, I don’t know whether I’m on Mary’s side of this argument ... or Larry’s. So why don’t we all hug and make up ... and co-write a paper titled, “The One Hundred Hoaxes of the Bush Presidency.” Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

• I'm not suprised.
• Posted by Ed McFred at St. Francis Xavier University on December 15, 2006 at 2:55pm EST

• As as senior student of St. FX, I am not suprised. This university seems to welcome crazy ideas and people with open arms. I cannot begin to describe how much racism, sexism, homophobia and any other 'ism' you can imagine exists on this campus.

  While academic freedom is important, I find the actions of Dr. Dossa deplorable and sickening.

  This is NOT the #1 undergrad university people make it out to be.

• Re. Diana Relke's comments:
• Posted by Kathleen Prendergast at M.A., University of Saskatchewan 2001 on December 21, 2006 at 10:45pm EST

• Exactly how would Prof. Shiraz's presence at the Iranian conference help to dilute the anti-Semitism that was no doubt there in abundance? Shiraz makes it fairly clear in his comments that he is hardly in a position to stand against anti-Semitism, obsessed as he is with the idea that the Jews abuse the legacy of the Holocaust for their own ends and that the war on terror is a "war on Islam", which is complete and utter rot. But then, we should hardly be surprised that someone with these views is teaching at a Canadian university; most Canadian universities have long been enthusiastic welcomers of all and sundry forms of ultra-leftist, anti-Zionist (which translates as anti-Israel, and thus, unavoidably, anti-Jew), anti-American, and anti-capitalist extremism, not to mention knee-jerk pacifism, and the extremists' views are rarely challenged. Heavily influenced by radical leftist demigods like neo-Nazi apologist Noam Chomsky, they make a comfy living and enjoy considerable respect and prestige living and working in cultures they claim to detest, enjoying complete freedom of speech while trashing liberal Western democracies as fascist and totalitarian. No-one (least of all their worshipping students) dares to call them on their hypocrisy. Prof. Shiraz is just one of many. Some say he'll be fired, but don't hold your breath. I don't personally believe he should be fired, just exposed, and all those like him. It's time for people other than rabid right-wingers to start facing up to reality and to start addressing the propaganda passing for "education" that is being disseminated at our universities.