Search News


Browse Archives

News

Finkelstein and DePaul Settle

September 6, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Wednesday was supposed to be the day of the big showdown at DePaul University. Instead it turned out to be the day of the big compromise. DePaul and Norman Finkelstein, the professor to whom it had denied tenure, announced that he was resigning immediately. The university and Finkelstein even managed to say some nice things about one another. But while Finkelstein will be leaving, some at the university and elsewhere believe that significant academic freedom issues raised by his case are very much alive.

The statements issued by the university and Finkelstein did not contain details of their agreement and they reiterated some of the main arguments in the dispute: Finkelstein's view that outside groups had inappropriate influence in the process and the university's insistence that the tenure denial was fair.

In his remarks, Finkelstein blamed the outcome on "external pressures climaxing in a national hysteria that tainted the tenure process." But he went on to note ways in which DePaul had backed him up.

"Although DePaul's decision to deny me tenure was a bitter blow, I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I did not also acknowledge DePaul's honorable role of providing a scholarly haven for me the past six years. It is a fact, and I would want to acknowledge it, that the DePaul administration kept me on its faculty despite overwhelming external pressures. It is also a fact that my professional colleagues displayed rare rectitude in steadfastly supporting me. It is also a fact that DePaul students rose to dazzling spiritual heights in my defense that should be the envy of and an example for every university in the United States. I will miss them."

In the university's statement, it said that the tenure review was based on appropriate criteria. "Professor Finkelstein has expressed the view that he should have been granted tenure and that third parties external to the University influenced DePaul in denying tenure. That is not so. Over the past several months, there has been considerable outside interest about the tenure decision. This attention was unwelcome and inappropriate. In the end, however, it had absolutely no impact on either the process or the final outcome," the statement said. But DePaul also praised Finkelstein as "a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."

Finkelstein had been hinting of his intent to sue DePaul, and on Wednesday he had been planning to return to the office from which he had been barred after he was placed on administrative leave. In fact he announced the settlement to students who had gathered to support him, many of them wearing T-shirts that read "We are all Professor Finkelstein."

The furor over Finkelstein has been building for several years. A political scientist, he is known for his books that offer harsh critiques of Israel and its supporters. He has argued that Israel uses the Holocaust to build support for policies that are immoral. And he has engaged in public feuds with the likes of Alan Dershowitz, trading charges and countercharges with him.

While Finkelstein has long been controversial off the DePaul campus, he was popular with his students and even his critics at the university acknowledged that he was an excellent teacher. The case is also frequently portrayed as one in which Finkelstein (a leftist critic of Israel) is allied against conservative supporters of Israel, but it's not so neat. Some academics who strongly disagree with Finkelstein's views have said his academic freedom was violated in the tenure review, and some academics who share Finkelstein's politics have questioned his scholarship.

In the tenure case, Finkelstein took the first two rounds, winning the backing of his department and a collegewide committee, but he started to hit roadblocks when his case went to the dean, a universitywide panel and eventually the president. As votes started to go against Finkelstein, a key factor was statements that his scholarly style conflicted with the Roman Catholic university's Vincentian values. In his letter denying Finkelstein tenure, Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, DePaul's president, said: "I have considered the fact that reviewers at all levels, both for and against tenure, commented upon your ad hominem attacks on scholars with whom you disagree. In the opinion of those opposing tenure, your unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration. As such, they believe your work not only shifts toward advocacy and away from scholarship, but also fails to meet the most basic standards governing scholarship discourse within the academic community.”

Comments like those raised red flags to many advocates for academic freedom. The American Association of University Professors and others have warned that when tenure evaluations start talking about the impact of a scholar on people's feelings or about how collegial (or not) they are, attention is being diverted from the teaching and research issues that should be central. These groups have also warned that such critiques are frequently used against scholars whose views are unpopular -- precisely those academic freedom should protect. When DePaul suspended Finkelstein's courses and took away his office last month, further alarms went off, since the norm in academe is for professors denied tenure to have a "terminal year" in which they teach and maintain their academic lives, while looking for a new position.

For Finkelstein, that process is now expedited, and it's unclear where he will end up. In the blog College Freedom, he is quoted as saying that "my prospects in academia are dim," because colleges saw what DePaul experienced and "nobody wants to go through this hysteria."

Daniel Klimek, a rising senior in political science and one of the students recently informed by the university that Finkelstein’s course “Equality and Social Justice” was among those called off, said he had mixed feelings about Wednesday's developments. "We are disappointed that Professor Finkelstein has resigned. Many students will miss him." At the same time, Klimek said he thought Finkelstein had won a key victory in the university's praise for him as a teacher. "I think he left with his head held high," Klimek said.

It was also the case, however, that Finkelstein had until the very last been vowing to fight on indefinitely. His Web site still proclaimed, as of last night, "I will return to my office. I will teach my classes."

Dershowitz did not respond to an e-mail seeking his comment on the agreement.

Jonathan Knight, who handles academic freedom issues for the AAUP, which has been monitoring the case, said that in terms of Finkelstein's situation, "when a faculty member reaches an agreement with the institution, that brings the matter to an end." He added that the AAUP "will not second guess" a professor who does so.

At the same time, he said that he continued to have concerns over a number of aspects in the case, including the lack of an appeal process after the tenure denial and the administrative leave Finkelstein received without a hearing. "Open and fair procedures for questioning controversial decisions are important," he said.

One irony of the Finkelstein controversy is that DePaul's faculty actually has been working to revise its faculty handbook, including tenure procedures, and was doing so prior to this particular tenure case. "It is really unfortunate that DePaul came to the public eye in this way, but I think that the issues that were raised are extremely valuable and valid and going to be considered," said Anne Clark Bartlett, a professor of English and president of the Faculty Council at DePaul.

The council meets next week for the first time this academic year, and Bartlett said she expected a key topic of discussion to be how to proceed in light of the events of the last few months. "I hope we can turn it to the benefit of the faculty and the benefit of the continuing integrity of our tenure and promotion and peer review process," she said.

The Finkelstein case, to her, pointed to the need for clarity on the right to appeal tenure decisions, the importance of due process, and the need to insulate tenure reviews from political pressure. "There is a larger political context" for the debate over Finkelstein, she said, "and we would be remiss if we didn't examine that larger context."

Another issue of concern, she said, was the question of Vincentian values and how they play into tenure and promotion decisions. In theory, she said, DePaul's current faculty guidelines place the emphasis on teaching, research and service, and "a huge issue" for her is keeping such a focus in tenure reviews, especially when looking at controversial figures.

"Vincentian values cannot be used as code for being a nice person," she said. Being a nice person shouldn't be what earns a scholar tenure. For all kinds of reasons, she said, it just doesn't make sense to compare professors and saints. "As a medievalist, I can tell you that saints are almost always a pain in the butt," she quipped. "Saints are never easy to get along with."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Finkelstein and DePaul Settle

  • It was time for Norman to leave DePaul
  • Posted by Allyson Rowen Taylor on September 6, 2007 at 8:00am EDT
  • The mass hysteria about the denial of Prof. Finkelsteins tenure was reaching the stages of the absurd. With about 120 supporters some with oxygen tanks, and marxist t shirts, Norman finally did what he had not done in years...took the higher moral road, and left. I don't care what DePaul said about his academic prowess, I am sure lawyers had duked out the process to save face for all the players in the pathetic bickering. I am glad that this is now a chapter being put to a close, and hopefully, we will not have to deal with the antics of this professor creating hate and incitement on the campus for a long time.

  • Unfortunate that DePaul statement Lies
  • Posted by sagi on September 6, 2007 at 8:05am EDT
  • The DePaul brass claim in their parting statement that Finkelstein is a "prolific scholar". He is not. He is no scholar at all. He is a prolific (meaning wordy) anti-Semitic propagandist. So are Ward Churchill and Arthur Butz but no one would consier their output "scholarship." DePaul also writes that Finkelstein is an "outstanding teacher." He is not. He is simply popular among the campus student jihadniks and extremists who approve of Finkelstein's political agenda.

  • Vincentian Values and Tenure
  • Posted by Bob on September 6, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • "As votes started to go against Finkelstein, a key factor was statements that his scholarly style conflicted with the Roman Catholic university’s Vincentian values."

    Do these values include support for Israeli politics?

    Not only the US government, academic institutions in the US also appear to be heavily influenced by pro-Israeli lobbyists. Punishing scholars through tenure denials for expressing unpopular views should be unacceptable in a free nation, even when the institution where they teach happens to be Catholic and Vincentian.

  • Posted by Sheldon Green on September 6, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • It is a sad day for academic freedom in America when a professor is terminated for stating conclusions based on his research.

    This debacle only confirms the Professor's statements, and it is testimony to how powerful the combined Israeli lobby is (even on our campuses). It is a credit to this political movement's ability to distort and deceive the American public on the issues of the Middle East.

    America should support compromise and peace in the Middle East. It should unite with those in Israel who seek this, and not, as the Israeli lobby would have us do, support Israeli terror and aggression against its neighbors.

    Thank you,

    Sheldon Green

  • Future in Academe
  • Posted by Saxo on September 6, 2007 at 10:15am EDT
  • If Finkelstein is worried about having a future in academe, he should consider moving to Britain to join the UCU and its boycott against Israelis.

  • PR rules everything around us
  • Posted by Hugo First on September 6, 2007 at 11:50am EDT
  • advertising and PR have a unique role in american society, so whomever is most successful in getting out a particular message usually defines national attitudes. israel, for example, has done a great job selling itself -- no one of stature in public life can criticize the israeli regime without destroying him/herself. a big selling job is underway on iraq and iran, which we will see played out in the coming weeks where debate will be extremely circumscribed. there is almost nothing of importance that can be discussed rationally, on the merits -- everything is an ad campaign.

  • Finkelstein? Research? Scholarship? Don't make us laugh!
  • Posted by Richard on September 6, 2007 at 1:20pm EDT
  • Finkelstein is a foul-mouthed, juvenile, hate spouter pretending to be an academic. He has never published a single paper in an academic journal, and his "books," published like so much other bigotry because of their commercial potential to the publisher, are large collections of smears and lies.
    DePaul did right by firing the guy who worships David Irving and Ernst Zundel! No doubt Fink's apologists also consider David Irving a great scholar who is a victim of a hate campaign.

  • Persecuting academics
  • Posted by Diana , Professor on September 6, 2007 at 1:35pm EDT
  • Since 9/11, every time I encounter information about yet another persecuted American academic, I step up the political content in my courses. I included the Finkelstein vs. Israel lobby episode in the introductory remarks to my Honours seminar yesterday -- a seminar on "Whiteness" which, in part, looks at the process by which the "black" Jews of Europe became "white" Zionists. Since the election of neoconservative Stephen Harper, Canada has its very own Israel lobby, so I don't expect to be allowed to get away with this seminar for much longer. But I would just like outspoken American academics to know that your courage does not go unnoticed and uncelebrated in classrooms up here in Canada. I will continue to honour you for as long as I can.

  • Posted by hj on September 6, 2007 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I find this gentleman's principles somewhat amusing and confusing. After he and his former employers said semi-flattering things about each other he rides off into the sunset with whatever settlement his legal representation negoiated for him. What happend to his claims of his academic freedoms being trampled upon, and "I wiil teach"? And there is the "I will occupy my office and if arrested I will go on a hunger strike"?

    Isn't it amazing what a few well-placed dollars will do to one's principles.

  • Passive or Active?
  • Posted by Jon L. Albee , Graduate Student at Rice University on September 6, 2007 at 3:25pm EDT
  • All of post-colonial studies boil down to this: Are human beings passive (and lazy), reacting to external stimuli, or are they active (and aggressive), pursuing self interest? Post-colonial, multi-cultural, and otherwise postmodern studies believe the former, namely, that every human has the "right" to be lazy, reactive and close to his or her "comfort zone." I believe human beings are active and not dependent on external stimuli for motivation, and should sometimes feel the pain of social change. So, as Israel is clearly the "aggressor" in this debate, can we blame them for being proactive? Is "Pax" really such a good thing and, more importantly, do all civilizations strive to reach it?

    So, in the present debate, who benefits? Pax, pax, pax...

    It's not the answer.

  • professional courtesy and academe
  • Posted by clare spark , Independent scholar on September 6, 2007 at 3:55pm EDT
  • Since so many of the posters here are commenting upon the scholarship or the lack thereof of Norman Finkelstein, I feel impelled to ask: what is your normal response to heavily polarized situations as this one has evoked?
    Some years ago, noting the polarization of opinion regarding the legitimacy of Israel, I researched both primary and secondary sources on the history of the region, particularly the diplomatic history before and after the founding of the Jewish state. I thought it was my duty as both a citizen and as a person of Jewish ancestry. So I am not entering the fray here as a partisan (although I note the existence of a left-wing "line" on the matter, that few 'progressives' dare to transgress or question), but simply to ask what possible positive social function academics or intellectuals in general perform when they neglect to take responsibility for investigating such conflicts themselves? Are they not sheep and opportunists, mouthing any fashionable line that will get them published?

  • Norman Took the money, and ran
  • Posted by Allyson Rowen Taylor on September 6, 2007 at 3:55pm EDT
  • Norman and his hunger strike, his "occupation" of his office, all managed to go away with a few dollars, a handshake and a statement about what a fine scholar he is. So much for his big stance on academic freedom. He was free to speak his mind, he managed to spend half of his time going from Muslim Student Union "Holocaust in the Holyland" weeks from UC Irvine, to Berkeley. He managed to make his two hundred bucks a speech,and was able to spread his lies everywhere. No one silenced him, he just did not get tenure. Where is the screaming on the pro Israel professor from UCLA who was denied tenure because she supported Israel? The silence is deafening.

  • Posted by Manny on September 6, 2007 at 4:45pm EDT
  • One thing I like about this controversy the last few weeks is the way it brings out - in the comments sections - the anti-Semitic, Jew-hating, Israel-despising rock spiders out there. Those who decry an (often-unnamed) "powerful lobby" and "money interests", who "question the loyalties of this (unnamed) group". Then they scurry back under their rocks unable to stand the light of day and public scrutiny of their views. It is truly wonderful to see.

    And, as for "It is a sad day for academic freedom in America when a professor is terminated for stating conclusions based on his research", doesn't the "research" count, or only the conclusions based on that research? I suppose if I were to conduct "research" from which I could conclude (in a correct manner based on my "research") that there never was slavery in America, or that women were never denied any rights, this would be okay and I should get tenre? Huh! Don't make me laugh. The entire package, so-called "research", the sources for that "research", and the conclusions I draw from that "research" - ALL of it - are fair game and should be examined.

    Finally, why is it that Finkelstein's research, great stuff as many readers and students think, will not (by his own admission) get him another job? Is it that EVERY university in the US is under some sinister Jewish/Israel/money lobby? Again, this may be humor for the Daily Show but it loses its funniness after a while. When he gets a job at a high-end research institution, based on his glorious past research, I will apologize and admit I am wrong but until then, his great work is less clothing than would fit an emperor without any.

  • Oh, yeah ..
  • Posted by Buzz on September 6, 2007 at 9:05pm EDT
  • " .. But I would just like outspoken American academics to know that your courage .."

    .. is 80%-funded by U.S. taxpayers -- 99% of whom would like them to just do their jobs.

    Or have the internal integrity to quit, so better-qualified replacements could be found in the next 10 minutes.

    Courage is getting off the public dime and financing your beliefs with your own money. Not Jane Six-pack's.

  • Posted by Dana on September 6, 2007 at 10:30pm EDT
  • Interesting that Dershowitz never sued Finkelstein's publisher as he threatened. That would have been the best way to discredit him assuming he could have made a good case. The assumption is probably telling about why he didn't.

    The assumption became very tenuous when Finkelstein and Dershowitz faced off in a "debate" on Democracy Now regarding the claims in Dershowitz's book. The lawyer lacked convincing arguments in his own defense.

    So Dershowitz makes the case that Finkelstein shouldn't get tenure and the Pro-Israeli lobby, both lay and professional, support the effort. And a university belonging to a church which now bends over backwards to live down its appalling history of Antisemitism denies Finkelstein tenure and suspends his classes during his terminal year, not because of his scholarship, but because of his "style."

    There really is no ambiguity about what happened here.

  • Posted by Richard on September 7, 2007 at 5:55am EDT
  • Norman Finkelstein IS an undoubted scholar, and internationally recognised as such, despite Alan Dershowitz's mealy-mouthed campaign against him (and the comments of others above, the usual nonsense, blind to the truth of the oppression of the Palestinian people - always the most profound irony in the story of Israel). Visit Finkelstein's website and you will read a torrent of praise from around the world (not least his from his own students) - visit Dershowitz's website and the contrast is marked. DePaul University has wrecked (yes, wrecked) its academic reputation through its shameful handling of this matter - and Harvard looks little better, for its unwillingness to rein in Dershowitz's hateful antics . Norman Finkelstein can indeed leave with his head held high - while his opponents remain in their anti-intellectual gutter.

  • Interestingly,
  • Posted by Dani , Grad student at BSU on September 8, 2007 at 6:40am EDT
  • a 30-second search in EBSCOHost's Academic Search Premier brought up 31 articles by Norman Finkelstein, 19 of which are registered to academic journals. While as yet I don't feel qualified to give a truly informed opinion, just watching this debate from the sidelines makes me wonder what other of the above statements about his supposed lack of scholarship or publishing credentials will prove to be untrue. Comments that accuse "anti-Semitic, Jew-hating, Israel-despising rock spiders" of spewing polemic before they crawl back under the rocks they came from--also not so convincing. I have yet to see a substantive critique of Finkelstein's work, rather than merely an emotionally charged defense of Israel mixed with ad hominem attacks not only against Finkelstein, but against anyone who supports him.

    All which does not bode well, it would seem, for academic freedom in America.

  • re Finkelstein articles
  • Posted by ph on September 8, 2007 at 6:35pm EDT
  • You might check again. If you used his name without his middle initial, you might have also gotten srticles written by Norman H., whose focus is quite different from Norman G. I checked with EBSCO Master Premier and found 20 articles, most of which were letters to the editor or book reviews, and 6 of which were Norman H. His last peer reviewed article was in the Journal of Palestine Studies this year, and was a rebuttal of Dennis Ross's "The Missing Peace."

  • The house of the jackals
  • Posted by Bryan on September 11, 2007 at 4:00am EDT
  • Every last argument against Dr. Finkelstein's stature as a scholar is so patently spurious and politically motivated. His unforgivable sin has been to speak the truth while refusing to apologize for it.

    Academic independence has been exposed as a cruel myth. There truly is no refuge in the house of the jackals.

  • Norm Finklestein
  • Posted by refresca on September 11, 2007 at 2:04pm EDT
  • It's worth noting on this September 11th anniversary that the radical Islamic agenda is world domination, world-Islam, and, until that is achieved, Islam is in a self-proclaimed war against the West. When Muslims get in power, the reality is the state becomes Islamic and freedoms are repressed, moreso in some Islamic countries than in others. No freedom of religion. No freedom of speech, press, appalling lack of rights for women,etc. Non-Muslims are treated as 2d class citizens. dhimmis. (eg. I experienced this first-hand: I was summarily kicked off a plane in Saudi Arabia where I was already seat-belted in, with a paid, first-class ticket. Why? Because a Muslim had arrived who wanted my seat. As a non-Muslim dhimmi, I had NO RIGHTS against a Muslim and was forced to exit the plane, with no recourse.) Wherever we see armed conflict on this Earth, it's invariably Muslim-inspired fighting, Muslim fighters seeking more land, power and control.Be-it Darfur, Chechnya, the Phillipines, Timor, Moscow, Madrid, London, New York, or Israel. Finklestein was pathologically incapable of presenting the Israel-Palestinian conflict in this larger context and that was his fatal flaw. He did not, could not, would not present the truth that Muslim Arabs want Muslim-domination in the land of Israel, because they feel they the Middle East is all theirs. They already conquered that part of the planet. Having a Jewish, Democratic state in their midst is the proverbial "thorn in their side" It is unacceptable. The fact that Jews are indiginous to the Middle East is irrelevant to the Arabs, as is the fact that the Jewish Zionists bought, plot by plot, 85% of Israel from absentee Arab landowners, at exorbitant prices, and the rest was state owned. It is a myth that land was "taken" from Arabs for the formation of Israel. Finklestein never pointed that out. He never pointed out that 100% of the nations in the United Nations voted to create the Jewish state of Israel, and that Israel began as "a land without a people for a people without a land." Finklestein was simply too emotionally invested in an anti-Israel agenda to present ANY facts which might tend to legitimize Israel's existence and policies. Students in his classes would emerge with a distorted, biased and negative sense of Israel's legitimacy. Beyond that, Finklestein was so emotionally invested in anti-Israel venom, (probably stemming from some deep-seated psychological problem with his parents, Holocaust survivors) that he simply never presented the Israel-Palestinian conflict as part of the overall Islam v. the West conflict...i.e. the Clash of Civilizations. He was dishonest academically and for that reason he was denied tenure. Bravo to DePaul for not giving tenure to an emotional zealot who was incapable of anything approaching objectivity on his subject matter.

  • "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Ex 22:18
  • Posted by rider on September 16, 2007 at 4:55am EDT
  • We have been treated to the spectacle of an American university allowing its tenure process to be turned into a witchhunt. In a witchhunt the accused can never prove her/his innocence. And the accuser has only to raise suspicion, from which there is no escape. Malicious slander is accepted as evidence and counts for truth. The court dares not acquit one so accused lest it bring the accusation of condoning witchery on its own head. Finkelstein has evaded the stake. But the taint remains on him...and on DePaul.

  • Posted by Anton van der Merwe , Professor at University of Oxford on September 21, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • This episode is a sorry example of the limits to academic freedom in America. The message is clear. Criticism of Israel will damage your career.

  • what is damaging to your career?
  • Posted by ph on September 23, 2007 at 11:35am EDT
  • The last comment speaks of considerable ignorance. Go look up the case of Thomas Klocek before you make such ridiculous charges. Klocek dared to anger some Arab students by arguing with them that Israel was not a Nazi state. For his trouble he got sacked by De Paul Unversity. A professor such as yourself should know the elementary facts before he starts blowing hot air.

  • academic freedom
  • Posted by Robert M Kraus Sr on September 26, 2007 at 7:25pm EDT
  • Shall the rudeness displayed by Mr Bollinger of Columbia University be categorized and condoned under the heading of academic freedom? Bollinger is no gentleman, and he is not worthy to be a university president.

    Robert M Kraus Sr
    Akron Ohio

  • "Criticism of Israel will damage your career"...
  • Posted by rider on September 29, 2007 at 1:15pm EDT
  • ...to which ph responded:

    "The last comment speaks of considerable ignorance....A professor such as yourself should know the elementary facts before he starts blowing hot air."

    The professor gives his real name, provides his title and institution (in Britain), which is more than you or I have dared, ph. Are we afraid of something?

    QED: "This episode is a sorry example of the limits to academic freedom in America."

  • The logical falacy of Argumentum ad Hominem
  • Posted by Timothy Ray on April 17, 2008 at 5:05am EDT
  • A Catholic university has a responsibility to apply classical concepts in a precise manner. The opprobium which attaches to ad hominem arguments is, classically, in regard to the attempt to defeat an opponent's argument by insulting the opponent personally. That is precisely NOT what Norman Finkelstein was doing when he nailed Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz for plagerism. What Finkelstein did was cite precisely the academic offense that Dershowitz had committed, which has always been a capital offense in academia. Real scholars stand with brave truth tellers; they do not knife them in the back. When the president of DePaul denied Finkelstein tenure on the ground that his argument had been ad hominum, he is violating his duty to be precise when using classical concepts. Unlike many in high administrative posts, Finkelstein has not spent a career becoming a mealy mouth jelly spine. His academic and personal life are examples of moral courage and intellectual integrity. What a pity that those virtues are not catching.