Search News


Browse Archives

News

Will Khalidi Displace Ayers as McCain's Favorite Prof?

October 30, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For a while, it seemed as if no professor could get more attention from the McCain campaign than William Ayers, the Weather Underground leader who became an education scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago and whose brief associations with Sen. Barack Obama have been repeatedly discussed by Republicans this fall. But with the campaign winding down, it may be that Ayers has been replaced by Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University.

Prior to joining Columbia's faculty, Khalidi taught at the University of Chicago -- at the same time Obama taught there. Their children attended the same school. Khalidi helped raised some funds for Obama's early campaigns. The two faculty colleagues and their wives apparently dined out together, and Obama spoke at a farewell party for Khalidi.

While Khalidi has no role at all in the Obama campaign, he was the focus of attention Tuesday and Wednesday from both Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin. McCain demanded that the Los Angeles Times release a video it obtained of Khalidi's farewell party at the University of Chicago. McCain accused the Los Angeles paper of "intentionally suppressing" the videotape, even though it was a Times article that revealed its existence. (The newspaper said it obtained the tape on the condition that it not be released, and the newspaper is honoring its agreement.)

Then Wednesday, Palin focused on Khalidi in a speech in Ohio. "It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said. "This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi ... in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization." A CNN "Fact Check" on the Palin speech declared it "misleading," noting that Khalidi has had minimal contact with Obama for years, that the two men disagree strongly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that Khalidi plans absolutely no role in the campaign, and there is considerable dispute over whether Khalidi ever worked for the PLO. (It is not disputed that Khalidi is a strong advocate for the Palestinian cause and a harsh critic of Israel.)

What does it mean that in the closing days of a presidential campaign, the Republican candidates are once again focusing on a "radical professor" over alleged ties to Obama? Does it matter that in addition to going after specific professors, the campaign has been mocking specific kinds of research, such as studies involving fruit flies? Does this raise concerns for academics, regardless of what they think about the campaign or the professors involved?

Some experts on academic freedom have been viewing the increasing use of professors by the GOP campaign with alarm. While anti-intellectualism is no stranger to American campaigns, the specific and repeated targeting of professors in such a prominent way is worrisome to them, and fallout is already taking place. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln called off a speech by Ayers, following demands to do so by many prominent politicians in the state, including the governor. (The university says that security issues required the event to be called off, but many professors and politicians in the state are dubious about that explanation.)

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he plans to raise the issue of these attacks on professors when the AAUP's academic freedom committee meets later this week. While "there is always a certain amount of insanity from all sides during a presidential election," he said he could not remember "such virulent" attacks directed at scholars in recent years.

"This fuels the notion that false claims about scholarship are an acceptable form of public discourse," said Nelson. And there is a connection between "these Republican castigations of two accomplished scholars" and efforts of politicians in recent years to intervene in tenure decisions. "You can plausibly start to worry about the impact of the notion that faculty can be evaluated on the basis of slander, innuendo and opportunistic claims," he said.

When the election is over, Nelson said, the AAUP would consider whether there are steps that can be taken to prevent such attacks in future races. Of course, he noted, the outcome of the election may itself have an impact. "Scandalous techniques that work are more of a problem than scandalous techniques that fail," he said.

Via e-mail, Khaladi said Wednesday night that he was "not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this nonsense has passed." He has long been criticized by some pro-Israel groups, such as Campus Watch. But an article on that group's Web site notes that Khalidi has repeatedly disputed the claim that he worked for the PLO. The article quotes him as writing of the period when he is alleged to have worked for the PLO: "I was teaching full time as an Assistant Professor in the Political Studies and Public Administration Dept. at the American University of Beirut, published two books and several articles, and also was a research fellow at the independent Institute for Palestine Studies.... I often spoke to journalists in Beirut, who usually cited me without attribution as a well-informed Palestinian source. If some misidentified me at the time, I am not aware of it."

Obama's campaign issued a statement that said: "Ugly insinuations about Barack Obama’s relationship with a former neighbor and university colleague, Rashid Khalidi, are completely false." While much of the statement details Obama's support for Israel, which conflicts with some of Khalidi's views, the Obama campaign also makes a point of calling Khalidi a "respected scholar," and defends the right to talk to people who hold views one doesn't endorse -- and not to then be accused of sharing those views. "Smears, insults, and innuendo about the nature of Barack’s relationship with Khalidi are completely unfounded. Guilt-by-association is always a questionable tactic."

One irony of the attack on Khalidi is that McCain himself has ties to him. As The Huffington Post noted, McCain led a Republican institute that in the 1990s sent several grants to a Palestinian research center founded by Khalidi. "Of course, there's seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain's organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi's ties to Obama," the blog said.

Zachary Lockman, a professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at New York University and a member of the Academic Freedom Committee of the Middle East Studies Association, also said he was troubled by the attacks. Khalidi is "a very distinguished scholar" who is both "passionate for the Palestinian cause" and "a moderate who talks to a wide range of people." To imply that he is a terrorist, Lockman said, attacks and distorts his ideas.

"This reflects a certain kind of anti-intellectualism rather than engaging with people and having a serious discussion, people are caricatured and reduced to labels and accused of being anti-American," he said. "It's dangerous. It's an assault on scholarly life and intellectual life and rational discussion."

For those with good academic jobs and/or tenure, such attacks aren't a personal disaster, Lockman said. But the attacks have an impact on hiring and tenure committees and send a message to those who don't yet have a secure position. "This affects younger scholars who are looking for jobs and who aren't tenured -- they see what can happen if you are singled out by politicians for your alleged views, even if it's part of your job to talk about your views," he said. "This tells people to shut up."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Will Khalidi Displace Ayers as McCain's Favorite Prof?

  • OVERDUE RECOGNITION
  • Posted by Maximilian Forte , Prof at Concordia University, Montreal on October 30, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • That is a much needed article Scott, it's great to see these issues being raised, and raised so clearly. The witch hunting has to stop, and it's an indictment of the shallow and primitive politics of the Republicans. Hopefully the door will slam hard on their ***es on the way out next week.

  • Posted by Perry on October 30, 2008 at 9:05am EDT
  • It would have been nice if this website had stayed off the Obama bandwagon and remained neutral during the election.

  • National or local, they all do it
  • Posted by Beyond being surprised on October 30, 2008 at 9:10am EDT
  • I remember a local race for a judgeship a few years back, and the Republican candidate accused the Democratic candidate of "standing up for criminals." What was left out was the fact that the Democrat was the local public defender! If memory serves, the Republican won. Never underestimate how low those low information voters can be persuaded to go.

  • Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander
  • Posted by Chuck on October 30, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • Lest there be any doubt that modern universities embrace double standards and a holier-than-thou attitude about themselves, one need only review the pious sniffling of Cary Nelson of the AAUP as reported here.

    Nelson says he cannot remember "such virulent" attacks on academics. Maybe that's because Nelson conveniently cannot remember such virulent attacks routinely launched ON politicians from the very same academics over the past eight years.

    Conjuring up ghosts and goblins as Halloween draws near, Nelson hilariously worries about "slander, innuendo and opportunistic claims" being used in faculty decisions.

    None of this is persuasive or convincing in the least. That's because the best example of the perfidy, cowardice and double standards that are rife in academia was the scandalous Duke lacrosse case a few years ago.

    In his review of the book by Taylor and Johnson on that case, *Until Proven Innocent,* Professor Michael Krauss of George Mason University called it "arguably the most flagrant educational travesty of justice of the post-World War II era."

    A solid core of the elite Duke faculty demonstrated once and for all how eager and willing they were to use slander, innuendo and opportunistic claims in a witch hunt against innocent students at their own university.

    Verily, what goes around, comes around.

  • Scapegoating attempts
  • Posted by P. Maloney on October 30, 2008 at 9:55am EDT
  • In her latest attack, Governor Palin did not even get the professor's name correct. This is another embarrassment for their campaign in terms of its assault on academics and academe.

    Last Friday, Governor Palin gave a "major policy address" in which she assaulted fruit-fly research as irrelevant, demonstrating a stunning lack of knowledge about scientific method.

    Yesterday, she sought to demonize a professor who has been supported by Senator McCain.

    The addition of Governor Palin to the ticket has injected a strain of anti-intellectualism that is pandering and chilling, cloaked in a "I'm just like you" story line.

    Governor Palin is the daughter of a schoolteacher, and claims that she grew up in a household where knowledge was valued.

    This latest silliness is another example of how their campaign's lacks depth in both intellect and rhetoric.

  • wave of stupid
  • Posted by Larry on October 30, 2008 at 9:55am EDT
  • Khalidi had a really funny quote the other day, but I can’t find it. Essentially, he said that he won’t be talking to the media until this “wave of stupid” (or some words like that) passes. And, he is right. This is a wave of stupid. On a week Obama will likely be the president-elect, and Khalidi will go back to worrying about departmental politics, parking, and scholarship like the rest of academe. If he is lucky he will get an invite to a party that Obama throws for 500 or so people where he can rub elbows with McCain who will likely also get an invite.

  • Presidential Politics
  • Posted by Jonathan Cohen , Professor of mathematics at DePaul University on October 30, 2008 at 9:55am EDT
  • The latest political controversy over Rashid Khalidi is about presidential politics. The LA Times has possession of a tape that if converted into a youtube and utilized on blogs and in campaign ads would probably shift votes from Obama to McCain.

    Jewish voters are among Obama's most ardent supporters. While the content of the tape, the farewell dinner for Professor Khalidi, has been widely reported for months, the spectacle of Obama warmly praising Khalidi in the midst of a series of denunciations of Israel is not likely to sit well with Jewish voters.

    The McCain campaign would like to have the video released on the weekend before the election when it would make the greatest impact. The Obama campaign would like to prevent that. That is politics!

    What I find troubling in this article is that Cary Nelson and other like minded faculty members interpret academic freedom to mean freedom from public criticism. And what is most shocking is the implications of Nelson's belief that something should be done to prevent criticism in the future. It is very strange to see the AAUP's most vocal advocate for academic freedom becoming the first amendment's most outspoken opponent.

    When academics enter the public square they move beyond the marketplace of ideas to the market place of policy. Professor Khalidi is a very outspoken critic of Israel and a public advocate for ending American support for the Jewish state. He should expect Israel's supporters to respond publicly. William Ayers, in addition to his violent past, is an advocate for certain public policies regarding education. In addition, he has been personally involved in the implementation of educational policy in the city of Chicago. Agree or disagree with Ayers, the public has a right to criticize his ideas, his activities and his past.

    It is frightening that so many of my colleagues in academic life think they have the right to suppress criticisms they don't like and what is ominous is that they intend to do something about it. We will all suffer if they succeed.

  • Inside Higher Campaigning
  • Posted by samuel on October 30, 2008 at 10:10am EDT
  • It would be nice for Inside Higher Ed to have higher ed news rather than being a campaign tool for one party.

    Have a happy day!

  • Posted by Richard Baker , Associate Professor at Kansas State University on October 30, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • Let me throw another log on the fire. May I suggest that anyone interested go to the FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) web site and read the article called 'Smearcasting,' FAIR's Islamophobia report. It is dated October 10th of this year. It is time to rein in the fear and hate mongers among us.

  • Academic Freedom
  • Posted by Wossamotta U. on October 30, 2008 at 10:50am EDT
  • I don't see where Nelson suggested that academic freedom protects faculty members and their research from criticism. Clearly, and thankfully, he does recognize the implications of anti-intellectualism for the future of academia. The public elects representatives, and if those representatives choose to set professors up as political opponents, then they will likely oppose funding measures for research in certain areas. One commenter, from the science community, just the other day articulated the importance of the embattled "fruit fly" science (as if fruit flies were of themselves the subject of interest). I would also argue that the importance of having--and listening to--a scholar of Palestinian issues is as critical to Middle East political understanding as that of a scholar of diaspora studies. Limiting knowledge on either side is dangerous. It places American, Israeli, and Palestinian lives at increased risk. Politicians may not like what Khalidi has to say, either professionally or privately, but the value of the work that he and his colleagues contribute is irrefutable. Apparently, even John McCain may have held this view back in the '90s. Disagree with scholarship. Argue against it. Don't you dare silence it.

    Academic freedom pertains to the right of academics to pursue knowledge. McCain and Palin have taken a position critical of this concept in this race. Academics of all creeds need to feel threatened.

  • McCarthy Endorses McCain
  • Posted by CaN on October 30, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • A Zionist Jew, I once had lunch with Khalidi. Does that make me self-hating?

    Seriously, is this not a declaration of bankruptcy by the McCain campaign? I mean, 5 days left to go, and the best you can do is try to discredit Obama by linking him to a respected (if controversial) full professor at Columbia?

  • From The Always Uncommitted, FM
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on October 30, 2008 at 1:10pm EDT
  • For Larry (the Khalidi quotation is at CNNPolitics.com) ...

    “Well, I don’t think I should have to defend myself. The charges themselves are scurrilous and the people who are making them are not very reputable themselves. I am somebody whose record and what I’ve written is well known. I’m somebody who thinks the United States has made some mistakes in the Middle East and that these are things that are not in the best interest of the United States or the American people.”

    “And the kind of people who would call critics of this or that policy unpatriotic or un-American, I think, are doing the United States and the people of the United States a terrible disservice.”

    “... I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html

    And for Chuck ...

    Have you seen that wonderful flick, Groundhog Day, with Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell? That is precisely how I imagine your life. Every morning you wake up at 7 a.m. and spend the next twenty-four hours reliving and dashing off notes about Ward Churchill and the geniuses at the University of Colorado who elevated him to national stardom and the Duke lacrosse team and the famous Group of 88. And so it goes, day after day after day.

    So I’m going to do you a great favor. Open the following URLs, and, in sequence, ponder the maps of the world, the U.S, North Carolina, and Durham. Spend at least five minutes studying each map ...

    http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/world.htm

    http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/usa.htm

    http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/lgcolor/nccolor.htm

    http://travel.nytimes.com/travel/guides/north-america/united-states/north-carolina/durham/maps.html

    I’m suggesting you’ve focused enough of your life’s work on that minuscule, fairly inconsequential plot of land upon which Duke University proudly stands. Don’t you agree? Ahhh ... the spell is broken. You can go home tomorrow.

    And when you get home, check this out ...

    http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-128440

  • The Bane of Frizbane
  • Posted by Chuck on October 30, 2008 at 1:40pm EDT
  • Any time I see the latest tendentious gibberish or endless URLs posted by Frizbane Manley, I expect absolutely nothing, yet I am still always disappointed.

    Whether the subject is freedom of expression, racial preferences, gender double-standards, politicization of the classroom, or the excesses of the brown-shirts of political correctness in the modern university, when there is nothing more to be said about a topic, no one says it better than Frizbane Manley.

  • Obama Khalidi
  • Posted by George T karnezis on October 30, 2008 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I appreciate this column. Alas, a McCain victory insures that this sort of intimidation will carry forward into the next four years. It is a sign of McCain's desperation, and the deperation of his party, that all they have to resort to now is fear and lies.

    Predictably, there will always be comments from subcretinous types who believe that this sort of thing during a campaign is all well and good, since both sides do it.

  • We're Idiots Babe, It's a Wonder We Can Even Feed Ourselves
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on October 31, 2008 at 5:00am EDT
  • Like Larry and Frizbane, I also noticed the quote from Khalidi, particularly his reference to the "idiot wind". Presumably, the professor borrowed that phrase from the Bob Dylan song of the same name, which appeared on Dylan's 1975 masterpiece album "Blood on the Tracks".

    So if we connect the dots...Obama knew Khalidi, who evidently likes Dylan. Dylan knew Joan Baez, who probably once spoke to Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam during the war and met with that country's leaders, and we all know what they did. This, of course, can only lead to one inescapable conclusion:

    BARACK OBAMA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TORTURE OF JOHN MCCAIN!!!!

    No doubt this revelation will become part of Sarah Palin's stump speech this weekend.

    (Hyperbole, you say? Well, it seems that one particularly unhinged, but widely read, right-wing blogger is now on record suggesting that Barack Obama's real father was Malcolm X. No, seriously, here's the link if you have a strong stomach: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html)

  • Posted by lcl on October 31, 2008 at 10:55am EDT
  • @ Scott - you note that who wins the election will have a significant impact on whether this strategy continues into the future. That seems optimistic to me.

    Whether this strategy leads to an overall victory for McCain/Palin is less important than whether it helps them cut into Obama's lead or pull out victory in any of the real battleground states. Even if all it does is muddy Obama's "mandate from the masses" it may be seen as something worth busting out again for future elections. McCain does not have to ascend to the throne for the strategy to "work".

    Btw, I don't view this as a partisan analysis - I'm quite cynical/positive that if McCain were leading in the polls we'd be seeing more shenanigans out of the democratic side as well. The economy is likely to give the election to Obama (and then give him a huge headache as he tries to have a productive term when everyone realizes he can't simply sprinkle pixie dust to get us out of it)- both parties see this.

    The Repubs are playing scorched earth out of desparation (hoping that the public forgets or becomes confused, thus mitigating the long term harm to themselves of this approach). The Democrats can mostly feign the high road since they mostly have to stay active while avoiding just tripping themselves up.

    Personally, I suspect the "guilt by association" strategy is here to stay and will only get worse in an age where much of what we say and do is recorded for someone to dig up down the road.

  • Posted by lcl on October 31, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • @ J Cohen

    I agree with you that any scholar's work (especially someone who is actively a "public scholar") is a fair topic for exploration/debate. However, I think you are missing two crucial points here.

    First - the real "story" here is about Obama, not Khalidi. Thus we are not discussing Khalidi's theories inasmuch as the "guilt by association" that, by having fraternized with Khalidi, that Obama is ipso facto in agreement or even "in cahoots" with a known "terrorist."

    While there are a few people I would avoid as total nutjobs (it's like pornography - we know a nutjob when we see one), we all associate with people we don't agree with. I'd make a point how most people in the world and on these forums have even slept with or dated someone they have nothing in common with, but that might get us off-track. Personally I've dated a member of the NRA and someone who favored strict gun control. In this case, picking either one or the other (and then assuming I share their view) leads to competing assumptions about my own beliefs. It's a flawed analytical approach for the McCain campaign to raise and moreso for the media to parrot, to say the least.

    If the republican party or the media wanted to scrutinize and analyze Obama's politics vis-a-vis the theories of Khalidi, that is sound. But make no mistake, that's not really what they're doing.

    So he toasted a respected/controversial thinker at a going away party...perhaps that just means the man knows good etiquette? This sort of abstract guilt by association is inane and hollow. Perhaps an one or two elections cycles we will be eagerly pillorying everyone who ever toasted Ted Stevens (have you heard, he's a felon!) for anything.

    Second - let's be clear that the media is not going to actually analyze or critique Khalidi's views. The modern media is, by and large, not in the business of analysis nor critique but reduction. There are a few exceptions, or at least sources that struggle to be exceptions. But by and large our media is only capable of skimming "Moby Dick" and reporting back that "Sea beast terrorizes ship, killing crew. Film at 11."

    Alas for the world, most things come with nuance.

  • Khalidi Issue
  • Posted by Jay Zatzkin on November 1, 2008 at 9:35pm EDT
  • Our country's first amendment guarentees free speech in this country by everyone, including Professor Khalidi. The desparate and embarassing remarks of the McCain campaign regarding Professor Khalidi indicate that they will do anything to win on behalf of the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I am sick of this type of behavior, whether or not it reflects anyone's perception of politics "as usual."
    When an ex-POW stoops to this level,it greatly diminishes my perception of John McCain as a patriot. I am a Jew and used to be a Republican. I believe in one of this country's great premises: "I may hate what you have to say, but I will defend with my last breath your right to say it." American of character who deserve election as President and VP should believe that- if they understand the principles on which this country was founded.I do not believe that Sarah Palin and John McCain understand this based upon their assault on Professor Khalidi and their inference that Obama by his association with this man therefore must share his beliefs.- I hope that it costs them the election.

  • Posted by jim scandale on November 2, 2008 at 3:30pm EST
  • The article ends with the following:
    "But the attacks ... send a message to those who don’t yet have a secure position. This tells people to shut up.”

    I agree that it tells people to "shut up" but when was it ever different? It takes courage to speak out on what may be unpopular ideas and views and although it may be dangerous, why should speaking truth to power be easy?
    The real message here is to the administrators and hiring committees who may have lost their way in their defense of the rights of free speech.
    jim

  • For Chuck
  • Posted by cts on November 2, 2008 at 3:30pm EST
  • Chuck: You keep mentioning the Duke lacrosse incident[s] as relevant to academic freedom. Can you explain the connection? I admit I did not follow much of that closely other than with respect to the legal issues, but I am not aware of anyone's claiming academic freedom in order to make statements about the students involved.
    Beyond that, I enjoyed the suggestion that one can expect nothing and still be disappointed; clearly, you have escaped the spell of Parmenideanism. But, I hope Frizbane never quits his keyboard.