Comments on MLA's Middle East Moves

• NEUTRALITY
• Posted by Cary Nelson , President at AAUP on December 30, 2008 at 9:55am EST

• In the form in which it was finally passed, the resolution is essentially a harmless expression of support for scholars working in an embattled field, though the attacks have not in fact focused on specialists in Palestinian literature. Scholars who take a Palestinian perspective on middle east topics have certainly been attacked aggressively and often had their work misrepresented. But there are frequent attacks on pro-Israeli faculty as well. The long-running effort in Britain to boycott all Israeli academics is the most obvious example. Occasional refusals to make faculty appointments from among pro-Israeli scholars in the US is another. The best course for a disciplinary organization like the MLA is even-handed, neutral support of all scholars, whatever their perspective. That is simply the best way to reach out to the organization's main constituency--faculty--and encourage civility from all sides. Because this is such a disputatious field, however, it may at some point be necessary for the AAUP to establish a commission to study the issue and issue detailed, thoughtful recommendations.

  Cary Nelson
  AAUP President

• double standards
• Posted by Jim Aune on December 30, 2008 at 11:25am EST

• I find Cary Nelson's argument extremely persuasive. The great irony here is that probably all of the members of the Radical Caucus would be executed immediately under the Hamas regime. But executions are Grover Furr's specialty, since he's an unrepentant defender of Stalin's purges.

• MLA
• Posted by fred lapides , retired on December 30, 2008 at 11:50am EST

• Profs in English lit have sufficient problems with their own sinking field and ought not bother to take on world-wide issues. The earlier British attempt to censor and stifle Israeli scholars was shameful. Teach. Publish. but voting for or against this and that is not useful for anyone at all.

• Posted by Steve , Director of Writing; Director, ITW Writing Project at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis on December 30, 2008 at 11:50am EST

• As someone who considers himself a "radical progressive," I am not sure I support much political posturing by scholarly groups like the MLA. Self-criticism and correction are more valuable, and thus efforts to deal with the mistreatment and exploitation of adjunct faculty strike me as more meaningful than resolutions about the Iraq war or the Gaza conflict. Isn't it easier to condemn a war that is now totally discredited than to examine how faculty in one's own department are paid and hired? I also agree with Cary Nelson that the MLA should strongly support academic freedom for all scholars, and it could also investigate specific situations and censure departments or schools that violate academic freedom or due process. (Much as AAUP does.) As citizens, English professors should be very political and fight against injustice in any way they can. As an organization, MLA should speak out of its expertise on behalf of its members common interests. Pronouncing on any and every political issue could certainly make many MLA members feel silenced, and I do not think that is our goal as scholars and professors.

• Sinking Field
• Posted by Margaret Hanzimanolis on December 30, 2008 at 5:45pm EST

• The connections between our sinking field and the 'world-wide issues' should be clear.
  Why the disconnect, Fred?

  Students are obliged to focus on dollar-redeemable study programs, in order that they may position themselves as successful consumers. In this context, their growing (and documented) indifference to the study of literature is not all that surprising. But a "sinking field"?

  MLA "fields," as they are presently constituted, are in fact more robust than ever--perhaps the largest segment of faculty in higher education, in departments charged with one of THE core functions of our institutions. What we do-- teaching writing, close reading, literature, critical thinking, and languages--could not be more important.

  In fact, in these more general disciplinary terms, things couldn't be better! What we do is in great demand. What we have, our institutions want. What we can do, students want.

  The field is not sinking. What you see sinking is the falling away of the old world.

  The enormous expenditures for the 'wars' in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Palestine and for covert operations throughout the world; the corporate bailouts--both passed and planned; and the criminality of the financial markets directly bear on the choices students make, the resources institutions direct to this or that discipline, and the insecurity that academic laborers in the humanities feel. These factors are undeniably affecting higher education, and our "field," in ways far beyond the dollars siphoned away.

  As for the "usefulness" of declarations, resolutions, sanctions, censure, and other "soft," or diplomatic, efforts at correcting a course of a civilization, a nation, or a "disciplinary field"--you are quite right, Fred, these may not be "useful" in a way that is tangible or trackable.

  But to me, and to the over a hundred members of the Delegate Assembly who supported these measures, by sweeping majorities
  (contingent labor resolution 147-2); condemnation of the Iraq war 126-27; and support for scholars of Palestinian literature and culture (87-36)[unofficial count],these declarations ARE important, and in addition, they become part of the public record.

  Another consideration: If we devise declarations of support or condemnation, this public act emboldens others to gradually feel more comfortable, in the institutions, communities, professional organizations and so on to take clear and deeply-invested public positions. We in the MLA were emboldened by the anthropologists and historians, who have declared long ago their opposition to the Iraq war. Who, then, might be emboldened by our call for an end to exploitation, senseless slaughter, and institutional discrimination?

• MLA ? Israel
• Posted by Kishmi Tookem on December 30, 2008 at 5:45pm EST

• The Israeli cabinet is going to pull an all-nighter because of this resolution. Perhaps The MLA might try to spend their time discussing academic issues. I thought all they were worried about were silly little citation rules that nobody really cares about. Citations and Middle East Affairs that is a heck of an organization.

• Making the MLA look ridiculous
• Posted by Prof Ethan on December 31, 2008 at 5:15pm EST

• Having the MLA pass resolutions on labor issues, especially including pervasive mistreatment of adjuncts, is a good thing.

  A one-sided resolution on the Israel-Palestine dispute, masterminded by folks like Grover Furr, who as one blogger has already said, is a notorious defender of Stalin, is another.

  How do you think that looks to the public?

  For one thing, the resolution demonstrates once more the huge gulf between radical faculty and the mass of the American population, who support Israel in general and this Israeli action--in view of the 3,000 rockets launched from Gaza into Israel in the past year or so--in particular. This divide is a cultural problem that cannot be ignored. If the response from the radical faculty is that most Americans are stupid, that response reveals an attitude that is a cutlural problem in itself, and explains why there is no Left in this country except in university faculties.

  For another, the resolution is so one-sided that it brings the MLA into disrepute as an organization. Israeli scholars are actively discriminated against in academia, especially in Britain but increasingly in the U.S. (as Carey Nelson noted)--and some scholars in Beersheba are now under assault from Palestinian rockets. Where's the support for them? The Radical Caucus explicitly refused it. Therefore, under the cloak of "humanitarianism" it's all just vicious radical politics.

  MH, this is a perfect example of why professors of literature should not be employing their higher degrees and the title of "professor" and whatever prestige the MLA has as a professional organization of literary scholars to empower themselves to gass off on topics about which they are not experts. Grover Furr is a Medievalist.

  Here is what one writer who *is* an expert in this field, the political philosopher Michael Walzer, says about the sort of thing we are witnessing in Gaza:

  When Palestinian militants launch rocket attacks intentionally from within civilian Palestinian areas against Israeli civilians, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilian deaths caused by Israeli counterfire.

  No doubt this position will outrage radical English Profs, but we couldn't resist showing the other side.

• Margaret Hanzimanolis
• Posted by E. Moran , Lit Prof on January 1, 2009 at 12:20am EST

• "We in the MLA were emboldened by the anthropologists and historians, who have declared long ago their opposition to the Iraq war. Who, then, might be emboldened by our call for an end to exploitation, senseless slaughter, and institutional discrimination?"

  Margaret, can you concede that what constitutes "exploitation, senseless slaughter, and institutional discrimination" might be a matter of opinion, rightfully disputed by reasonable scholars and others, good-hearted folk every one? You don't have truth, only your opinion. It's still just your opinion if you shout it in the above inflamatory terms.

  We don't settle questions of philosophy by majority vote, and I won't have a silly bunch like the MLA speak for me on any issue.

• Whose MLA?
• Posted by Margaret Hanzimanolis on January 1, 2009 at 4:10pm EST

• E.Moran: If you think the MLA is a 'silly bunch,' why concern yourself with what it does? Do you mean to say it is an organization that might more closely reflect YOUR opinions, rather than MINE?

  OK. That's fair enough.

  But then why condemn the organization as 'silly'? why not rather campaign for "your" opinion(s) to be more persuasive to others than "my" opinion(s)!

  Was I shouting? Dear me. I hope not. Did I inflame someone? Perhaps that's not so bad!

  Was it the word 'exploitation'? (Few would disagree that PTF are exploited--80% of the college teachers in the Vermont State College system, for instance are PTF earning an average of about $18,000 per year! --that seems to be hardly disputable by reasonable, good-hearted folk!),

  or senseless slaughter (I think we can all agree that many of the deaths in the middle east are "senseless"--that is, they do not improve the situation, are not constructed as "making sense"),

  Slaughter, well, that is an animal-death term, and maybe that is rhetorically excessive. Maybe you would prefer 'Senseless killing'?

  ...was the inflammatory rhetoric the term 'institutional discrimination'? (is there not, in your opinion, discrimination against scholars in certain fields and even, sometimes, certain genders, races, religions, ethnicity, in terms of institutional affirmation they receive--financial support (research grants, release time, salaries), governance rights, hiring, advancement, and so on. And does this discrimination not have "political", rather than academic, origins?

  I hardly see how good-hearted folk could disagree with the general claims above! It hardly seems reasonable to claim that the deaths in the middle east made perfect sense, that academic institutions are models of fair play and non-discrimination--particularly in terms of Arabic and/or Palestinian scholars, or scholars who study Arabic and/or Palestinian literature and culture, and that the army of half a million contingent academic laborers are not exploited (these are the three matters that the MLA DA took a stand on).

  So perhaps what you want to say is that the MLA should not take stands on political issues not directly tied to the study of

  1) persuasive writing,
  2) critical thinking,
  3) close reading,
  4) literature, and
  5) languages ?

  That certainly is a question upon which well-intentioned "good-hearted" folk might disagree.

  It might help, E., to review the "purpose" of the MLA, from the Constitution

  "The object of the association shall be to promote study, criticism, and research in the more and less commonly taught modern languages and their literatures and to further the common interests of teachers of these subjects."

  I suppose I might need to specify that the study of "English"--one of the modern languages--is now dominated by the study of writing, the teaching of which occupies about 60-70% of the faculty in "English" departments--in some colleges the study of writing in English constitutes 80-90% of the classes in "modern language and their literatures"---

  The last phrase--"to further the common interests of teachers of these subjects" is where you and I, and many others, might reasonably disagree.

  I, and the majority of the MLA delegate assembly, believe that it IS a common interest to teachers of these subjects to try to halt the siphoning of 4,000,000,000,000 dollars away from education (and other important areas)into a campaign of dubious (some would say),criminal (others would say) or merely unwise (still others would say) war(s).

  You, evidently, do not.

  But you must remember that any question addressing the "common interests" of a 33,000 member body will have dissenters. It is unwise and irresponsible, I believe (my opinion here, not "truth"!) to refuse to entertain difficult social, political and economic questions via the available parliamentary routes set up for use in the MLA merely because all 33,000 members do not agree.

  The question is, do enough of the teachers of literature, languages, and writing believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the exploitation of some teachers and the discrimination toward other teaches constitute an "interest" to the members.

  I think the answer is a resounding "YES" --based on the discussion a few days ago and the resulting votes.

  Even if you yourself are not interested in these questions, or are interested in these questions only "individually" but not "professionally", you are still a valued and respected dissenter in this discussion.

  Whose MLA? It belongs to all of us.

• Posted by E. Moran , Lit Prof on January 1, 2009 at 7:30pm EST

• A review of the presentation topics for a MLA convention (you pick the year) will support my “silly” thesis adequately.

  I do not think that any of the groups you give “exploited” status to are in fact being exploited. They are likely to be among the fortunate top 10% of the people on this planet in terms of clean water, adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter, education, cultural outlets, friends, family, health, etc., etc.. There is no better place to be a woman, a racial minority, a cultural minority, and an adjunct professor. We, and you, are pampered. Adjuncts are underpaid in your opinion, but not homeless, mostly. People in Darfur are being “exploited” by Sudanese Moslems, which exploitation includes systematic rape, starvation, and death. Can you see the difference? Your rhetoric empties your modifiers of their power.

  Slaughter is the business of the world, always has been. The paradigm is unchanged. All that matters in international politics is power. There are those who would gladly slaughter you and your fellow conventioneers; wishing won’t change that one bit. It is not a rational process. No one cares if you pick a side to demonstrate your open-mindedness. There are those who see Israel as an island of civilized life in a sea of medieval malignancy. It’s a defensible position, isn’t it? But one must be able to see a hierarchy of Cultures and this is not possible to you who are committed to all-the-sameness.

  The MLA wants to be radical, but in a safe place, made safe by rule of law. You are dilatants. Don’t talk about slaughter; it only shores up my “silly bunch” thesis.

  The treasure you mention being wasted. Well, no one (as a historian might point out) can say what the Iraq War will look like in fifty years from a geopolitical perspective. Every war has been spoken of the same way you speak of this war, at the beginning and during at least.

  If an organization makes proclamations of a political nature in a way that suggests all right-minded people must agree, it’s for ideologues and zealots, and self-proclaimed Radicals. Bumper sticker types. Your positions are childishly over-simplified. Don’t pretend this is scholarship.

• Posted by An Advisor on January 2, 2009 at 5:45am EST

• I'm an academic advisor in an English department, and some of the garbage these profs are teaching in classes should not be allowed, at all. It's an ENGLISH class, not a political science class. Don't push your radical beliefs on to the students, and certainly don't give them bad grades because they disagree with you. Yes, that still happens, A LOT. I wonder what would happen if I actually expressed my political beliefs publicly on my Department? They tend to lean a little right. Maybe I'll try that, and see what happens.

• "Humanitarianism" and Hypocrisy of the Radical Caucus of the MLA
• Posted by Prof Ethan on January 2, 2009 at 10:00am EST

• Professor Hanzimanolis's "humanitarian" rhetoric hides what is purely a poliical, not a humanitarian agenda.

  THAT is proven by the following information from the main story above:

  "Members of the Radical Caucus, which sponsored the measure, fought off efforts by Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, to replace the resolution with one that expressed solidarity both with those who study Palestinian and Israeli culture."

  Readers of insidehighered.com will be well aware that it is Israeli scholars who are threatened with exclusion and erasure--especially in Britain, where Hanzimanolis' friends are working hard on an academic ban. (Note: Not a ban, of say, Chinese scholars over the destruction of Tibet, or of Sudanese scholars over the (real) genocide in Darfur, or of Iranian scholars over the hanging of hundreds of gays in Iran.)

  By voting against the balanced measure proposed by Cary Nelson, Hanzimanolis' reveals her hypocrisy--the mask of "humanitarianism" is removed. She's not interested in the problem of "excluded" scholars in general (as if pro-Palestinian scholars are under siege in the U.S. anyway--again, see the comments of Nelson, who is president of the AAUP).

  In this hypocrisy, she follows her leader Grover Furr, an unapologetic Stalinist (!), who overtly favors censorship of people with whom he disagrees--and who, incredibly, is now a figure of influence in the Radical Caucus of the MLA!

• Radical Caucas Resolution against Israel
• Posted by Evelyn Avery , Dr. at Towson University on January 4, 2009 at 6:25am EST

• This year's MLA Radical Caucas resolution which supported Palestinian scholars, a thinly veiled attack on Israeli scholars,was
  the second attempt to infuse anti-Israel, anti-Jewish rhetoric and ideology into the MLA. At the 2007 Convention, I attended the meetings where the Radical Caucas ranted about zionism, occupation, exploitation, accusing Israel and its supporters of fascism. Fortunately, several of us countered
  the extremism at the delegate assembly and
  with the support of AAUP Cary Nelson were
  able to overwhelmingly defeat the caucas
  resolution.
  Unfortunately, this year I was unable to attend the convention and a Jewish panel was schedulaed at the time the proposal was being
  discussed. Few of our members were there to
  present our opposition, to reiterate the dangers of positioning the MLA on such a sensitive issue. The issue of whether MLA
  should take a stand on the Israel-Palestinian
  political controversy aside, there is also
  the question of how informed most members are
  about the historical origins of the conflict, of Hamas stated commitment to
  obliterate the State of Israel, of the on-going Gazan rocket attacks on Israel, the deeper penetration by Iranian missiles and
  technicians gifted to Hamas.
  Unless MLA members desire to support the enemies of Israel, one of the world's nations
  where free and open inquiry and self-criticism truly exists, the Radical Caucas
  resolution should be buried.

• MLA's Middle East Moves
• Posted by Jaye Ramsey Sutter, J.D. , professor at Houston Community College on January 4, 2009 at 6:25pm EST

• I wonder what Drs. Einstein and Oppenheimer would say about just teaching physics and not getting involved in politics. Remaining neutral was exactly the policy that made it easier for Nazis to not only come to power but take root in universities. If professors don't speak out about human rights, how will students learn that anything like female genital mutilation, stoning women to death over rape, multiple wives, and the other obscenities that are actually ignored by supporters of Islam extremists at colleges and universities?

  Are people really suggesting that it was inappropriate for these scholars to mention the impact of radiation on the human body or that the bomb was built by many scientists who were Jewish to stop the spread of Fascism?

  Every scholarly act is political.

  It worries me that academics are not concerned about their colleagues' support of nations that subjugate women, destroy historic artifacts, and the above mentioned Dark Ages' practices. All in the name of political correctness. Would they really support the right of Nazi Germany to have its cultural differences with the free world?

  There isn't anything intellectual about holding classes on politics and government and not discussing our nation's relationship with nations who want to march backward into the dark. Women's lit classes that don't mention FGM aren't very liberating. Chemical engineering courses should mention the necessity of guarding pipelines and the politics of oil.

  And help you if you want to have a pro-Israeli guest speaker on campus.

  Isn't the point of a college education Enlightenment and Freedom?

• Margaret Hanzimanolis
• Posted by DFS on January 6, 2009 at 1:55pm EST

• You're right -- the MLA belongs to all of us, but not to each of us.

  You don't fool anyone.

  The United States of America is the ultimate path to freedom and tolerance for everyone around the world. This is beyond debate. Even though we have made our mistakes, we correct them, unlike your heroes in the formerly soviet union.

• All Seeing is Seeing As
• Posted by Walker Park Thatcher on January 9, 2009 at 2:20pm EST

• E Moran, You state: "There are those who see Israel as an island of civilized life in a sea of medieval malignancy. It’s a defensible position, isn’t it? But one must be able to see a hierarchy of Cultures and this is not possible to you who are committed to all-the-sameness."

  I don't see the Arab-Islamic world as a "sea of medieval malignancy." If I did, and acted on that belief, I'm sure I would create some malignancy. In fact, I see a belief in a "hierarchy of Cultures" as already asking for trouble. If I regarded you as inferior, and treated you that way, and made your life miserable, perhaps you would but less than half like it, which I could in turn regard as a sign that YOU are the sole source of malignancy.

  This is a horrible problem: Israelis living in fear, Palestinians living in something rather worse. Norman Finkelstein argues that it was the Israeli govt. that broke the cease fire, which many Israelis themselves have protested. In any case, Palestine is not allowed to grow and develop for being cut off (and the smuggling of weapons is indeed a very complicating factor).

  For I think bad people on both sides may be manipulating and victimizing whole populations for their own power interests, and the U.S. is no doubt a player as it has been since 1967.

  But consider that whole groups of people can be pushed into madness by seemingly "benevolent" forces far removed. In that sense the plight of adjuncts is not a difference in kind but of degree.

  Some see global capitalism (in all its uneven development) as an inherently exploitive mode of production that itself grew out of medieval feudalism. Some see it that way and think the position is more than defensible. If you can't think past a USSR-type solution to this, I'm sorry. It's not a good alternative, being also an inherently exploitive mode of production. Education should be about exploring whether a non-exploitive economy is possible.

  It has been pointed out that neo-liberalism has raised living standards around the world. True. But only in the countries that haven't followed neo-liberal rules. In the countries that followed those rules, things have gotten worse and worse. Now South American populations are finally trying to disobey state capitalism's rules.

  I'm suggesting that genocides, terrorism (whether from an RPG or an F-16)and atrocities like FGM may be relational with the long-term handover of one inherently exploitive mode of production to another--Feudalism to global State Capitalism. Not National Security but Mutual Security should be our goal. It's just that, like so many Mafia Dons, corporations--and their government lieutenants--seem hell-bent on opposing that.