Comments on Crossing a Line

• No Coercion
• Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on April 23, 2009 at 7:30am EDT

• You may dislike the imagery in the email (I certainly do), but there's no possible way that this is a violation of the Code of Conduct. First of all, there is no coercion involved, and not the slightest evidence that students were required to agree with the view or prohibited from criticizing it. Second, even if the material was unrelated to the class (and it does seem loosely related), one email cannot even come close to the standard of "significant intrusion of material." This isn't even a close call, which makes the continuing investigation a threat to academic freedom. Students should quite properly be able to criticize a professor's materials and emails. But they shouldn't have a heckler's veto, and be able to ban emails or silence professors by threatening to drop a class and hold an investigation of a professor.

• Antisemitic Jews?
• Posted by Diogenes on April 23, 2009 at 8:00am EDT

• When a Jew is not allowed to critique Israel's Palestinian policy, which at times is brutal and capricious with collective punishment and obvious human rights violations, and is accused of Antisemitism, we have left the real world. We enter the theater of the absurd. This has all the appearance of a well oiled lobbying machine injecting politics into academic freedom. There is no such thing as an "official" Jewish position on Israel, even in Israel. Judaism is not a monolithic entity. There are Jews in Israel who make the same claims as Dr. Robinson. There are Jews in the United States make the same claims as Dr. Robinson. There are Jews throughout the world who would go further and are anti-Zionists! Are they all antisemitic too? No they are not. They believe in real justice, human rights, and hope and pray for the end of the violence! They have a different vision of the future of Judaism. They refuse to demonize and dehumanize Palestinians. They understand when only one side in a conflict is presented again and again, it leads only to distortions and that discourse can only be propaganda! And yes: that has parallels to other movements that has abused power and have trampled on human rights. And these critics are as Jewish as the right wing loud speakers that blare denounciations at the slightest provokation! But the right wing hardliners in Israel attempt to control the discourse, punish offenders, and damn dissent every time! If the ADL wants to remain (or become again, in my opinion) credible they have to stop being the Fox News of Israel's government and return to the core principles that gave them better credibility years ago. One can love and support Israel just as one can love and support the United States but damn the policies of those who hold power, abuse power or make inhuman policies. Shalom, Dr. Robinson.

• Posted by Abbott Katz on April 23, 2009 at 9:15am EDT

• If a non-Jewish regime had carried out precisely the same treatment of Palestinians under identical circumstances, does anyone think Robinson would have played the Nazi card? The Lebanese badly mistreat the Palestinians, a fact even the UN, of all entities, acknowledges. Where's Robinson here?

• Nazis?
• Posted by kgotthardt on April 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT

• I'm going to ignore the argument over whether or not those who criticize Israel are consistently harassed because I don't know much about it except what I have read here at IHE.

  But I would like to address this statement:

  --He said that in the Warsaw ghetto, "the Nazis rounded up the Jews and they wouldn't let anyone in or out" and said that was "exactly and precisely" what Israel has done to Gaza.--

  I strongly believe that making historic comparisons is an important part of not allowing history to repeat itself. If nothing else, such comparisons are used to make people THINK.

  While the manner in which the email was presented clearly and greatly bothered some, I don't think Robinson was bent on hurting anyone. I support Robinson's right make this comparison.

  That said, I do think he should recognize that some students are more sensitive to pictures than others. I know images affect me differently than words, and in this age of digital media, images tend to be more powerful than words in many cases.

  Robinson has explained his position and usage, and I think that should prove he sent the email for academic purposes only and was not discouraging other views. Students could have easily written back to him to explain why they were upset. Robinson then could have (if he didn't) then address the problem in class through open dialog.

  If he hasn't already, Robinson might consider adding something like, "I wasn't trying to hurt anyone. This is what I STRONGLY believe, and the situation greatly worries me."

  I say this as someone who has been publicly "whipped" for drawing a comparison between a racist policy in Prince William County, Virginia and the Jewish Holocaust.

  What happened before the Holocaust--what CAUSED and led up to the Holocaust--must be examined if we are to avoid another one anywhere in the world.

• Should be Sanctioned
• Posted by Ken Waltzer , Director, Jewish Studies at Michigan State University on April 23, 2009 at 9:30am EDT

• William Robinson should indeed be sanctioned according to the faculty code of conduct -- this is bad teaching at best, an effort to impose highly partisan skewed and charged views on astudents at worst. What is egregious is that no comparison of Israel and Nazis involving the Warsaw Ghetto analogy can withstand scrutiny. Robinson's email was sent to students without any accompanying materials or even references by which they might read independently and make up their own minds. Nor was the analogy itself made the object of scrutiny or subsequent discussion. The Warsaw ghetto or Warsaw area was not something from which the Third Reich withdrew its forces; nor were its inhabitants heavily armed and supplied by elements outside, by which they lobbed rockets; nor was it merely a containment area. Jews were deported from Warsaw to Treblinka to be gassed -- nearly 300,000 between July 22, 1942 and September 12, 1942. Moreover, in this case, it is the organization controlling Gaza that has a Nazi-like view of the Jews. The analogy is obscene and a form of the new anti-semitism. It is not merely criticism of Israel; it is an effort to deligitimize and deform. Shame. IN this case, students were a captive audience for a bad teacher who cares more about imposing his own views than getting students to think for themselves.

• Two quibbles
• Posted by Jonathan Dresner on April 23, 2009 at 9:45am EDT

• I really don't want to get into this discussion, for a lot of reasons, but two things jumped out at me. First is the ahistorical comparison between the Warsaw ghetto -- detention prior to premeditated mass murder -- and the Gaza, where the moral and legal situation is considerably more complicated. The Gaza situation is deeply problematic, but there are much better historical comparisons if you want to a real discussion (Indian relocation comes to mind). And this is the second thing that jumped out at me: there's nothing wrong with handling controversial material in the appropriate course, but it needs to be framed appropriately. Though Robinson claims to be open to discussion, the framing of the material and his open opinions on the subject create the strong impression that the goal is to reach a predetermined conclusion.

• Private causes and teaching
• Posted by Libertarian on April 23, 2009 at 10:00am EDT

• While apt comparisions of Israeli policies will be debatable (and I see the Israel-lobby already arguing here, too, that if we do not protest atrocities in other places, we should accept them in Israel. This is an obtuse argument--just because the world focuses on Hitler's victims and not on Stalin's does not make Hitler's crimes somehow less evil, there will always be some selectivity in politics), the issue is whether one should send students material from outside causes one believes in. I don't. I have been tempted, but always refrained.

• Can Jews be Antisemitic?
• Posted by Ken Waltzer , Director/Jewish Studies at Michigan State University on April 23, 2009 at 10:00am EDT

• Can Jews be anti-semitic? German Jewish writer Henryk Broder recently observed, "Why not?" "There are nurses who kill their patients, attorneys who commit insurance fraud. Why can't there not therefore be Jews who are anti-Semities?" Jews who liken Israel to Nazi Germany or Gaza to Warsaw oare engaged not in scholarship or teaching and learning but in polemical politics.

• Another point of view
• Posted by JS on April 23, 2009 at 10:15am EDT

• While I agree that it sounds like Robinson was within the realm of academic freedom, I understand the anger of the students and others now responding: it's completely appropriate, even for those of us who roundly condemn modern Israeli politics and support Palestinian freedom, to be outraged by his brutal and intellectually lazy false analogy. Or shock-jock teaching style, perhaps, who knows. What I do know is that scholars of anti-Semitism, anti-oppression, racist movements, philosophy and logic, and other fields have been writing for a long time about inappropriate use of metaphor and what intellectual dishonesty these kinds of short-hand analogies create (and what the costs can be). Holocaust as metaphor in particular has received enough public and intelligent discussion that having a professor to send out the sort of email to his students one might expect from a troll in a blog thread ("Godwin's Law" anyone?) is especially disappointing and inappropriate. I highly recommend reading James Young's "Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the Consequences of Interpretation" for in-depth discussion of Holocaust-as-metaphor. It's a brilliant and beautifully written analysis useful well beyond Judaic Studies and Comparative Literature, and challenges all of us to think and speak with specificity in both politics and poetics. Diogenes, I understand and largely agree with much of what you wrote, and appreciate you pointedly distinguishing between "Jews" and "Israel," a basic distinction even mainstream media seems less and less able, or willing, to make. And, surely you can understand that given the particular history of accusations of world conspiracy leveled at Jews by anti-Semites, "This has all the appearance of a well oiled lobbying machine injecting politics into academic freedom." makes me a mite nervous. I think what the ADL and others are reacting to is the increasingly commonplace and, I believe, always inappropriate comparison between Nazis and "Jews" when right-wing Israel - not even representing the will of most Israelis - is the subject. To challenge hard-line right wing Israeli politics and to specifically call out every instance of cruelty, violation of international law, and vicious disregard for the original occupants of the land (policies which could just as easily be compared to significant chunks of U.S. history) is perfectly appropriate in a classroom and outside of it. To teach students spurious comparison and demonization of a monolith which does not exist rather than teaching critical thought, analysis of complex history on all sides, the powerful roles of differing cultural histories influencing modern politics in the Middle East, and intellectual rigor in general? Not so much. Thanks for being patient with a long comment.

• (re-posting, didn't go up the first time)
• Posted by JS , - at - on April 23, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• While I agree that it sounds like Robinson was within the realm of academic freedom, I understand the anger of the students and others now responding: it's completely appropriate, even for those of us who roundly condemn modern Israeli politics and support Palestinian freedom, to be outraged by his brutal and intellectually lazy false analogy. Or shock-jock teaching style, perhaps, who knows. What I do know is that scholars of anti-Semitism, anti-oppression, racist movements, philosophy and logic, and other fields have been writing for a long time about inappropriate use of metaphor and what intellectual dishonesty these kinds of short-hand analogies create (and what the costs can be). Holocaust as metaphor in particular has received enough public and intelligent discussion that for a professor to send out the sort of email to his students one might expect from a troll in a blog thread ("Godwin's Law" anyone?) is especially disappointing and inappropriate. I highly recommend reading James Young's "Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the Consequences of Interpretation" for in-depth discussion of Holocaust-as-metaphor. It's a brilliant and beautifully written analysis useful well beyond Judaic Studies and Comparative Literature, and challenges all of us to think and speak with specificity in both politics and poetics. Diogenes, I understand and largely agree with much of what you wrote, and appreciate you pointedly distinguishing between "Jews" and "Israel," a basic distinction even mainstream media seems less and less able, or willing, to make. And, surely you can understand that given the particular history of accusations of world conspiracy leveled at Jews by anti-Semites, "This has all the appearance of a well oiled lobbying machine injecting politics into academic freedom." makes me a mite nervous. I think what the ADL and others are reacting to is the increasingly commonplace and, I believe, always inappropriate comparison between Nazis and "Jews" when right wing Israel is the subject. To challenge hard-line right wing Israeli politics and to specifically call out every instance of cruelty, violation of international law, and vicious disregard for the original occupants of the land (policies which could just as easily be compared to significant chunks of U.S. history) is perfectly appropriate in a classroom and outside of it. To teach students spurious comparison and demonization of a monolith which does not exist rather than teaching critical thought, analysis of complex history on all sides, the powerful roles of differing cultural histories influencing modern politics in the Middle East, and intellectual rigor in general? Not so much. Thanks for being patient with a long comment.

• If the conclusion fits...
• Posted by Diogenes on April 23, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• so be it. There are parallels. Parallels are not precise historical duplications of events. They are valid comparisons. When is a politically created ghetto NOT a ghetto? If you answer, "when Israel makes one," your invalidation of the parallel is absurd. If you claim we can criticize one country's policies, but not Israel's, your special pleading is invalid. Every state is a human creation, makes human mistakes in judgment, and is not immune from scrutiny or criticism. That includes Israel as well as any other nation. Neither political entity is lamb without spot or blemish! We as Americans can certainly not claim to be! If Professor Robinson had sent out an e-mail comparing Iran to Nazi Germany, you right wingers would be lining up to praise him and give him grant money. Hypocrites!

• Another line crossed?
• Posted by Ralphinjersey on April 23, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• I am highly offended that a normally respectable publication such as IHE would contribute to the spread of anti-sensitivity by e-mailing an article describing a written comparison of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazis. I'm calling my lawyer!

• Broder
• Posted by Diogenes on April 23, 2009 at 11:00am EDT

• Naturally you'd quote Broder, who sees any kindness or compromise towards the Palestinians as weakness and foolishness. Hawks always quote hawks. As one can see here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html

  Guess anyone who is not like Broder is not a real Jew! Reminds of how the far right claims the American liberals were "anti-America. Same smear, different day!

• It's not all about academia
• Posted by kgotthardt on April 23, 2009 at 11:00am EDT

• What is the likelihood that Robinson is just furious with the way "his country" is behaving? As academics, don't we behave in a similar manner when tense social dynamics erupt? Can't we be critical of our own places of birth or residence?

  I'm not saying such an email isn't hurtful or even objectionable, but his perspective shouldn't be dismissed, either. In fact, it's interesting that a Jewish person would be so critical of his/her own country. It begs the real question of "why," the answer to which most likely transcends academics.

• Posted by Ollie on April 23, 2009 at 11:15am EDT

• Was the professor too insensitive to the students or were the students too sensitive? Which way was some "line" crossed? Even the very idea of a "line" implies either proper of not proper with no area for reasoned discourse. Sigh!

• Not an Uncommon Criticism of Isreal
• Posted by Daniel Olmos , Sociology at UCSB on April 23, 2009 at 11:15am EDT

• The comparison made between Gaza and Warsaw is not an uncommon one. In fact, in 2003, two British MPs described the Israel-Palestine situation in these terms..

  See the Associated Press report on the issue published in the Haaretz newspaper.
  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=307082&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

• Be careful, Ollie ...
• Posted by Ralphinjersey on April 23, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT

• I still have time to amend my complaint before we file!

• Posted by Mac on April 23, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT

• The reaction of the students who took such offense is IMO very similar to the late 60s mindset, where students at many universities took offense at nearly everything. These oversensitive students should see this situation as one in which they should choose your battles more wisely. I am fearful, however, that the reaction is also indicative of the disappearing line that separates teachers from students. College students should "know their place" so to speak and realize that forgetting it can make them look foolish, as they most certainly do in this case.

• Ollie/Diogenes/Mac
• Posted by Ken Waltzer , Director/Jewish Studies at Michigan State University on April 23, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT

• [Ollie] Because the Warsaw ghetto analogy has been made before doesn't mean it is a reasonable or appropriate analogy. It is simply a false analogy. It was a false analogy when applied to Jenin in 2002, as Marek Edelman, surviving Jewish Underground leader of the Warsaw ghetto rebellion said at the time; and it is a false analogy now regarding Gaza. Indeed, it is an embarassment that this needs to be pointed out.

  [Dioegenes] Israel deserves criticism for its disregard of the human/civilian costs of its self-defense in Gaza. That is a subject worthy of discussion. But DIogenes sees right wing where it doesn't exist. My point is that there is criticism and there is demonization. The choice of the Nazi analogy has a rhetorical and polemical purpose, which has no place in the classroom or the internet connected with the classroom. This was irresponsible teaching.

  [MAC]Which brings me to the big point -- it is silly to talk about student over-sensitivity. The issue here is teacher responsibility. The issue is the nature of teaching about the most difficult, conflicted, controversial topics, how they areor should be incorporated into the classroom. Does the teacher lead with his conclusions and leave it to the students, absent other materials, to deal with that imposition or does the teacher have a responsibility to present multiple perspectives and viewpoints and mentor the students to make up their own minds. I have no problem even with the analogy, which is in my mind as I say above a false one, if it is then the subject of critical interrogation. But there was no structure of interrogation sponsored here -- just here's my point of view, I'm the professor, here's some info. I would think this creates a hostile environment not a congenial learning one.

• more than one issue here
• Posted by OldProf on April 23, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT

• One must separate the question of whether one agrees with Robinson's views from the question of whether he violated reasonable standards of professorial behavior.  Not that it's inappropriate to comment on both these questions in this thread, but it's wrong to pretend that they're the same question.  I disagree with Robinson's analogy:  rockets fired from Gaza into Israel on a regular basis, by a Hamas-led government which is committed to Israel's destruction, makes Israel's attack on Gaza vastly different from the Nazi destruction of the Warsaw ghetto.  But for a professor in a course on globalization to present material from international sources about a major global issue, especially material that is not what students are accustomed to reading or seeing, would seem to be exactly what higher education is all about.  "Framing" the material by saying explicitly why it's being distributed would have been a good idea, because we can never assume that students understand why we're doing specific things; we should explain the purpose of assignments and exams and readings.

  Had the materials been distributed in, say, a course in botany, or had the professor made writing an essay in support of these points of view a requirement in the course, one might judge the situation differently.  But this is not the case.

  "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" is the essence of freedom of speech in general and academic freedom in particular.

• The SAT Is Insufficient
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 23, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT

• Three things ...

  First, I take issue with John K. Wilson who claims ...

  “You may dislike the imagery in the email (I certainly do), but there's no possible way that this is a violation of the Code of Conduct.”

  Because I apparently don’t have a life, I got on line and read the UC-Santa Barbara “Code of Conduct.” It appeared to me that, like most academic codes of conduct, theirs would not hold much water in any court in the land. Nevertheless, under “Types of unacceptable conduct” we find ...

  “1. Failure to meet the responsibilities of instruction, including: ... (b) significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course ...”

  It would appear to me that Martin Scharlemann, the Academic Senate Charges Officer, needs nothing more than that to “make his case.”

  Whew! ... and when I think of all of the times I discussed movies with the students in my Research Methods for Arts Management courses ... and even sent students an occasional e-mail message with a review. I suppose that was in violation of the UC-SB “Code of Conduct.”

  Second, Professor Scharlemann wrote to Professor Robinson ...

  "[H]ere is a summary of the allegations: You, as professor of an academic course, sent to each student enrolled in that course a highly partisan email accompanied by lurid photographs. The e-mail was unexpected and without educational context. You offered no explanation of how the material related to the content of the course. You offered no avenue to discuss, nor encouraged any response, to the opinions and photographs included in the e-mail. You directly told a student who inquired that the e-mail was not connected to the course. As a result, two enrolled students were too distraught to continue with the course. The constellation of allegations listed above, if substantially true, may violate the Faculty Code of Conduct."

  I don’t know if Scharlemann wrote that by himself or if it was written by a committee, but I love that weird language. On the other hand, if those are sufficient grounds for canning a professor, I hope there is a code of conduct for students, one that would enable me to give the boot to all of my charges (probably 65% of the total) who caused me to be almost “too distraught to continue with the course.”

  Third, and based on Scharlemann’s summary of the allegations, I think UC-SB should augment its SAT requirements with the famous Wilson Intellectual Wimpiness Index (0 = very wimpy and 10 = not at all wimpy), pioneered by the Wilson Institute. I recommend that, hereafter, UC-SB accept no student whose WIWI is less than 4.5. It is not likely that any young adult satisfying that requirement will have hir feelings hurt by the pronouncements of hir professors, even obvious pronouncements, say, about the war-mongering initiatives of the Bush administration.

• No, the comparison is valid.
• Posted by Diogenes on April 23, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT

• When I see a real apology for crushing a young American woman with a bulldozer, then maybe I'll believe you! Until then, half apologies do not cut it. If a young women was protesting Iran and was crushed by a Muslim bulldozer, the right wingers and Israel would be crying great gushing tears and build a memorial for her. Instead, the spin machine slandered her, accused her of terrorism, and call her a "Palestinian-lover." They loudly cried that she deserved to die! I still say right wing and I still cry hypocrite! If the shoe fits.....something is the same size.

• email
• Posted by old timer , retired on April 23, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT

• Does UCSB have a policy on the use of campus email accounts?

• Of the LIberty of Thought and Discussion
• Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls CC on April 23, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT

• My students and I are reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty's second chapter, "Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion." A pertinent line perhaps: "If there are persons who will contest a received opinion or who will do so if the law or opinion will let them, let us thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is some one to do for us what we otherwise ought, if we had any regard for the certainty or the vitality of our convictions, to do with much greater labour for ourselves."

  We don't seem to be very thankful for people who posit ideas we disagree with. Perhaps we need to be better able to entertain ideas without accepting them. Isn't that what this education racket is all about in the long run? Thinking things through?

• Freedom of opinion
• Posted by Fossil , Prof. of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on April 23, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT

• I don't think Prof. Robinson understands the Israel/Palestine situation very well--indeed, I think he's succumbed to the trendoid hysteria on the issue that has seduced many lazy academics. But that is not the point at issue. On the whole, Prof. Robinson has the right to say whatever he wants about politics to whomever he wants to address his concerns, including the students in his class. The only issue is whether he has used up an inordinate amount of class time to harrangue his students, or put pressure on them to accede to his views, or at least to pay lip-service to them. Absent evidence to the contrary, e.g., Robinson assigning his students an essay on the Gaza incursion, the accusation of intruding inappropriate subjective views into his teaching seems to fall flat. I presume any student receiving the e-mail was perfectly free to hit the "Delete" key without fear of retribution. So, while Robinson might be considered a bit of a loudmouth, his actions are not in violation of any reasonable academic rules. He is protected both by the First Amendment and by broader considerations of academic freedom.

  Naturally, anyone is free to take issue Prof. Robinson's position. Purely hypothetically, if he punished a student in his class who publicly denounced his views, then he could legitimately be called to account. But I don't think that problem has arisen.

• The right to be wrong
• Posted by Carl Bankston on April 23, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• I think that Robinson's views of Israel are dead wrong and I don't like highly partisan approaches to teaching, regardless of political perspective. Nevertheless, a university should be a place where all ideas can be expressed without fear of retribution, the images were sent to students enrolled in Robinson's class, and the email messages were relevant to the topic of this class. If Robinson is sanctioned, it will be for expressing "offensive" political opinions and it will be a clear and egregious violation of his academic freedom and his more general right to freedom of speech.

• And here's to you Mister Robinson........
• Posted by Chuck on April 23, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

• Looks like the malevolence and lurid dogmatism of one Norman Finkelstein are spreading its poisonous effects across our campuses.

  Robinson is free to say or suggest whatever he likes. And, in turn, students, faculty and all other citizens are free to mock, excoriate, satirize, rebut and/or ignore what he says.

  That's all folks.........

• Chuck Nailed It
• Posted by DFS on April 23, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT

• And I'm still laughing at "here's to you, Mr. Robinson."
  You are a hoot!

• Posted by Zaricus on April 23, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT

• The Nazis were rounding up the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto to kill all of them, which clearly makes it incomparable to anything that goes on in Gaza. Prof Robinson must be aware of this. Since he has to know his statements are false, I'd call it misconduct. You can't lie in class, surely. The fact that he's Jewish is irrelevant, there are plenty of anti-Semitic Jews out there, it's just a sad aspect of life. The Nazis even used some of them to run the ghettos ironically, like the famous Lodz ghetto which was run by a Jewish fascist who thought he was gaining the respect of the Nazis.

• Professor Commits Clear Abuse of Authority Over Students
• Posted by HR Guy , HR at Public Sector on April 23, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT

• This is the crux of the case:

  "The e-mail was unexpected and without educational context. You offered no explanation for how the material related to the educational content of the course. You offered no avenue to discuss, nor encouraged any response, to opinions and photographs included in the e-mail. You directly told a student who inquired that the e-mail was not connected to the course."

  Professor Robinson has a right to his opinions and a right to share those opinions with others in appropriate forums and venues. He does not have a right to foist his personal opinions on his students just because he has their e-mail addresses. He is in a position of power and authority over these students and he abused that power and authority in sending them the e-mail. He is not their friend, he is not their coworker, he's not some harmless outsider sending them unwanted spam, he is their teacher and what he does and says has a profound influence over them and the fate of their academic studies. He is employed to teach sociology and his actions breached his professional obligations to his students. His communications to his students should be limited to purely academic matters related to their course. To the woodshed with him!

• Posted by Greg on April 23, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT

• He sent the letter to over 80 students. Two dropped and complained. TWO!

• ridiculous
• Posted by Deborah on April 23, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT

• The issue at hand
• Posted by MG on April 23, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT

• While many of the forum posts make sound arguments for their stance on Israel-Palestine vs. the Nazi Regime, it is important to look at the issues at hand. Dr. Robinson is charged (and defamed, ironically) by two former students of his. What is not mentioned is that the students were not enrolled in the course long enough to draw the subject of the email to the class material. Although some material distributed in class is not in the original syllabus, he always welcomes discussions around the newly presented material. I think that to exclude material from a course, simply because it was not preordained is ludicrous, at best. Furthermore, as a conscious member of my campus community I realize that not every professor or student will share the same thoughts or lived experiences as I. Why would I then argue, for or against an issue, then complain when a professor, set in charge by the university to educate the students and contnue to produce research relevant to their individual expertise, makes such information available? Although the email may have offended some, I know that the professor's intentions were not ill in nature. As a graduate student currently working on my own research I appreciate counter-arguments to my work /passion, and welcome dialogue, something professors like Dr. Robinson have taught me along the way.

• Is The Shoe On The Other Foot?
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 23, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT

• Let’s see, in his letter to Professor Robinson, his “colleague,” Martin Scharlemann, accused him of (1) sending ‘lurid’ photographs to his students, (2) providing his students with materials that ‘were not expected,’ (3) not explaining how a detail of the course ‘was related to the content to the course,’ and (4) not providing details of when and how students would be able to respond to a hand-out. Apparently that constellation -- and you’ve hot to admit the use of “constellation” suggests both enormity and significance – of dastardly acts warranted the additional accusation by Scharlemann that Professor Robinson may have violated the UC-SB “Code of Conduct.”

  The UC-SB “Code of Conduct” also says ...

  “Ethical Principles. ‘As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others ...

  Types of unacceptable conduct:

  1. Making evaluations of the professional competence of faculty members by criteria not directly reflective of professional performance.

  2. Discrimination, including harassment, against faculty on political grounds ...”

  I’m guessing that after we give Scharlemann a little time to stumble over definition of his well-placed adjectives, it will be seen that Professor Robinson may want to accuse him of a “Code of Conduct” violation; namely, professional harassment.

  Then again, perhaps Scharlemann was just a foot soldier following the instructions of his superiors.

• Shoe Toss.
• Posted by Diogenes on April 23, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT

• You hit it out of the park, Frizbane.

• Not their call
• Posted by Jason Weidner on April 23, 2009 at 11:15pm EDT

• In the article, someone from the ADF is quoted as saying "But she then said that the issue was Robinson distributing material "completely unrelated to his course."

  The implication is that if the material had been related to the course, it would have been okay. The question, then, is who gets to decide what material is course-related and what material is not. In my opinion, it is completely unacceptable for any outside organization to be making determinations of what kind of material being used by an academic is legitimately related or not to the course being taught. On what basis can an organization like the ADF make that determination? What is their competence to make such a determination?

  Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Professor Robinson was promoting anti-Semitic views, I cannot see how an outside organization--indeed, a political organization--has any competency or legitimacy to determine what kind of material an academic should or should not be using in their classroom. Imagine if a pro-life organization reacted the same way to a professor who was teaching a class on globalization and gave out material about global initiatives on population control that included abortion. Would it be acceptable for the pro-life organization to have a voice in determining what material was legitimate to use for a class?

• Posted by Diogenes on April 24, 2009 at 4:15am EDT

• Well a thousand civilians were killed in Gaza this January by indiscriminate missiles fired by Israel, Zaricus. That sounds like being rounded up, being trapped in a ghetto, and killed to me. Over 2/3 were women and children. That sounds brutal to me. So Zaricus...you approve heartily of killing Arab children? Arabs are also Semites, or have you forgotten that? Guess that makes you an Antisemite too!

  And for the record, after reading the carefully crafted letter by the ADL, carefully citing every possibly way to destroy this professor's life as well as his academic freedom with over blown inflated charges, that sure sent a chill down my spine. 1st amendment anyone? 2 students out of 80 complain and by magic a letter citing chapter and verse of the faculty code appears written by the legal departemnt of the ADL and the school bypasses the normal chain of complaint resolution to squash any criticism of the secular government of Israel. The chair of the department wasn't even notified, but an outside agency sure is. Smacks of a set up to me. What khaserai!

• a raging success
• Posted by ProfEd on April 24, 2009 at 5:30am EDT

• I hope Robinson's students are debating this as intensely as the readers here. If so, this seems a raging success as a learning exercise.

• Political Correctness
• Posted by Dr. Anonymous on April 24, 2009 at 5:30am EDT

• As I see it, there are two issues here. 1. The inherently false notion that a certain critique of the State of Israel makes one an anti-Semite. Nonsense. In any case, one has the right to be anti-Judaeic just as one has the right to be anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, or anti-Muslim. 2. More importantly, Dr. Robinson's academic freedom and status as a university professor are threatened because two students (TWO!) feel offended by the material he forwarded to them. Here is another dreadful manifestation of political correctness. Because a student feels offended, the alleged offender, a university professor and scholar, is pilloried. Shame, UCSB! Shame!

• Posted by Adjunct George on April 24, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT

• The professor crossed the line and needs to apologize. He didn't give his students information. He gave them indoctrination 101. Where are the Arab countries who can resettle the Palestinians if they wish? That one fact makes his analogy false. When the left wing tries to indoctrinate students, they must be called on it. Another example why tenure should be stopped for all university new hires. Diagones flatters himself by trying to identity with the greek philosopher. He needs to be challenged on his leftist view every time he puts them forward.

• A Perfect of Example
• Posted by Michel at UCSB in the swells by campus point on April 24, 2009 at 11:45pm EDT

• His behavior is a perfect example of intellectual weakness and playing to his self image of a "Scholar Activist".  Criticism of Israel for their human rights record is perfectly acceptable if not deserved, however as is so the often the case this professor took the path of intellectual dishonesty and weakness.  He threw out the the Israel - NAZI image for the shock value to score a cheap point and appear more convincing in the righteousness of his opinion.

  There is some responsibility in teaching to present a accurate picture and context, why was Lebanon and the over 400,000 Palestinians in camps who also experience military incursions and have endured civilian massacres? They are denied civil rights on a daily basis and live in ghettos under the heel of the weak Lebanese military and whichever militia is in control. The situation there might very likely be worse if the Lebanese military had the strength. Why no mention of Black September in Jordan and the thousands dead there which although more of historical context in that situation is still worth noting.  The Palestinian Nation is the abandoned stepchild of the Arab World and has faced harsh conditions, humans rights abuses, and murder at the hands of all of its neighbors. Instead we have a Professor who has usual churns out the usual suspects knee jerk reaction without any real understanding of the area and the magnitude of the problem facing the Palestinians.

  If condemnation is reserved solely for Israel, then a inaccurate picture is portrayed part of his defense is the fact he is Jewish.  Is his own self guilt coloring his opinion? Is that fair and responsible education, of course not.  The realization that one must go beyond the headlines and go through the UN reports, and what accounts for press reports from the neighboring nations who do not get coverage except when they face external attack would have been nice but unfortuantely to much trouble for him. This is just another Professor who likes to pose in his "Che" shirt and portray himself as a activist while doing a disservice to the people his "social conscience" demands he speaks out for. In doing so he imparts misinformation at the expense of the Palestinian people who are suffering both in the territories and at camps throughout the Arab world. He prefers to ignore the other criminals and by this omission further denies a oppressed people their voice and justice.  

  Should he be fired of course not, but neither should he be given accolades for his poor teaching and overall intellectual weakness. 

• The issue is the code of conduct
• Posted by Marcel Kincaid on April 25, 2009 at 7:15pm EDT

• "If a non-Jewish regime had carried out precisely the same treatment of Palestinians under identical circumstances, does anyone think Robinson would have played the Nazi card?"

  Possibly, but it's irrelevant, both because it's well understood that comparisons between what Israel does to what was done to Jews is an appeal to their conscience,
  and because it has no bearing on the question of whether Robinson violated the code of conduct; he didn't, despite what the intellectual thugs trying to silence him have said.

  There was, however, a clear violation of the code of conduct by Martin Scharlemann, who injected his own ideology into a judicial process -- academic freedom does not apply to him.

• An antisemite is…
• Posted by Jean Naimard , Fourbisseur des patriciens at Caserne générale des sapeurs de Bétournay-sur-Oise on April 25, 2009 at 10:45pm EDT

• The word “antisemite” has been used and abused so much that it does not mean anything anymore, except “someone the jews hate”…

• I completely agree ...
• Posted by Jonathan Swift , emeritus at school of hard knocks on April 26, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• ... with Ken Waltzer that criticism of Israel should be stifled. But I also agree with Ken Waltzer that we must pretend that there is some hypothetical critic of Israel we would condone. I agree that, in order to appear reasonable, we should limit our condemnation of Prof. Robinson. If Prof. Robinson is canned, it will certainly teach Israel's critics a lesson that their self-preservation requires silence. But if we state openly that criticism of Israel is the cause, we may not win a lot of genuine support.

  Instead, it must be the case that those who criticize Israel are so misguided that they do other things worthy of dismissal, such as sending "unexpected email" or "failing to properly contextualize". Certainly, we should be suspicious of any email mentioning atrocities by Israel that does not also list atrocities by other entities, preferrably atrocities Israelis like to list, such as Lebanese atrocities.

  This may seem a little devious and, frankly, I can imagine how some might misunderstand but, after all, we're simply right. As Ken Waltzer aptly puts it, chorusing an opinion does not make it right! And here we have a case where the opposing opinion is clearly wrong and we can prove it to our own satisfaction. And, by extension, to the satisfaction of any right-thinking person. Anyone who disagrees is, by definition, an anti-Semite.

  To summarize, let's intimidate Prof. Robinson for criticism of Israel, but let's say it's for his poor professorship, about which we all obviously care as deeply as we do about the education of his distraught students. Please do not share this message with anyone who might be unsympathetic!

• ADL is a single-issue organization
• Posted by Donald Anderson on April 26, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• Will the ADL come to the defense of the white working class whenever white people are made the subject of ridicule and scorn in sociology courses?

  Of course the answer is no and by this we know that the ADL are a bunch of hypocrites.

• "Free" Speech vs Coersice Censorship?
• Posted by Dr. Shaun Treat , Assistant Professor, Communication Studies at UNT on April 26, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• I confess to some confusion. My understanding of "Free Speech" and "Academic Freedom" is that it protects critical challenges to status quo logics or accepted conventional wisdom. So when the group says it defends this professors freedom of speech but then proceeds to demand via threats that he retract his comments, this sounds like bullying coersion rather than a challenge to freely debate the propositions in some public forum? In short, if lines have been crossed, it seems the professor here is gravely disadvantaged in upsetting "some students" when free speech is designed to precisely protect from "offense" taken by dullards, conformists, or dogmatic ideologues.

  To be clear, I'm speaking in generalities here, but there are indeed many legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies or actions (and for that matter, American policy) that do not automatically equate to "anti-Semitism" or "unpatriotic" or un-American sentiment. the point of free speech *is* OPEN free discussion, deliberation, and dialogue of even racist presuppositions, not knee-jerk suppression of ideas or critical perspectives because some few or majority are offended, insulted, or get their feelings hurt. This applies equally, I believe, to the wacky revisionism of David Duke or Bush-Cheney as it does to evolution, sex education, and critical social theory as taught in schools. Free Speech does NOT guarantee freedom from offense and challenge.

• Irrelevant counterarguments
• Posted by a casual observer on April 26, 2009 at 5:15am EDT

• I have noticed several instances of irrelevant arguments made to divert attention from the main issue(s).

  1) Professor Robinson is being irrational in comparing the Israeli activities in Gaza with Nazi atrocities in Warsaw.
  -This is not only incorrect but also has nothing to do with the issue of academic misconduct. To reiterate someone who posted above it is all too simple to delete the email in question and ignore it. If a student is not capable of distinguishing between the opinions of his or her professor and actual curriculum then he or she does not deserve to attend such an institution. The issue of a valid comparison is all too blurry. A comparison or analogy is valid if there are similarities that are of interest, as there are in this case, such as the confinement and the needless killing of innocent lives. The things compared do not have to be exactly the same, and should not be, otherwise there would be no point in comparing them. It would simply be stating the obvious.

  2) Palestinians suffer abuse at the hands of many countries, not just Israel. Therefore Israel should not bear the full weight of scrutiny.
  -This is very true but still irrelevant. The atrocities of Arab nations against the Palestinian people have nothing to do with the academic and personal freedoms of Mr. Robinson. That he did not mention it simply means that he did not find it to be of particular interest. Let's remember that Mr. Robinson wasn't writing a report on the welfare of the Palestinian people. There is also an implicit argument in such a statement: since nobody likes the Palestinians, it is ok for Israel to abuse them. This is a logical fallacy and it should be noted that Hitler preached the same reasoning to the German people. Just because other people are doing it does not make it ok. Just because there has been a long history of anti-semitism does not make it ok. The same should apply for Palestinians.

  Thanks for reading this long post.

• Pandering Politics and Learning from Lawsuits
• Posted by Maximilian Forte , Associate Professor at Concordia University, Montreal on April 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT

• Quote: She said that the ADL does not contest "his right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction," but said that the critique of Israel "really had nothing to do with the course."

  Remember everyone to first clear your syllabus with the ADL, so that they can exercise their exclusive prerogative of deciding from a distance what is relevant course content.

  That a university would pander to the totalitarian hysterics of a group like the ADL, or to students who forgot that one of the purposes of the university is to question, discuss and debate everything, not run away and cry that someone thinks differently, is something that should shame this university to the core.

  This action is preposterous and I cheer Prof. Robinson for his quick thinking in immediately going to a lawyer. After Ward Churchill's victory, universities should know better than to try such stupid political stunts. Let them learn the hard and expensive way.

• Access to email addresses; other comparisons
• Posted by Paul McG. , Corporate Trainer at views not associated with my employer on April 27, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT

• 1. Any professor with access to students' emails has such access only because of his position on the faculty. Therefor, such emails should be restricted to correspondence directly related to the course of instruction, unless the professor has been invited by an individual student to send such material. It seems clear that the intent of the email was similar to the SPAM we might get from conservative or liberal friends, about the "liberal agenda" on the one hand or the "religious right" on the other. He should have a blog and invite students who want his opinion to subscribe. It seems clear that the material he sent has only been "related" to the course after the fact, as a defense for his intrusive and unsolicited political hit piece. A definition of "Globalism" as "anything that happens on the globe" is, I suspect, overly broad and inconsistent with the syllabus' own definition of that term. The establishment of Israel in 1947 (and all the subsequent violence and misery incident to it) has nothing to do with "globalism" as that term is currently understood - except (and see 4 below) insofar as a disturbingly large number of university professors seem inclined to blame market-based economic systems for everything.

  2. A hit piece? Comparisons to Nazis are hit pieces, especially (I suspect) those that juxtapose photos of Nazis with photos of... just about anyone else. Such "arguments" are strictly appeals to emotion. They may be right; they may be true; but they're also hit pieces.

  3. Anyone who believes the ADL's purpose is something other than "defending Israel" is simply uninformed about the history of the ADL.

  4. I wonder why this professor isn't comparing the Israeli aggression with the Soviet absorption of the Baltic States, Easter Poland, Bessarabia in 1939; or the Ukraine in the 1920s? Or maybe Afghanistan in 1979? Or maybe Red China's occupation of Tibet? All of those seem more appropos, much more valid comparisons. Huh. Go figure.

  (5. Most of these professors are supposed to be committed to a pedagogy that emphasizes students "constructing their own meaning" (it's called "constructivism"). This email sounds dangerously close to the heresy of "direct instruction".)

  --Paul McG.

• Hardly defamation
• Posted by Jacob , Software engineer at That huge software factory on April 28, 2009 at 5:00am EDT

• Dr. Robinson's illumination hardly constitutes defamation. The images speak for themselves.

  English language press hasn't shown much of the reality for Palestineans and so I encourage everyone to watch http://www.tinyurl.com/occupation101

  Facts are facts and sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.

• comparisons
• Posted by Michael Neumann , Philosophy at Trent University on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT

• Clearly the merits of the comparisons with Nazis and the Warsaw ghetto depend on whether what's asserted are important points of resemblance or close overall similarity. For the purposes of the controversy, however, it might be worth noting that such comparisons are quite common in Israel itself, where discussion of Israeli policies is far freer than in North America. Ralph Nader did well to point this out some years ago.

• crossing which lines?
• Posted by Misha Petrovic , Professor at NUS on April 29, 2009 at 4:15am EDT

• Prof. Robinson's constitutional rights to free speech have little to do with this case. He was acting (and is now being assessed) as an organizational actor, an employee of a university. In this role he has several responsibilities. We can leave out his administrative and research responsibilities, this seems to concern only his teaching. Now, as a teacher, Prof. Williams has a responsibility to be an effective teacher, but also two other types of responsibilities that may or may not clash with the first one, namely, not to violate his students basic legal rights, and fiduciary responsibility not to abuse his position of organizational power over students.
  Whether his actions represent good teaching standards is not entirely clear, but is also less directly related to the issue. He might not have followed some accepted standards of the profession regarding teaching, i.e. explaining clearly the role of teaching tools and materials within the overall framework of the class. He might have also resorted to introducing a shocking, value-ladden, and somewhat sensationalistic comparison, when a less politically charged one would be much better in furthering educational goals of understanding and analysis. Yet, universities don't discipline their faculty legally for being bad teachers, and so the issue goes beyond that...
  It seems clear that students' basic legal rights were not violated in this case, either, at least insofar as the facts presented in the report above. But the important issue here is about the fiduciary responsibility of teachers, and this issue can neither be defined in purely legal terms, nor reduced to effective teaching.
  A teacher (as opposed to a researcher, or a politician) has a special responsibility to his somewhat captive audience. Students are never equal participants in the classroom. In this case, prof. Williams must have known that equating the actions of the Israeli state with those of the Nazi Germany is a sensitive issue, which has a strong symbolic and emotional value for many students in the US, especially, but not limited to, those of Jewish origin. Thus, it would seem only prudent to introduce such an issue with an extra effort to explain its relevance to the class overall, and to try to separate gut reactions (in whichever direction they go) from understanding and analysis.
  It is often that, as professors, we must challenge our students' values and opinions in order to do our job succesfully. This, however, should be done with a certain degree of sensitivity and respect, and only in order to further cognitive goals of teaching, and not to try to convince students that our own values are in any sense better!

• Legal Rights, Compulsion, a Responsible Teacher
• Posted by Paul McG. , Corporate Trainer at views not associated with my employer on April 29, 2009 at 8:45am EDT

• I doubt any students' "rights were violated".

  However, there are some basic questions here about how to conduct a class, I would think, and university's responsibility to protect students from unwanted intrusions.

  An instructor says, "I will be sending you emails periodically that relate directly to this class; if you are to be successful in class, I need your email address."

  In fact, the school probably provides an email address to each student gratis, the professor probably already has access to that email, and there are presumably policies in place regarding SPAM.

  But however the professor got the emails, there's a question of instructional procedure.

  "Periodically you will receive emails from me. Some will relate directly to the class and you will be responsible for reading and reacting to these emails. They will form the basis of class discussions and you won't be prepared if you don't attend to them.

  "On the other hand, some of my emails will just be my opinions, which I am sharing with you because my opinions are Important. You may read or not read them: your choice. Whether or not you do so will have no impact on your performance in class.

  "You should also expect tweets and, if you have provided your cell phone number to the University, lengthy text messages of a similar nature.

  "The kicker is that none of these will be clearly identified as class work or opinion pieces. You get to guess which are which. Good luck!"

  --Paul McG.

• Condemning Criticism
• Posted by Another Example , Frequent reader of IHE at Observer of the key issues in higher education on May 7, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT

• A professor sends out a link to a controversial article. A student virulently disagrees with a teacher on a single item of material that is distributed in a course, quits a class, files a complaint and engages an outside, highly biased political organization to escalate the issue. Calling the ADL is like calling Al Sharpton after a police involved shooting of a black teenager. Everyone knows how this will play out. A posse of PC faculty will likely declare guilt and pat themselves on the back. Someone will plow through this professor's career and try to 'out him' as anti-semitic, a closet radical this or that, etc.

  This is process that we teach young people about throughout their academic career. 'Stay between the lines', 'Don't touch the third rail' or we will get you. These kinds of academic showdowns simply mirror the typical daily rant on Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity's shows. And we wonder where discourse has devolved to. I paraphrase Henry Kissinger here...'the fight is intense because the actual stakes are so small'.

  This tar and feathering is not unique to criticism of Israel, but there is such an organized mechanism in the Israeli lobby to rebut these kinds of issues that it merited observation here.

  No opinions will be changed, but it will generate a lot of copy with the hope that a reporter outside of higher ed will pick it up and run with.

  The professor will be castigated, the event will be blown out of proportion and moderate observers, of which I count myself one, simply say...here we go again.

• Free speech favors censure of professor
• Posted by jtb on May 8, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT

• Most of these posts miss the point of the controversy.

  It is not about any effort to stop the professor from free expression; nor is it about this or that opinion about the Israeli/Palistinian issue.

  Instead, it is about stopping the professor from trying to stifle free expression among his students; and about his violation of reasonable univerisity rules. The university rules embody all the necessary concerns for academic freedom and free expression. Looking at the rules and comparing the conduct, it is clearly a violation.

  The professor utilized a student e-mail list of his students, which was created for exchange of class-related information, to send his personal political viewpoint that support for Israeli policies was support for "Nazi" policies. He admitted in writing that the material was not class related.

  In doing so, he not only violated the policy against a professor using univeristy resources (the e-mail list) for personal political reasons; he also impinged on the free expression of his students by using his position as professor to try and infuse a one-sided view point. 19-year old students who disagree with him are likely to remain silent in the face of being accused as a "nazi" supporter by their professor. There is a policy there against that as well.

  So, if you favor free speech, you have to side with the university policies on this one and find the professor's actions to be inappropriate.

• Freedom of Expression?
• Posted by Jack Greene on May 12, 2009 at 10:30am EDT

• The University has the right and, indeed, the obligation to enforce standards of conduct. What is the job of a professor? To impart knowledge and stimulate thought. Imparting knowledge requires that the information disseminated be truthful. Stimulating thought requires that balanced perspectives be presented. I don't see the professor meeting this standard. If the professor believes that Israeli actions are similar to Nazi actions then he should present his views on a comparison of Palestinian actions to Nazi actions, as well as other global conflicts. Singling out Israeli actions raises a very real question of why are the Jews being singled out? It is appropriate for the University to ask this question.