ZIONISM 101 TAUGHT AT U. OF CHICAGO BY JOHN MEARSHEIMER….GABE SCHOENFELD SEE NOTE

Posted By on September 2nd, 2010

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/zionism-101-university-chicago Gabe Schoenfeld

also see below this column a response from an alum…..rsk

The University of Chicago is a great school. And academic freedom is a great principle. But should there ever be limits on who can teach what?

Consider the following course offering from Chicago’s 2010 catalog:

Zionism and Palestine. This course has three broad aims, the first of which is to explore the various strands of early Zionist thinking in Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The second aim is to analyze how the European Zionists who came to Palestine created the Jewish state in the first half of the twentieth century. The third aim is to examine some key developments in Israel’s history since it gained its independence in 1948. While the main focus is on Zionism and the state of Israel, considerable attention is paid to the plight of the Palestinians and the development of Palestinian nationalism over the past century.

This sounds unexceptionable, though one might detect a hint of something amiss in the one-sided reference to the “plight of the Palestinians.” In fact, there is something amiss. The professor teaching this course is one John Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer is a an expert in international relations. He has no record of scholarship in the history of Zionism, let alone command of the relevant languages to acquire a knowledge of that history.

What he does have is a record of prejudice and ignorance about Israel and Jews. Together with Stephen Walt, he is the coauthor of The Israel Lobby, which leveled accusations of dual and disloyalty at leading American Jews. A “weak book,” is how Leslie Gelb reviewed The Israel Lobby in the New York Times, one that has “added fuel, inadvertently, to the fires of anti-Semitism.” Others were less generous. “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic,” wrote Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins SAIS in the Washington Post. To be sure, some have showered praise on Mearsheimer and Walt’s scholarship, including a host of Israel bashers ranging from former ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles “Chas” Freeman all the way out to the white supremacist David Duke, who called the book “a modern American Declaration of Independence.”

Obviously there should not be restrictions of a formal kind on university teaching beyond what the faculty of a self-governing institution like the University of Chicago deems appropriate. But certainly there is room for public opinion to weigh in when academia sinks low. And students should certainly know what dish they are being served in advance. In this distance, a dispassionate inquiry into the history and politics of Zionism that dish will not be.

LETTER FROM AN ALUM

Professor John Mearsheimer – “Zionism and Palestine.”

Dear President Zimmer,

It has come to my attention that Professor John Mearsheimer is teaching a course called “Zionism and Palestine.” As a 1959 graduate of the University of Chicago college and a 1962 graduate of the University of Chicago law school who practiced law in Chicago for many years, I am sensitive in the extreme to issues of academic freedom and freedom of speech. And, although I am not part of the academic community, I am aware that University of Chicago’s policy is that faculty enjoy wide latitude over what they choose to teach. It is precisely in this context that I express my distress over the University of Chicago offering this course by this professor.

It is one thing for the University of Chicago to offer courses presenting controversial subjects and permit and encourage students to explore and discuss them from a variety of points of view. It is entirely another thing for the University of Chicago to offer courses that do the opposite. By offering John Mearsheimer’s “Zionism and Palestine” class, the university has provided a forum to an individual whose writings, public discussions and speeches reveal that he negates any possibility of there being any legitimate view other than his view. As is widely known, Professor Mearsheimer’s view of “Zionism and Palestine” boils down to a battle between good and evil in which the “Zionists” are the evil and the “Palestinians” are the good.

How far does a faculty member’s discretion over topics and contents of classes extend? Is it the university’s position that a professor’s academic freedom extends to putting students in the position of having to accept a professor’s ideology or else take the risk of challenging a professor, who happens to be the one who eventually will grade them? Why does the University of Chicago disregard two other fundamental principles of higher education: academic responsibility and commitment to actual scholarship?

Would you permit a tenured professor who, according to his writings and speeches, believes that whites are superior and that blacks are inferior to teach a class entitled: “Blacks and Whites”? Would you permit a tenured professor who, according to his writings and speeches, holds that there was no Nazi holocaust and that the Jews created this myth to teach a class entitled: “The Holocaust”? Would you permit a tenured professor whose writings and speeches reveal he believes there is only one decent religion, say, Catholicism, and that all other religions are evil, to teach a class entitled: “Catholicism and Other Religions”?

If scenarios like this occur, it would be so embarrassing to the university that it would forbid teaching such classes. When, as now, the classroom is being used as a platform for pushing a professor’s unwavering belief in his own point of view, why does the university pretend not to see it for what it is? When indoctrination, not academic freedom is the issue, why doesn’t the university stop hiding behind the pretense of “academic freedom”? Why doesn’t the university at the very least assign a second professor to co-teach the class, enabling the presentation of the “other side” of the so-called controversial issue, rather than putting the onus on the students?

In the past, universities were distinguished as being safe places for free and open discussion of various opposing views on any topic, without a bias toward one view or the other. Now, the University of Chicago appears to embrace the view that it is perfectly acceptable, and in fact required by “academic freedom” for a tenured professor to present a class showcasing his heavily promoted one-sided view.

I find it deeply saddening that the University of Chicago has changed its policy from promoting academic freedom to enabling indoctrination. I ask that the university rethink its role and return to being a place of ideas, learning and free and open debate, not a forum for ideologues.

Sincerely,

Charlotte Adelman

232 Lawndale St.
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-251-6726

Categorized under: ANTI-SEMITISM.
Tagged with: no tags.

Comments are closed.