ON MEARSHEIMER, WALT, AND PROFESSOR GEOFFREY STONE AT U OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL…note correction please
There is a minor correction to this excellent letter…the following:
“at Harvard (where a few days ago, police protected from an angry student mob of hundreds, the editor of Commentary Magazine, who had opined that Moslems should speak out against Islamaic terrorism)”
It was not the editor of Commentary but Martin Peretz who was barred from speaking.….rsk
Hello:
I am in the middle of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer. I find it interesting that Mearsheimer often references Stephen Walt with great admiration and seeming (knowing of his latest book) longing. It must have been a joyful moment indeed when Mearsheimer and Walt co-authored their recent book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
The Tragedy is a beautifully written easy to read and absorbing book that flows easily. Its subject, that great powers invariably seek to gain power at each other’s expense and to establish themselves as the dominant state, seems uncontroversial, except for folks who believe, as Mearsheimer puts it, that “‘perpetual peace’ among the great powers is finally at hand.”
So, I find it surprising that, with such a noncontroversial subject, Mearsheimer feels obliged to provide premises to support his theory that are unsupportable. For example at page 166, he opines “Consider, for example how badly the Palestinians want their own state…”
Really? How is it that this expert doesn’t know that the Palestinians were given their own state, which they have since repeatedly rejected, starting back when Israel was founded all the way to today. How is it that this expert does not know that the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel and that their longing for a state of their own consists of a state that incorporates the land that is now Israel?
A couple of days ago, I attended a lecture for U of C alums by Geoffrey Stone whose subject was the first amendment and the new Supreme Court Justice Kagan. He said he is her good friend. But Stone expressed great disappointment over Kagan’s handling first amendment issues as soliciter general of cases before the S. Court indicating his belief when Kagan advocated on behalf of her client, her argument sought to diminish the first amendment and went beyond what Stone feels was necessary to achieve her goal for her client. Stone was very unhappy at her performance and worried about how she will conduct herself on the highest court.
After the talk, I asked Mr. Stone his opinion about professors using their classrooms as forums for their brand of idealogical advocacy. I specifically referenced Prof. Mearsheimer using his classroom as a forum for advocating for Palestinians and against Israel and the alleged ability of the Israel Lobby to influence US policy to act against the US’s best interest. Mr. Stone opined that so many classes are taught on the subject of Zionism and Palestine, that just one class taught by, say Mearsheimer, whatever his view, would not unduly sway undergraduate opinion. Further, he gave Mearsheimer his personal endorsement saying he had known him some time ago, believes he teaches fairly and would not try to intimidate any student.
I was rather shocked when Stone further indicated complete unawareness of any kind of anti-Israel campaign on campuses throughout the USA, something well known by people of less exalted fame than Mr. Stone, and who merely keep up with current events. He said pockets of extremists always exist here and there and there is nothing to be concerned about. He dismissed current bigoted conduct on campuses such as in California (the student council voting to have the university boycott Israel), at Harvard (where a few days ago, police protected from an angry student mob of hundreds, the editor of Commentary Magazine, who had opined that Moslems should speak out against Islamaic terrorism), or at the U of C, where action in furtherance of anti-Semitic and pro-Palestinian sentiments is well known and, via Mearsheimer, being anti-Israel is treated as an accepted, and indeed, the only defensible viewpoint.
I happen to believe that it is not a good idea to ignore pockets of poisonous bigotry and just act as if they didn’t exist. We all know what happened when good people shrugged and looked the other way at what was bigotry that could have been smashed but was permitted to flourish and resulted in the destruction of the entire European Jewish community, not to mention gypsies, gays, etc. When I got home, I goggled Stone.
There appeared several items,including those below. revealing the backstory of why Stone, who one would think would dissaprove of using academic freedom as a sword to defame a people and a nation, MAY HAVE instead, for reasons quite close to home, defended Mearsheimer. Read on and let me know what you think! C.
Comments are closed.
