THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS (SORTA) ON BROOKLYN COLLEGE INDOCTRINATION….AN UPDATE
Wednesday, September 1. 2010
New York Times Reports (Sorta) On Brooklyn College’s Indoctrination Book (UPDATES)
When even the New York Times recognizes criticism of a leftist attempt to indoctrinate students with an Arab-American victimism and anti-American book, the sole one distributed by the college to incoming students and also a reading in the required English course, we’ve surely stirred up something that resonates with many.
The NYTs article, Brooklyn College Furor Is More Heated Online, is largely dismissive of the issue as a blogosphere thing and attributes it, as does the college’s Dean involved in the selection, as “unfolding a bit like the debate over the planned Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan: much of the intensity seems far afield, while the response in the neighborhood itself is more muted.â€
The reporter phoned me a few minutes before posting her report, but I was out, and she hasn’t returned my return call to her. (UPDATE 7:18AM Pacific: The reporter emailed me this morning. I replied that she seems to have attributed a quote from Prof. Bayoumi to me, and she just corrected the syntax in the article to make it clear. She, also, added to her article Prof. Bayoumi’s defense of the Gaza Flotilla. Sincere thanks. I, also, noted to her that “I understand that you phoned others earlier, but you are the reporter so you determine the priorities of contacts.” The reporter replies that she was on the subway and did not get my phone call back to her.)
The Comments at the NYT are, as one would expect there, mostly dismissive. There is one, however, that deserves wider attention:
As an American of Syrian descent I have never, nor has any member of my very large, noisy, opinionated, dark skinned, prominent nosed, extended family, EVER been discriminated against in this country. My children are extremely proud of their Middle-Eastern roots and very rich culture of food and family, generosity and hospitality. Mr. Bayoumi is confusing discrimination with the healthy practice in the US of dialogue tinged with a bit of mistrust – based on the undeniable fact that we were attacked on 9/11 by radical Arab Islamists. The US invites open dialogue – which can sometimes become very heated. Mr Bayoumi should be familiar with participating in heated arguments – which are practiced intensely in all of the Arab households that I have lived in or visited. Arab immigrants have to ride the current wave of mistrust and anger that the proposed Mosque has stirred up. Arabs also have to check their tendency to want people to accommodate them without giving anything in return – something called a compromise. We aren’t the first group of immigrants to have to deal with animosity from US groups who were here first and we will not be the last. Think of it as an initiation to a fraternity; if you tough it out it will pay off handsomely. Mr. Bayoumi, if Middle-Eastern voices have been censored in this country prove it.
After the New York Daily News reported the issue, and Professor Emeritus in History at the City University of New York, Ron Radosh, wrote about it in the New York Post,  the New York Times, I guess, had to ride to the rescue of leftist hogwash.
P.S.: Many of the Commenters at the New York Times article assert that it is up to the students to find an alternative point of view or facts. A current student at Brooklyn College replies at the New York Times with the reality. (Below the fold, with the remainder of this post.)
Ron Radosh wrote:
Last week, The Post reported on how the new Regents exam presents Islam as a religion of peace, while emphasizing how Christianity was oppressive and destructive of native life as it spread through Spanish America. Brooklyn College seems to be following this unbalanced example. No wonder one faculty member commented that the choice of Bayoumi’s book “may be more about ‘indoctrination’ than education.”
Another professor, KC Johnson of Brooklyn College’s history department, writes:
The college has been opaque, to put it mildly, regarding the specific process and criteria that the committee of English Department faculty used to select this book. What is it, in short, that led BC faculty to decide that this book, more so than any other current publication, should be a common read for all students? More broadly, since conclusion of Bayoumi’s book involves a critique of U.S. foreign policy, how are English professors the most competent people to judge the academic quality of a book on such a topic? The college hasn’t said, nor has it indicated what other books the committee considered….
Moreover, the alleged celebration for “tolerance, diversity, and respect for differing points of view” rings a bit hollow. Imagine the opposite of Bayoumi’s publication—a story of a handful of Jewish immigrants to Brooklyn, which concluded with a diatribe against President Obama for not recognizing the fundamental evils of Hamas and for not doing enough to support Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria (and used those inflammatory terms, just as Bayoumi uses inflammatory language on the other side).
Does anyone believe that such a book would even be considered for a common-reading selection, must less survive the process and ultimately be chosen?
Well, at least, New York newspaper readers are being given alternative views. More than one can say for the incoming students at Brooklyn College.
It, also, might be interesting where the money came from for 1500 books, and what alternative other uses may have been more in need.
A current Brooklyn College student replies at the New York Times Comments:
As a current Junior at Brooklyn College I must say it’s absurd how many of the above commenters misunderstand the nature of English 1. English 1 is the mandatory freshman class in which this book was assigned – and there is no dialogue. To be more precise, there is no dialogue unless a particular student argues and opens up dialogue.
So unless a class happens to have someone knowledgeable and outspoken enough to oppose the assigned book, whatever is said about it will be taken as the gospel truth. Needless to say this will happen. The majority of such students are given some variety of honors (the Scholars program, Macaulay, etc.) and have segregated English 1 classes separated from the rest.
The fact is most students will not even consider that there is an issue that’s debateable, that’s how one sided it is. Professors don’t dare get involved by offering more information than is in the book, or risk being labled pro/anti one the sides and suffering backlash.
Even under conditions of great reasponse from the students, the arguments will still be prejudiced in favor of the book. With only one book being assigned (and no, no professor can even hope the students will read a second book) most of the points stated in that book will be taken as truth, with no contrary text to advise of an opposing position.
But then again, who am I? I’m just someone who took the course 2 years ago and remembers his experience in it. Maybe the student body has rapidly changed in those two years.
Maybe not.
Comments are closed.
