from the 70 Columbia Professors' statement criticizing Lee Bollinger; here's the 61 professors' statement:
Statement of Dissent From CU-FAC Statement
A group of faculty members in the Arts and Sciences has been circulating for signature a "statement of concern" to be presented to the Arts and Sciences Faculty meeting on November 13. The main accusation in the statement is that the university administration has failed to make a vigorous defense of academic freedom. Four specific issues are singled out. One of these relates to budgetary and enrollment decisions pertaining to the Arts and Sciences, about which which most of us have no business rendering judgment. The remaining three, however, deal with academic affairs relevant to the university as a whole:
1. That the administration has failed to make clear that interventions by outside groups "will not be tolerated": We agree that tenure reviews must be conducted exclusively by peer academics within the university and at other academic institutions. However, the university has responsibilities to its students, alumni, donors, and outside community. When nonacademics and outsiders encounter or hear about what they consider inappropriate forms of teaching, allegations of intimidation or harassment, or the distortion of basic historical or scientific facts, they are justified in expressing, and entitled by the First Amendment to express, their objections. No university administration has the power to prevent such expression.
2. That President Bollinger's introductory remarks to Ahmadinejad “allied the university with the Bush administration’s war in Iraq”: As the publicly available transcript confirms, these remarks addressed sequentially: 1) Holocaust denial; 2) Ahmadinejad's stated intent to destroy Israel; 3) Iran's funding of terrorism; 4) Iran's proxy war against US troops in Iraq; and 5) Iran's nuclear program. Only the fourth item refers to the war in Iraq, and only in the context of Iran's role in financing and arming terrorist attacks against our troops.
3. That "the President has publicly taken partisan political positions concerning the politics of the Middle East, without apparent expertise in this area or consultation with faculty who teach and undertake research in this area” : We follow President Bollinger’s public statements closely. The only one that may be characterized as concerning the politics of the Middle East is his denunciation of the British University and College Union’s proposed boycott of Israeli academics, which he described as “antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy." This statement is actually not about the political problems of the Middle East; it is precisely what President Bollinger is accused of not providing: a vigorous defense of academic freedom, based on his recognition that denying such freedom to any individual or group endangers the entire academic enterprise.
We the undersigned therefore dissent from the CU-FAC statement.
Efrat Aharonovich / Kenneth Altman / Elizabeth Anisfeld / Paul S. Appelbaum / Marc S. Arkovitz / Jeffrey A. Ascherman / Mitchell C. Benson / Mitchell F. Berman / Bernard Berofsky / Nehama R. Bersohn / Joan Birman / Adam Heath Cannon / Charles Calomiris / Mark Cane / Myron L. Cohen / Jonathan David / Len Druyan / Barry A. Farber / Awi Federgruen / Scott A. Fink / Philip Genty / Michael D. Gershon / Michael E. Goldberg / Robert R. Goodman / Victor R. Grann / Linda Granowetter / Jonathan L. Gross / Jeffrey Helzner / Ralph Holloway / Barry Honig / Allen I. Hyman / Judith S. Jacobson / Sandra Kahn / Eric R. Kandel / Ran Kivetz / Oscar Lebwohl / Jonathan Levav / Moshe Levison / Nahum Melumad / Elizabeth Midlarsky / Abraham Monk / Alfred I. Neugut / Walter Neumann / Peter Ozsvath / Evan Picoult / Ruth Raphaeli-Slivko / Irina Reyfman / Jay Rothschild / Samuel Schacher / Alan F. Segal / Alan A. Seplowitz / Neil S. Shachter / Howard Shuman / Ethel S. Siris / Mervyn W. Susser / Robert N. Taub / Olivier Toubia / Warren D. Widmann / Eric D. Zarahn / Assaf Zeevi / Thomas D. Zweifel [EV: line breaks between signatures replaced with slashes]
Related Posts (on one page):
- 61 Columbia Professors Dissent
- God Forbid that a University President Should Condemn Bigoted, Dangerous, Oppressive Political Leaders
I think we can safely conclude then that by opposing the substance of Bollinger’s criticism of Iran’s role in financing terrorist attacks against American troops in Iraq, the 70 signators of the previous petition have allied themselves with Ahmadinejad’s war against the United States.
Although I suppose any white Christian who did so would get the "fundamentalist" slur instead of the "Zionist" one. Any Buddhists or Animists out there willing to carry the flag?
And if one assumes Roman Catholicism when one sees an Irish surname, then that whole "Fundamentalist-waiting-for-the-Apocalypse-in-Israel" slur also doesn't wash. The Vatican hasn't worried much about the Second Coming since AD 1000. When, despite concerns, nothing happened.
A shame, yes, but it wouldn't be the first time would it?
And as someone else mentioned, the names on the other petition do appear to lean (if not as heavily) toward typically muslim ethnicities. Might be nothing, but that juxtaposition combined with the prevalence of identity politics on campus makes me think of Lebanon, and not in a good way.
Think it will put some spine into their brethren and sistern on other campuses?
To my way of thinking, there's something of a contradiction in inviting a speaker putatively in the spirit of a "great tradition of openness," only to precede that invitee's talk with a resounding condemnation of the invitee. So while I'd agree the original 70 didn't narrow the grounds of their protest enough, I think EV's counterclaim is nearly as overbroad.
Duly noted.
I didn't pick the names. Are the names less evidence of Zionists at the university gates?
Humanities professors are scarce on this list of signatories, in contradistinction to the other one.
I think the modern term is "Neo-Con."
BTW, this was my favorite part of the statement:
"...our troops." at the bottom of ¶2.
I love the unity and I'm sure our troops would refer to this group of 61 dissenters as "...our professors."
That makes:
70 whiny self-righteous radicals,
61 decent people,
and
3261 cowardly pussies.
Are you saying that the only "decent people" are the ones who agree with you -- and who do so publicly?
This is incorrect. The words are his, and, more to the point, have been used for decades by his party.
I am saddened to see the names, because it looks as if most of the names on both lists are likely people who have an interest -- a bias, even -- on the issue of Israel. (I do, too, I'm against seeing it destroyed.)
Neither statement sounds like a ringing endorsement of academic (or even ordinary civic) freedom but more like the complaints of interested parties.
This may be unfair to a few of the signatories.
But where, in a faculty of 3,392 are people who give enough of a damn about free discourse to speak up, even if they don't have a particular ax to grind?
Columbia is looking worse and worse.
Are you saying that the only "decent people" are the ones who agree with you -- and who do so publicly?
Depends on what they're agreeing with me about.
If it's about whether Clinton or Giuliani would make a better president, no big deal.
If they disagree with me about whether it's right to kill people for being gay (I'm opposed) or to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel (I'm opposed) or to fund and assist people in randomly bombing unarmed civilians at bus stations and markets in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon (I'm opposed) then yes, I think it's more than a minor difference in judgement, it relates to basic human decency.
I do not consider murderous fascists decent people.
I do not consider their fans decent people.
I do not consider those unwilling to go on record as opposing murderous evil in their midst decent people.
More to the point, you seem to equate not signing the counter-statement with being a "fan" of "murderous fascists". That is a very unreasonable stance.
Sorry, I'm not sure what your question is asking. Could you clarify? Thanks.
Needlessly crude name calling aside, I wonder how many of those people simply believe they are employees of the University, Bollinger is their boss, and that its simply not their place to publicly debate his performance. Clearly they have the right, but maybe they believe it inappropriate.
I believe that academia generally suffers an overweening sense of entitlement when it comes to hectoring everyone in different pay-grades about what to think and do, but I hope some of the 3261 remained silent because they are not lunch room gossips.
Where are the rest of Columbia's staff? This is not unlike the demonstrations during the visit itself, when it seemed protesting the fundamentalist Irani regime is a "Jewish thing", rather than an issue of human rights.
Or possibly that someone hadn't heard, or was on vacation or was busy or could only buy half the argument or just didn't think the issue was worth commenting on. In other words, the fact that you infer consent doesn't mean it's there.
Really, an implication from an inference is kinda like an emanation from a penumbra, when you think about it.
If silence implies assent to any position it would seem to be the one that says Bollinger is doing his job well; after all, he has been in office for more than five years and hardly any faculty spoke out against him during that time. By that logic only the signatories of the original statement could be presumed to agree with its content while the 3,000-plus who have signed neither petition would have presumptively sided against them.
Since you evidently believe silence implies the opposite position, I hope you can explain why.
1 and 2 are matters of translation, so I won't get into them...but I WILL note that even the relatively benign interpretation of the "wipe Israel off the map" sentiment as "regime change" implies SOME sort of action.
3, you have no comment, so I'll ignore it too.
4, when everyday soldiers are breathing sighs of relief because they're not finding any more of the type of IEDs sent from Iran, one can assume that Iran is getting mixed up in Iraq.
5, yes, such as it is in 2007 - that is, a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
the original Port Huron Statement, not the compromised second draft
I hereby declare Thursday, November 22, 2007 to be "Anym Avey Day", recognition of which will replace all previous declared holiday desigation(s) in the United States. Until you speak up in opposition to my shenaningans, I'll presume your assent.
If that latter of those two statements seems as silly as the first, consider why, and then save the bombastic rhetoric for more suitable ocassions. Otherwise, I've got more like this, and we'll see who runs out of willpower first. Just like when we were both ten! Sound good?
Indeed. I also suspect that neither of these letters was circulated in an exceptionally proactive manner, or else we'd see more signatures on both lists. The one missing name that stuck out in my mind, though he's technically emeritus (but still chair of Center for the Study of Human Rights) and is in the law school is Professor Louis Henkin.
I call shenaningans!