April 3, 2007

Furor Over Norm Finkelstein

Norman G. Finkelstein has been more controversial off his campus than on it. On his frequent speaking tours to colleges, where he typically discusses Israel in highly critical ways, Finkelstein draws protests and debates. When the University of California Press published Finkelstein’s critique of Alan Dershowitz and other defenders of Israel in 2005, a huge uproar ensued — with charges and countercharges about hypocrisy, tolerance, fairness and censorship. But at DePaul University, Finkelstein has taught political science largely without controversy, gaining a reputation as a popular teacher.

Looking for a job?

See all 211 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,532
Administrative: 1,671
Executive: 168
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But the debate over Finkelstein is now hitting his home campus — and in a way sure to create more national controversy. Finkelstein is up for tenure. So far, his department has voted, 9-3, in favor of tenure and a collegewide faculty panel voted 5-0 to back the bid. But Finkelstein’s dean has just weighed in against Finkelstein.

In a memo leaked to some supporters of Finkelstein and obtained by Inside Higher Ed, Chuck Suchar writes that he finds “the personal attacks in many of Dr. Finkelstein’s published books to border on character assassination” and that Finkelstein’s tone and approach threaten “some basic tenets of discourse within an academic community.” Suchar says that Finkelstein’s record is “inconsistent with DePaul’s Vincentian values, most particularly our institutional commitment to respect the dignity of the individual and to respect the rights of others to hold and express different intellectual positions.”

While the leaked memo led to some false online reports that Finkelstein had been denied tenure, his case is very much alive and no final decision will be made until June, according to a university spokeswoman, who added that the dean’s memo was not meant for public consumption and that no administrators could comment.

Debates over scholars who take controversial views on the Middle East are, of course, nothing new to academe. But Finkelstein’s case may be in a category all its own. He portrays himself as a courageous scholar, bringing rationality to discussions of the Holocaust and Israel — all the more bold for being Jewish and doing so. While criticizing people who invoke the Holocaust to justify political positions, he constantly identifies his parents as Holocaust survivors.

His supporters tend to characterize Finkelstein as the victim of right-wing, pro-Israel forces — and there are plenty of conservative supporters of Israel who despise Finkelstein. But among the groups he’s currently sparring with is Progressive magazine, a decidedly left-of-center publication that regularly publishes pieces that are highly critical of Israel’s government. Finkelstein and his supporters also say that criticisms of his tone are an excuse for attacks on his political views — and that issue appears to be key to the DePaul dean’s review.

Much of the criticism from the dean focuses on Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry. The book argues that supporters of Israel use the Holocaust unreasonably to justify Israel’s policies. While the book does not deny that the Holocaust took place, it labels leading Holocaust scholars “hoaxters and huxters.” A review of the book in The New York Times called it full of contradictions (at one point he rejects the idea that the United States abandoned Europe’s Jews and then he later praises a book for which that idea was the central thesis) and full of “seething hatred” as he implies that Jews needed the Holocaust to justify Israel. The reviewer, Brown University’s Omer Bartov, a leading scholar of the Holocaust, described the book as “a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ “

Finkelstein said he could not comment on his tenure case in detail until later in the week, although he confirmed via e-mail that he had been approved at the departmental level and college levels, and that the dean was opposing his tenure. He also questioned the fairness of being judged by whether he adheres to Vincentian values. He said that the issue was never mentioned in his annual reviews and that he had always been told that his research would be judged by “the conventional academic requirements for scholarship.” It is wrong for DePaul to raise these issues now, he said. “You can’t spring new criteria at the second stage of the last year of a tenure-track position,” he said.

In Dean Suchar’s letter, he starts by noting that there has been no dispute at DePaul over the quality of Finkelstein’s teaching. He has received “consistently high” course evaluations, Suchar writes, and many students report that they have had “transformative” experiences in his classes.

The dispute over the tenure review focuses on research. The College Personnel Committee, a faculty-elected body that reviewed Finkelstein’s candidacy and unanimously endorsed it, raised concerns about the “tone” and “frequent personal attacks” in Finkelstein’s work, Suchar writes. That committee, however, concluded that “the scholarship was, on balance, sufficiently noteworthy and praiseworthy to merit their support for the application for promotion and tenure.”

Suchar disagrees. “I find this very characteristic aspect of his scholarship to compromise its value and find it to be reflective of an ideologue and polemicist who has a rather hurtful and mean-spirited sub-text to his critical scholarship — not only to prove his point and others wrong but, also in my opinion, in the process, to impugn their veracity, honor, motives, reputations and/or their dignity,” Suchar writes. “I see this as a very damaging threat to civil discourse in a university and in society in general.”

Finkelstein has also threatened to sue DePaul if he is denied tenure, Suchar writes, adding that this fits into the pattern. “Disagreements over the value of his work seem to prompt immediate threats and personal attacks. This does not augur well for a college and university that has a long-standing culture where respect for the dignity of all members of the community and where values of collegiality are paramount.”

Suchar’s memo was sent to a universitywide committee that will now review the case, which will then work its way to the president.

Supporters of Finkelstein take issue with the dean’s letter. “This is all because of Dershowitz wanting him to be fired. These people play rough,” said Peter N. Kirstein, a professor of history at Saint Xavier University who has blogged about the case and who is on the board of the Illinois conference of the American Association of University Professors. (Via e-mail, Dershowitz — who has previously battled with Finkelstein — said he had no information about the case.)

Kirstein questioned why the dean would mention Finkelstein’s threat of a lawsuit. “Doesn’t this country allow people to do things like suing?” he asked.

It would be appropriate for a dean to question the accuracy or significance of a professor’s work, but not to focus on its tone, Kirstein said.

On the question of the tone of one’s writing, Kirstein said he had plenty of experience. In 2002 he was suspended from his job after he sent an e-mail to a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy, calling the cadet “a disgrace to this country” and criticizing the “aggressive baby-killing tactics” of the military. Kirstein was reviled by many conservative groups and defended by many civil liberties groups.

“Tonality is usually a red herring to destroy controversial speech that elites don’t like,” Kirstein said.

Anne Clark Bartlett, a professor of English and president of the Faculty Council at DePaul, said that it is “not common” for deans to write letters disagreeing with the views of a department and collegewide panel reviewing a tenure candidate. But she also said that the faculty handbook did give deans that right.

Bartlett, who said she does not know Finkelstein, said that she has not taken a stand on his case and wants to see how the process plays out. She said that it was important that administrators respect that the university’s regulations “give the faculty primary responsibility over promotion and personnel matters” for professors.

Robert Kreiser, associate secretary of the American Association of University Professors, said that the national office of the group had recently received the dean’s memo and was paying close attention to the case, but had not been asked to play a formal role. He said that the dean’s involvement and raising the issue of tone were not — in and of themselves — cause for concern with regard to academic freedom. He said that any questions about academic freedom would focus on the fairness of the dean’s comments, the due process afforded to Finkelstein, and how those comments were viewed in the totality of the evidence about Finkelstein’s tenure bid.

However, Kreiser said that the AAUP believes that “ordinarily a dean would defer to the judgment of a faculty member’s peers.” AAUP policy calls for administrators to have “compelling reasons” that they can present before they overrule a faculty recommendation on tenure.

“The dean would have to provide compelling reasons,” Kreiser said. The question going forward will be: “Were the dean’s reasons compelling?”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Defending something called “civil discourse” is always the favorite claim of deans and administrators seeking to fire people, bust unions, and marginalize critical views.

Melocoton, at 7:50 am EDT on April 3, 2007

Faculty Governance

Anne Bartlett as quoted in the article: “She said that it was important that administrators respect that the university’s regulations ‘give the faculty primary responsibility over promotion and personnel matters” for professors’.”

And that’s really the issue. If the professor’s colleagues see fit to tenure him, the dean should butt out.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 9:10 am EDT on April 3, 2007

Who is in Charge of the Money

Tenure means lifetime salary. The administration should have the last word on that.

Quizzical, at 10:10 am EDT on April 3, 2007

Tenture should not be a revard for contradictions

In a free country, citizens such as Finkelstein are entitled to their views (with which I for the record do vehemently disagree).

However, it seems disingenuous for an academic organization to permit tenure for a professor who promotes extreme views backed by contradictory or specious research, while at once demanding that the institution’s students adhere to the highest standards of critical thinking, spotless factuality and logical writing.

Thus, we now have a double contradiction.

Finkelstein discredits any institution of higher learning that would have him on either a temporary or permanent basis.

Ira T. Lovitch, at 10:25 am EDT on April 3, 2007

The Politeness Police

It will be interesting to compare this case with that of Thomas Klocek, the adjunct professor at DePaul who was suspended after getting in an argument with Palestinian students. Will the conservatives who rightly defended Klocek make a similar argument against denying Finkelstein tenure for the crime of being rude? Of course, as a tenure-track professor, Finkelstein has far greater protections, so perhaps he will prevail against the conservative forces who want to get rid of him. But the principle that politeness should not be imposed on campuses is at stake here.

John K. Wilson, at 11:10 am EDT on April 3, 2007

Professor Finkelstein’s scholarship and the response by his Dean has to be understood within the larger assault on academic freedom in the United States after the events of 9/11. In a political climate of marked by a growing authoritarianism, dissent is increasingly dismissed as either anti-semitic or unpatriotic. Questioning established truths has always riled the clerks of tradition so why even suggest it should be weighed as a criterion for tenure. What is really at stake in these embarrassing events is the refusal of the United States to question its foreign and domestic polices and the way in which this culture of fear and dogmatism is being enforced in higher education, which has been under assault now for some years. The attack on Professor Finkelstein is simply a shameful symptom of a much deeper problem. The attack on Professor Finkelstein is not just an attack on academic freedom and the terms of rigorous scholarship, but the very conditions that make democracy possible.

Henry Giroux, at 11:35 am EDT on April 3, 2007

Just to put things in the right proportions...

The first time I heard of DePaul University was when I looked up where Finkelstein works. This is the second time I heard of DePaul University.

Irit, at 12:10 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

THIS, NOT FINKELSTEIN, IS UNACCEPTABLE!

We are witnessing before our eyes a growing iceberg enveloping academia, one expression of which is the role of administrators who are willing to sacrifice scholars and scholarship that challenge powerful “official versions” of history and current international policy in order to ‘protect’ their institutions from controversy orchestrated and fueled by extreme right wing forces connected to the Bush crew determined to protect U.S., and in this case Israeli, policy from criticism.

The dean’s willingness to ignore the high marks from Finkelstein’s students for his teaching, and his colleagues for his scholarship, and recommend that he be denied tenure underlines the urgency of scholars, public intellectuals and students coming to the side of those being targeted, and refusing to allow this “Nazification” of the universities from going any further.

Page 65 of the current NYRB carries an Open Letter Calling on the U. of Colorado to Reverse Its Recommendation to Dismiss Ward Churchill, who’s case is approaching a climax. And an Emergency National Conference is planned for Boulder on April 28th aimed at stopping Ward’s firing. Be there.

Reggie Dylan, at 12:45 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

I’m guessing Irit didn’t spend a lot of time watching the NCAA Tourney in the late 70’s or early 80’s. That said, and hoops aside, I don’t think many would would mistake DePaul for Harvard, but I don’t think many would call it a “fly by night” institution either.

maineroad, at 12:45 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Vincentian values

As a former faculty member of DePaul University I am surprised that any faculty member could claim ignorance of the importance of Vincentian values at a Vincentian university, especially in the context of tenure.

All new tenure-track faculty in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences go through a year-long series that includes the importance of the values of St. Vincent DePaul. This is a cornerstone of the university named for him and this Order of the Catholic Church.

Matthew Liao-Troth, at 1:20 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

The case is far from complete

The article is a little bit premature as the process of tenure is far from over. DePaul’s tenure procedure is a bit idiosyncratic. It is basically segmented into five levels.

1. Self-nomination.The decision to put someone forward for promotion is made by the candidate. At the pre-tenure level this usually has little effect on the process unless the candidate wants an early promotion. At the tenure level it is unusual for individual faculty members to be entirely responsible for the decision to put their department through the review process.

2. The department level.

At the department level a committee is formed to review the case and present its findings to the department for a vote. A majority report is then formed based on the committees report and the departments vote. If there is some dissent, a minority report accompanies the majority one. What is unusual at DePaul is that outside letters evaluating research are not a mandatory part of the process. While most departments use them, it is not a requirement.

3. The College level.

The College of liberal arts has an elected personnel committee of six members distributed among the various areas of interest, i.e. science, humanities, social sciences. If an opening for a science member is coming up, a list of every non-tenured member of the appropriate departments is sent to every faculty member in the college of liberal arts and they are asked to vote. This procedure is followed for several other committees within the college and it tends to produce the committees from a fairly narrow group of faculty. At the college level, the committee reviews the files, votes and based on the discussion and the vote the dean makes a recommendation and the case moves to the next level.

4. The University Tenure and Promotion Board consists of seven members who either represent professional schools or areas of scholarship such as science or humanities. This group is chosen by the all university Faculty Council on the basis of recommendations from the Committee on committees. This Tenure Board reviews the case, votes and based on the discussion and vote the Provost makes a recommendation to the president of the university.

5. The president of the university reviews the cases and makes a recommendation to the Board. Theoretically I suppose the Board could disagree with the presidents recommendation as far as I know that never happens.

What people who are interested in this case need to understand is that at any stage, the candidate can elect to go forward. Even if there is a negative vote or a negative recommendation from the Dean or department, the candidate can proceed to the next level.

While a negative vote by the college personnel committee in conjunction with a negative letter from the dean is certainly not a good sign, candidates have proceeded to the Tenure and Promotion Board and gotten a favorable decision.

From the point of view of the Tenure and Promotion Board in Finkelstein’s case, the Dean’s letter is a statement of his opinion and the faculty’s vote is a statement of theirs. The tenure Board is under no obligation to accept either and in the light of the split nature of the recommendation their decision will probably be somewhat independent of the decisions at the lower levels.

The position of the president at this point is a matter of idle speculation. I doubt that he has his mind made up and it will probably be influenced by the discussion and vote of the tenure board as well as the recommendation of the provost.

This is a difficult case for the university because Finkelstein’s views which are thoroughly intertwined with his scholarly activities are controversial and to many extremely offensive. He is one of Israel’s severest critics. He spends many weekends traveling to college campuses where he blames the Arab/Israel conflict on the Israeli side and frequently compares Israel to Nazi Germany. He is warmly welcomed by left wing and pro-Palestinian groups and despised by supporters of Israel. In all honesty, DePaul can not win in this process. The decision will be seen by many as a judgment on DePaul’s view of the Arab/Israeli conflict and those who don’t like the decision will be furious about it.

There are aspects of DePaul that make this decision more difficult.

1. The review of research for tenure is left up to the individual departments. Outside letters are not required and there are no college wide rules for the collection of such material. This is especially problematic in Finkelstein’s case. It would be an understatement to say he has his admirers and his critics. Since his work is so polemical it is virtually impossible to separate questions of scholarship from questions of opinion. He claims to base much of his work on the previous work of the Israeli historian Benny Morris and the University of Chicago professor Peter Novick. Both of these professors have been critical of Finkelstein’s work. Morris thinks he has misused his work and Novick thinks his book, “The Holocaust Industry", is an updated version of the Protocols of the elders of Zion. On the other hand, there are many academics who share Finkelstein’s view of Israel and would be very supportive. So how does the department evaluate his work?

The political science department at DePaul is probably the schools most left leaning department. There are a couple of Clinton Democrats but the rest are way to the left of that. They hired Finkelstein because they felt comfortable with his views and activities. In fact, one reason he was hired was to teach about the conflict in the middle-east. It is hard for me to believe that their evaluation of his scholarship is not heavily influenced by their political opinions.

The second problem is that DePaul has gone to great lengths to declare itself a welcoming institution, one that respects the dignity of all. Personally I think that is a load of crap but DePaul has invested a lot of time, energy and money in the idea that it would under no circumstance tolerate insults to any race, religion, gender, sexual preference or ethnicity. Finkelstein’s writing and speaking about Israel and even more his comments about American Jews are considered offensive by many people. It would be hypocritical to send out letters to the entire university community branding the College Republicans as offensive for staging an affirmative action bake sale (a satiric protest in which different races and genders are charged differing amounts for cookies) and say nothing when it tenures a professor who spends his weekends branding Israelis as Nazis.

The whole movement to ban “offensive” speech is hypocritical because if they ever enforced it the only faculty left would be timid white males. But in Finkelstein’s case, he is abrasive, he insults those with whom he disagrees and pursues public personal confrontations with individuals such as Alan Dershowitz and Joan Peters. And if the university wants to have any credibility about its concern for civility, it is difficult to explain why they hired him.

The third problem DePaul has is that for many years it has made public advocacy for liberal causes a major part of its missions. Unlike some schools that deny political bias, DePaul boasted about it. It chose its graduation speakers, wrote its gen ed requirement rules, allocated hires, and built its programs with the idea of promoting its view of social justice. It touted the public intellectuals and in its public relations featured the public appearances of faculty in the social sciences.

The problem with this approach is that when DePaul gets associated with particular political opinions and causes, those who don’t like those opinions are not going to be very happy with DePaul. If DePaul wasn’t up to its neck in political advocacy, it would be easy to disassociate itself from the views of Norman Finkelstein. But when it holds an exhibition of Palestinian art that features a piece likening Yitzhak Rabin to some kind of monster and it is endorsed by numerous departments and the department of Student Affairs, it is difficult to then turn around and say it doesn’t endorse the views of its most outspoken anti-Israel professor.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the issue is far from settled. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Jonathan Cohen, Professor of Mathematics at DePaul University, at 1:20 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Who needs another Ward Churchill? It’s clear that the faculty in his department has been politicized. All hiring decisions should come from the administration until scholarship has replaced politics.

Jason, at 2:30 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

To Prof. Cohen: Actually the school had Ellie Wiesel speak at a convocation several years ago, which counts as an official University function much more than a student organized art display of Palestinian art. I have a lot more opinions on this issue, but they will be communicated in more concise ways.

Matt Muchowski, Actually.... at DePaul University Alum, at 3:05 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Another Churchill?

Reggie Dylan is way off the mark in comparing Finkelstein’s troubles at Depaul with Ward Churchill’s troubles at CU. Finkelstein’s colleagues at Depaul want to keep him. Churchill’s colleagues at CU want him gone. Churchill’s case has been through three different CU faculty committees so far, and they really, really don’t like him.

Thomas Brown, at 5:10 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Professor Cohen’s asserted “DePaul can not win in this process.” I respectfully disagree with this comment: If respect for academic freedom is upheld. If critical thinking is nurtured and even embraced. If outstanding teaching, as evidenced in this matter, is appropriately validated, the institutional culture is enriched and invigorated and DePaul “wins.”

Peter N. Kirstein, at 5:10 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Prof.Finkelstein

Prof.Finkelstein is a very brave man.He most certainly deserves tenure,but aggressive academics like Dershowitz want to deny him tenure because they don’t want a free and open debate on the issues that Mr.Finkelstein raises.What else is new with the likes of Dershowitz?

Kenneth Reynolds, at 7:05 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

the fate of an honest intellectual

here’s some supplemental context: noam chomsky recounting what happened to finkelstein as a result of his uncovering the “from time immemorial” fraud as a princeton grad student in the eighties.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm

ira, at 8:01 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Truly Amazing

All;

The level of debate here (with some notable exceptions) is driven by the uninformed and I hope is recognized as such.

DePaul is not a research I University but institutionally better understands what academic freedom means than the vast majority of the polemecists posting to this thread.

The “smart” thing to do is to ignore the ignorant posts — but as a first generation college student and faculty member who received a degree from a top five university in my field and returned to DePaul to continue the mission I can not.

We will honor Dr. Finkelstein’s right to offer provocative scholarship and support it. We will also honor the right of our faculty to disagree with his scholarship.

If there was no minority stance on such a controversial scholar we would not be a University.

Understand it or don’t. The heart of the issue is the freedom to disagree.

Aninterestedparty, at 9:21 pm EDT on April 3, 2007

Kirstein on Klocek

Peter....what about similar rights that seem to have been denied in the Klocek case?

John Ruberry, at 2:21 am EDT on April 4, 2007

double standard — Dershowitz also polemical

Since Finkelstein’s scholarship is not in question, what is the issue? His polemical undertone? I wish it weren’t there also. But many scholars have polemical undertones, including Alan Dershowitz. As long as Finkelstein’s scholarship is excellent, why can Dershowitz have a polemical tone but not Finkelstein? Typical Israel-lobby double standards. And we can all be sure that if Finkelstein had the same impeccable scholarship and underlying polemical tone, but that the underlying polemical tone were strongly pro-Israel, like Dershowitz’s, no one would have any problems with his tenure. Again typical McCarthyite-AIPAC witch-hunt double standards. And ironically just the sort of double standards that Finkelstein’s scholarship exposes.

observer, at 12:10 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

A matter if timing

Obviously, Finkelstein should have waited to be controversial until after he got tenure. Isn’t that how it works? Then Suchar might have judged him on the quality of his scholarship and his teaching abilities, rather than the title of a chapter in one of his books.

Or is he being judged on the donations the university might gain or lose by having a scholar of international standing who is unacceptably effective as a critic of Israel? Hmmm. I wonder.

Paul Larudee, at 1:41 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

Not only is Finkelstein’s scholarship in question (given his shoddy book) but he rightfully brings the competence of the whole department into question. If he deserves to be in the same category of Ward Churchill or Nicholas DeGenova, it is clear that he is a disgrace and his tenure would bring dishonor to DePaul. The Alumni should be outraged and the administration should be very concerned.

Jason, at 2:35 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

Intellectual Dissonance

The lionizing of Finkelstein as a brave voice of protest is simply ludicrous. Finkelstein, along with the other sacred cows of modern Middle East studies figures, such as Edward Said or Noam Chomsky, are lauded for their academic honesty against the vicious Israel lobby. How many academics would make tenure at Berkeley or DePaul if they took a brave stance vis-a-vis the Right of Return or Islamic complicity in the intellectual and ethical stagnation of the Muslim world? Or the recent, undeniable upsurge in violence perpetrated by Islamicists? They would probably be called Islamophobes or, inaccurately, racists. And to the genius who couldn’t see the irony of claiming Nazification of universities by Israeli and American concerns, really think about what you’re saying...

Joel, at 4:00 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

Norman Finklestein should be denied tenure because of the substance, not the tone of his so-called scholarship. He should be denied tenure not because I say so but because numerous objective scholars have reviewed his work and have determined that it does not meet even the most minimal standards of authentic scholarship. Listen to the words of University of Chicago Professor Michael Novick, the very man who Finklestein claims was the “initial stimulus” for him to write his nearly universally condemned screed, The Holocaust Industry:

“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) ‘debate’ but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. […] No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”

Another distinguished scholar, Omer Bartov of Brown University, characterized The Holocaust Industry as “irrational and insidious,” a “conspiracy theory,” “verg[ing] on paranoia,” full of “dubious rhetoric and faulty logic,” “indifference to historical facts,” and “sensational ‘revelations’ and outrageous accusations.” `Then read the letter I wrote at the request of the former chairman of the Political Science Department at DePaul University documenting numerous instances of alleged quotes that were simply made up; alleged facts that were entirely fictional; and alleged citations that are non-existent. (www.alandershowitz.com) This is academic fraud, not scholarship. The reality is that Norman Finklestein’s alleged scholarship does not exist. All he writes is ad hominem attacks on his ideological enemies. His tone is his substance! As I wrote in my letter “Although he claims to be a “forensic scholar,” he limits his defamations to one ideological group and never applies his so-called “forensic” tools to his own work or to those who share his ideological perspective. One does not deserve the title of “forensic scholar” unless he is prepared to apply that science equally across the board. Finkelstein merely uses forensic tools available to any first-year college student to defame his ideological enemies. That is not forensic scholarship; it is propaganda.”

Nasty tone alone should neither disqualify a scholar from tenure, nor should it qualify a non-scholar for tenure.

Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University, at 4:41 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

“Nasty tone alone should neither disqualify a scholar from tenure, nor should it qualify a non-scholar for tenure.”

Agree!

But perhaps people who advocate torture should disqualify?

Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Torture — By MIKE WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney06092004.html

Baldwin, at 7:45 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

Dershowitz on scholarship

Thank you, professor Dershowitz, for affirming that Dr. Finkelstein should not be denied tenure for the tone of his scholarship. May we quote you? I also appreciate your gracious exclusion of yourself from the ranks of objective scholars like Novick and Bartov. By the way, what qualifies them them as objective? Is it their defense of Israel? That is a good indicator. Finally, thank you for clarifying that discrediting your work is so easy that a first-year college student can do it. It confirms my impression.

Paul Larudee, Registered Piano Technician at Piano Technicians Guild, at 9:50 pm EDT on April 4, 2007

suppporting scholarship with evidence — or not

Norman Finkeltstin says a lot of offensive things, but the question of tenure is decided on scholarship. Here, Finkelstein fails because his work is not based on a scholarly consideration of the evidence. It is more a compilation of innuendo and half-truths to support a political argument.

It is intereting that it is only one of several tenure battles being fought on similar grunds (eg. Nadia bau El Haj at Barnard College has written one, finkelstein-like book in which she slanders, suppotrs her slanders with anonymous sources and strings together half-truths sometimes even misciting languages she does not know to make a political argument)

the interesting thing is that the people supporting finkelstein and El Haj do not argue that their scholarship is good, only that their rights are — somehow — being suppressed. The right, apparently, to publish shoddy scholarship.

Ann, at 5:45 am EDT on April 5, 2007

Hilberg on Finkelstein

Omer Bartov’s OTT attack should be compared with the views of Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg, which have been available on Finkelstein’s website for some time.

Bartholomew, at 9:47 am EDT on April 5, 2007

DePaul is clearly drawing national attention as it deals with such frauds as Finkelstein. At this point it will lose either way. If it proceeds with giving tenure to Finkelstein it will expose the low level of scholarship in its political science department. If it kicks Finkelstein out it will appear to have buckled to outside pressure. A recent article on Front Page Magazine is in the link below.

Jason, at 11:20 am EDT on April 5, 2007

McCarthyite and Political-Motivated Inquisition

Dershowitz should be ashamed. An arrogant Harvard professor is interfering in DePaul’s tenure decisions. A Harvard professor who writes books on the Middle East with a polemical tone and not even scholarly credentials in the field— as it’s not his scholarly field of expertise, but who is butting into DePaul’s private institutional matters.

Many distinguished academic scholarly peer reviewers have approved and approved for publication Norman Finkelstein’s numerous scholarly works. And excellent — indeed superb — scholarship comes down on both sides of the burning Middle East questions. So though other excellent scholars can write excellent academic work that comes down on the other side of the basic Middle East questions, Dershowitz is not even one of them, as he is not a Middle East scholar— it is Finkelstein who is, and a distinguished one.

Moreover, contra Dershowitz in his ad hominem and tasteless interference from his non-Middle East perch at imperial Harvard, as apparently if you are from Harvard you can think you don’t have to be an expert on something still to think you can interfere anywhere in the world, including at DePaul — the article points out that Finkelstein’s scholarly peers at DePaul support his tenure on the basis of his scholarship.

This isontra Dershowitz letter and his interfering supporters.

And also contra Dershowitz, the Dean at De Paul had questions not about his scholarship, but precisely about his tone. And here is where Dershowitz recognized he had lost, so he hastened to enter the conversation and say it wasn’t about Finkelstein’s tone but his scholarship. Because Dershowitz knows that he also writes with a polemical tone, on a subject that isn’t even his field, and yet arrogates himself the right to interfere with other institution’s hiring decisions — just ase he arrogated himself the right to interfere with whether the scholarly University California Press, as advised by its own Mideast academic and expert peer reviewers, should publish Finkelstein’s book. Thankfully they did publish it espite Dershowitz’s own inexpert and chillingly repressive efforts.

This is indeed McCarthyite, and the Dean needs to support his own local and expert faculty; the Dean is right that it is about tone rather than outstanding scholarship, and so he needs to understand that if Finkelstein had the same tone but used it on behalf of right-wing Israeli politics, neither Dershowitz nor anyone else would be making any arrogant interferences with the De Paul’s faculty’s general opinion that Finkelstein should get tenure.

And that “tone", such as the tone of of Dershowitz himself, has nothing to do with scholarship, or Dershowitz, and Richard Dawkins, and an innumerable host of famous faculty in all other fields would not have their own distinguished chairs either.

So why pick on Finkelstein? Purely his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, of course. All double-standard-watchers should take grave note of this inquisition.

J. Adler, at 11:20 am EDT on April 5, 2007

Norman Finkelstein’s Whining

Finkelstein’s a fine one to be whining about academic freedom.

Upon being requested to sign a petition condemning death threats against Muslim dissidents, he replied, “Is there a petition supporting the death threats? (http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/petition.html)

Sophia, at 2:35 pm EDT on April 5, 2007

Middle East History

I have known Norman Finklestein for decades and admire the courage he has displayed over and over again in tackling some of the toughest issues of the Arab-Israeli crisis. His refutation of Joan Peter’s spurious scolarship was exemplary and his willingness to take on the leading figures in the field with whose scholarship he disagreed needs commendation, not condemnation.

Stuart Schaar, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn College, at 6:15 pm EDT on April 5, 2007

Finkelstein’s “Service” to DePaul?

Finkelstein’s followers are arguing that he should be granted tenure on the basis of “service” he provided to his university. And what is that servce? Clowning for neo-nazis and promoting terrorists! Some “service". Some basis for granting tenure!

sagi cohen, at 7:35 am EDT on April 6, 2007

tenure

Norman Finkelstien is certainly not a holocaust denier as some try to say. He simply establishes a credible case for the misuse of this horendous event in modern history. His teaching credentials are impeccable and his opinions should not be a basis for tenure denial.stan Maron

stanley maron, retired at dept of social service nyc, at 11:35 am EDT on April 6, 2007

Norman Finkelstein

Norm Finkelstein’s scholarly standards have never been seriously challenged. To the contrary, he has been lauded consistently by his peers and some publications.

Predictably, blind supporters of Israeli policies have attempted to discredit his work. However, they have provided no cogent evidence to refute the major assertions of that work. His exhaustive research is always precise and well documented to the point of annoyance.

Previous disparaging comments here present no cogent evidence to support their claims. What else is new? They are repelled by his cogent criticism of various Israeli governments. Too bad. Denial and indifference are their stock in trade when it involves the well documented slow, ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The post Zionist “New Historians” in Israel opened that door.

It appears that “tone” is a criterion that the unscholarly Dean of DePaul has interjected into the tenure process. I am not a scholar, either. but when does “tone” drive scholarly standards? How transparent.

Alan Dershowitz has publicly shamed himself and his university by intervening in DePaul’s tenure process. In previous debates which are available on Finkelstein’s web site, Finkelstein has clobbered Dershowitz in almost comical exchanges.

Parenthetically, on numerous occasions, Dershowitz has refused to debate Noam Chomsky on Israeli/Palestinian issues. I was present for one of those times on a local now defunct marginal radio station in Boston. The talk show host confirmed Dershowitz peculiar absence.

In Nov. 2006, in the Jerusalem Post, Dershowitz attacked Israeli scholar Neve Gordon. Gordon asserted that Dershowitz attempted to block publication of Finkelstein’s latest book “Beyond Chutzpah.” Dershowitz claimed he wrote nothing to Finkelstein’s publisher that would prevent the book from publication. Dershowitz adamantly stated that he “released” the letters that he wrote to the publisher. However, puzzlingly, the peripatetic letters have never been seen despite Dershowitz protestations to the contrary. Anyone may email Dershowitz, as I respectfully did; he failed to enlighten me on just where those letters could be read. He did offer ad hominem attacks, but nothing else. Again, what else is new?

For activists such as myself, we rely on credible scholars to do the heavy lifting. When some of these eminent people act like clowns toward serious scholarly work that they cannot abide, then we we all are diminished.

God bless Norm Finkelstein and others with the courage to present the facts despite the brickbats.

Bruce Boccardy, at 1:15 pm EDT on April 6, 2007

loss of credibility

If I were on the DePaul faculty, this affair would dissolve any support I had for the Dean. Anyone who knows anything about this affair knows that Dershowitz is guilty of the charges that Finkelstein has levelled at him. It doesn’t take too long to investigate here. Their debate on Democracy Now can be linked to on F’s website. Have a look. Hilarious.

I expect more from a university. If F is denied tenure at DePaul, it it will not look good for the university. Dershowitz has become a professional liar, and really doesn’t seem to know much about the issue. F, on the other hand, is an expert on the issue. This much can’t be denied. Universities are supposed to have a commitment to knowledge and to the truth. Shame on DePaul.

jcr, at 1:50 pm EDT on April 6, 2007

Up to this point, Dershowitz’s antics have not worked. UC Press understood that Finkelstein is a good scholar (but submitted his work to extensive peer review), and Gov Schwarzenegger cited academic freedom. Again, it does not say good things about DePaul when their dean gets bullied like this.

jcr, at 2:45 pm EDT on April 6, 2007

Dersh’s unmitigated chutzpah

For an example of how Derh deals with intellectual opponents, see:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/dershowitz.htm

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.1/abraham.htm

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/abraham.htm

WMB, Dersh’s antics, at 4:05 pm EDT on April 7, 2007

Dershowitz on Finkelstein

Once again, for perhaps the tenth or twelfth time, Professor Alan Dershowitz attacks Professor Norman Finkelstein by quoting from reviews of THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY by Omer Bartov and Peter Novick, whom he refers to, with typical Dershowitzian rigor, as “Michael Novick,” confusing him, perhaps, with Michael Novak, who is quite a different person. And once again, Professor Dershowitz gives us no hint that he has actually read the book.

One of the traits distinguishing a scholar from a brawling hack is that the former actually reads books and talks about them, where the latter spreads unsubstantiated gossip. This is another example of the sort of second-hand “scholarship” Professor Dershowitz practiced when compiling THE CASE FOR ISRAEL, for which he sent his graduate teaching assistants out to cobble together bits of research from such universally-discredited sources as Joan Peters’ FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL.

It’s simply staggering to think that DePaul University might deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein, who has written three books with international reputations, on the grounds of an ostensible lack of “collegiality,” which seems to be emerging as a fourth tenure requirement alongside research, teaching, and service. This is simply genteel corporate-academic thuggery reminiscent of David Byrne’s great line from “Psycho Killer": “I hate people when they’re not polite.”

We can only hope that scholarship will prevail at DePaul. Best of luck to Norman Finkelstein and his future students and readers.

James Holstun, Professor of English at SUNY Buffalo, at 5:15 pm EDT on April 7, 2007

Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign

For those people who read this article and want to do something, please go to this website and sign the letter supporting Dr. Finkelstein’s tenure.

http://normanfinkelstein.wordpress.com/

Dr. Marcy Newman, Visiting Professor at American University of Beirut, at 4:51 pm EDT on April 8, 2007

Polemics

To argue that Professor Finkelstein shouldn’t be granted tenure because his arguments are too polemical is absurd. If a political science professor wrote a book condemning the policies of Castro’s government, including polemical remarks about the selfish motivations of government officials, would she be denied tenure on the basis of being too polemical? What about a sociologist who argues that certain southern evangelist preachers are mere con men? Certainly, each of these books may offend people, but that is irrelevant to their value in academia.

Academic discourse should not be restricted to topics that don’t offend people. Many academics in sociology and political science are highly critical of the American government, of western culture, and of Christianity. People might be offended, and some of these academics might have come to the wrong conclusions- as Finkelstein may have- but their work should be evaluated by their academic peers on the strength of the arguments and research contained in their work.

Professor Dershowitz cites no problem with Finkelstein’s arguments other than that they are ad hominem— the fallacy of attacking a person in order to try to refute the argument given by that person. This makes me think Professor Dershowitz needs to take a course on critical thinking: Yes, Finkelstein’s arguments are designed to criticize the behavior of certain groups, e.g. AIPAC, and the ADL. However, it is obviously not the case that every time someone gives reasons to believe that a person or their behavior is wrong, that their reasoning is fallacious. For example, I could give reasons to be critical of Castro, without committing the fallacy of ad hominem.

Indeed, Deshowitz is the one arguing ad hominem, by criticizing Finkelstein’s arguments without even discussing what those arguments are.

Kris, at 11:56 am EDT on April 10, 2007

Responding to Dershowitz

As unpleasant as I find it, Professor Dershowitz deserves a response if only for his oft-repeated, malicious, and—need I say it?—baseless accusation that Finkelstein is a “Holocaust revisionist” (http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/statement.html).

As most readers familiar with the trials of British Holocaust denier David Irving or Ernst Zündel will know, the charge of Holocaust revisionism is a serious one despite the absence of official penalties in this country for such activity. To level such a charge is, understandably, to attempt to utterly discredit one’s opponent as it places the alleged Holocaust revisionist in the company of Holocaust deniers like Irving and Zündel.

That Dershowitz attempts to tar Finkelstein with the revisionist brush, however, ought to be taken as positive proof of Finkelstein’s charge regarding the misuse that has been made of the Nazi Holocaust and the development of a Holocaust industry that exploits it in order to discredit and deflect criticisms of Israeli government policy and practice.

Let me elaborate.

Central to Dershowitz’s identification of Finkelstein as a Holocaust revisionist is Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, especially its deliberately provocative title which makes apparent the books central project: to uncover the ideological transformation of a historical event (the Nazi Holocaust) into an ideology ("The Holocaust") pressed into the service of particular political and economic interests.

That Dershowitz appears incapable of recognizing Finkelstein’s clear separation of the historical event (which he, like any other rational person, recognizes as real) from its ideological distortion (which Finkelstein nevertheless argues is equally real in its political and economic effects)—an inability that appears to lie somewhere near the heart of his charge that Finkelstein is a Holocaust revisionist—reveals only that Professor Dershowitz is either an extremely bad reader or a maddeningly ideological one. Or perhaps both.

To return to my argument, however, Dershowitz never provides outright evidence of Finkelstein’s alleged revisionism. Instead, he lets others do it for him, citing the New York Times review of The Holocaust Industry which places the book in the same tradition as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and making oblique but unsubstantiated reference to Finkelstein’s alleged belief in “a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.”

Such claims appear to identify the source of Finkelstein’s alleged revisionism in his admittedly provocative argument for the emergence of what might be termed a Holocaust industry that seeks to profit politically and materially from the exploitation of the memory of the Nazi Holocaust.

If this is indeed the foundation of Dershowitz’s claim for Finkelstein’s revisionism, it is demonstrably weak.

Although Finkelstein does not, I believe, acknowledge it as an intellectual precursor or source of inspiration for his own project, Pierre Vidal-Naquet’s Les Assassins de la mémoire (1987) makes, at several points, substantially the same charge that Finkelstein does regarding the ideological exploitation of the Nazi Holocaust. In the chapter entitled “A Paper Eichmann,” Vidal-Naquet, arguing for the historian’s duty to “withdraw the data from the hands of the ideologues that exploit them, asserts “In the case of the genocide of the Jews, it is clear that one Jewish ideology, Zionism, exploits the great massacre in a manner that is on occasion scandalous” (p. 16, English edition). Slightly later, in the chapter “Theses on Revisionism” Vidal-Naquet writes of the “daily use made of the great slaughter by the Israeli political class” (p. 96, English edition. In such a context, Vidal-Naquet argues that:

The genocide of the Jews abruptly ceases being a historical reality, experienced existentially, and becomes a commonplace tool of political legitimation, brought to bear in obtaining political support within the country as well as in pressuring the Diaspora to follow unconditionally the inflections of Israeli policy. Such is the paradox of a use that makes of the genocide at once a sacred moment in history, a very secular argument, and even a pretext for tourism and commerce. (p. 96, English edition)

If Dershowitz seriously considers as evidence of revisionism Finkelstein’s argument for the ideological exploitation of the Nazi Holocaust among certain sectors of Judaism globally (and I would add that certain non-Jews have played an important role in this exploitation as well), intellectual consistency would demand that he find Vidal-Naquet’s book—arguably one of the great works written against revisionism—so as well.

The obvious absurdity of any such charge—against either Vidal-Naquet or Finkelstein—brings me around to my earlier point: Dershowitz’s mendacious efforts to identify Finkelstein as a revisionist reveal the existence and operation of the very industry Finkelstein argues for in his book. While it is obvious that Professor Dershowitz does not receive pay from some nonexistent corporation called “Zionism, Inc.,” nor attend meetings of its shareholders, his work in attacking critics of Israeli policy—even, as in the present case, going so far as to interfere in the tenure process of a fellow academic—and of attempting to police what can be said about the Nazi Holocaust can be said to form part of a larger ideological effort—an industry, if you like—to limit when and to what ends the memory of the Nazi Holocaust can be invoked.

Eric Johnson-DeBaufre

Eric Johnson-DeBaufre, Ph. D candidate, at 5:11 pm EDT on April 11, 2007

Congratulations to Reggie Dylan!! He was the first one to blame George Bush for this controversy. Reggie states that “extreme right wing forces connected to the Bush crew"... had something to do with Norm not receiving his tenure??? Right wing forces at DePaul University? PLEASE...I don’t know where you attended college Reggie, but you have a better chance of spotting “bigfoot” walking around DePaul University then you do any conservative professors or administrators.

Robert Lashley, at 4:15 am EDT on April 16, 2007

Jobs Related to Furor Over Norm Finkelstein

or search for jobs directly.

Adjunct Faculty, Dept. of Physics (Part-Time)
Bridgewater State College, MA

BSC is one of the largest and most exciting centers for higher education in the commonwealth. Here in our idyllic setting, ... see job

Electronic Art Faculty
University of California, Santa Cruz

The Art Department (http://art.ucsc.edu/) of the University of California, ... see job

Assistant Director of Multicultural Affairs
Western Carolina University

Western Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, announces its search for the new ... see job

Faculty — Teacher Education/Prof Studies — 9PETED01
Texas Woman’s University

TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY College of Professional Education Department of Teacher Education Assistant Professor or Associate ... see job

Assistant Scientist
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Associate or Full Professor of Accounting (Tisone Professorship)
University of Colorado

Posting Description: University of Colorado, Boulder Leeds School of Business Accounting Division Tisone ... see job

Open Rank Faculty
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora

Posting Description: The School of Public Affairs (SPA) at the University of Colorado Denver seeks ... see job

Assistant Professor of English: Creative Writing — Poetry
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The University of Colorado at Boulder Department of English announces a tenure-track ... see job

Mathematics Instructor I — (2 Positions)
Florida Gulf Coast University

FGCU, a member of the State University System of Florida, is a comprehensive university created to address the educational ... see job

Instructor, Fire Science/Emergency Management
College of Lake County

The College of Lake County is searching for a Instructor, Fire Science/Emergency Management. see job