Doug Henwood Talks

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/04/03/finkelstein

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 =97 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.

But the debate over Finkelstein is now hitting his home campus =97 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 =97 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 =97 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 =97 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 =97 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 =97 who has previously =

battled with Finkelstein =97 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 =97 in =

and of themselves =97 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?”

=97 Scott Jaschik

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.