Middle East studies programs get tax-payer dollars, now they may get congressional scrutiny

To this day, Columbia University will not divulge the sources of funding for its newly established Edward Said Chair of Middle East Studies, part of the school’s Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC). And the current occupant of the chair, Rashid Khalidi, is every bit as controversial as the chair’s late namesake.

Like many members of Middle-East studies programs throughout the US, Dr. Khalidi has been outspoken in his opposition to the war in Iraq and his support for the Palestinians over Israel.

Dr. Khalidi has declared Israel “illegitimate” as a Jewish state and endorsed attacks on Israeli soldiers as legitimate “resistance,” prompting Israel‘s Minister of Education Limor Livnat to send an official letter of protest to Columbia president, Lee Bollinger.

Although he is director of Columbia‘s government-subsidized Middle East Institute, Dr. Rashid has made countless statements which conservatives take as anti-American.

In this, he is very similar to the recently deceased Dr. Said, a Columbia professor of English literature who claimed to be a Palestinian but may really have been an Egyptian.

“Said can be credited with the current techniques being used on American campuses today to propagandize for terrorism under an innocent pretense. Said postured in his writings that, in history, ‘facts do not matter, only emotions matter.’ In other words, write your own history to achieve your desired ends, at the same time, fool everyone else by appealing to their emotions,” said Lee Kaplan in an article published on FrontPageMagazine.com.

Dr. Said’s influential “postcolonial theory” held that it is immoral for scholars to put their knowledge of foreign languages and cultures at the service of American power.

Last month, Columbia added to its faculty Mary Robinson, an architect of the UN Durban human rights conference in 2001 that was boycotted by Secretary of State Colin Powell because the Bush administration deemed it too hostile to Israel.

Many Jewish and pro-Israel observers blame Ms. Robinson for allowing the Durban conference to become a global platform for anti-Israel and blatantly antisemitic rants.

Ms. Robinson, acting in the capacity of the UN high commissioner for human rights, rejected many American demands to remove anti-Israel language from final conference documents.

Ms. Robinson, 59, was Ireland‘s first female president, serving from 1990 until 1997. She served as the UN’s human rights commissioner from 1997 to 2002. At Columbia, she began this month as professor of practice in the Department of International and Public Affairs.

Several Jewish and pro-Israel groups see her appointment as another example of anti-Israel bias on the Columbia faculty.

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said Columbia has “become a hotbed of anti-Israel haters.”

“It’s especially astonishing that a school with such a large Jewish population would insult Jewish people by hiring these haters of the Jewish state of Israel,” he said.

James Tisch, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, agreed that under her Ms. Robinson’s leadership “the Human Rights Commission was one-sided and extremist.”

“In her tenure at the HRC, she lacked fairness in her approach to the Israeli/Palestinian issue,” he said, hoping that “for the sake of her students and the reputation of Columbia, as she enters the world of academia she will demonstrate more balance in her views.”

Ms. Robins has also been blasted by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), the only Holocaust survivor on the Hill. He said she did not do enough to prevent anti-Israel rhetoric from taking over the Durban conference.

“Mary Robinson’s lack of leadership was a major contributing factor to the debacle in Durban. Her yearning to have a ‘dialogue among civilizations’ blinded her to the reality that the noble goals of her conference had been usurped by some of the world’s least tolerant and most repressive states, wielding human rights claims as a weapon in a political dispute,” wrote Mr. Lantos, who attended the conference.

According to Rabbi Charles Sheer of the Columbia-Barnard Hillel, the principal anti-Israel voices on the Morningside Heights campus are not pro-Palestinian student leaders and groups, but, rather, Columbia faculty and academic departments.

Rabbi Sheer did not deny that there are many fine courses at Columbia on Hebrew language and literature, history of Israel and Zionism, and Arab culture and languages, which are taught in various departments throughout the university.

But, he said, some faculty members, whose teaching style is called “‘advocacy education,’ espouse a consistent anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bias.”

“Their personal politics pervade the classroom and academic forums,” said Rabbi Sheer.

He also noted that although many Columbia students, faculty, and alumni have asked that the list of donors to MEALAC and the Edward Said Chair be made public, to date the donors remain anonymous, “casting a shroud of secrecy and suspicion.”

Up until a year ago, universities could allow anti-Israel “advocacy education” professors to operate without fear of scrutiny. But now there is CampusWatch.org, a Website founded by Middle East Forum director Dr. Daniel Pipes and Dr. Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab history at Tel Aviv University and the author of “Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America.”

Like Dr. Pipes’ Middle East Forum think tank, CampusWatch is dedicated to “promoting American interests in the Middle East.”

Anyone with information on how classes in Middle East studies are being conducted, including students, are encouraged to participate.

Students, parents, and faculty who have watched with frustration as Middle East studies programs were co-opted by what they see as left-wing, anti-American elements, have cheered the new Web site. But supporters of the status quo in Middle East programming have decried Drs. Pipes and Kramer for creating what the academics call an atmosphere of intimidation.

The monitoring that Middle East studies departments revile has also extended to television programs and public speeches given by these professors.

Last month, Dr. Kramer reported on an Al-Jazeera program, “From Washington,” which held a discussion on Middle East studies in the US. The chief guest on the Arab-language program was Dr. Khalidi.

According to Dr. Kramer, Dr. Khalidi “said little that was original or surprising—until the end, when he blew a gasket and uttered the sort of thing he would only dare to say in Arabic.”

When the program’s subject turned to American think-tanks, Dr. Khalidi was critical of these organizations, saying they “don’t want true dialogue with people whose views differ from their own, but who want to force their opinions on American citizens and the world.”

His example was the very centrist Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which he labeled ‘the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims.”

Directed by former Ambassador Dennis Ross, who was the chief Middle East peace negotiator for Republican President George H.W. Bush and his successor, Democrat Bill Clinton, the Washington Institute has hosted not only pro-Israel speakers but also Palestinian Fatah activists associated with the terrorist Tanzim. The institute is associated with the various peace schemes concocted in Washington and is known to advocate the abandonment of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Even Dr. Khalidi has shared podiums with members of The Washington Institute.

But that did not concern Mr. Khalidi on Al-Jazeera. Perhaps playing devil’s advocate, the program’s moderator, Hafiz al-Mirazi, pointed out that the Washington Institute had hosted many Arab leaders, including PA Information Minister Nabil Amr and Egyptian presidential adviser Osama al-Baz. Mr. al-Mirazi noted that, just recently, Washington Institute associate David Makovsky wrote a joint op-ed with Dr. Hala Mustafa, a journalist with the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, on promoting democracy in the Arab world.

At this point, according to Dr. Kramer, “Khalidi boiled over.”

“By Allah, I say that the participation of the sons or daughters of the Arabs in the plans and affairs of this institute is a huge error, this Israeli institute in Washington, an institute founded by AIPAC, the Zionist lobby, and that hosts dozens of Israelis every year,” said Dr. Khalidi. “The presence of an Arab or two each year can’t disguise the nature of this institute as the most important center of Zionist interests in Washington for at least a decade.

“I very much regret the participation of Arab officials and non-officials and academics in the activities of this institute, because in fact if you look at the output of this institute, it’s directed against the Palestinians, against the Arabs, and against the Muslims in general. Its products describe the Palestinians as terrorists, and in fact its basic function is to spread lies and falsehoods about the Arab world, of course under an academic, scholarly veneer. Basically, this is the most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States,” he concluded.

According to Dr. Kramer, Dr. Khalidi would never have made this outburst in English, and Dr. Kramer offered a reason: “It would damage his reputation as a bridge-building moderate.”

“But Khalidi in Arabic, on Al-Jazeera, is someone else altogether. There he is the bridge-burner, the zealot who would warn other Arabs away from the Washington Institute because it is ‘Israeli’ and a ‘Zionist propaganda tool.’ Behold, Arab-style McCarthyism,” said Dr. Kramer.

Dr. Kramer then turned to Dr. Khalidi’s record at Columbia where, he said, little has been done to promote “true dialogue.”

Dr. Kramer acknowledged that Dr. Khalidi hosted two Israelis—both “academic post-Zionists.”

“He and they would have nodded in agreement over Israel‘s alleged misdeeds. I don’t think that’s good enough, and it leaves me wondering why his institute gets what The Washington Institute doesn’t get—a $400,000-a-year Title VI handout from the American taxpayer. It’s a dubious mechanism that puts such a hefty subsidy at the disposal of an Arab boycotter. It really should be fixed,” said Dr. Kramer.

This type of funding is an issue that has been tackled by Drs. Kramer and Pipes in op-eds and on their Web site. They and other conservatives have been pushing for stronger Congressional oversight of the $95 million in government subsidies for Middle East and other area studies programs.

Legislation under consideration by Congress—it is now in the Senate after receiving unanimous approval in the House—includes a provision for the establishment of an advisory board to ensure that government-funded academic programs “reflect diverse perspectives and a full range of views.”

According to reports on CampusWatch, that is hardly the case now.

“Middle East studies have not served us well,” said Dr. Pipes, explaining that the majority of academics in the field have failed to explain adequately the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. They also generally overlook repression in Arab countries, he said.

“Americans need to know what terms such as ‘jihad’ mean and why we are being attacked,” he said. “This is at the very heart of our foreign and domestic policy.”

Left-wing supporters of the status quo in Middle East studies—many who often champion free speech—have made their opposition to CampusWatch—and Dr. Pipes—clear.

Barbara Petzen, outreach coordinator at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, denounced “right-wing thought police that is sending spies into classrooms to report on what teachers are saying in class.”

Michael C. Hudson, director of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, said his campus has become the target of “a McCarthyist witch-hunt.”

Dr. Pipes, who has also called for stringent background checks on Muslim visitors to the US, said the McCarthyism charge was “silly.” He noted that, in the 1950’s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was “a high government official with coercive powers at his disposal.”

“We are a tiny think tank, with few resources,” he said, describing CampusWatch as a kind of consumer guide to Middle East studies.

The idea for the advisory board came last June when Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution, told a House subcommittee that many academics in Middle East studies were biased against US foreign policy and discouraged students from entering government service.

Mr. Kurtz maintained that the centers of Middle East studies in the US did nothing to balance Dr. Said’s ideas with those of scholars that might disagree with him.

Mr. Kurtz then suggested that the centers should correct that imbalance or else risk losing federal money. “Unless steps are taken to balance university faculties with members who support and oppose American foreign policy, the very purpose of free speech and academic freedom will have been defeated,” he told the Congressional panel.

The advisory board that the House has approved would be made up of political appointees who would review the academic programs, but not run them. Three members of the board would be named by the secretary of education, and one each by the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate.

Some Middle East academics said they fear that if Congress succeeds in passing legislation calling for the seven-member advisory board to oversee how tax-payer dollars are being spent, it will be dominated by spokesmen for the Bush Administration and, therefore, strong advocates for Israel.

Not surprisingly, one of the staunchest critics of the proposed advisory board is Dr. Khalidi.

“It’s the thin edge of the wedge,” he said, arguing that the demand for “balance” in Middle East studies could degenerate into a “political correctness test.”

Dr. Khalidi has maintained that critics of his brand of Middle East studies are intent on a “witch hunt.” He said those who accuse him of supporting Palestinian terrorists are the same group that have convinced Congressional Republicans that there is gross bias against the US and Israel in Middle East studies.

But Dr. Khalidi said he did not know if Columbia‘s MEALAC would continue to seek federal funds if an advisory board is created.

“It depends on the language,” he said. “If the board has the kind of prosecutorial intent to search out malfeasance that is presumed but does not exist, that would be objectionable. The university might feel this was political infringement on academic freedom.”

In general, according to many reports, enrollment in Arabic-language courses and Middle East studies in general jumped after September 11. Within a few weeks of the attacks, Congress authorized an additional $20 million for area studies and language programs, with much of the money focused on Middle East and Asian studies.

There are now 17 national resource centers for Middle East Studies at US universities, up from 14 in 2001. Grants for graduate research have increased by 250 percent, according to Miriam Kazanjian, a consultant for the Coalition for International Education.

But if Drs. Pipes and Kramer and their supporters have their way, these centers will have to present balanced views or risk losing their government funding.

Dr. Pipes said his promotion of an advisory board to supervise the distribution of government funds for area studies programs will be important symbolically.

“It will not materially change anything, but it will alert Congress to the problem,” he said.

Officials at Columbia and other universities told the Washington Post last month that government subsidies represent less than 10 percent of the money they spend on Middle East studies, and they would prefer to reject government funding altogether rather than accept outside supervision.

Other observers say they cannot imagine the school’s justifying relinquishing those yearly sums.

“Academic colleagues, get used to it,” wrote Dr. Kramer recently. “You are being watched. Those obscure articles in campus newspapers are now available on the Internet, and they will be harvested. Your syllabi, which you’ve posted, will be scrutinized. Your Websites will be visited late at night.”

But one man’s consumer affairs advocate is another’s creator of an “atmosphere of intimidation,” which is what Lisa Anderson, dean of international and public affairs at Columbia said CampusWatch was creating around Middle East studies at many universities.

Asked by the Washington Post about his comments, Dr. Kramer said they were offered “tongue in cheek,” but he accused many Middle East academics of being overly sensitive to criticism.

“Academics make their living ridiculing government policies and the superficiality of the media, but when anybody examines their performance, they throw up their hands with cries of McCarthyism. There’s a real asymmetry here,” he said.

And criticized they have been.

Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi said his voice mail was filled with “racist and obscene” messages, including one denouncing him as “a stinking terrorist Muslim pig,” after an op-ed by Dr. Pipes in the New York Post denounced him and others as “left-wing extremists.”

Dr. Khalidi said he was the target of a massive e-mail campaign after Dr. Pipes’ column, but he did not say whether his own remarks on Al Jazeera television about the Washington Institute had generated similar results there.