A band of
neo-conservative pundits with close ties to Israel have
mounted a campaign against American scholars who study
the Middle East. Martin Kramer, an Israeli-American and
former director of the Dayan Center for Middle East
Studies at Tel Aviv University, has led the pack in
blaming these scholars for failing to warn the American
public about the dangers of radical Islam, claiming that
they bear some of the responsibility for what befell the
country on September 11. In 2003, proponents of this
position took their complaints to Congress. The Senate
is expected to review them soon, as it discusses the
Higher Education Reauthorization bill.
The
neo-cons initially urged Congress to reduce the
appropriation for Title VI of the Higher Education Act.
Since 1958, this legislation has provided federal
funding to universities to support the study of less
commonly taught languages, such as Arabic, Turkish and
Persian. Now they want to set up a political review
board to discourage universities and scholars from
tolerating bad thoughts.
Last year, 118
international area studies centers, including 17 Middle
East centers, received about US$95 million for graduate
fellowships, language training and community outreach.
The Middle East studies centers train the great majority
of Americans who are competent in difficult Middle East
languages. No other institutions are now able to do this
job on the required scale. Lack of Arabic speaking
agents hindered the Federal Bureau of Investigation from
understanding some of the pre-September 11 clues that
might have prevented the attacks. Fortunately, Congress
rejected the neo-con proposal to reduce support for
foreign language study.
Having failed in their
first effort, the neo-cons are now attempting to assert
political control over teaching, research and public
programs of the international area studies centers. In
June 2003, Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor of
National Review Online and a fellow of the Hoover
Institution, a conservative think tank located on the
campus of Stanford University, testified before the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
His testimony summarized the arguments of Martin
Kramer's attack on American Middle East studies. Kurtz
asserted that "Title VI-funded programs in Middle
Eastern Studies [and other area studies] tend to purvey
extreme and one-sided criticisms of American foreign
policy". He urged legislators to take action to ensure
"balance". Kurtz, Kramer and other neo-cons such as
Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum who have written
on this subject are concerned that Middle East scholars
often say things American politicians don't want to hear
- including criticism of US Middle East policy and
criticism of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.
Some might conclude that perhaps scholars who study the
modern Middle East know something worth listening to.
But the neo-cons already know what they want to hear.
They have not been able to win in the marketplace of
ideas. Critical and inconvenient thoughts continue to be
expressed. So the neo-cons want the government to help
crush wayward ideas.
Representative Peter
Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, obliged by introducing
the International Studies in Higher Education Act,
designated HR 3077. The bill passed the House of
Representatives, after a suspension of the rules, by a
voice vote in October 2003. The bill was then referred
to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, which is now taking up the issue.
HR
3077 calls for establishing an International Higher
Education Advisory Board with broad investigative powers
"to study, monitor, apprise, and evaluate" activities of
area studies centers supported by Title VI. The board is
charged with ensuring that government-funded academic
programs "reflect diverse perspectives and represent the
full range of views" on international affairs. "Diverse
perspectives", in this context, is code for limiting
criticism of US Middle East policy and of Israel.
Under the proposed legislation, three advisory
board members would be appointed by the Secretary of
Education; two of them from government agencies with
national security responsibilities. The leaders of the
House of Representatives and the Senate each would
appoint two more.
This proposal represents a
dangerous threat to academic freedom. The advisory board
could investigate scholars and area studies centers,
applying whatever criteria it pleases. The criteria
almost certainly would be political. The whole point of
the legislation is to impose political restraints on
activities of Middle East centers.
The
legislation, if passed, could actually diminish US
national security. No first-rank university would accept
direct government intrusion into the educational
process. Such institutions would likely refuse to accept
Title VI funding if it were subject to political
oversight. The already dangerously low number of
Americans competent in Middle Eastern languages would
then be reduced.
Neo-cons believe it is better
for the government to control teaching and research
rather than to allow established policy to be
questioned. But Americans are more likely to understand
"why they hate us", and what we can do about it when old
ideas can be challenged without fear. Freedom, including
academic freedom, is the best way to make Americans
safe.
Joel Beinin is professor of
Middle East history at Stanford University and a former
president of the Middle East Studies Association.
The Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) is
one of the sponsoring organizations ofForeign
Policy In Focus, a leading foreign policy
think tank comprising 800+ experts. Late in 2003, the
IRC launched Right Webwhich profiles
more than 200 of the most powerful people of the
right-wing movement, along with their ties to
organizations, corporations, educational institutions,
and government representatives.
