Related Correspondence

Following are some letters I have received, both in support and against, the position I have taken regarding Nadia El Haj's getting tenure at Barnard.

Similar to a Frequently Asked Questions page, I believe you might find the following questions/answers of interest and urge you to take the time, if you are a Barnard or Columbia student or graduate, to write a letter in protest.

Letter/Response # 1:

I find this effort to get alumnae involved in the tenure process counter to what the tenure process is all about; that is to say, it should be based on the independent judgement of the faculty of Barnard College and Columbia University, and not subject to outside pressures and interference.

If what we were discussing was a scholarly work, I would indeed agree with you. But, in fact, "Professor" Nadia El Haj has misused what should have been a scholarly work to get across her political agenda. Even worse, she did it by producing a document filled with lies, slander and twisted allegations. According to her rewritten version of Middle Eastern history, European Jews came and displaced the "native" Arab population ( "some of which were Jews" - is her way of ignoring the fact that there were many Jews living in pre-Israel Palestine and they were by no means Arab). Furthermore, she comes up with the amazing concept that Jews were responsible for burning down and destroying Jerusalem during the Roman invasion because there were Jews and Romans there so, according to her twisted logic, it was 50-50 and someone had to do it. She ignores the only historical evidence of the time - the writings of Josephus. She ignores common sense...all to get across her presumption that Jews have no historical claim to the land.   Finally, as a Barnard alumnae, I believe I have the right to comment on the actions of the college. Barnard remains a part of who I am...and that means protesting when it considers doing something that I believe is damaging to its reputation as an institute that values scholarship, integrity, and research.   The tenure process should be about evaluating the value of an academic policy - Nadia El Haj seeks to bring in politics and I believe we have the right and obligation to encourage Barnard to reject this attempt. Sadly, the tenure process long ago became political, as evidenced by many of the current faculty. Somewhere, sometime, the students and alumnae have to protest. I believe now is the right time.  

Letter # 2:

Dear President Shapiro, Cameran Mason, and Marilyn Chin,

This letter is being written to state, once again, my opposition to the proposed tenure of Nadia Abu El Haj.

The quality of her scholarship is in serious question. 

I cannot continue to support the College if it continues to support academics of dubious scholarship.

'Nuff said,
<Name withheld> Graduate, 1971

Letter/Response # 3:

I am so saddened to receive this email.  I know that you feel that you are helping your cause, but this email reflects such an impoverished understanding of academic freedom.  Do you remember when professors fought to gain tenure even though they were Communists and advocated the overthrow of the government?  When professors advocated armed revolution in South America – called liberation Catholicism?  Didn’t people fight to give them the right to have those views?  There are so many examples in our history of academics fighting to gain tenure even though their views were highly controversial, either to the left or the right.  Giving tenure does not endorse views and you are advocating a truly treacherous position if you suggest that professors should have “acceptable” views in order to be tenured academics. I respectfully suggest that you think about the implications of your email, because this type of thinking truly means the end of academic freedom in this country.

Since when did academic freedom mean using lies and slander to promote a political agenda by blurring the lines of scholarship? I have read Nadia El Haj's work. I know, even without having a degree in anthropology, that it is filled with lies and hatred. That it ignores the very facts on the ground it seeks to blur; that it has a political agenda that is unconcerned that the facts don't back her claims; that it slanders known experts in the industry, and relies on assumption and rumor. I do not mind controversial - if you can back it up with fact. She doesn't bother. I do not mind left or right, if it is based on reality. She bases it on imagined issues and lies about the rest.   I do not question Barnard about giving tenure on the basis of her views, but on the basis of her lack of scholarly ethics and a complete falsification of evidence on hand. In my initial letter, I detailed many of these errors and lies. On the basis of this, I ask that Barnard do not give this woman tenure.  

Finally, to answer your questions, I believe the end of academic freedom in the United States will come when universities give in to the political whims of its faculty and lower their standards of scholarly process, when they do not hold their professors to the standards of truth, respect of evidence, and research. I hope and pray that Barnard will vote not to bring that day any closer.