Letters to President Shapiro

May 4, 2007

Dear President Shapiro,

I do not truly understand why my background is compelling in relation to the inaccuracies in Abu El Haj's book. Either she writes accurately, correctly, and brings honor to Barnard through her academic integrity, or she brings shame, misinformation, and ultimately reflects poorly on the College and the University.

What I gained at Barnard (class of 1982) was a B.A. in Political Science, but even more, I learned how to learn, how to channel curiousity, how to expand my knowledge. Who and what I am may have begun at Barnard in many ways, but I have continued to develop interests and beliefs. I do not believe that this is an academic exercise left only to those with the same qualifications as Abu El Haj. Before I continue, I would like to tell you that I have read her book, and many others of a similar vein. With what knowledge I have gained from my own research and quite simply as someone who has lived in Israel for many years, I know that her book is riddled with innuendos, half-truths and lies.

I'll quote just a few examples of the slanted inaccuracies, the twisted use of words for political purpose (there are many more...the book abounds with them):

Page 4: Abu El-Haj seeks to dismiss the Jewish claim recognized by the United Nations in 1947 by referring to "the indigenous Arab inhabitants (some of whom were Jews)". This is complete nonsense. Before the establishment of the State of Israel, the Jews referred to themselves at times as Palestinian Jews...after all, they lived in British-Mandate Palestine...but they NEVER referred to themselves as Arabs. Even the Jews who lived in Arab countries for centuries (hundreds of thousands of whom lost their homes in the late '40s and '50s), were not referred to as "Arabs." But Abu El-Haj needs to refer to the Jews living in pre-Israel Palestine as Arabs in order to separate them from Jews who fled Europe. The goal: to further her political points later on and dismiss the right of Israel to exist.

Page 145 - Abu El-Haj goes into a long discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. Though she doesn't claim to actually have been there, she comes up with a novel theory that suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple (on the 9th day of the Jewish month of Av...which she mistakenly refers to as the 8th day of Elul) "could just as convincingly be read as evidence of class or sectarian conflict within Jewish society." This isn't anthropology - it isn't even history. It is utter and complete nonsense. She refers to Josephus' account as "this story....a tale of destruction much more in keeping with a nationalist historiography than are several alternative but equally plausible accounts." She even suggests at one point that it was all an accident - anything to deny the very real and legitimate centuries-old claim we have to this land.

Page 265: "The moral contrast between shooting a Jewish versus an Arab child rang out loud and clear in his question." - In this passage, Abu El Haj twists the words of a Knesset member who never even mentioned Arab children at all, to suit her political aims. The Knesset member was, in fact, speaking only of Jewish children in relation to an event at which only Jews were present. It is only Abu El-Haj's imagination that suggests any "moral contrast."

Page 281: Regarding the destruction “Joseph's Tomb was not destroyed simply because of its status as a Jewish religious shrine....Palestinian demonstrators eradicated one of Israel’s ‘facts on the ground.'”

Please understand - an Israeli soldier bled to death because the army wasn't able to get to him - blocked by those very mobs who would within a few hours, riot and rampage and destroy an ancient tomb. As someone who studies history and "the development of human cultures," one would think that a scholar would mourn the deliberate destruction of an ancient and historical site. But no, not Abu El-Haj. To her, Joseph's Tomb was just a "fact on the ground." I would argue that her justification of violence and the deliberate destruction of a vital historical site is reprehensible.

If you need further evidence of Abu El-Haj's lack of scholarly integrity, please visit: http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/009599.shtml. There are links to information written by David Ussishkin, Professor of Tel Aviv University and director of the dig at Tel Jezrel in 1994 - 1996, you'll see that Abu El-Haj's work contains outright lies. She writes, "During the excavation of the biblical site of Jezreel in which I participated, a bulldozer was used in order to more quickly determine the direction and structure of the Iron Age moat."

Ussishkin writes: "I don’t remember meeting Nadia el-Haj during the excavations. All her accusations are based on talks with anonymous participants after the excavations. She did not study the excavation reports nor approached the directors of the project to ask their views. This is not a proper and serious way of research."

Professor Ussishkin, as the ranking expert, determined that the use of a type of bulldozer was necessary for some of the work as it was found to be more appropriate than manual labor. One would question whether Abu El-Haj (if she was even there), bothered to take the time to determine what equipment was best suited to the terrain and requirements and to speak to the director of the project, but she never bothered (again, if she was even there). Ironically, Abu El-Haj ignores the fact that the Arabs (under the guidance of the Waqf Religious Council) use bulldozers - on the Temple Mount of all places, a vital and key location that is both political and archeological in nature. It was this illegal digging that is responsible for the ongoing destruction of key archeological remains from the Second Temple (dumped in mounds of dirt outside the city walls and collected...damaged and broken, by students and archeologists. The bulldozing and other work in Solomon's Stables under the Al Aksa mosque was responsible for the partial collapse of the southern wall of the Temple Mount in the Old City.

I, as a Barnard graduate, have a right to ask that my college maintain the integrity and honest devotion to scholarship that was present in the years I attended. During my years at Barnard, I was very involved in many areas of social and political activism. I do not write to you (both) as an outsider, as someone trying to cause trouble. I write in a desperate attempt to stop something that I believe is morally and ethically wrong. When true scholarly facts are mispresesented, as they are in this work, for the purpose of furthering a political agenda, the writer should not be rewarded, should not be given a platform from which to plant HER facts on the ground. And MY political agenda, my religious or national background is not an issue here. I did not write this book. Her words are her own, her errors and lies there for all to see. Take the words of a retired professor of Near East archaeology at Univ. of Arizona, William Dever. He believes Barnard should deny Ms. Abu El-Haj tenure "not because she's Palestinian or pro-Palestinian or a leftist, but because her scholarship is faulty, misleading and dangerous."

Echoing the words of hatred often heard today from the President of Iran, Abu El-Haj talks about Israel being founded "on the colonial periphery...a political solution for Europe's "Jewish question." She denies history, suggesting that "there never was an actual metropole for Jewish settlers in Palestine," while failing to recognize the very real and documented connection that Jews have had with the land of Israel for thousands of years. She conveniently forgets there never was a Palestinian state (not even an Arab one), and says only that the Jewish return to Israel was  "framed and legitimatized in relation to a /belief in/ Jewish national return." [Note the italics - hers.]

I am neither an archeologist nor an anthropologist, but I am very well aware of the destruction being carried out by the Moslem authorities on the Temple Mount. They, like Abu El Haj, are working hard to first eliminate and then deny our connection to this land. Her entire discussions about the Temple Mount and her endless quest to delegitimize Israel and our claims to this land must not be given the respect and honor that would come to her as a tenured professor at Barnard College.

You write that you have not read Abu El-Haj's book (only "most"...whatever measure that is). That is a shame. To read it is to understand that  there was (and likely remains) a political agenda. As she herself writes, "social interests and imageries may well resonate in the work of science." Indeed, they resonate more clearly in her own work than any I have yet seen to date.

I sincerely hope that Barnard will not give this woman tenure - not because she is anti-Israel (which she clearly is), not because she defends terrorists and violence, but simply because she fails to meet the high standards of scholarship and integrity that has always been Barnard's trademark. We, as Barnard graduates, do our best to bring honor to our alma mater and are deeply dismayed to think that what was once a source of great pride might yet become our greatest and deepest shame.

Respectfully yours,
Paula

Paula R. Stern
Barnard, Class of 1982

Hi Dr. Shapiro,

I would very much appreciate any communication you would like to have between us. I never saw any email from you and cannot explain what happened to my initial email to you. While this is curious, since the address is my company's own server and domain name as opposed to some anonymous gmail or whatever, it is not unheard of and I am sorry that I missed your initial message (and you didn't see mine).

I would welcome an open dialog between us and other Barnard graduates. Many have written to me and are equally concerned about this situation as we see it as something that will damage Barnard's reputation and integrity. There is, as we all know, knowledge that is gained at university for which you are granted a degree, and there is knowledge gained in life through experiences and ongoing research. I cannot compete with Abu El-Haj in the realm of degrees in her subject, but then again, that which is most objectionable in her "work" has nothing to do with her degree and everything to do with politics, assumptions and misrepresentations.

Please understand the motivation I have in seeing this matter through to a positive conclusion, that of seeing Abu El-Haj NOT given tenure, is based on my belief that her work is simply not strong enough, credible enough, reasonable enough to deserve it. I have the highest regard for the professors at Barnard. I found them to be challenging, intuitive, intelligent, and caring. They provided me with the foundations of an education that has seen me through a successful career, most recently as the founder and director of one of the most respected technical writing and training companies in Israel.

Beyond that, I remember my years at Barnard, remember being warned not to take certain professors (at Columbia, actually) who allowed their personal prejudice to influence the treatment of various students (in my case, pro-Israel, Jewish ones). Brought to teach unrelated subjects, they nevertheless made their personal positions clear. It was something we had to accept at the time, and did so sadly. Much older and wiser now, I regret at the time that I didn't challenge the norm, that I didn't sign up for Edward Said's classes and a very few others. As an example of what I mean, please take a look at this page: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/63. It is what students think of Joseph Massad, and I am happy to report that my experiences pale against what I read here and it saddens me to think of seeing Abu El-Haj and Barnard on these pages in the future.

What I failed to do for myself, I would want to do for others. And more, I hate to think what other misinformation this professor will slip into her courses. I've already given you an example of Abu El-Haj's work. I hope you will take the time to see who speaks for her work. The names on the back of her book are very impressive...until you do the research. You'll find that Timothy Mitchell (NYU), who eloquently writes that Abu El-Haj's work is "a brilliant study," is one of only a handfull of professors at NYU who have signed a letter urging NYU to boycott Israel. He went so far as to put his name to a petition identifying himself and others as "defenders of Palestinian academic freedom and supporters of the academic boycott against Israel."  (http://web.archive.org/web/20040829040713/http://www.academicboycott.org/).

Similar patterns of belief and behavior can be found with the other two "testimonials" as well. I can only hope that you and the Board of Directors at Barnard will examine very carefully before allowing Barnard's reputation and future to be damaged by Abu El-Haj. As a Jew, as an American, as an Israeli, as a Barnard graduate, and as someone who has read her book, I can only pray that Abu El-Haj will not be allowed to represent Barnard or given the honor of educating future Barnard graduates.

With great respect,

Paula

Paula (Rubenstein) Stern
Barnard Class of 1982

After Dr. Shapiro's response (which I won't publish, as it was a private correspondence....), I responded:

Hi Dr. Shapiro,

...I am truly gratified to hear that Abu El Haj's work will receive a careful review by a team of qualified specialists and the decision will be based largely on the outcome of that review. If nothing else (and as time allows), I urge you to read the last page of her work. She clearly explains away (and justifies) the destruction of Joseph's Tomb (in which one Israeli soldier was killed because the army chose not to risk harm to mobs of Palestinians surrounding the tomb), as "a sign of colonial presence and national rights" and says the Palestinians were "eradicating one 'fact on the ground."'

While it was not my intention to "ruffle" feathers, I believe that I have earned the right to express my concern for Barnard. To fight what is wrong, to work for what is right, to believe and to act - these are all lessons I learned at Barnard while being active in the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry and other organizations. As a graduate, I believe I remain forever a member of the Barnard family. It is a position that I honor, as I regularly meet other graduates here. There are hundreds of us here in Israel. One street away from me, lives another Barnard graduate (same year as me, in fact) and we both just celebrating our first daughters getting engaged. For all that time passes by, we still maintain a strong connection with those years we spent at Barnard and believe we have the right to express our concern. 

Due process and diligent investigation into this matter is clearly in order. And I am happy to hear that this is what will take place before any decision is made.

As someone who has studied political science (B.A. from Barnard College), as well as having spent more than a decade living in this country, I can assure you that there is no question that Professor Abu El Haj has gone well past the line of archeology and deep into the political and ideological. Even more, her suggestion that it was Jews who were responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. crosses the line further from political to fanciful.

Finally, on a personal note as an Israeli, I agree that I would not leave it to archaeologists, professors, or politicians to decide Israel's rightful place in the family of nations. As a mother of a son about to enter the army, and another who has already received his first call-up, I can tell you that our future here is in very good hands.

May Barnard continue to go from strength to strength in the years to come and always bring honor to those who graduated...as we will hopefully bring honor to Barnard.

Regards,
Paula