Five Questions for Joseph Massad
When you say that, besides your offering, all of the other “courses offered at Columbia that cover the Palestinian/Israeli conflict . . . have an Israel-friendly perspective,” how do you define “Israel-friendly perspective?” And in what specific ways do you know how other Columbia faculty members teach their classes?
You describe the students who contributed to the Project David film as having joined “anti-democratic” forces. How do you define the term “anti-democratic”?
When you claim that “pro-Israel groups launched a vicious campaign against the only chair in modern Arab Studies that Columbia established two years ago, demanding ‘balance’”—which largely consisted of urging the university to reveal the source of the funds for the endowed chair, which turned out to be an Arab government—in what way was this campaign “vicious”?
I assume that you agree that historians need to base claims on evidence. What evidence do you possess that “pro-Israel groups are pressuring the university to abandon proper academic procedure in evaluating scholarship, and want to force the university to silence all critical opinions?" And what evidence do you possess that the “majority of Israel’s supporters in the United States are, in fact, not Jews but Christian fundamentalist anti-Semites who seek to convert Jews?” Do you make similar claims, that seem at best to be wild exaggerations, about Israel in your classes?
Why do you consider it appropriate to use time in a History class to criticize the “racist” foreign policy of Israel? Do you also spend time in your classes criticizing the foreign policies of, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia?
And one question for the media, especially the Columbia Spectator, the main campus newspaper. One of the most controversial allegations against Massad is that he intimidates students who express pro-Israel students in his class. Why have you not interviewed a representative sample of his students—say, 25 or 30—to test the credibility of these allegations?
comments powered by Disqus
- Trump Holds Wide Lead in South Carolina
- An All-or-Nothing Fight for the Supreme Court
- Did Trump Really Lose the Debate?
- Scalia’s Death Sets Off Epic Battle
- Democrats See Gift in GOP Blocking Court Nominee
- Quote of the Day
- The Nastiest GOP Debate
- Reaction to the Republican Debate
- The GOP Presidential Debate
- How Clinton Could Respond on Supreme Court Vacancy
- Trump and Clinton Way Ahead in South Carolina
- McConnell Says Senate Will Wait to Replace Scalia
- Antonin Scalia Is Dead
- Clinton Says Sanders Would Be Threat to Obama Legacy
- Internal Tracker Shows Trump Leading in South Carolina
- Ben Carson used an apparently fake Joseph Stalin quote — and the Internet loved it
- Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- Historian at the center of Sanders-Clinton debate
- James Loewen Says Additional Baltimore Confederate Statues Should be Removed
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges