Neocons block Juan Cole from Yale professorship?

[BrainGlutton]

Juan Cole is a famous professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan. He is better known for his blog, which is generally critical of the Bush Admin’s policies and conduct in Iraq.

Recently Cole was considered for a professorship at Yale. The Senior Appointments Committee rejected him after three other committees had signed off on him. This article posits that this was because neocons lobbied hard against his appointment.

What’s the truth? Was the decision a purely academic one, or did Yale bow to political pressure?

If the latter – what does this signify for academic freedom in America?

[Ryan_Liam]

No not the Neocons. But this is why

[BrainGlutton]

@Ryan_Liam

No not the Neocons. But this is why

“This is why”? Nothing in that link posits any alternate theory as to why Cole was rejected. It does mention his stated criticism of Israel, but that shouldn’t disqualify Cole from teaching at Yale – should it?

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

“This is why”? Nothing in that link posits any alternate theory as to why Cole was rejected. It does mention his stated criticism of Israel, but that shouldn’t disqualify Cole from teaching at Yale – should it?

It sort of does. If you look at the blog entry on April 28, it says that Cole hasn’t published any articles or anything other than his blog for 4 years, and his last book was in 1998. Not publishing for so long is definately a black mark against him.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

. . . Cole hasn’t published any articles or anything other than his blog for 4 years, and his last book was in 1998.

That is not true.

[Ryan_Liam]

@BrainGlutton

“This is why”? Nothing in that link posits any alternate theory as to why Cole was rejected. It does mention his stated criticism of Israel, but that shouldn’t disqualify Cole from teaching at Yale – should it?

Hinting at an acedemic boycott of Israel is

[BrainGlutton]

@Ryan_Liam

Hinting at an acedemic boycott of Israel is

1. No it isn’t.

2. And Cole is opposing the proposed British academic boycott of Israel.

[panamajack]

But this is what the article says :

Juan Cole is garnering credit as an opponent of the academic boycott of Israel.

And what Cole himself says.

He’s not hinting at all, he’s opposing it. The articles mentions Cole’s somewhat tepid support for divestment of universities with respect to Israeli business concerns. That hardly seems abnormal for an academic, regardless of political motivation.

[cckerberos]

@BrainGlutton

“This is why”? Nothing in that link posits any alternate theory as to why Cole was rejected.

The entry contains a link to a previous entry in which he discusses Cole and Yale:

Of course, that would suggest that appointments at Yale are subject to manipulation by Likudniks and neocons, an absurd notion. So in the event that Yale does pass Cole over, it’s likely to be because his scholarship, and commitment to scholarship, fall short of Yale standards. How might Yale reach that conclusion?

Celebrity and scholarship aren’t necessarily correlated. An argument could be made–it’s one I’d accept–that Cole hasn’t produced a single scholarly work of significance to Middle Eastern studies as a whole. He’s produced a few specialized monographs and conference volumes, a couple of compendia of his own articles, and translations of Kahlil Gibran (which sell better than anything else he’s written). Some of his major areas of interest (Bahai studies, 19th-century Iran, Shiism) also overlap those of Yale historian Abbas Amanat (who happens to be on the search committee), so it’s not exactly clear how much added value Cole would bring to Yale.

Moreover, in the years since 9/11, while people like Fawaz Gerges and Mary Habeck have belted out important books on Al-Qaeda, Cole has spent his time obsessively blogging, summarizing news reports and spewing out political invective. In his middle age, at a time when serious historians produce their great works of synthesis, Cole has turned into a journalist. Academics would be right to wonder how anyone can blog with this intensity and still produce any sustained scholarship. I certainly wonder, and I say that as an academic blogger of long standing. The price of blogging is paid in scholarship.

But the major objection to Cole surely must be that he doesn’t know the contemporary Middle East. Cole did all his scholarly work on the 19th century (his monographs on the Urabi revolt, Shiite Lucknow, and Bahai modernization). He has not made a speciality of the contemporary Middle East, and it shows. Time and again, I’ve expressed wonderment at his errors. (On the right sidebar here at Sandbox, scroll down to “Juantanamo!” for links to my major Cole-itis attacks.) Tony Badran has done the same for Cole’s purported knowledge of Lebanon, and IraqPundit has covered Cole’s Iraq gaffes. When it comes to Israel, which is also situated in the contemporary Middle East, not only is Cole embarrassingly ignorant but, worse, he doesn’t seem to be aware of it.

[Squink]

Cole on the Yale Affair: (June 09, 2006)

I am not going to talk about the Yale affair per se.

But I did want to clear up some misimpressions I’ve seen here and there.

First, it should be remembered that senior professors are sort of like baseball players, and other teams look at them from time to time, as recruitment prospects. It goes on constantly, formally or informally. Such looking is never taken very seriously by anyone unless it eventuates in an actual offer.

Second, it is important in interpreting these things to know who initiated the looking. I am not actively seeking other employment, and did not apply to Yale; they came to me and asked if they could look at me for an appointment. I am very happy at the University of Michigan, which has among the largest and oldest Middle East Studies programs in the United States. It is like Disney World for a Middle East specialist.

[Sevastopol]

@Ryan_Liam

@BrainGlutton

“This is why”? Nothing in that link posits any alternate theory as to why Cole was rejected. It does mention his stated criticism of Israel, but that shouldn’t disqualify Cole from teaching at Yale – should it?

Hinting at an acedemic boycott of Israel is.

(my emphasis)

Is academic support for Israel self-evidently correct, so that a hint of opposition merits an employment embargo?

[Ryan_Liam]

@Sevastopol

(my emphasis)

Is academic support for Israel self-evidently correct, so that a hint of opposition merits an employment embargo?

Instead of boycotting Israel, how about supporting Universities within Jerusalem which accept large amounts of Palestinian students?

[Sevastopol]

Ryan L, did you mean it when you wrote that the Cole’s support for disinvestment from Israel merited a block on employment at Yale?

[Jackmannii]

The Nation article represents another disturbing attempt at short-circuiting normal debate by conjuring up a neocon cabal bogeyman.

Lockman, Cole’s fellow Middle Eastern scholar at NYU (speaking for himself only), finds the process fearful. “Since September 11 there has been a concerted effort by a small but well-funded group of people* outside academia to monitor very carefully what all of us are saying, ready to jump on any sign of deviation from what they see as acceptable opinion. It’s an attack on academic freedom, and it’s not very healthy for our society.”

“Criticizing us is not healthy!”

Um, OK. :rolleyes:

*Ooooo…

[Ryan_Liam]

@Sevastopol

Ryan L, did you mean it when you wrote that the Cole’s support for disinvestment from Israel merited a block on employment at Yale?

No? I see Cole’s wild assertions on certain subjects he knows nothing about as the reason as to why they blocked his employment.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ryan_Liam

No? I see Cole’s wild assertions on certain subjects he knows nothing about as the reason as to why they blocked his employment.

Care to be more specific?

[BrainGlutton]

@Jackmannii

The Nation article represents another disturbing attempt at short-circuiting normal debate by conjuring up a neocon cabal bogeyman.“Criticizing us is not healthy!”

Um, OK. :rolleyes:

*Ooooo…

And how does that argument demonstrate that said “small but well-funded group of people” does not exist? Since many such groups clearly do exist.

[Squink]

@BrainGlutton

Since many such groups clearly do exist.

The AIPAC case goes wild

-No rabbis without shirts, but yeah, such groups clearly do exist.

[Sevastopol]

Let’s have a look:

@Ryan_Liam

Instead of boycotting Israel, how about supporting Universities within Jerusalem which accept large amounts of Palestinian students?

This was said in response to this: "Is academic support for Israel self-evidently correct, so that a hint of opposition merits an employment embargo?.

@Ryan_Liam

No? I see Cole’s wild assertions on certain subjects he knows nothing about as the reason as to why they blocked his employment.

And this was said in response to this: “Ryan L, did you mean it when you wrote that the Cole’s support for disinvestment from Israel merited a block on employment at Yale?”.

These answers/arguments by Ryan L aren’t responses to the questions or arguments. Rather than finding bad faith, let’s try again.

1. I’m not asking what Juan Cole should do.

2. I’m not asking what Juan Cole believes about the Yale rumour.

3. I am asking if possible opposition to Israel’s policies by Juan Cole is a reason for preventing employment at Yale. Which is what RL’s earlier posts suggest.

@Jackmannii

The Nation article represents another disturbing attempt at short-circuiting normal debate by conjuring up a neocon cabal bogeyman.

(my emphasis).

An interesting riff on ‘Cabal’, in order to … why … short-circuit normal debate, by conjuring up the anti-semite spectre.

[Jackmannii]

@BrainGlutton

And how does that argument demonstrate that said “small but well-funded group of people” does not exist? Since many such groups clearly do exist.

Let’s see…the article cites in opposition to Cole an obscure right-wing blogger, a Yale PhD who is a former Bush Administration aide, the organization Campus Watch, a couple of unnamed students, unnamed Yale donors - yeah, that sure sounds like a “neocon group” to be feared.

It’s the same sort of nonsense discussed here before - if your cause isn’t succeeding, don’t battle your opponents on the basis of ideas. Instead, try to excuse your failures by insinuating that there is some shadowy “group” doing underhanded things to thwart you.

The diatribe in the Nation is probably enough for the connect-the-dots crowd, but we generally have higher standards of evidence here.