Several months ago, Professor William I. Robinson, a self described “scholar -activist” and professor of Sociology and Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara forwarded an email to his students condemning Israel. The email contained images of Nazi atrocities along with images from Israel’s defensive campaign against Hamas’s terror. This comparison is considered by both the US State Dept and the European Union, in their working paper on Anti-Semitism to cross the line into anti-Semitism, and was so disturbing to at least two students that they felt compelled to drop his class. Because of the nature of the emails, the Anti-Defamation League, as well as the UCSB Academic Senate’s Charges Committee have become involved.
The summary of allegations against Robinson include:
* As professor of an academic course, he sent each student enrolled in his course a highly partisan email accompanied by lurid photographs.
* The email was unexpected and without educational context and was unrelated to the course
* No avenue to discuss or respond to the opinions and photographs was included in the email.
* As a result, two enrolled students felt too uncomfortable to continue with the course.
Robinson’s behavior is considered to be in violation of the UC Santa Barbara Faculty Code of Conduct.
In an effort to mobilize support for Robinson and his agenda, the ironically named Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UC Santa Barbara has spammed an appeal for “solidarity”across the state in Marxist chatrooms and anti-Israel sites. Caesar "El Che" Rodriguez, claims that the basis of the complaints against Robinson are that 1) critique of Israel is evidence of anti-Semitism and 2) the Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be discussed in a class on Globalization.
Of course- that isn’t what the ADL letter to Robinson said at all.
“While your writings are protected by the First amendment and academic freedom, we rely on our own rights to say that your comparisons of Nazis and Israelis are offensive... and have crossed the line well beyond legitimate criticism of Israel.... the tone and the extreme views presented in your email were intimidating to students and likely chilled thoughtful discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian issue”
Caesar, William- do you need help distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israel and Anti-Semitism?
We want to help. Try Natan Sharansky’s test, the 3' D’s
The first D is the test of demonization. Is the world’s only Jewish state being demonized by having its actions blown out of proportion?
The second D is the test of double standards. Is criticism of Israel being applied selectively?
The third D is the test of deligitimization. We know that all nations have flaws- but does Israel alone have fatal flaws that invalidate its existence and justify its destruction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its inappropriate to use one's academic authority over malleable, naive under grads the shove one's own extremist political views down their throats. Freedom of speech is distinct from freedom to misuse the spectre of professorial authority to bully students pollitically. There doesn't even seem to be a pretext that this had anything to do with the course being taught. Was it going to count towards their final grade? Edecucation is one thing and one-sided, bigoted political screeds are another.
ReplyDeleteR
What can you do to help?
ReplyDeletePlease send an email to
UCSB Chancellor Henry Yang. Tell him that hate speech is not free speech, and that intimidation and indoctrination have no place in academic discourse.
henry.yang@chancellor.ucsb.edu.
Courtesy copy the following:
mgscharl@math.ucsb.edu, gene.lucas@evc.ucsb.edu, moliver@ltsc.ucsb.edu, mazer@lifesci.ucsb.edu, joel@geog.ucsb.edu, joel.michaelsen@senate.ucsb.edu, sarah@isber.ucsb.edu, butler@chem.ucsb.edu, scott@theaterdance.ucsb.edu, hcallus@music.ucsb.edu, gaulin@anth.ucsb.edu, spieker@gss.ucsb.edu, stemmer@mrl.ucsb.edu, caselle@lifesci.ucsb.edu, goulias@geog.ucsb.edu, amar@lawso.ucsb.edu, Stephanie.smagala@senate.ucsb.edu, ettenberg@psych.ucsb.edu, hualee@ece.ucsb.edu, mithun@linguistics.ucsb.edu, zok@engineering.ucsb.edu, helen.henry@ucr.edu, cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com
(Names and positions follow)
* Martin Scharlemann, Academic Senate Charges Officer
* Gene Lucas, Executive Vice-Chancellor
* Melvin Oliver, Dean of Social Sciences
* Susan J. Mazer, Chair, AS Committee on Committees
* Joel Michaelson, Chair, Academic Senate
* Sarah Fenstermaker, Chair, AS Privilege and Tenure Committee
* Alison Butler, Chair, AS Committee on Academic Personnel
* Vickie Scott, Chair, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Helen Callus, Member, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Steven J. Gaulin, Member, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Sven Spieker, Member, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Susanne Stemmer, Member, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Jenn E. Caselle, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Kostas Goulias, Member, AS Committee on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom
* Paul E. Amar, UC Academic Freedom Representative
* Stephanie Smagala, member, AS Charges Advisory Committee
* Aaron Ettenberg, AS Charges Advisory Committee
* Hua Lee, AS Charges Advisory Commitee
* Marianne Mithun, AS Charges Advisory Committee
* Frances Zok, AS Charges Advisory Committee
* Helen Henry, Chair, University of California Committee on Academic Freedom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj0dWOOgOeQ
ReplyDeleteA student reads Prof. William Robinson's email on youtube
and make sure to cc: all your e-mails to Professor Robinson (wirobins@soc.ucsb.edu). Better yet, once you have sent them, then separately forward them to Robinson so you can include a personal message to him:
ReplyDelete"JUST FOR YOUR INTEREST"
A sample letter that was sent:
ReplyDeleteDear Chancellor Yang,
As I am sure you know, several months ago, Professor William I. Robinson, a self described “scholar -activist” and professor of Sociology and Global Studies at your university, forwarded an email to his students condemning Israel. The email contained images of Nazi atrocities along with images from Israel’s defensive campaign against Hamas’s terror. This comparison is considered by both the US State Dept and the European Union, in their working paper on anti-Semitism, to cross the line into anti-Semitism. This email was so disturbing to at least two students that they felt compelled to drop his class. Because of the nature of the emails, the Anti-Defamation League, as well as the UCSB Academic Senate’s Charges Committee have become involved.
The summary of allegations against Robinson include:
* As professor of an academic course, he sent each student enrolled in his course a highly partisan email accompanied by lurid photographs.
* The email was unexpected and without educational context, and was unrelated to the course
* No avenue to discuss or respond to the opinions and photographs was included in the email.
Is professor Robinson’s behavior in violation of the UC Santa Barbara Faculty Code of Conduct?
I understand that some have argued in his favor on the basis of freedom of speech and academic freedom. However, this is an egregious, but unfortunately very common, misunderstanding of these two freedoms.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to incite, and academic license is not license to lie. Moreover, while American legal precedent is clear that one has the freedom to say things with which others disagree, there is no law that obligates others to listen, nor is there any law requiring any institution to offer a podium to speech which that institution finds disagreeable.
What is at question here, therefore, is not freedom of speech, nor is it academic freedom. What is at question is the proper role of the educator in the university.
The term "anti-Semitism" is a designation coined in mid-19th century Germany to offer a more politically correct designation for Jew-hatred. Jew-hatred sounded bad, ugly, uncouth. Anti-Semitism sounded more scientific, civil, 'gentille.' Few spoke out against this euphemism. So the term gained acceptance, and entered the vocabulary of Western civilization. In doing so, it turned a primitive social psychosis into a politically correct social value. European, and especially German, society was then able to integrate this legitimized psychosis in to a political doctrine of hatred, repression and, ultimately, genocide.
Happily for Western society, especially post-World War II, this euphemism has been recognized for what it is. Most of the West's mainstream social, political, and intellectual leadership has distanced itself from anti-Semitism; recognizing that, no matter what faux veneer of acceptability is used, Jew-hatred is still just that: a senseless pathology, symptomatic of a sick mind and a sick society, leading in the end to injustice, repression, violence, and genocide.
Not so in the Arab world. Mainstream media and school books have for decades promoted the crudest and ugliest of the images, slogans, and canards of Nazi and Medieval European Jew-hatred; lending valence and acceptability to the basest of anti-Jewish lies, forgeries, and accusations. Witness, inter alia, the recent series of newspaper articles in Saudi Arabia, describing Jewish blood libel as scientific fact. And even more heinous, the textbooks used in elementary schools in Syria, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, which demonize Israelis (and Jews in general) as Zionist "infidels," and Christians as blood-thirsty "crusaders." The children of much of the Arab world are educated into an ideology of hatred that de-legitimizes an entire people. That de-legitimization makes it noble to work toward the destruction of Israel and the butchering of its Jewish inhabitants. Dulce et decorum est...to slaughter the Jews.
Oddly, this Arab version of Jew-hatred has begun to insidiously infect Western society with the help of new euphemisms: anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Clearly, one can be anti-Israel without being anti-Jewish. Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. But it is precisely this truism that is exploited by the purveyors of the new Jew-hatred, who seek a more respectable label for their old psychosis.
Palpable and unabashed hate crimes recently perpetrated against Jews and Jewish institutions are defended as expressions of reasonable political critique against Israel. We are witness to a rerun of the phenomenon of 19th century Germany: find the right euphemism, and the hatred becomes acceptable, even in the most civil of societies.
Even odder, some academics and liberal leaders have adopted this newly revised edition of Jew-hatred as a cornerstone in their fight for 'truth and justice.' These erstwhile defenders of our social and political systems, which for centuries have been defined as having "malice toward none" (Abraham Lincoln) and equal opportunity of access for all (Thomas Jefferson), have incorporated the new euphemisms of Jew-hatred into their publications, speeches, and classrooms.. .much to the bewilderment of many -- and to the glee of a hate-driven few.
And perhaps oddest of all, they have done so of their own free will, enthusiastically exploiting their faculty status and academic freedom to proffer palpably false and mendacious anti-Israel propaganda as scholarship and inciteful anti-Zionist polemic as education. Their reckless misuse of their positions of trust among colleagues and students has contributed directly to the creation on many campuses of an atmosphere of hate and distrust toward Israel, Israelis, Jews, and anyone identifying with any of the above.
And thus the Arab world's war against Israel becomes a nation-wide campus war against Jews.
Professor Robinson seems to have chosen to join the ranks of these "erstwhile defenders."
I most sincerely urge you, therefore, to draw a line in the sand. The university should not be a promoter of Jew-hatred, nor an inciter of violence.
Sincerely yours,
Name withheld to protect privacy
This whole controversy is ridiculous! Professor Robinson sent an email to students about a global issue in a globalization class, which makes it totally relevant and within the scope of his work. So the student stating that he submitted “significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course” is laughable. Not to mention, one email is not a “significant intrusion.” Why the heck is the ADL even involved? These students couldn’t just delete the email or talk to Professor Robinson about their concerns before dropping the class and hightailing to the ADL Santa Barbara officer? This just sounds like over dramatic, bizarre behavior for college students. It begs the question as to what kind of students are attending UCSB these days. Just to sure, I read the email and it wasn’t that horrific and the comparison does foster critical thinking. Whatever the case, it doesn’t follow that Robinson, a Jewish professor, should be considered anti-Semitic for expressing his views (whatever they may be) on the Israeli invasion of Gaza. That the university is seriously considering the claims of these students is mind boggling.
ReplyDelete