Posts
Norman Finkelstein Denied Tenure
By Michael Weiss / June 14, 2007
Hardly a surprise, though this extract from the letter DePaul's president wrote to Finkelstein is lame:
Father Holtschneider wrote that Mr. Finkelstein is an excellent teacher and a nationally recognized public intellectual but does not “honor the obligation” to “respect and defend the free inquiry of associates.”
To my knowledge, Finkelstein's odiousness does not extend to advocating censorship or the denial of anyone's right to say or think whatever he likes. Indeed, his whole career has been based on attacking what others say and think, so it's silly to accuse him of failing to "respect and defend the free inquiry of associates." He'd be nowhere without Joan Peters, Daniel Goldhagen or Alan Dershowitz, however loosely they may be defined as Finkelstein's "associates."
The Washington Post's citation of the letter (the above came from the New York Times) delves deeper into the root of the no-tenure crowd's complaint:
"In the opinion of those opposing tenure, your unprofessional personal attacks divert the conversation away from consideration of ideas, and polarize and simplify conversations that deserve layered and subtle consideration…"
It could also be argued that his personal attacks perforce drive his opponents into ever more layered and subtle consideration of ideas. That they all seem driven to respond to him at all seems to me a fairly good sign that the principle of free inquiry is being upheld. My comrade Norm Geras, who has little regard for Finkelstein, adds:
These complaints – 'hurtful' scholarship, 'public clashes with other scholars', and 'polarizing' or 'simplifying' conversations – may say something about how Finkelstein is perceived by many and, indeed, about the sort of person he is, but from the point of view of upholding academic freedom, they are not reassuring ones. The president of DePaul may be satisfied that 'academic freedom is alive and well' at his university, but it needs to demonstrate that its decision in this case hasn't betrayed that principle. You don't have either to agree with or to warm to Norman Finkelstein to find the decision suspect, at best.
POST A COMMENT
Never mind that pro-terror destroy-Israel-for-peace morons like Little Dickie Silverstein from Seattle celebrate him.
As for Dickie, see http://www.richardsilversteins.blogspot.com
The field of "Middle East Studies", I imagine, otherwise known as the field of Israel bashing. It's an entire academic field based on Edward Said's ideas of 'Orientalism', which is a pathetically lame attempt to raise the Arabs up to proper victim status. The Arabs, in European eyes from the renaissance through modernity, don't rank as even second or third place as an 'other': they are more like in FIFTH place, after blacks, Jews, Chinese, and AmerIndians. They're even losers as losers!
So when someone has made a reputation in this 'field', it gives them about the same credibility as a PhD in phrenology or eugenics. It simply proves you're a moron or a racist.
"the Journal of Palestine Studies is no shmate, and is highly respected *in the field*"Â I rest my case.
It's not a complete CV. A very quick look in an academic database (JSTOR) shows articles (and reviews and rebuttals) from: Palestine Studies, Jewish Quarterly Review, Boundaries, Contemporary Literature, Social Text, American Literary History, and more.Â
http://condor.depaul.edu/~psc/vitae/Finkle_06Feb(revised).pdf
Here is Finklestein’s cv as posted on the DePaul University web site. It lists no journal articles. He has a chapter in a book edited by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, and he has several books. He lists the same book more than once sometimes when it is published in more than one language
François: Don't let the title fool you, the Journal of Palestine Studies is no shmate, and is highly respected in the field, and follows all of the protocols of academic journals. In the same regard, the Journal of Israel Studies (published by Indiana) is a legitimate forum of research. While both journals are obviously the products of particular ideological stances (in that each of them recognizes the object of their study as a legitimate and coherent–and national–space), the same can be said for most decent academic journals. They come into being to draw attention to a field that its editors/practitioners feel is under-represented. Heck, the same is true for most fields of research: Jewish studies, American studies, Queer studies. Even the social sciences struggled for recognition a century ago. Hell, to go further back, the very idea of public and open universities was a product of European nationalism. We're all implicated in shilling on behalf of something…  Be well.
Moshe,
In the Humanities (unlike the hard sciences), peer reviews are usually not double-blind. The reviewer knows the author of the text, but the author doesn't know the reviewers unless the reviewers choose to reveal themselves after submitting the review. Based on what I know from colleagues who have published with them (and a friend who worked at one), both UCPress and Minnesota (two of F's presses) follow this format. Otherwise, their presses wouldn't be considered legitimate in academic circles.
 I assume that it'd be pretty easy to see a list of his journal articles. Check his website or look in the academic databases….Â
Actually, this is an interesting question. Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry' was published by Verso, which describes itself as "Commissioning intelligent, critical works located at the intersection of the academic and trade markets" (http://www.versobooks.com/verso_info/about.shtml)Â and does not make any remarks anywhere on its website about peer-review. The UC Press description of "Beyond Chutzpah" describes it as the "long-awaited sequel to [Finkelstein's] international bestseller The Holocaust Industry". (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10505.html) The UC Press website further states that "All manuscripts undergo extensive peer-review, which includes outside readings by field experts." Interestingly enough, they do not say much about what makes the peer-review "extensive", including whether it is single- or double-blind.
Most certainly Fink's books have been submitted to blind peer review. That's how academic presses like University of California Press (who published his last book) operate. There's no other way he would have even been _considered_ for tenure if the works weren't gone through a blind peer review process. Ditto for his tenure file, it would have been vetted by anonymous reviewers from other universities.
Are these just political bitchfights, or is anyone actually concerned about freedom of conscience and inquiry in the academy? Here's how we can all prove the latter: Everyone who supports Finkelstein should show their good faith by also getting behind Guillermo Gonzales. And vice versa.Â
Just a short question: Has Finkelstein ever published anything that has been submitted to blind peer review? (If so, I would be grateful if anyone could give me the reference.)
Here’s a little lesson for mausner:
Finkelstein met the conditions for tenure: his teaching earned consistently stellar ratings from his students, his departmental colleagues voted overwhelmingly to support his bid (those who demurred were not in his field) and he has a fine publication record. The only reasons the university gave for denying his bid were the weaselly ones Weiss cited; nowhere in the university’s requirements for tenure are anything like these transparently ad hoc reasons for denial mentioned.
Even more ominously, a colleague of Finkelstein’s named Mahrene Larudee was also denied tenure. Her application was even better than Finkelstein’s; unanimous faculty support, a glowing recommendation from the same dean who ignored the poli sci faculty’s wishes and recommended denying Finkelstein’s tenure bid, and already chosen as director of the International Studies program at DePaul, a position she was to have assumed in a couple of weeks.
In the face of this overwhelming pedigree, how could she have been denied tenure? Well, she was quite involved in organizing support for Finkelstein’s tenure bid.
Rather than play by the rules, DePaul invented a set of sham requirements that they then said F failed to meet. Any rational observer would conclude that they then punished another faculty star for having the temerity to vocally support him.
This should be cause for concern for any democrat, regardless of his or her position on the specifics of F’s politics.
So, “Why should they face criticism for not rewarding…(Finkelstein)…for his conduct and questionable scholarship?”
Because his “conduct” was not part of the explicit set of requirements tenure candidates are charged with fulfilling, and his scholarship is questionable only to such moral and intellectual pygmies as Steven Plaut and Alan Dershowitz.
you don't have to stifle or censor finkelstein, you don't have to like him or agree with him……
but does that mean you have to give him TENURE??
 they're not looking to censor him, but why would you give someone like that the highly respected and rewarded position of tenured professor? Why should they face criticism for not rewarding such a (insert epithet here) for his conduct and questionable scholarship?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!