Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
In Support of Academic Freedom
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 14, 2007
In the world of academia today, professors are constantly under scrutiny for their research findings and published work, especially in the politically polarizing field of Middle Eastern studies. Nadia Abu El-Haj, an assistant professor of anthropology at Barnard, has been attacked by fellow professors and alumni for one of her books, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, in which she states that Israeli archaeologists went out of their way to find archaeological remains that would support the long history of a Jewish state in Israel. Because professor Abu El-Haj examines sensitive and often contentious topics, the debate over her tenure has become a heated fight that blurs the line between the merit of scholarship and the implication of her ideas. Columbia must look beyond the strong feelings of non-academics and focus solely on the credibility of the professor’s work and scholarship.
Professor Abu El-Haj is no stranger to prestigious universities. She has held, among other positions, a Fulbright Fellowship and additional fellowships at Harvard’s Academy for International and Area Studies. In 2002, she was granted an award by the Middle East Studies Association for Facts on the Ground, which the awards committee called a “nuanced, nonpolemic work.” Partly due to her distinguished accomplishments, professor Abu El-Haj was offered tenure at Barnard. Now, because of the close relationship between Barnard and Columbia, she must receive tenure from the department of anthropology at Columbia, and then an ad-hoc committee assembled by the administration.
Tenure is a major accomplishment and guarantees a nearly permanent position at a university. A tenured professor is able to pursue his academic work freely and independentl, and can take the initiative to pursue difficult and controversial ideas. As such, the Tenure Process Review Committee, which will decide Abu El-Haj’s tenure, must consider the rigor and innovation of a professor’s scholarship as its sole criteria for evaluation. Unpopular ideas deserve equal consideration from the committee. After all, a diversity of ideas is critical to the survival of a university.
At the heart of academia is the pursuit of unconventional ideas in the hopes of finding new information. Barnard President Judith Shapiro and University President Lee Bollinger have both acknowledged this and expressed their commitment to honest inquiry. They, along with all other professors, must continue to ensure that the tenure process proceeds fairly and that the scholars who decide Abu El-Haj’s case are not influenced by those who seek to turn this tenure decision into a politicized campaign. Anything less than a fair tenure process will only tarnish the University’s reputation as a place where academics have the freedom to explore different ideas and break new ground.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 29)
Post a Comment
-->
There is more than one way to "politicize" a tenure case. Probably the most frequent sin in that regard is the favoritism shown to candidates who have climbed aboard the correct ideological bandwagon. I fear that this was very much the case in the evaluation, or rather, overvaluation of Abu el Haj's work. The favoritism is not only the result of Abu el Haj's stance with respect to the Israel/Palestine conflict, though that stance has grown quite popular amongst those in the humanities who like to trumpet their supposed political virtue. It also springs from Abu el Haj's embrace of postmodern theoretical dogmas and the methodology they evoke and legitimize. Indeed, we have seen much of this doctrine on display in prior comments, which, to boil things down to essentials, assert that hard facts, no matter how well-founded in evidence, may be blithely dismissed when they are uncongenial, simply because the establishment of fact through the examination of the best available evidence is merely a sociopolitical ploy to justify the ascendency of hegemonic claims by the powerful. In other words, it's a fact if you want to believe it, but a mere socially-constructed will-o'-the-wisp if you don't.
This attitude hardly leads to sound scholarship or to any scholarship at all, but it's deeply etched into Abu el Haj's methods. Her branch of anthropology is really a branch of "science studies", an implementaion of postmodern cliches that has been roundly and effectively criticized by philosophers, historians, and many sociologists, in addition to scientists themselves. The whole matter was brought sharply into focus by the "Sokal Affair" a decade ago. One would have thought that the science studies enterprise would have largely withered by now; but it surfaces as the mainstay of Abu el Haj's animadversions against archaeology, as can easily be checked by consulting the notes and index of her book. Apparently, this stuff came in handy in constructing a polemic that would have self-destructed were less malleable methods used to create it. Nonetheless, people in her narrow "field" were well-pleased by her work, since it echoed the post-Geertzian nihilism that has become the prevalent tonality within cultural anthropology, a once-valuable discipline that has lost its bearings through an excess of political zeal combined with an almost Oedipal hatred of the discipline's prior great achievements.
It is all very well to denounce "outside interference" with the tenure process motivated by political agendae. But in order to do so with clean hands, one ought to have avoided political favoritism as well as theoretical faddishness and logrolling in bringing forward a candidate in the first please. In this case, the hands of Abu el Haj's supporters are pretty grimy to begin with. Her shabby and tendentious work has been puffed up unconscionably, a fact that, one hopes, will penetrate the minds of the CU administration in time to prevent the university from burdening itself with an over-hyped "scholar" as, unfortunately, it has done a number of times in the past.
Ms. Stern, While I cannot pretend to have read the book in question, I am aware enough of the arguments of this debate to at least suggest you to be careful, no one would want to drag Barnard's name through the mud with their shoddy interpretations of modern anthropology, the social sciences, academic freedom, and how the fairness of a process such as tenure procedure works. An alum discrediting a book for claims it never makes is not part of the tenure process. Anyone that isn't part of the committee should respect the process anyway--but what alum is going to start a war against her very school? Above all, you should have kept the media out of the story. The tenure process may already be compromised now in this particular case.
Ms. Stern,
please write your own book that refutes Ms. El-haj's findings/ideas. I think that would be the best way to fight Ms.El-haj if you believe so strongly that her views in the book are wrong/ill-based.
Only in academia is being different more important than being factually correct.
You forgot Newscorp and the Bush White House.
Professor abu el-haj will probably receive tenure. But most of the criticism leveled against her is based on her poor scholarship and not her unpopular thesis. Her only publication, Facts on the Ground, arose from her PhD thesis and is not well done. She claims that Jews didn't live in ancient Israel, contrary to a huge body of evidence based on dozens of other publications, and supports this by claiming that the Israeli government selectively digs up artifacts that are Jewish and throws away the Arab ones. She is not an archeologist, uses as references others who have been at digs, including students, uses the oral informatin from tour guides in Jerusalem, does not refer to any original Hebrew documents because she can't read Hebrew, and has never herself been involved in a dig. She attributes techniques of excavation using demoolition equipment to the most respected and extensively published, peer reviesed, transparent, and peer examined archeologists in Israel with pure fabricqtion. Her acceptance by the present day scholars of Middle East studies reflects the flagrant politicization of that group at the expense of honest academic inquiry.
Regardless of what you feel about this particular case, doesn't it seem like everyone would benefit from a more open tenure process? This can even be done in ways to protect a committee's ability to discuss things freely if you make it so that tenure committee records are released at a time far after the decision---say 25 yrs or something.
Glad to see that the Spectator has taken this position. Fairness is key. I hope, along with others, that there will be no bias in this tenure process regarding the professor's race, religious, sex or nationality. Her resume indicates that she is a top scholar and if Columbia can't rope her in with a tenure, it will be our loss.
typo, religion, sorry.
The claim that "facts can be manufactured through cultural acts of interpretation" is itself a facual claim that is supposed to be, for its own part, above "cultural acts of interpretation." It is a claim about what people actually do. The same holds for the claims archeologists make, or claims about how archeologists make their claims.
Critical theory and post-structuralist social science were supposed to be ways of challenging one culture's alleged access to "the facts" -- perhaps as a way of getting closer to the actual "facts" than the culture claims to be, or at least less committed to false, biased accounts.
But in the hands of some, unfamiliar with the purposes and roots of critical theory, it has become an excuse to deny any need to be checked by facts at all - beyond interpretation. That is, a rationalization for inaccuray without standards (yes, crit theory still allows for that concept). In other words, an intellectual movement that was supposed to raise our standards has become an excuse to shed them altogether.
That really does lead to bad scholarship, and any claims resting on it should be grounds for tenure denial.
So all those scholars who have tenures at various universities have good scholarship that is free of their personal opinions/biases? If some personal ideas don't come into someone's books, what makes it any different from all the other lying around? If personal opinions lead to bad scholarship we would not have a single tenured professor.
I wasn't saying that personal opinion leads to bad scholarship, which would be a ridiculous thing to claim (don't good scholars have the "personal opinion" that they're right?).
What does lead to bad scholarship is the view that personal opinion - about history, say -- is all a scholar needs, rather than that such opinion be aimed at accuracy. Or that there's no fact of the matter about what happened in the past, so one doesn't need to be right about it. That's bad scholarship. YES, I know, facts are subject to interpretation, often culturally biased interpretation. Obviously true. But that's not the same as saying any interpretation is as good as the next. It's this last claim, the it's-all'a-matter-of-opinion claim, that, in the guise of "post-structuralist" or "critical" theory, leads to bad scholarship. How could it not?
Nutjobs coming out of the woodwork on the spec online! Never would have thought.
People who criticize Prof Abu El-Haj say that it's all about the 'facts.' But that's a very simplistic way of looking at things, particularly when facts can be manufactured through the cultural acts of interpretation. Yes, believe or not, even archeologists do this! They have to, in order to create a narrative that makes their entire work understandable to a modern audience.
It just astounds me that there are so many of you FOXnews dittohead-types who think you know better than a scholar who has spent years doing the necessary professional academic training in critical social science.
Do you people even know what post-structuralism, critical theory, and Marxist social science are? Yeah, I didn't think so.
An archaeologist faking the facts would not long survive in the academic world. Archaeologists are contentious, and they would pile on top of the fabricator. Plus there are so many professional associations and high level scholars who would also be anxious to join the pile. Ms El Haj made a mistake and she is paying for it.
you're aware that condemning all 'foxnews dittoheads' is completely the same as those who'll just as easily call you or perhaps professors like El-Haj anti semitic communists or something right?
what is needed is a legitimate examination of the quality of the scholarship. the fact that someone produces scholarship shouldn't guarantee automatic tenure at Columbia as this is supposed to be an institution that prides itself upon having and producing some of the best
I'm not suggesting Prof. El-Haj doesn't meet this standard as I haven't examined his work deeply, however I think in any case a serious examination is necessary
Thanks for the comment on my post.
Of course, on a forum like this, we can all have a little license to be tongue-in-cheek(!), but your point is well-taken. But the structure of the language and the content of the criticism coming from these people are so closely aligned with the discourse propagated by right-wingers, it's hard to think that there's no coincidence.
But on the whole, I do agree with you. We need to respect the independence of the tenure review process. Petittions like the one set up by Stern are juvenile, at best. I'd be interested in seeing how they would propose organizing the department and entire fields in the social sciences.
By all means -- keep the terrorist supporting anti-Semite in the name of anti-Semitism.
I'm curious, though -- would you be as supportive of an outspoken critic of Islam who documented the terroristic nature of that faith?
Or of a professor accused of racism who produced literature "proving" that blacks were inferior to whites?
Your answer will determine whether your position here is based upon principle or political correctness.
Islam does not have a terroistic nature. No religion does. Do your homework before making such a radical statement. I can't believe you are attacking a whole religion in the name of a tenure.
Islam does not have a terroistic [sic] nature? Really? I suggest you do YOUR homework. Sit down with a volume of the Qur'an - and read it cover to cover. Blanket statements such as "No religion does" reveal your own tendency toward unfounded generalization.
But you're right -- that in itself has no bearing on Abu El-Haj's tenure.
I have read the Koran and I am familiar with its ideals. So I am done with my homework. I suggest you go and reread it though. Islam only supports war in defense.
This is not about various theories open for discussion. This is about facts and the tens of thousands of scholars and experts in the field of Biblical archaeology who can prove the Jews' ancient existence in Israel. Why not contact John Dominic Crossan, a former Catholic priest and professor, who has written many books on the subject. This is not hard to verify.
I strongly support the fairminded position expressed in this article. Tenure review must remain independent for the sake of academic freedom. Laypeople have no place in making tenure decisions. Like it or not, we're simply not qualified to make such judgments. Let's leave it to the experts and not pretend like we know better.
I wonder how many people who criticize Professor Abu El-Haj have not only read the work but actually understand its depth of engagement with larger technical issues of methodology and qualitative social science research that is integral to cutting edge work in anthropology. Judging by the quality of the critical comments here and on the Barnard petition, probably not many.
As in the recent unfortunate case of Professor Finkelstein at DePaul University in Chicago, I suspect that the opposition to Professor Abu El-Haj is largely the work of radical Jews who can't tolerate criticism of Israel. But this is exactly the kind of discussion that needs, above all, to be protected and why the idea of Lehrfreiheit exists at all. If her work is to be criticized, let professional scholarship refute the work through the ordinary processes of careful research and discussion guided by the methods of the field by real experts.
Abu El Haj "reject(s) a positivist commitment to scientific methods” and that instead, her book is “rooted in ... post-structuralism, philosophical critiques of foundationalism, Marxism and critical theory and developed in response to specific postcolonial political movements.”
Good to know that a "scholar" who doesn't believe in the scientific method is up for tenure. This ought to be a very easy decision.
Spec got it right, I just hope the Tenure Process Review Committee does there job now too
I agree...her work is bogus. She shouldn't be a prof. here. Has nothing to do with her ethnicity, it's her work.
Columbia and Barnard Middle Eastern Studies departments have no shortage of professors who hold anti-Israeli views. I'm sure that if Prof. Abu El-Haj is denied tenure, it will not be because of her nationality or her opinions, but because of the quality of her work. She is trying to undermine the validity of Israel's existence not through criticism of its policies, but by denying basic archeaological evidence and this deserves serious investigation. As Prof. Alan Segal said, "There is every reason in the world to want her to have tenure, and only one reason against it — her work."
I wouldn't want a Physics professor who believes the earth is flat for the sake of some political stance tenured, either.
Yet, the first one to say that the earth was round when it was believed that the earth was flat was a man who was not well-received in his time. So, we must be open to every opinion. This is not to say that if Ms. El-Haj is denying the existence of Isreal (which does not seem to be the case), then it it does not exist.
Kudos to this well written editorial. Although I personally think that El-Haj's research is false and poorly put together, I believe that spec takes the right stand in not being partial
Post new comment