Hamas Supporter’s Grievance Theater at the Army War College
Predictably, she appears to be engaged in the same grievance theater in response to the loss of her current position at USAWC. As she had done in her present dispute with the USAWC by having the president of MESA appealing directly to the USAWC commandant on her behalf, in 2000 she enlisted the help of UCLA professor Sondra Hale, who sat on Zuhur’s dissertation committee and at the time was the immediate past president of the Association for Middle East Women’s Studies (AMEWS).
Hale sent a letter to the AUC president and provost, which was widely circulated on various academic email lists, making a range of charges against AUC’s decision to not renew her contract. A few days later, Zuhur made an open appeal for others to send letters to the AUC president, provost, the committee on academic freedom, and the board of trustees pleading her case. She also solicited signatures for a petition demanding her reinstatement.
Having flooded the academic community with her side of the story, AUC provost Tim Sullivan issued a response providing a very different set of facts. He first expressed concern that Zuhur had decided to go on a hunger strike while her appeal of the decision not to renew her contract was still underway. He also stated that while Zuhur and her supporters had repeatedly cited an EEOC investigation into her claims that she had been discriminated against on the basis of gender and national origin as proof that something was amiss at AUC, they had failed to also say that the EEOC had thoroughly investigated the matter, dismissed Zuhur’s complaint, and already closed their file — information that would have been highly relevant to communicate to her supporters.
And while Zuhur and her supporters had been claiming that “there are no adequate grievance or appeal procedures available to Dr. Zuhur,” Sullivan observed that she had initially declined to take her case to the AUC University Senate Grievance Committee, which eventually heard and rejected her appeal. A final June 2000 public letter from Zuhur informs her supporters that her final appeal to the AUC president had been denied. Amazingly, she claimed that she regretted having to take her complaint public when it seems most of her efforts were directed in that venue.
How much Sherifa Zuhur’s past grievance theater will eventually play out in her present dispute with the USAWC remains to be seen, but there already appear to be some commonalities to the script.
It does seem particularly odd that a USAWC research professor who has dedicated significant energies in just the past year to rehabilitating the image of Hamas — a designated terrorist organization — would claim that her academic freedom has been impinged by the very institution that published an entire monograph of hers dedicated to that proposition. Her published remarks on Hamas at a recent forum hosted by the Middle East Policy Council (video) and a short book review in the fall 2008 edition of Middle East Policy could be added as exhibits of her views of Hamas as an “evolved” and “democratic” organization, in addition to her USAWC Strategic Studies Institute monograph continuing that theme. Despite her protests, those of us who have read her writings and listened to her presentations have not “misunderstood” her position, but understand her quite clearly.
And it does smack of hypocrisy when an academic who is so quick to offer herself up repeatedly as a martyr to academic freedom is patently annoyed when those of us who criticize her apologetics for a murderous and brutal terrorist organization exercise those same freedoms. Surely the U.S. Army War College has better things to do than indulge Sherifa Zuhur in a repeat performance of her grievance theater. They should be glad to see the curtain come down on this play.
“So it goes…”
Why in Tartarus is academic freedom even being mentioned? The United States Army War College has a mission incompatible with unbridled academic freedom. That this person-qualified-to-profess has to fall back on the claim of academic freedom ought to be enough to get her booted and banned.
Hmm, has she been reading “o’s” favorite author?
what in hades is this woman doing teaching at *any* US college, let alone a MILITARY one?
In the academic marketplace of ideas, when your idea is disputed don’t debate or refute dissenters. Go on hunger strike! How professional.
Regardless of the validity of her proposals, this Zuhur character is much too immature to be in any sort of position of importance and influence. Level heads and clear thinkers should take precedence over emotional outbursting, one would think.
“Having flooded the academic community with her side of the story, AUC provost Tim Sullivan issued a response providing a very different set of facts.”
Huh?
Find out who the fool was that hired her to begin. Was there some sort of a quota in place? Minority, female, whiner, grievance monger?
It is women like this that might explain why stoning became so popular in the Muzzie world of the 7th Century.
Weak-minded terrorist apologists like Sherifa Zuhur apparently are too dumb to comprehend that terrorists don’t desire dialogue with civilized people unless the dialogue is a pretext for permitting them to re-group in order to be able to murder more innocent people. We are seeing this scenario playing out in Gaza right now. I realize that some of these terrorist scum are not idealogues, but rather ignorant cannon fodder for the cowards who give them their marching orders and then go hide. Does the name Osama Bin Laden ring a bell. He is the gutless coward hinding in a rabbit hole somewhere in Pakistan. Apparently, his intention is to become a martyr through the process of old age. In the meantime, the idiot lackeys who support him do his dirty work, murdering innocent civilians. To paraphrase the late American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman: “The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
Always the victim. Please note the tactics in use by zuhur.
Use every opening available as provided for by our freedoms in America to attempt to bring about the downfall of those very freedoms.
Strange isn’t it how they do not realize the irony.
But, this is a standard tactic employed and encouraged by radical Islamist.
It’s in our best interest to support keeping that academic in her position. Otherwise how would our military learn modern warfare principles such as hiding is fighting, women and children are WMD (Weapons for Media Distraction), NGO’s are agitprop purveyors, etc.?
She can’t teach at Gaza U., not because of their exemplary academic freedom (enhanced for women), but because there’s not much she can teach them. Neither theatrical directing, not even lawfare.
Another fine piece by Mr. Poole (of course). Note how one of the preeminent military institutions of higher learning–all of which are viewed in academia as hopelessly reactionary–bends over backwards to be politically correct (liberal, that is) on Islamic issues, yet a civilian institution extends no such olive branch to those who disagree with academe’s groupthink on the same issues:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=267915981622138
I might add, too, that I applied for Zuhur’s position several years ago and didn’t even rate an interview. So right now I’m having a hard time resisting schadenfreude at the AWC’s expense.
In other news, the Senate of the University of al Qaeda is considering the petition of Prof. Abdul Abdul who recently lost his position after colleagues took issue with a series of lectures in which suggested that beheading is not always the appropriate punishment for Jews apprehended while caught in the act of living.
The War College is a place where selected high officers get prep for flag rank – in understanding geopolitical strategy…Part of that is understanding the thinking and ideology of potential enemies. It is not unusual to see lecturers from ex-guerilla ranks, African “liberationist” soldiers, former Sandanistas, Chicommie PLA commissars, people from both sides to the 1st and 2nd Algerian Civil Wars at the War College.
However, I question any female such as professor Sherifa Zuhur having any “inside track” into the thinking of outfits like Hamas. The female role in radical Islamist movements is to breed, or fetch more tea and sweetmeats when hands are clapped.
And I question the War College giving her a contract given her litigious history.
High on the list of people the War College would love to get in to talk after the Leb-Syria-Israel final Borders and Peace are agreed to – would be Sheikh Nasrallah of Hez, and two Iranian strategists there as advisors, involved in the 2006 summer conflict with Israel.
One of the chief functions of a military organization is education and training. It is important at all levels fromm basic traing to the ASAWC. And the military has teachers in almost all ranks.
We had a American Army 1st Lieutenant of Infantry going public with his “decision” that he would fight in Afghanistan but not in Iraq (his trial and obvious,I hope, conviction for insubordination and conduct unbecoming have not yet happened), and now this.
What next, a Corporal mess kit instructor pontificating to the State Department on how mid-east diplomacy should be conducted?
So this lady is apperantly a Hamas agent,planted in the USAWC and they are supposed to be ok with it ? Lady, go back to Saudi Arabia and argue about your rights….so how that goes for you. If you want to work for Hamas,do it somewhere other than the USAWC, or the U.S. ,period. Hasta la vista,puerca !
Not sure what you are thinking, Fred. The War College has active duty, retiree, and civilian instructors..including some who were or presently ARE “on the other side” in potential adversary nations or movements.
This is far removed from on the job training for soldiers doing pure military tasks. This is strategic – where military must interact with the political, ideological, communications, economic spheres – and yes, even State Dept spheres of leadership and influence-making – as well as applying their “in house” knoweldge of soldiering, military technology, and military capacity to any challenges.
We learned that the basic E-1 throgh 0-6 “in house learning” while great for fulfilling a soldiers pure military role, is inadequate at the high strategic level if military ignores political, ideological, PR, economic aspects of war against an opponent. We learned that in the 50s and 60s, most painfully with Vietnam – where we won every battle yet lost the war.
There is a difference in learning how the enemy thinks, and learning how this woman thinks WE should think. Furthermore, she’s been there 8 years now? I think she has offered all she has to offer. Time to move on.
Zuhur is, and always was, an enemy agent.
Just like we used to hunt spies and agit-props from Com-Intern, the former Communist block, we should go after the agents of Islam-Intern who, for their ideology of world domination which they so slavishly follow, pose a far greater threat.
Zuhur is one of them. Is there still room in Gitmo?
I encourage her to continue her hunger strike.
Cedarford,
Not sure of your point, other than to remind Fred that we’re talking about army/corps/theater/global level, not platoon or company. At that high level ideology is paramount–and Zuhur, by all accounts, misrepresents the Islamic nature of the ideology opposed to us. Do you disagree with that?
Tim, I agree except the part where you claim she “misrepresents” the nature of Hamas’s ideology. I think a man inside Hamas leadership would be a better lecturer than a woman, but I would not dispute her claim that Hamas is an evolved and democratically elected organization that HAS done what we call terrorism, but many in the world believe may fall into a category of mostly lawful resistance to an enemy occupier.
(save when they kill unarmed Israeli citizens or unarmed Palestinian civilians).
Same with Hez leadership, or those attacking armed Settlers on the West Bank. The line is not as clear as Zionists pretend it to be – as international law does allow armed resistance to occupiers to be considered in a category “other than terrorist” – as we ourselves recently did with the “Hero Fighters of Anbar – that we bribed to stop killing Americans and do in AQ instead, and said we didn’t think of them as terrorists, and let bygones be bygones….)
Interesting that she used the academic freedom card in her complaint. If you read Victor Davis Hanson, who for decades has taught at the university level, you would learn there is a pervasive PC attitude in US academia that stifles all opposing opinions from the conservative side of the spectrum. Zuhur obviously was selling her goods to the wrong crowd. She should probably look for a position at an elite Ivy League school or a liberal haven like UC Berkeley. They would probably welcome her in those institutions. I think she was hoisted on her own petard. No sympathy.
I am curious as to why Dr. Steven Metz would defend an enemy agent of disinformation. That clearly is what Sherifa Zuhur is, when you read what she has said about Hamas and the reaction of the Western world to Islamic jihad. Anyone want to venture into educated speculation as to what his game is all about? If the actual written words of hers were right in front of his eyes, how could he rationalize defending the indefensible? On grounds of “academic freedom?” An academic freedom that is not, in most universities and colleges, availed to those who criticize Islam and jihad even when using the enemy’s scriptures and traditions as proof of the intent of this enemy.
Zuhur is not a victim of double standards. We are the ones who are the victims of this, but in true doublespeak fashion truth is stood on its head and we are forced to conform to a dualistic reality.
BTW, “sheik yer mami” is familiar to me, from Robert Spencer’s site. He’s a good writer. Witty and cuts right to the point.
Hi Cedarford,
I see you’re back at it again, can’t stop your dig at Zionists. At least you’re keeping clear of the “Jew” line and trying to be nice to the unarmed Israeli and Palestinians civilians. How about the innocent Israeli soldiers who are ambushed without provocation?
Old _Airman_2000
Maybe she would do better at UC Irvine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ1lk3xz_UE
Check out this video.
This terrorist apologist view from within, or appeasement against the enemy in general, and/or to force a political correct view against US, doesn´t benefit US national security, and should be rejected.
And further; You don´t engage in dialogue with terrorism and terrorists, due to the fact that deadly force is the only dialogue they understand.
PS. The Congress need a modern version of Joeseph McCarthy that investigate the Islamists from within, e.g. an Anti-Islamic investigation within US government, and universities.
The whole episode is disgraceful, but independent of her whitewashing of Hamas and terrorism, this sort of thing – as you note, “grievance theater” – happens once identity politics alone are grounds for being hired or espousing a point of view.
Once upon a time scholars weren’t this petty: the “profess” in “professor” meant something. Oh well.
…Sherifa Zuhur in a repeat performance of her grievance theater.
In trying to rehabilitate the image of Hamas, her machinations are reminiscent of the agenda of soft jihad in North America, including but not limited to…
4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America: The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
You have all forgoten the War College is not in the business of training warriors anymore. their job is the making of politicans. How many Generals do you see today that want to fight rather than talk? After putting 25 years in the military, I’ve seen the Officer Corps do nothing but go down hill.
How is the war college supposed to get alternative points of view unless they hire people with alternative points of view? Then they have to let those people tell that alternative view.
Do you honestly think the generals and colonels at the war college are being brainwashed by this woman? They are very intense, very smart, and used to seeing through BS.
Let the woman spout. Encourage it. Alternative points of view won’t hurt the army.
savage24:
You have all forgoten the War College is not in the business of training warriors anymore. their job is the making of politicans. How many Generals do you see today that want to fight rather than talk? After putting 25 years in the military, I’ve seen the Officer Corps do nothing but go down hill.
How many generals would prefer to resolve matters by talking instead of killing?
Near 100%.
Why? Unlike Savage24, they actually do fight, see their men killed, perhaps see their sons and even daughters also following the military tradition at risk of maiming or dying in conflict.
Unlike the Neocon civilians that had control of the Pentagon, 2001-2006, they believe in fighting only Wars that are in America’s own vital interest, not some foreign country…or dying for a half-baked idea like “bringing democracy and Freedom-Loving!!!” at the point of a gun.
I doubt Savage24 is a 25-year man. I never saw senior enlisted eager to die for shitty little ME nations or some resentful people killing our troops politicians claim will eventually be grateful for us “liberating them, building schools, sending billions to their leaders private bank accounts” – in my time. Perhaps a few Christian Zionists, but that’s it…and those guys believed that war was needed to hasten the end of America, the end of the world, and the 2nd Coming.
Grumpy the Zionist – ” How about the innocent Israeli soldiers who are ambushed without provocation?”
Concepts of blanket innocence or guilt are silly in war. As applied in the convention “innocent civilians” as if soldiers or fighters defending their people or ideology are automatically guilty of something.
Grumpy is blind to the other side being just as pissed that the “guilty” Israelis are ambushing innocent Hamas with rocket attacks without provocation.
Gosh I wonder who posted this extremely inaccurate portrayal of events both at the War College and American University in Cairo, – Dr. Metz? SSI? ICome out like men and use your real names! It must be you, SSI, as real Middle East scholars know the actual story at the American University in Cairo which has damaged many scholars. My complaint against the War College has two parts – one concerns severe limitations on academic freedom! The other concerns the most despicable treatment I have ever experienced as a Muslim, a woman and one whose national origin differs from Dr.Metz. So this poster thinks this is a charade? Well that’s because some individuals at SSI and the War College think Muslims, women and Arabs SHOULD be treated improperly (is not the word I’d like to use) And you claim you have academic freedom, yet have ended my position, and with impunity issued discipline, suspensions without pay and threats to try to make me leave sooner. Don’t worry all of you who dislike those who dare to write about Hamas (let’s stay in blissful ignorance) they are firing me! And trying to do so as soon as possible.
The poster knows zip about the issues at the American University in Cairo. Very different institution. AUC did not call the Hilali Quran an evil and intolerant book like the War College lChaplain and ruin my ratings by writing I was “uncollegial” for asking for a place to pray like the SSI chair! No-one at AUC followed me around to private events to attack me for representing terrorism! No-one at AUC wrote me 100s of emails calling me a liar. The AUC did not allow me to be sexually assaulted and harassed without doing anything! The EEOC IS the venue for such complaints, but I have no faith in it & I hope the Army leadership DOES something.
AUC (less known, I believe to pajamasmedia) has faculty governance, limited tenure, and academic freedom bounded differently. Admin kowtowed in the 1990s to aspects of culture wars raging btw liberals and Islamists. Book banning, recycling of faculty and unfair employment practices abounded — unfair to Egyptians in certain ways, unfair to Americans & non-Egyptians in others. AUC caved in to uproar over an old book, Rodinson’s Muhammad, & a talented young faculty member lost his job; then Samia Mehrez was attacked for assigning Khubz al-Hafi & was threatened with expulsion. Most of us who supported them lost our jobs. Many others did too, due to lack of procedures available to US university faculty. EEO was an issue because of the horribly unfair departmental practices, some hiring only non-Egyptians, others only Egyptians in contradiction to US law.
So whoever wrote this based some of their angry efforts above on, I believe, a petittion written in my defense from years ago still out there on the Web. This person doesn’t know about the petitions written to defend others, and actions taken to defend other peers, including some now at other military service colleges in the US because academics have to go somewhere.
Too bad, poster, you only understand the kind of solidarity that extends to those of your own race, religion and narrow viewpoint, whereas in a way, the (often ineffective) solidarity extended by writers, journalists and academics is a far more admirable type. I stood by my colleagues at AUC – Americans and Egyptians, and some of them stood by me. Not so at the Army War College, I’m sorry to say because they are all too vulnerable to the misuse of discipline. When you can’t say what you want in a critical report, or you have to eliminate the one person from that report who actually knows the ground, the personalities, etc. for fear of being politically incorrect (you do it on the right too!) that certainly inhibits strategic assessment. There are some terrific people in the military and some of them know exactly what I am discussing.
At the same time, HAMAS offers a fascinating glimpse of the dynamics of strategic reactions and the modification of Israeli impulses towards aggressive deterrence, as well as the evolution in the Islamist movements’ planning and operations. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict bears similarities to a long-standing civil conflict, even as it has sparked inter-Palestinian hostilities in its most recent phase.
This is Ms. Zuhur’s “position”, from the summary/monograph linked above. Wordy as it is, I get the point (more or less).
Is there something I’m missing in this mountain of verbiage, Ms. Zuhar ? Does any fine tuning of the AUC change anything ? Are the clearly delineated objectives/agenda of the Hamas Charter inoperative ?
Why don’t you stop playing the grievance game (and/or, the verbiage game) and just come out with a full-fledged endorsement of that gang of terrorists ?
It’s a short life, and, pretty soon, your protestations will be dissolving into the irrelevance of history.
Please advise.
I agree with allowing those who have been enemy combatants a time to speak in front of future flag rank officers, but don’t put the asses on staff.
This woman is worthless to the War College, except as an example of political correctness run amuck. Kick her butt out.
If Dr. Zuhur’s post is indicative of her writing and/or reasoning abilities, I really wonder how she wound up in such a teaching position.
Isn’t the crux of the issue at hand whether HAMAS should be treated as a reasonable interlocutor in international affairs or as a terrorist organization that needs to be fought? Dr. Zuhur seems to teach the former, while many of use think she’s be at best willfully ignorant and at worst an apologist. Well, here are some excerpts from the HAMAS charter:
“[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad….”
“Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility….”
“[I]in spite of our appreciation for the PLO and its possible transformation in the future, and despite the fact that we do not denigrate its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we cannot substitute it for the Islamic nature of Palestine by adopting secular thought. For the Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion, and anyone who neglects his religion is bound to lose….”
“The greedy have coveted Palestine more than once and they raided it with armies in order to fulfill their covetousness. Multitudes of Crusades descended on it, carrying their faith with them and waving their Cross. They were able to defeat the Muslims for a long time, and the Muslims were not able to redeem it until their sought the protection of their religious banner; then, they unified their forces, sang the praise of their God and set out for Jihad under the Command of Saladin al-Ayyubi, for the duration of nearly two decades, and then the obvious conquest took place when the Crusaders were defeated and Palestine was liberated. “Say (O Muhammad) unto those who disbelieve: ye shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell, an evil resting place.” Sura III (Al-Imran), verse 12. This is the only way to liberation, there is no doubt in the testimony of history. That is one of the rules of the universe and one of the laws of existence. Only iron can blunt iron, only the true faith of Islam can vanquish their false and falsified faith. Faith can only be fought by faith….”
“Hamas posits Islam as a way of life, it is its faith and its yardstick for judging. Whoever posits Islam as a way of life, anywhere, and regardless of whether it is an organization, a state, or any other group, Hamas are its soldiers, nothing else.”
Tim,
How naive of you! Ms. Zuhur has already duly chastised those of us who would reduce HAMAS to its “defunct 1988 charter” as she states on pg. x of her recent monograph. Neocon troglodytes like you and I just don’t understand how far HAMAS has evolved from suicide bombing pizza shops full of Jewish teenagers to dropping thousands of Qassam rockets into civilian areas. That’s the kind of change that Sherifa Zuhur can believe in.
Sherifa Zuhur
Isn’t what is happening to you exactly what is happening to Professors who are conservative or Jewish. I realize when its done to them its done in the name of “academic freedom”. Isn’t this just another case of academic freedom or the expression of it? Don’t you just feel liberated? Why is it so unjust when it is happening to you? Why aren’t you shouting out for the injustices against our neocon-professors? Please explain all this to somebody who is seeking the light of truth.
See Raymond Ibrahim’s two threads (War and Peace – and Deceit – In Islam, Parts I and II) on PJM. The deception campaign in the West is far advanced and the intellectual sloth and pride of our political and policy elites is staggering. This is why I am convinced that Western Civilization is in full suicide mode.
To the poster writing as Sherifa Zuhur,
Would you care to explain how and why you insist on staying in a place that oppresses and humiliates you as a woman, a Moslem, and a scholar?
It sounds like a battered woman who won’t leave home and refuse divorce.
Frog
rivet, rivet, rivet!
It’s obvious from this woman’s response she can’t see herself as anything other than a victim, which is par for the feminist/Arab mentality.
Having said that here’s hoping that the War College continues to fight the good fight against becoming an insular, close minded bureaucracy like the rest of the world’s institutions of “higher learning”.
Patrick, why do you constantly attack educated Muslims who are in fact, moderates and who play an important role in the U.S.?
Your post about Zuhur and AUC is all wrong. You don’t do any real research, apparently you take whatever is in print as the truth, without fact-checking.
Here’s what you wrote ” A few days later, Zuhur made an open appeal for others to send letters to the AUC president, provost, the committee on academic freedom, and the board of trustees pleading her case. She also solicited signatures for a petition demanding her reinstatement.
Having flooded the academic community with her side of the story, AUC provost Tim Sullivan issued a response providing a very different set of facts.” NOT HOW IT HAPPENED, I WAS THERE. Zuhur never made an appeal on her own behalf. Some students organized a petition, and Hale circulated a petition because Zuhur had in the prior year, organized support for Samia Mehrez (these are not your Islamist enemies!)
Tim Sullivan never issued a “response” – the College’s PR department did.
Other professors were much more quietly terminated, or denied tenure, or gotten rid of – what makes them better educators?
Former AUC, it is you who have your facts wrong.
You state: “Zuhur never made an appeal on her own behalf.”
Um, how about this: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0005&L=ARABIC-INFO&P=R1480&D=0&I=-3
Again: “Tim Sullivan never issued a “response” – the College’s PR department did.”
Duh: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0006&L=ARABIC-INFO&P=R25&D=0&I=-3
See the second part of the post:
“To the AUC Community:
From: Tim Sullivan”
How about doing some fact-checking of your own? But thank you for making my point once again that the academic climate at places like AUC and the USAWC have deteriorated so far that one cannot critique and criticize without being labeled a racist or whatever-phobe-of-the-day. It is people like yourself and Sherifa Zuhur’s identity grievance-mongering that has brought academia to this place.
Oh, and at least I have the courage to put my name to what I write, “Former AUC”.
Patrick Poole, you like Dan Pipes and Horowitz are guilty of very POOR research and linguistic tricks. The post you dug up was not sent out by Dr. Zuhur but her graduate students.
AUC is totally unlike USAWC. And you have never stopped critiquing and criticizng Arabs or Muslims — that appears to be your career.
In your stupidity and zeal to Arab-bash, you are attacking one of a small minority of democracy-defenders and a person who really did uphold academic freedom.
You had to be there. And you weren’t.
Well, Former AUC, once again it is you who is factually challenged. The post you claim was sent out by Zuhur’s students is in fact written in first person, signed by Zuhur herself, and sent from her email account (see first link in my previous comment). You fail to acknowledge that you were wrong in your previous post when you claimed that AUC provost Tim Sullivan didn’t issue a public response to Zuhur’s baseless claims (which were rejected by the EEOC). That’s three strikes to your credibility.
So how is it that you claim that you were there, and yet be so ignorant about the facts of the matter? And how is it that I have a better grasp of the facts while you continue to beclown yourself in blind defense of grievance-monger Zuhur?
The simple fact of the matter is that Sherifa Zuhur is a fifth-rate academic hack that by her own admission has been chased out of every respectable academic institution that she has been affiliated with (AUC, UC-Berkeley, USAWC). I suspect that’s also why you are also “Former” AUC as well. You hacks have to stick together. And with Zuhur’s recent monograph she has come out in defense of a murderous terrorist organization. I will continue to criticize and expose terrorist bootlickers regardless of their race or religion. On that count I’m an equal opportunity critic. You might want to ponder the fact that YOU are the one who wants to make this about race or religion and keeps injecting it into these discussions. Clearly you have your own racist and bigoted issues to deal with.
You’ve posted here twice and been proven wrong both times. Time to give it up. And again, at least I have the courage to post my criticisms openly and in my own name. It is telling that you will only defend Sherifa Zuhur when you do it anonymously. Considering your factually-challenged performance here, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to do it in your own name.
Your “research” on Arabs and Muslims is as shoddy and inaccurate as this message. How dare you describe Zuhur as a “fifth-rate academic hack.” Facts: You were not at AUC in 1999. You choose to attack one of the few people who stood up for academic freedom and for her colleagues rights to teach out of texts that support liberalism, democracy, concern Islam (but weren’t necessarily written by Muslims) — books on Egypt’s black-list. Because you weren’t there and want so desperately to slander Dr. Zuhur – you dig out a supposed story from the past based solely on Internet materials that can’t be understood out of context. (Other AUC faculty complaints were cited in a Chronicle of Higher Education report). Why? Because you want to punish Dr. Zuhur for the supposed crime of writing ABOUT Hamas.
The list-serve message was NOT the appeal circulated by AUC graduate students – that was written by Dr. Hale. The message was (if you can read, it seems you can’t) in response to many top-ranked academics all over the world who wrote in on her behalf. Tim Sullivan’s response on the AUC email system (funny you should find that) was NOT the College’s official response – that came out by their PR department. You have lousy research skills, Patrick.
Well, “Former AUC”, I never claimed that I was there, so I’m not sure what your beef is on that point. We only have your word that you were there for the events in question, and based on your proven grossly inaccurate recounting of events, that is severely in doubt. You initially said that Tim Sullivan did not issue a public response; you now admit that he did. You claimed that Sherifa Zuhur didn’t make an appeal on her behalf, but after I posted a link to her appeal here, you now admit that she did. That you have to resort to name calling only demonstrates how your efforts have been an EPIC FAIL. I understand your anger that your martyr to academic freedom has been shown to be nothing but a HAMAS bootlicker. Yeah, how long is their banned list?
You have yet to contradict a single element to my original article, and you have repeatedly shown your grasp of the facts in the matter is entirely lacking. You refused to bother to read the evidence I initially provided and have beclowned yourself in the process. It seems that Sherifa Zuhur is not the only “fifth-rate academic hack”. And now that the USAWC has had enough of her encore grievance-mongering performance originally delivered at AUC, I stand entirely vindicated.