Yale Downgrades Antisemitism Scholarship
Here, in essence, is what Yale University told me on June 7, after I contacted its communications office to ask why an institute dedicated to the study of antisemitism had been shut down: some of our best friends are Jews.
“As you may be aware,” Yale spokesman Thomas Conroy wrote in an email, “Yale has long been a leader in Judaic research, teaching and collections. Yale’s Judaic Studies program has outstanding faculty members who conduct path-breaking research and inspire graduate and undergraduate students who choose from scores of courses and may earn degrees. The University library’s Judaica Collection is one of the strongest in the Western Hemisphere. The Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies is a historic treasure and exceptional scholarly resource.”
All well and good. But why, I asked Conroy, was this information pertinent to the closure of the Yale Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism (YIISA), just five years after it opened its doors? “Yale has certainly made, and is making a contribution…through scholarly endeavors related to Jewish civilization, history and contemporary thought and issues,” he replied. “I point it out to add context.”
I have no doubt that Conroy made this statement with the best of intentions. However, his words reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the very phenomenon which YIISA will no longer be able to probe. For any institution that invokes its munificence towards Jewish civilization, in answer to a question about its commitment to scholarly research on antisemitism, clearly doesn’t grasp what antisemitism is and what it represents.
One of the pitfalls of the contemporary antisemitism debate is that there is too much focus on intent. In the furore surrounding their sordid book, The Israel Lobby, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt frequently complained that they were being accused of antisemitism, when neither entertained hateful feelings towards Jews on a personal level. Now, if we accept the Mearsheimer-Walt definition of the antisemite as someone who consciously and brazenly loathes Jews, then there is indeed little point in studying contemporary antisemitism, since, in western countries at any rate, few people of any consequence would openly admit to hating Jews qua Jews.
On the basis of this definition, it follows that someone accused of antisemitism must be the target of a rhetorical trick designed to derail honest debate about, invariably, Israel and its supporters. It’s all very post-modern: the victims of antisemitism today are not Jews, but those tarred as antisemites. When mounting their defense, all such people have to do is point to the bevy of Jewish friends and colleagues in their rolodexes.
This silly distortion of antisemitism’s meaning is precisely why Yale’s 2006 decision to house YIISA, which began life as an independent research institution, was such a welcome milestone. One of the world’s finest universities was effectively saying that antisemitism, the hallmark of the two great totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century, cannot be reduced to a matter of personal opinion. In that regard, the fact that the Soviet Union coded its persecution of Jews with terms like “Zionists” and “rootless cosmopolitans” provides a historical foundation to examine the linguistic slipperiness of antisemitism in our own time.
If scholarly enquiry into antisemitism is, then, a legitimate pursuit, what was the problem with YIISA? According to Yale, YIISA was an academic dud. Professor Donald Green, the director of Yale’s Institute for Social and Policy Studies (ISPS), said that YIISA’s papers failed to excite the interest of “top-tier journals in behavioral science, comparative politics, or history.” Students were not attracted to its programs. Contrast that, Green went on, with another ISPS program “that straddles social science and humanities, Agrarian Studies, [and] has produced dozens of path-breaking scholarly books and essays.”
One thing you definitely need to look into is whether Saudi Grants have anything to do with this turnabout.
Have a look at the following article: Ties to terrorism? No thanks, Alwaleed
The article’s URL is: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2383
Harvard and Georgetown were given $20 million grants Yale, was rejected. So, was this rejection based on the the presence of the Anti-Semitism grant and other similar programs at Yale? Has Yale caved-in in order to qualify for such grants? [The director of Campus Watch could probably save you research time]
More importantly, has Yale since the original rejection received grants from anyone tied with Saudi Arabia? If yes, are there obvious changes to Yale programs that might be linked to the grant? [Again the director of Campus Watch could save you time researching this]
If yes, you need to do a follow-up to your article. This is a serious problem in the USA and Canada (my country). The American public should be made aware of this so they can determine whether or not they want to financially support Yale anymore.
Saudis and Arabs have been funding for years Universities because they want to mold young minds to be sympathetic to the Arab Cause. The best defense against this is to investigate expose and then publicize in the media as loud as possible.
I totally agree with you. I think there is more involved in this phenomenon than molding young minds to be more receptive to Islam. That is a long term goal. There is a more immediate goal and concern. Have a look at the following article on the Harvard and Georgetown grants: http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=85
The author of the article quite rightly stated that both these institutions should have returned the grants the same way Mayor Rudolph Giuliani returned the $10 million cheque offered by Alwaleed for the Twin Tower Fund.
The article also mentions John Esposito the director of the endowed center at Georgetown and suggests that he may have lost some intellectual freedom and honesty over it. The problem for Esposito may be worse than that as the following link indicates. Esposito may have doctored some statistics in his book “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims really think”.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/066chpzg.asp?page=1
Why did Yale publish a book on the Mohammed cartoon controversy AND POINTEDLY LEAVE OUT THE CARTOONS?
Contemporary antisemitism is not so much a refusal of individual Jews, as it a denial of Judeocentrism, of the human self-understanding that comes from attending to the historical events in which Jews and their accusers have been central: http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/views/vw368.htm
The most modern form of “antisemitism” entails a refusal to recognize the continuing centrality of antisemitism as a leading source of global instability. Istead, for the postmodern left, the centrality to all the world’s woes of Islamophobia and other “eurocentric” and American phobias must be asserted. In jumping on this bandwagon, Yale is showing it is more devoted to postmodern leftism than the cause of real human self-understanding, because the latter requires one maintain something of an occidentocentric or Judeo-Christian perspective. Unfortunately the scholars of antisemitism found a completely untrustworthy home. There is nothing left but to fight for social marginalization of the decadent academies living on borrowed reputations and the capital of past generations likely rolling in graves.
Maybe it is just not that popular of a program and not worth the expense. If someone really wanted to keep it open I am pretty sure that if they came up with the funds for an endowed chair or visiting professor they could have it.
Pretty common for these sorts of interdisciplinary programs to fizzle out.
I was in a similar program at another University and they did a lot of fundraising.
It may well be relatively unpopular with today’s pre-programmed students. But it still speaks volumes that a university won’t find the money to keep open a program that is concerned with what remains a central problem and source of much violent instability (antisemitism is central to what goes on in the Middle East and elsewhere) in today’s world. Yale doesn’t seem to see the world this way. Why?
Yale specifically said the program was cut for academic standard. They said it in plain English.
Why doesn’t Yale have two classes called “Why anti-semitism is superior to racism & Why racism is based on disagreeing with a person at a convenient moment”. Neither racism or anti-semitism are acceptable. Repectful dialog is a must for these topics. We need people who have been relentlessly attacked like Benjamin Netanyahu to answer in a way that both sides can work with.
Progressive Revelation does not accept that Jews really exist except as enemies of islam.. If you have to accept mohammad, then Jews are just enemies of muslims, who happen to be the real Jews..
no really.. I can’t make this s**t up..
We’ve been loosing the propaganda war for years. There is no way that the Jewish community can compete with petrodollars. Silence the voice and nobody will hear you commit murder nor will they care.
Well, gee, since intentional anti-semitism isn’t a significant domestic issue anymore, and “structural” anti-semitism is also a trivial issue best handled by the EEOC on a case by case basis, certainly Yale can end their black and women’s and white study programs? No more need for La Raza on campus, or the Dream Act? Yes? I mean, you can be an illegal alien from Mexico or China an get a cut rate in state tuition at Cal while the legal out of state Jewish citizen has to pay full boat in California. I don’t know, but it looks like reverse ethnocentrism to me.
Yale already has a robust Judaic Studies department. One of few who still have graduate positions.
Look at the course list. Sure such things do not build better telescopes so hard to get funding. My time spent in such an environment was well worth it. Anyway who wants to fund ethnocentric studies departments anymore? Taxpayers should not, right?
General funds can be divided out just like any department. Make your case. This should not be overblown.
Spindak, who said that the study of antisemitism is an “ethnocentric” subject?
Is the study of racism also ethnocentric?
Seems that given what’s going on in San Francisco is far from ethnocentric.
Don’t wait for the NYT to educate the population about antisemitism and its consequences; look how they behaved during WW II keeping the lid on the happenings in Germany.
“I have no doubt that Conroy made this statement with the best of intentions.”
How can one tell what his intentions (good or bad) are?
To me it’s truly bizarre that one man can make a decision that scholars can’t research antisemitism at Yale.
I am guessing that the real reason Conroy pulled the plug on YIISA is that the research was too successful and was beginning to hurt antisemites.
I like your conclusion, though, Ben
“Let us hope that YIISA finds a new home to continue this research. Admiration for Jewish achievements is not a necessary condition for an offer; a genuine commitment to the subject absolutely is.”
Spindok, Yale is a private educational institution and is not funded by “taxpayer”s” dollars.
Besides who said that the study of antisemitism is an “ethnocentric subject?”
Is the study of racism also “ethnocentric?”
Well, next they’ll have to change their Shield because it not only features Hebrew writing but a direct reference to the miraculous mantle worn by the High Priest of the Jews throughout the establishment of the First Commonwealth: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Yale_University_Shield_1.svg
You know, the High Priest who officiated the proceedings of the Temple in Jerusalem. The words “Urim” and “Tumim” are pretty much chiseled in stone all over the campus. This must cost Yale millions of Middle Eastern donation dollars every year.
Yep. The Yale Shield is next.
Is there even a peep of protest to be heard among Jewish faculty and students at Yale?
P.S. Here’s a book well worth reading:
Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, Anthony Julius, Oxford University Press, 2010
This Maen Areikat is in denial when he says Arabs can’t be anti-semites when they are semites them selves. Why then do most of Islams leaders believe in the destruction of us Jews? Maybe if Islam would stop preaching about the destruction and hatred of another group of people, I would have no problem with someone who is a Muslim. I will admit every time I see a Muslim person my heart starts pounding really fast. I know I should not feel this way, but I think how do I know you have no intention of killing because of who I am? I only wish these people would accept others for who they are and not say were gonna kill you because you are more evil then a spider. It is Islam that is very racist by its nature. Judaism and Christianity preach love and understanding for one another.
We’ll really know where Yale is going with this if the name changes from “Sons of Eli” to “Sons of Ahmed.”
Look–the program was canceled because it did not meet minimal academic standards and it was clearly a hasbara front,
Yale has a distinguished program in Jewish studies–they clearly do not want a hasbara/propaganda program with no students and no qualified faculty
Good for them
Enough of this identity politics activism masquerade
@15. Victor
Thank you for your latest victorgasm.
What’s the difference between a troll and a trollope?
Who cares?