[Marxism] MLA bends to rightist pressure

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/30/mla
Dec. 30
A Moderate MLA

The Modern Language Association frequently helps out its critics with 
provocative session titles and left-leaning political stands offered by 
its members. At this year’s annual meeting, in Chicago, some MLA members 
have worried that the association was poised to take stances that would 
have sent David Horowitz’s fund raising through the roof with 
resolutions that appeared to be anti-Israel and pro-Ward Churchill.

But in moves that infuriated the MLA’s Radical Caucus, the association’s 
Delegate Assembly refused to pass those resolutions and instead adopted 
much narrower measures. The association acknowledged tensions over the 
Middle East on campus, but in a resolution that did not single out 
pro-Israel groups for criticism. And the association criticized the 
University of Colorado for the way it started its investigation of Ward 
Churchill, but took no stand on whether the outcome (his firing) was 
appropriate.

The votes by the MLA’s largest governing council came in an 
at-times-surreal five-hour meeting. Cary Nelson, author of Manifesto of 
a Tenured Radical, was in the position of being the leading moderate, 
offering alternative language to defeat Radical Caucus proposals. 
Critics of Israel repeatedly talked about “facts on the ground” to refer 
to the treatment of Israel’s critics on campuses today, and it was 
unclear whether the term was being used ironically in light of the 
phrase’s use to describe Israel’s settlement policy on the West Bank and 
a recent book at the center of a Barnard College tenure controversy.

While material distributed by those seeking to condemn Churchill’s 
firing portrayed him favorably, and as a victim of the right wing, some 
of those who criticized the pro-Churchill effort at the meeting are 
long-time experts in Native American studies and decidedly not 
conservative. Many attendees were confused by the parliamentary 
procedure, and at least one proposed amendment that appeared to have 
significant backing (in theory) fell apart when questions were raised 
about its syntax.

After one vote that his side lost, Grover Furr, a Radical Caucus leader 
who teaches at New Jersey’s Montclair State University, called the 
meeting “a perversion of parliamentary procedures.”

The Middle East and Academic Freedom

Furr was the author of the original resolution on the campus climate for 
critics of Israel. The resolution as he wrote it said that some who 
criticize Zionism and Israel have been “denied tenure, disinvited to 
speak ... [or] fraudulently called ‘anti-Semitic.’” The resolution 
called this a “serious danger to academic study and discussion in the 
USA today” and then resolved that “the MLA defend the academic freedom 
and the freedom of speech of faculty and invited speakers to criticize 
Zionism and Israel.” The resolution made no mention of the right of 
others on campus to embrace Zionism or Israel or to hold 
middle-of-the-road views or any views other than being critical of 
Israel and Zionism.

Nelson offered a substitute — which was approved to replace the original 
by a vote of 63 to 30 — after heated debate. Nelson’s substitute noted 
that the “Middle East is a subject of intense debate,” said it was 
“essential that colleges and universities protect faculty rights to 
speak forthrightly on all sides of the issue,” and urged colleges to 
“resist” pressure from outside groups about tenure reviews and speakers 
and to instead uphold academic freedom. Nelson’s resolution did not 
identify one side or the other as victim or villain in the campus 
debates over the Middle East and said that academic freedom must apply 
to people “to address the issue of the Middle East in the manner they 
choose.”

In arguing for his version, Nelson — a professor of English at the 
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and also president of the 
American Association of University Professors — said that the original 
version would be “incredibly divisive and quite destructive” to the MLA.

Defenders of the original version faulted Nelson’s version for being 
even-handed.

Barbara Foley, a professor of English at Rutgers University at Newark, 
said that “it’s not a 50-50 situation” and that the focus of criticism 
needs to be on Israel’s supporters because of Israel’s role as a 
recipient of U.S. aid, and the way “powerful supporters” of Israel 
meddle on campuses. “Let’s talk about what’s real here. It’s not 
anti-Semitic to focus on this particular set of academics who really 
need our support.”

Katie L. Kain of the University of Montana said that the MLA needs to 
take a stand against pro-Israel groups because of their role in campus 
debates. She compared the situation today to the McCarthy era. “The 
substitute resolution does not acknowledge the facts on the ground,” she 
said. Kain said that guest lecturers to her campus had been unfairly 
tagged as anti-Semitic. Other speakers cited examples of what they said 
were outside attempts by pro-Israel groups to influence hiring decisions.

Susan O’Malley, a professor of English at Kingsborough Community College 
of the City University of New York, said that CUNY’s trustees tried to 
prevent an adjunct at her campus from teaching the novel The Scar of 
David. CUNY officials could not be reached for comment, but press 
accounts suggest that the book was in fact taught.

Supporters of the switch to Nelson’s version said that they didn’t doubt 
that some critics of Israel have been attacked — in a number of 
instances unfairly. But they argued that the MLA shouldn’t be picking 
sides, and that the principles behind defending Israel’s critics should 
apply to its supporters as well. One professor said: “Academic freedom 
is meaningless unless it applies to all points of view.” Another said 
that even if 95 percent of disputes over academic freedom and the Middle 
East relate to one side of the argument, the principle of academic 
freedom should be paramount, not helping those 95 percent over the 5 
percent.

The Ward Churchill Saga

The case of Ward Churchill also led to a long debate. Churchill was 
fired in July from his tenured position teaching ethnic studies at the 
University of Colorado at Boulder for multiple instances of research 
misconduct, including plagiarism and misrepresenting the work of other 
scholars — charges he has denied. Several faculty panels reached the 
conclusions that Churchill had committed research misconduct, but they 
investigated him in the wake of a furor over his controversial comments 
in which he had labeled some of the victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns.”

The original resolution before the MLA Delegate Assembly condemned the 
University of Colorado for firing Churchill and for undertaking an 
investigation of him as “retribution” for his 9/11 comments. Many 
politicians in Colorado wanted Churchill fired for those comments, but 
the university said that to do so would violate his First Amendment 
rights and never punished him for those remarks. As they entered the 
meeting, MLA delegates received a letter to the MLA from Hank Brown, 
president of the University of Colorado, and a copy of one of the 
faculty reports finding Churchill to have committed scholarly misconduct.

In the letter, Brown said of Churchill: “His comments about 9/11 are in 
our view protected free speech and were not at issue. What was at issue 
was Professor Churchill’s academic work.... I recommended dismissal to 
the Board of Regents because he fabricated his research. Please read the 
faculty report carefully before you mischaracterize his dismissal.”

The day before the MLA vote, A. LaVonne Brown Ruoff, a professor emerita 
of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago, spoke out at a 
hearing against the original resolution. Ruoff, who has written and 
taught about Native American literature and culture, said that she was 
concerned about the process under which the university started its probe 
of Churchill. But she said that the university appeared to have 
conducted “careful deliberations” into the allegations against 
Churchill, and that the MLA wasn’t in a position to conduct an 
investigation that might lead to other conclusions. Groups like the AAUP 
are better suited to investigating allegations of academic freedom 
violations, Ruoff said. (The MLA’s Delegate Assembly also voted Saturday 
to consider a number of issues in updating the group’s statement on 
academic freedom and some members urged that one of those changes be to 
find ways to conduct such investigations.)

Nelson, of the AAUP, noted that some professors believe Churchill 
received due process and that the faculty role was respected at 
Colorado. He proposed an amendment — a version of which eventually 
passed — that criticized Colorado for starting the investigation as it 
did, but that offered no opinion on the decision to fire Churchill. “We 
are not set up to judge the character and quality of that 
investigation,” he said.

Several professors said that they were uncomfortable backing even the 
watered down resolution, fearing it would show support for Churchill. 
Ruoff asked the group why it couldn’t just indicate its opposition to 
politically motivated investigations and leave Churchill out of it. 
Charles Rzepka, a professor of English at Boston University, said during 
the meeting that he was startled to read some of the pro-Churchill 
material distributed by supporters of the original resolution, and that 
he was wondering if the MLA would be seen as backing the wrong side. In 
an interview after the meeting, he said that the MLA’s reputation would 
take a hit for any perception that it was backing Churchill. “I support 
speaking truth to power,” said Rzepka, but that requires truth, he 
added. (He said he was among the 15 people who voted No on the revised 
resolution, which passed with 57 votes in favor.)

Others dismissed the idea that the MLA should worry about whether 
Churchill’s record made him worthy of support. One professor cited the 
history of the civil rights movement, in which some women prior to Rosa 
Parks were not defended because they weren’t seen as perfect from a PR 
perspective — an attitude this professor criticized.

Foley of Rutgers said that it was true that Churchill had a “flawed 
history,” adding, “I don’t think anyone is saying he is the perfect 
scholar.” But she said the relevant fact was that Churchill was under 
attack unfairly. “We are condemning the university for its politically 
motivated investigation. They would not have undertaken that 
investigation unless they wanted to get rid of him,” she said. “If we 
can’t support this individual then everything we say about academic 
freedom is bullshit,” she said.

Finley C. Campbell, a retired English instructor at DeVry University, 
said that Churchill was being punished for being the “uppity” minority 
person whom the powerful could not tolerate. He said there was no way 
the MLA could pretend there was not an individual at the center of this 
issue. “Crucifixions are always personal,” he said.

— Scott Jaschik

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism