Thursday, June 14, 2007

De Paul's President Libels Norman Finkelstein

That Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure at De Paul is not in itself a cause for concern. Many professors, good and bad, are denied tenure. But what is a cause for concern are the reasons offered by the university-wide tenure committee, and, worse, De Paul’s president, Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, for the tenure decision. A reading of Rev. Holtschneider’s letter to Finkelstein should set off bells for anybody concerned about fairness in tenure considerations.

For those who have not been following the case: Finkelstein was recommended for tenure by a nine-to-three vote by his peers in the Political Science department, and by its chair. The two outside reviewers also recommended his scholarship. His dean wrote against his tenure, and the university-wide tenure and promotion committee voted four to three to deny him tenure. The president upheld that decision.

The president’s letter to Finkelstein explaining his own decision implies quite openly that Finkelstein was not denied tenure because of the quality of his scholarship. Neither the external reviewers nor the members of the political science department that supported his tenure accused it of being inaccurate, derivative, unoriginal, sloppy, or any of the vices associated with bad work. The three members who opposed his tenure were said to be “critical of the accuracy of some of the evidence” and the “cogency of some of his arguments” (emphasis added). This is hardly a damning critique.

So if Finkelstein’s tenure case was not decided on the strength of his scholarship, then what were the reasons? Essentially, they boiled down to this: Norman Finkelstein is not considered by some to be a polite scholar. According to the tenure committee report, “…some might interpret parts of his scholarship as ‘deliberately hurtful’ as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect…Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks.” Note that the tenure committee apparently itself did not come to these conclusions, but either leaves them as hypothetical (“some might interpret”) or attributes them to unnamed individuals (“criticism has been expressed” – by whom?) And finally, “It was questioned by some whether Dr. Finkelstein effectively contributes to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues.” If being an effective contributor to the public discourse were a criterion for tenure, how many thousands of academics would be looking for a job? But, agree with Finkelstein or not, he certainly has been effective in contributing to the public discourse.

So much for the university-wide tenure committee. Much more disturbing, however, is the President’s attempt to justify the committee’s decision with reference to four obligations of professors borrowed from the American Association of University Professors. According to the AAUP, professors are a) “not to discriminate against or harass colleagues”; b) “to respect and defend the free inquiry of associates;” c) “to show due respect for the opinions of others”; d) “to acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues.” Now, Norman Finkelstein is rightly categorized, in my opinion, as an abrasive, polemical, and intemperate public intellectual. But what does that have to do with the four obligations listed above? Has he harassed colleagues? Has he tried to intimate associates? Has he failed to acknowledge academic debt? Has he denigrated objectivity? Has he even been accused of any of these things? Does he stand accused of them in the various tenure reports? It seems that Rev. Holtschneider, in his desire to justify the reasonableness of De Paul’s decision by appealing to criteria of outside organizations, has gone beyond any (publicly) known facts about Finkelstein.

Has Finkelstein shown due respect for the opinions of others? It seems to me that the record shows that he agrees with some opinions, disagrees with others, and dismisses others after he has argued (sometimes ad nauseum) against them. If respect for an opinion means treating that opinion seriously rather than peremptorily, then there are few people whose opinions Finkelstein respect more than Alan Dershowitz – he has devoted considerable space in attempting to refute them. Surely “respect for the opinions of others” should not preclude harshly criticizing those opinions as erroneous, poorly reasoned, unsound, preposterous, or worse.

Still, let us grant that Norman Finkelstein is, at times, and certainly on his website, an academic pit-bull. Is he any more so than Alan Dershowitz, or for that matter, Richard Dawkins, who cannot be said to show much “respect” for the opinions of creationists? Dershowitz has made many outrageous and nasty ad hominem claims against Finkelstein. Anybody who is in academia knows, or has heard of vituperative criticism, harsh book reviews, etc. One can bemoan the loss of civility in academic discourse. But why should Dershowitz, or Dawkins, or a host of acerbic academics, be protected by tenure, whereas Finkelstein is not? That is a basic unfairness that the president’s letter does not address but that concerned academics should.

The letter gets worse. Finkelstein stands accused of “not respecting the rights of others to hold different opinions,” and “of not exercising impartiality in passing professional judgments on others.” His writing is said to “violate professional ethical norms.” Now, I have not read the tenure file, obviously. But nothing in the public record, or in the president’s letter, is remotely relevant to these serious accusations. Has Finkelstein taken steps to silence his critics? Did he, for example, attempt to dissuade a publisher from publishing one of Alan Dershowitz’s books? Has he attempted to advance, or block the advancement, of someone because of partiality? What “professional ethical norms” has he violated “in his published writings”? It may be that “ad hominem attacks threaten, rather than enhance academic freedom.” But can anybody seriously think that the victims of Finkelstein’s attacks, most notably, Alan Dershowitz, have thereby had their academic freedom threatened or jeopardized?

It is difficult to avoid the impression that either Rev. Holtschneider misunderstood these academic vices that he was accusing Finkelstein of, or that, not wishing to seem to deny Finkelstein tenure on the grounds that he was not nice, stretched them to make them apply to his case. He may have grounds for these accusations, but he certainly has not given them. If there are grounds, I would recommend that he make them available for the public record, or at least to the American Association for University Professors. Otherwise, I don’t see how De Paul can avoid an academic censure from that organization. The president's letter is found at: (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/pdf/tenuredenial/Finkelstein,Norman06.08.2007.pdf )

2 comments:

Jonathan Mark said...

"""Neither the external reviewers nor the members of the political science department that supported his tenure accused it of being inaccurate, derivative, unoriginal, sloppy, or any of the vices associated with bad work. The three members who opposed his tenure were said to be “critical of the accuracy of some of the evidence” and the “cogency of some of his arguments” (emphasis added). This is hardly a damning critique."""


As you know, a "damning critique" is not needed to deny denure. Mediocrity or failure to impress is sufficient. By raising the bar that is needed for denial of tenure to "a damning critique" you are imposing your own views of tenure standards on DePaul.

"""So if Finkelstein’s tenure case was not decided on the strength of his scholarship, then what were the reasons? Essentially, they boiled down to this: Norman Finkelstein is not considered by some to be a polite scholar. According to the tenure committee report, “…some might interpret parts of his scholarship as ‘deliberately hurtful’ as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect…Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks.”"""

Yes. For example, Professor Doctor Finkelstein commisioned a cartoon of Alan Dershowitz imitating Onan and published it or linked to it on his website NormanFinkelstein.com. This Finkelstein-commissioned cartoon then won second place at an Iranian contest of Holocaust-related cartoons in Teheran.

Finkelstein's erratic behavior sometimes appears loopy. Other times he is normal. The problem of his behavior goes well beyond mere lack of politeness. That is a euphemism, rather like calling a turd "biological material."


"""Note that the tenure committee apparently itself did not come to these conclusions, but either leaves them as hypothetical (“some might interpret”) or attributes them to unnamed individuals (“criticism has been expressed” – by whom?)"""

Their report is not public. No one knows what they said. They may have referred to the incident above or similar behavior, such as Finkelstein's scheduled presence at an Iranian holocaust denial conference.

"""And finally, “It was questioned by some whether Dr. Finkelstein effectively contributes to the public discourse on sensitive societal issues.” If being an effective contributor to the public discourse were a criterion for tenure, how many thousands of academics would be looking for a job?"""

It is the standard at DePaul. Do you object? Don't teach at DePaul if you don't want to meet their standards.


"""But, agree with Finkelstein or not, he certainly has been effective in contributing to the public discourse."""

'Effective' in what way? 'Contributing' what? DePaul's president disagrees with your assessment of Finkelstein's effectiveness and contributions.



"""So much for the university-wide tenure committee. Much more disturbing, however, is the President’s attempt to justify the committee’s decision with reference to four obligations of professors borrowed from the American Association of University Professors. According to the AAUP, professors are a) “not to discriminate against or harass colleagues”;

Finkelstein harassed Dershowitz by commissioning and distributing on the internet a sexual cartoon. What is a colleague? Dershowitz is a professor, probably an AAUP member. Is he a colleague?

""" c) “to show due respect for the opinions of others”;"""


Which he manifestly failed to do with respect to Dershowitz. His cartoon about Dershowitz clearly does not show due respect for the opinions of others. Some may not care. Some may even think that Dershowitz deserved it. But DePaul did care. Good for them.


"""Now, Norman Finkelstein is rightly categorized, in my opinion, as an abrasive, polemical, and intemperate public intellectual. But what does that have to do with the four obligations listed above?"""

Perhaps Finkelstein is abrasive and intemperate in a manner which harasses Dershowitz and others and does not show due respect for them.

"""Has he harassed colleagues?"""

The onanistic cartoon of which Dershowitz complains is, in my view, sexual harassment.

"""Has he even been accused of any of these things?"""

It depends how you define harassment. Dershowitz accused Finkelstein of a lot. And the onanistic cartoon incident indicates that Finkelstein can be guilty of at minimum failing to respect the opinions of others.

"""Does he stand accused of them in the various tenure reports?"""

No one knows. These reports are private and confidential.


"""It seems that Rev. Holtschneider, in his desire to justify the reasonableness of De Paul’s decision by appealing to criteria of outside organizations, has gone beyond any (publicly) known facts about Finkelstein."""

Not necessarily. The accusations in Dershowitz's dossier on Finkelstein are public. I would not say that Holtschneider goes beyond what a reasonable person would conclude about Finkelstein based upon what is known, with particular reference to the onanistic cartoon, Finkelstein's claim that one out of three Jews on the streets of New York claims to be a Holocaust survivor, Finkelstein's claim that most Holocaust survivors are bogus, etc. Dershowitz documented these charges. The statement about Jews on the streets of New York, which Finkelstein prefaces with "I do not exagerrate when I say..." was in a major UK newspaper.


"""Has Finkelstein shown due respect for the opinions of others?"""

In the case of Dershowitz, obviously not.


"""It seems to me that the record shows that he agrees with some opinions, disagrees with others, and dismisses others after he has argued (sometimes ad nauseum) against them.""""

And publishes sexual cartoons about them.


"""If respect for an opinion means treating that opinion seriously rather than peremptorily,"""

The sexual cartoon about Dershowitz is not serious. Indeed, it appears that Finkelstein is quite capable of making non-serious statements in opposition to various persons and groups. So in the case of Dershowitz it is clear that Finkelstein sometimes does not treat Dershowitz seriously. Finkelstein's onanistic cartoon is Exhibit A for that conclusion, but you do not mention it at all and may be unaware of it.

"""then there are few people whose opinions Finkelstein respect more than Alan Dershowitz"""

A peculiar leap of logic.


""" – he has devoted considerable space in attempting to refute them. Surely “respect for the opinions of others” should not preclude harshly criticizing those opinions as erroneous, poorly reasoned, unsound, preposterous, or worse."""


But as I have pointed out and as you surely should consider, Finkelstein went beyond merely criticizing Dershowitz opinion. He commissioned and distributed a sexual cartoon about Dershowitz.


"""Still, let us grant that Norman Finkelstein is, at times, and certainly on his website, an academic pit-bull. Is he any more so than Alan Dershowitz,"""

DePaul did not arrive at an opinion about Alan Dershowitz. Alan Dershowitz is not up for tenure.

"""Dershowitz has made many outrageous and nasty ad hominem claims against Finkelstein."""

The opposite is the case. Finkelstein has made many outrageous and nasty ad hominem claims against Dershowitz. In any event, DePaul has not been asked to consider Dershowitz for tenure, so the point is moot.

"""Anybody who is in academia knows, or has heard of vituperative criticism, harsh book reviews, etc."""

But not sexual cartoons.


"""why should Dershowitz, or Dawkins, or a host of acerbic academics, be protected by tenure, whereas Finkelstein is not?"""

It is not within the power of DePaul University to withdraw Dershowitz's tenure. You are raising a matter which goes considerably beyond what the DePaul University tenure review board can or should consider. Perhaps Harvard and DePaul have different standards on tenure, resulting in Dershowitz receiving it at Harvard and Finkelstein not receiving it at DePaul.

"""That is a basic unfairness that the president’s letter does not address"""

It is beyond DePaul University's power to address it, insofar as it pertains to tenure at other institutions over which DePaul has no control.

"""but that concerned academics should."""

Yes, tenure may be unfair. But DePaul University is only required to judge Finkelstein by the standards which it would judge others. Since others have not commissioned and distributed sexual cartoons depicting onanism, cartoons which ended up winning second prize at an Iranian Holocaust ridiculing event, I don't see what the basis is for claiming that Finkelstein was treated differently than others AT DEPAUL.

""""The letter gets worse. Finkelstein stands accused of “not respecting the rights of others to hold different opinions,”"""

e.g., Finkelstein's onanist cartoon about Dershowitz.


"""and “of not exercising impartiality in passing professional judgments on others.”"""

e.g., Finkelstein contacting Harvard Law School and accusing Dershowitz of plagiarism. Dershowitz requested that Harvard investigate the matter, which it did and found no plagiarism. One investigator later said that he did not understand why Finkelstein accused Dershowitz of plagiarism.

"""His writing is said to “violate professional ethical norms.”"""

E.g., Dershowitz's claim that one out of every three Jews on the streets of New York claims to be a Holocaust survivor.


"""Now, I have not read the tenure file, obviously. But nothing in the public record, or in the president’s letter, is remotely relevant to these serious accusations."""

Well, you should log on to alandershowitz.com and read what Dershowitz has said, in public and online, in material which he communicated to DePaul faculty members. If you can retain the above view after reading Dershowitz's side of the story then I will be amazed.


"""Has Finkelstein taken steps to silence his critics?"""

He has no power to do so.

"""Did he, for example, attempt to dissuade a publisher from publishing one of Alan Dershowitz’s books?"""

He has no power to do so.

"""Has he attempted to advance, or block the advancement, of someone because of partiality?"""

In contacting Harvard Law School and accusing Dershowitz of plagiarism he was definitely trying to get Dershowitz fired. But again, he has no power to do so.

"""What “professional ethical norms” has he violated “in his published writings”?"""

The norm against casting aspersions on members of an ethnic group as a group, as in his claim that one out of every three Jews on the streets of New York claims to be a Holocaust survivor. I will not debate with you how false and anti-Semitic that is, as I assume that you already know.

"""It may be that “ad hominem attacks threaten, rather than enhance academic freedom.” But can anybody seriously think that the victims of Finkelstein’s attacks, most notably, Alan Dershowitz, have thereby had their academic freedom threatened or jeopardized?"""

That is the "no harm, no foul" argument. "My client shot at Mr. X, but was Mr. X harmed?"


"""It is difficult to avoid the impression that either Rev. Holtschneider misunderstood these academic vices that he was accusing Finkelstein of, or that, not wishing to seem to deny Finkelstein tenure on the grounds that he was not nice, stretched them to make them apply to his case."""

Go to alandershowitz.com, read the material that Alan Dershowitz distributed to DePaul faculty and administrators, and see if you still hold the above opinion. There is a good chance that you will not.

"""He may have grounds for these accusations, but he certainly has not given them."""

It was the job of the tenure review board to give them, in a private report. He merely told why he was concurring. He did not review the evidence against Finkelstein, merely concurred that it was sufficient to deny Finkelstein tenure.


"""If there are grounds, I would recommend that he make them available for the public record, or at least to the American Association for University Professors."""

I would like that also, but his failure make these reports public is consistent with how tenure review boards operate all over the world.

"""Otherwise, I don’t see how De Paul can avoid an academic censure from that organization."""

On what basis? That DePaul agreed with Alan Dershowitz, carefully considered Dershowitz's charges, found portions of them factual and relevant, and denied tenure on that basis?

Jonathan S. Mark, Ph.D.
Alexandria, Virginia USA
jonathansamuel@yahoo.com

Michael Krahn said...

Hey,

I'm a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" at my blog at:

http://michaelkrahn.com/blog/richard-dawkins/

There's already a good discussion underway. Join in!