 |
| Norman Finkelstein |
I came of age in shades of gray. As a liberal girl from a liberal suburb of Washington DC, moral relativism was my native tongue. In my formative years, discussion, discourse and debate was not just a means, but an end. The ultimate end. Everyone had a right to be heard and all opinions were equally legitimate.
And then I got my first high school history paper back with a note on the top that said “Nice rhetoric but facts aren’t the enemy of truth.“
It is this same naivete that the DP Opinion Board showed in today’s editorial which praised the Political Science department for co-sponsoring a lecture by the controversial Norman Finkelstein last night. Earnestly, they wrote that the debate his appearance on campus catalyzed “alone makes Finkelstein a worthy speaker.”
Put aside for a second the fact that it is unclear what productive debate could possibly arise from Finkelstein’s appearance (Do American Jews use the Holocaust to line their pockets?). I take issue with the support of the Political Science department because any debate that the department’s sponsorship spurs is the thin silver lining to a much bigger dark cloud: the legitimacy given to Finkelstein’s scholarship by lending their name to the event.
This legitimacy is undeserved.
Finkelstein brags that he teaches at a “third-rate university” in Chicago because he was “kicked out of every job” in New York. He has written at least two books directly about Israel without ever visiting the country. A judge in Chicago wouldn’t certify him as an expert witness in a criminal trial about Hamas — a classification often given to real academics.
The Political Science department is right and justified in seeking to bring controversial and enlightening speakers with unorthodox views to campus. The problem is that when an academic department brings a speaker the assumption is that while the speaker’s views may be contentious his evidence is sound — the guest is a scholar. While not endorsing Finkelstein’s views per say, the department is attesting to the rigor and factual accuracy of his research.
This faith isn’t justified. Benny Morris, a left-wing Israeli historian Finkelstein quoted in his most recent book, wrote that Finkelstein “selectively quotes from [my books] what suits his purposes while ignoring, and in Finkelstein’s case, ridiculing what doesn’t. ” In other words, Finkelstein’s writings employ my favorite 9th grade rhetorical tool which also happens to be the cardinal sin of academic writing — he twists and fabricates evidence in an intellectually dishonest way.
It may be true, as Professor Goldstein asserts in his column in today’s paper that some small minority of scholars back Finkelstein’s work and that he has been published in an academic journal. This article on Finkelstein’s website seems to dispute that claim. Regardless, even if Finkelstein does have a sprinkling of supporters, that’s not enough. There are also many Creationist professors. That doesn’t mean that the Biology department should spend money and invite them to present the evidence behind their Creationist research. There are groups elsewhere on campus to serve that role. The same is the case here.
The Political Science department has should not deputize any schmuck with a PhD as a scholar. Co-sponsoring this event does so in the minds of students and, given the prestige of Penn, in the minds of the world as well.
There was another speaker on campus last night. Nonie Darwish, daughter of a shahid grew up in Cairo and Gaza. When she spoke about the power of education in combating anti-semitism, she said “[Education] doesn’t meanthat all ideas are right and no ideas are wrong. There is truth and there is fabrication.”
Norman Finkelstein’s writings are clearly the latter. The Political Science department has no business indicating otherwise.
An RSS feed of The Spin is available
March 21st, 2007 at 11:08 am
Excellent response to a completely ridiculous situation. You arguments are well thought out and presented, debunking this speaker and those who brought him on campus. One suggestion for your future writing - don’t cheapen it with derogatory slang. I thought your piece was great until I got to the word “schmuck.” Your points were excellently driven home without that addition.
March 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Thank God there are some who can articulate why Finkelstein’s speaking should be opposed. It’s so angering when something like this occurs that many who initially speak out accomplish nothing more than inadvertently paint themselves and other Jews as stereotypes (calling all opposition anti-semitic & then just restating one’s position), making their own cause look worse. There are legitimate reasons to oppose Finkelstein on an intelligent, academic level and we should hear more from that crowd.
March 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
*per se
March 21st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
The political science department is completely justified in bringing in WHOEVER they want - and the fact that you question his legitimacy only makes you look ignorant.
Just because you disagree with what he has to say (which is why you don’t want him here) does not mean that the political science department can’t bring him here.
I think it’s very brave of Penn to bring in someone who doesn’t endorse the majority of Penn student’s (often close-minded) views on the topic.
March 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Thats not the point, Mr “would you like some cheese with that whine.” I actually agree with some (though not all) of Finklesteins’s arguments, and yet even I am opposed to Penn paying money to have this guy talk as an “academic.”
March 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
GENIUS. THANK YOU.
March 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
So as long as we agree with the Zionists, everything’s ok? Get over yourselves.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
and my response is - how is he NOT an academic?
because he says things you don’t agree with? if you have some legitimate reasons as to why this man can NOT be considered an academic, enlighten us.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I mean, DePaul University’s paying the guy to be a professor. Clearly he’s an academic regardless of how everyone else feels about him.
March 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
To understand why Finkelstein is not an academic have a look at Deborah Lipstadt’s reportage on her libel trial against David Irving ‘History on Trial’. Much in the same fashion that Irving’s work was shown to be spurious, Finkelstein’s work fails the academic test of accurately representing sources and taking into account opposing views and evidence. Simply put, he does not follow the evidence to form conclusions, he mines the evidence to support his predisposed view; this marks his work as mere ideology and bias.
To see how this type of pseudo-academic work is done in Irving’s case (and can actually be accepted by uncritical and inattentive real academics), see Richard Evan’s book ‘Lying about Hitler’. Then note the tone and rhetorical style of Finkelstein.
Mr “Cheese” might want to re-read Ms Siegel’s article and pay attention to the comments of Benny Morris and Ms Siegel’s subsequent analysis. If one can’t read it is no wonder “Cheese” does a Finkelstein and distorts and misrepresents Siegel’s piece in his comments. And in the end, that is the best way to see Finkelstein; as a commentator but in no way a person who follows academic practices or standards.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I am singularly unimpressed by Finkelstein and his works
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I am singularly unimpressed with this article - another example of Penn Zionism gone mad.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:16 am
Great article, thank you!
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Yes, Penn shouldn’t legitimize him. And it’s a shame that UC Berkeley also did so by publishing him, and Princeton by educating him… and if you look at the list of events on his website like you look at smear stories he willingly posts you’ll see many others “legitimized” him… Harvard, Bryn Mawr, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Cornell and the like. The gosh darn Kennedy School of Gov legitimized this man who Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Eric Hobsbawm and the like all seem to legitimize through friendships and praise. Amy Goodman, almost as Naive as your high school history teacher!
And I enjoyed how your article disputed his remarks (just kidding). Oh yeah, before u tell me the dirt on Chomsky just remember that he’s a long time friend of Jim Yong Kim and Paul Farmer and was recently invited by Jeff Sachs to speak at an event at the Earth Institute (they’re liberal like you Julie… just kidding, they are, you’re not). Hardly a small group of supporters… though you haven’t yet thrown dirt at Chomsky’s credentials… I just assume you would considering the praise Chomsky lavishes upon Finkelstein. Chomsky’s been to Israel a few times, and when he wants to know what the Israeli govt and IDF are up to he reads Norman Finkelstein.
Oh yeah, didn’t Shlomo Ben-ami legitimize him by conceding every other point in the debate he participated in with Finkelstein. That’s something when a Former Israeli Foreign Minister, now chair of History at Oxford agrees to debate a pseudo-scholar. Go eat some cereal… it’s fortified… I hope you now what I mean by that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
To Julie Siegel - here is a revolutionary concept - how about actually attending Finkelstein’s lecture, take notes, then write a follow up piece and attempt to debunk each of his main points, one by one. Make sure you backup your arguments (FYI these are called citations/references). I challenge you. Oh, and please don’t use Joan Peter’s book or you’ll be laughed off campus.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Ms. Siegel,
I am asking you kindly to please attend Prof Finkelstein’s lecture, as it is quite obvious you are not familiar with his work. Judging by your piece I can assure you that you will learn more in two hours with Prof Finkelstein then you have up this point in your life. And please, next time you attempt to vilify someone try to avoid recycling the same baseless slander used by the Israel lobby. If you are to one day flourish at AIPAC you’ll most certainly want to work on your creativity.
March 24th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Good points Jesse. She is obviously an AIPAC or CAMERA apprentice in training.
March 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Well, since you don’t seem to have learned the lesson, let me repeat your high school teacher’s note: Nice rhetoric Siegel, but maybe you should look at some facts. If you’ve ever taken the time to read Finkelstein’s scholarship on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or attend his talk, you’d realize that his sharp and fact-based analysis does make a serious contribution to the debate. Sadly, you chose to mindlessly condemn a political science department for inviting a fellow political science professor and Princeton scholar by regurgitating the rhetoric of his ideological critics.
And just for the record, Benny Morris is not a “left-wing” historian. That Morris is critical of Israel for not completing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should’ve caused you to reconsider, if only you had dome some research before vomiting this piece out.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Julie Siegel,
You sum up your article by stating that Finkelstein’s writings are clearly “fabrication”. However, your argument is far from convincing. Clearly “fabrication” based on what evidence? On Benny Morris’ denunciation of Finkelstein? That appears to be the sum total of your evidence that Finkelstein is not sufficiently academically legitimate to speak at your school. Does Benny Morris get veto power over speakers at American universities? Finkelstein’s work has been praised by the most respected scholar of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. Others who have praised his work include: Noam Chomsky, Baruch Kimmerling (Hebrew University of Jerusalem); Avi Shlaim (Oxford University); Daniel Boyarin (UC Berkeley). And Sara Roy (Senior Research Scholar, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University) had this to say of his work: “vigorous, intelligent, succinct and powerfully argued analysis that is difficult if not impossible to reproach.”
March 26th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Gimme a break you accuse the man of rhetoric and then proceed to write a “piece” (to be polite I will stop there) that is all rhetoric. Tell me a fact, Julie Hot Air!
December 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I read this piece over year and a half AFTER the hubbub. As an experienced columnist and op-ed writer/editor, I’s like to add the following: It’s writer has a good ear for tone and understands some of the basics of composing OpEd pieces. But…far more is required to lay out a convincing argument worthy of anyone’s ed page. First, the history teacher’s advice was sound: A few more facts would have helped. As it is, there are few, if any present. Next, there is no counter argument; no acknolwedgment and insight into the side opposite of her own assetions. This is the hallmark of all good - and effective - opinion writing. Finally, (and I have no dogs in this issue’s hunt), the piece does sound like a grouping of ideological talking points, many which are still circulating the Middle East foreign policy circles/academia today. That’s very tired stuff. Oh, and the ad hominem attack at the very end demonstrates scatological immaturity. If you can’t make your point without calling someone a schmuck, then be prepared for others to be justified in thinking that you are one yourself.