Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor

[Scurrilous]

The UC Santa Barbara sociologist, who is Jewish, sent images from the Holocaust and from Israel's Gaza offensive to students in his class. He has drawn denunciation and support.

<snip>

"Controversy has erupted at UC Santa Barbara over a professor's decision to send his students an e-mail in which he compared graphic images of Jews in the Holocaust to pictures of Palestinians caught up in Israel's recent Gaza offensive.

The e-mail by tenured sociology professor William I. Robinson has triggered a campus investigation and drawn accusations of anti-Semitism from two national Jewish groups, even as many students and faculty members have voiced support for him.

The uproar began in January when Robinson sent his message -- titled "parallel images of Nazis and Israelis" -- to the 80 students in his sociology of globalization class.

The e-mail contained more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of the Nazis, including those of dead children, juxtaposed with nearly identical images from the Gaza Strip. It also included an article critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and a note from Robinson.

"Gaza is Israel's Warsaw -- a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians," the professor wrote. "We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide."

Two Jewish students dropped the class, saying they felt intimidated by the professor's message. They contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which advised them to file formal complaints with the university."

more

[Dr Fate]

1. Why don't those 2 jewish students just refute the email with counter-facts?

As opposed to just giving up the debate and dropping the class?

[aquart]

3. As in when did you stop beating your wife?

[Dr Fate]

5. No- as in- "That is not true- and here is why."

For instance- if someone accuses Obama of being a Socialist or Fascist or "Like Hitler"- I can and would refute that with facts and counter arguments.

[aranthus]

9. Have you ever been a college student?

Sure, it's possible to refute the professor. Assuming you already know a lot about the subject, have the critical thinking skills of someone who's years older and far more experienced, and are not worried about the professor screwing up your grade for disagreeing with him. Not to mention that the whole point of the professor's e-mail was not to provoke debate, but was instead to instill anti-Israel emotional reactions and close off debate. It's possible to refute a geography professor's e-mail claim that the world is flat, but no university would let a professor get away with seriously teaching that kind of nonsense.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Those kids are easily intimidated. Good thing they're not students at Bir Zeit.

They wouldn't have survived the first week.

[aranthus]

17. Way to dodge the issue. n/t.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. You should read before you speak. nt

[Dr Fate]

18. Yes.

If any of my college professors had called me a Nazi or had equated anything that I support with Nazis, you can be sure that I would not just stick my fingers in my ears and walk away.

Sure, certain arguments are meant to cause emotional reactions and close off debate- but quitting and walking away from a charge is an emotional reaction as well- and arguably another way to close off or ignore debate.

At the least, they could have refuted his charges, then quit the class.

I have very little knowledge about the whole P/I debate- all I know is that when someone walks away from a charge, it makes it look like they just don't have a solid counter argument.

P/I aside- I've always believed that the proper response to speech you don't like is MORE speech-aka facts and counter points.

[aranthus]

19. Then you should understand

This isn't an equal debate, and it's not only unfair to the students, it's a misuse of taxpayer paid for time. Also, I don't know that they didn't respond to the professor with facts and argument, but even if they did, that's not the point. Professorship is not a license to teach rubbish. No university would stand for a history jprofessor teaching that Columbus sailed off the edge of the flat earth. Why would they tolerate this? Students shouldn't be forced to quit a class because the professor is a jerk. It's the unvierstiy's job to do something about the professor.

[Dr Fate]

20. You might be right- maybe the students did respond. Great point.

As I admit- I know little about this ongoing P/I debate- so perhaps you are right.

Maybe the professor photo-shopped or otherwise forged those pics, or lied about the circumstances, context, etc. Maybe the Palestinians in those pics deserved their fate. For all we know, those 2 students pointed these things out.

We agree- if a professor lies or gives out faked photos & information, the university should take action.

Maybe we disagree as to college students- they are now adults who should be able to stand up for their positions. If they cant, then maybe they are not college material. As you said, maybe they did prove that the photos are taken out of context,not real, etc.

All I know is that if speech is not true- you should counter it with speech that IS true.

[LeftishBrit]

67. From what I can gather...

this professor was not teaching a course on Israel/Palestine issues. His main courses seem to be on Latin America and general globalization issues. He sent the students a political e-mail which was not directly related to what he was teaching. This seems to me to be itself somewhat dubious. Just as it would if he gratuitously sent *pro*-Israel material to his students. I'm a university teacher myself, and such behaviour is generally frowned upon. Not usually a 'sacking' matter; but one that would certainly diminish your reputation as a teacher.

I am reminded of the experience of a friend of mine with one of her university philosophy lecturers in the 80s. This lecturer insisted on giving an anti-abortion 'tutorial', where he showed students pictures of foetuses at various stages and questioned them about 'is this not a person?', etc. IIRC, this did not relate to any direct part of the course. He was not threatened with dismissal, and so far as I know there was no formal complaint, but it certainly reduced his students' respect for him.

[azurnoir]

72. The two students were member of this organization

see post #54 for that information from Ha'aretz

StandWithUs

http://www.standwithus.com/ABOUT/

Read their links and then make a judgment as to the purpose of this entire circus

[oberliner]

79. No they were not members of the organization

The two students had nothing to do with Standwithus.

[azurnoir]

85. Then are you claiming that

Haaretz was lying mistaken, bad translation perhaps? See post #54 for the link

[oberliner]

87. I am claiming that you misunderstood the Ha'aretz article

The person who is identified in the Ha'aretz article as being connected to Standwithus is Lia Yaiger.

She wrote a letter (with another Standwithus member) on March 16 in support of the initial student complaints.

The original complaint letters from the two students in question (Rebecca Joseph and Tova Hausman) were written in February.

The people who the Ha'aretz article mention as being connected to Standwithus are not the two students who were involved in the initial complaint about receiving the email.

[Igel]

83. Because the facts might be true,

but the inference false.

Then the problem isn't providing counter-facts, but sufficient facts that, with the facts already introduced, point to another conclusion as to the motivates and MO of the IDF forces.

That might not be possible. It presumes that the two sets of facts cover the same motives and MO, when they might not, that the two sets of facts are, indeed, a single set of facts, and that the first set is pertinent. The first set might be random accidents, they might be the work of a subgroup, some might be sufficiently out of context to say something entirely different when in context. These possibilities would have to be accounted for, esp. when "speaking truth to power"---because the professor has a fair bit more power than the students.

It's likely that the professor's salvo was fairly cheap, and wrongly so; the response would probably be very costly and, in the end, not matter or be ignored. For example: The court case waged in the media against Arthur Andersen as a result of the Enron debacle was fairly cheap; however the defense and eventually overturning of the verdict was expensive, and Andersen has at best a marginal existence. In the end, most people still believe that Andersen was not just found guilty, but that the guilty verdict was final and definitive.

[aquart]

2. Happens here every day.

Tons of people who consider themselves "liberals" find that a perfectly acceptable analogy.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sequoia]

7. you mean...right....eous.

Cry babies...boo hoo stop picking on me...mommie, mommie....they're saying mean things about me. They have become like their grandparents' oppressors.

[cali]

101. what codswallop.

their grandparents' oppressors murdered millions of "their grandparents" over a period of approxmately 4 years. The Israelis, horrible and unjust as the occupation is, have killed something like 20 thousand Palestinians in 60 years. Yes, numbers count. Yes, statistics count.

[aranthus]

10. So because the Israelis aren't perfect it's okay to tell lies about them? n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Utter nonsense. Those posts are deleted immediately. nt

[truebrit71]

6. ..so when the Israeli's behave the same way as their former oppressors they cannot be..

..criticized or compared because they themselves were opressed in the same manner? What sort of stupid logic is that?

Following that logic an abuser that was themselves abused cannot be taken to task for being an abuser because once they were on the receiving end of abuse?

That is beyond dumb...

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. I am an unabashed pro-Palestinian partisan - but I do think this comparison is most unhelpful

As cruel as the occupation is and as unjust as I believe the Zionist project has been to the Palestinians - the Holocaust involved the systematic, cold-blooded and industrialized murder of more than five million European Jews. This monstrous industrialized atrocity was against a people who were not even in a state of insurrection, rebellion or civil war. This carefully planned and executed murder was directed against a people for absolutely no other reason than that they were Jewish; rich or poor, important or insignificant, elderly or little children.

I believe that it is very important to argue the case for justice for Palestinians without engaging in an inappropriate, insensitive and hyperbolic comparison.

I do not believe that making such a comparison helps the cause of justice for the Palestinian people.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. I agree with you Doug. Don't do us any favors.

I've seen the photos described in the email (or certainly a reasonable facsimie thereof) and they are horribly ironic.

[truebrit71]

16. I recevied a similar e-mail to the one the Prof in the OP showed. It was very disturbing...

...to see just how close the similarities were...

Sometimes the truth hurts and shocking side-by-side comparisons need to be laid open for all to see...

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. I REALLY believe you should think about the scale, scope and dimensions of the Holocaust

More than five million European Jews were rounded up and systematically and in a planned and industrialized program put to death.

Obviously, I would be one of the last persons to minimize Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. I would definitely agree with describing the recent invasion of Gaza in terms of a cruel massacre with numerous war crimes. I would absolutely agree with describing many other crimes committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinians with terms such as cruelty, racism, war crimes and at times ethnic cleansing, land theft and massacres. I would absolutely describe the events of 1948 including the real and inevitable consequences of the partition of Palestine and the establishment of the Israeli state as immoral - the Nakba - the Catastrophe.

But should this really be compared to the totality of the holocaust? Should we really compare this to systematically rounding up more than five million unarmed Jewish civilians; men, women and children including the sick and the elderly and putting them to death by a well organized and carefully planned state industrialized death machine?

I really think we can argue the merits of the Palestinian cause and the rightness of Justice for Palestinians without resorting to such an inappropriate and insensitive comparison that will do nothing to increase understanding for the Palestinian quest for peace with justice.

[Dr Fate]

23. In other words, it's a matter of degrees.

Sounds like we are saying that if there are brutal tactics in play by one side or the other, such tactics should not be compared to anything Nazis did until 5 million people are dead. I'm not sure I agree with that 100%.

For instance- One might be correct to make factual comparisons as to certain things Dick Cheny did to certain things Nazis did- even though Cheney did none of the other things you described above.

Then again, you make a great point- anytime someone throws out "nazi"- they are indeed playing to emotions. There is no doubt that it is a historically loaded charge that is used too often. At that point, maybe everyone is too upset to learn anything or increase understanding.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. unfortunately there are a lot of inappropriate comparisons to the Nazis

I always cringed when some people of the left including some on DU would describe George W. Bush as the new Hitler. For that matter comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler is really ridiculous too.

George W. Bush is bad enough. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bad enough. Comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis do absolutely nothing to facilitate a rational discussion.

Individual acts committed by any number of people from local police departments to modern militaries might at times be comparable to individual acts that were committed by individual Nazis. But the totality of the equation is just not there.

Comparisons to the Nazis might at times be red meat for some true believers - but it certainly does nothing to educate or inform - much less persuade those who are not already convinced.

[Dr Fate]

28. I'm going to have to agree with you. Then again...

...maybe this professor shouldn't be repremanded merely b/c he used an over-used, non-persuasive comparison.

If the pictures are real, then they educate and inform on their own- especially if it prompts the student to do more research or ask more questions.

I wonder if some of the students would have had a problem if he had presented the modern photos without mentioning Nazis at all.

[cali]

51. no, it's not just a matter of degree.

it's a matter of philosophy and intent as well as degree. And btw, degree matters. How far people will go is a matter of degree.

[Dr Fate]

52. Is there a "philosphy & intent" that might justify the acts in these photos?

If not, then I'm not really sure what you are saying.

Maybe your point is that we should not associate deplorable acts with *even more* deplorable acts? Fair enough- but that is arguably a matter of degrees.

In any event, my post was seeking clarification as to post #21- maybe your response should be to that poster- he was the one who brought up scope, scale etc.

[truebrit71]

26. I beg to differ...

...the death camps were the end result of a campaign to totally eliminate European Jewery. It didn't start with Auschwitz or Buchenwald...it culminated in them coming into existence..But HOW it started, how the process and the encouragement of the general population to engage in and become part of the genocide is what is on display very single day by the Israelis...the constant de-humanization of the Palestinian people, the belittling of their religion and their traditions, the theft of their property, their liberty and their rights, the constant harrassment, imprisonment and physical violence they receive at the hand of their oppressors..does NONE of this sound familiar to you?

The Nazi's didn't appear overnight, they developed. The death camps didn't spring up in the middle of the night, they evolved...and what they evolved from is eerily reminiscent of what we are seeing to day in some of Isreal's actions...

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. I have nightmares about the conceivably worse case scenarios that could plausibly result

from relentless dehumanization of Palestinians - as well as the demonization of Arab and Muslim people from some American demagogues.
There are already books that have made it to the top of the best seller list on Amazon that call for contingency plans to lock up most or all Arab-American or Muslim Americans. Certainly some of the racist language tossed around sounds like it could have come out of 1930's Europe. This is scary stuff. I absolutely agree that a future holocaust against Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims is far from completely inconceivable - especially given the complicity of many within ostensibly liberal circles.

But, fortunately this has not occurred and it does not appear like a plausibility in the near future.

If for no other reason, it is important to chose words that communicate and open minds. The Holocaust or nazi analogy is so emotionally loaded - it is far more likely to close minds than to open minds.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. I like what Obama said at the recent Holocaust conference:

Something along the lines of the holocuast being a unique event, but the human emotions that drove it.. hatred, dehumanization, etc. are NOT unique.

Here's the thing. The photo montage, which consisted of side by side photos of German soliders and Jewish victims, with Israeli soldiers and Palestinian victims in similar poses. It didn't portray Palestinians as death camp victims, (most of them), and there were some shocking simililarities. I remember walking through Yad Vashem and thinking that the exhibits on the '30s in Germany gave pause...

Bottom line: Germans did what they did because for them, the Jews were not human behings. Is today's Israel the equivalent of German Nazis? Of course not. Does Israel dehumanize Palestinians. They certainly do. Are many Israelis (and westerners, both Jewish and non-Jewish) disturbingly comfortable with that? yes they are.

To me, "never again" means preventing the first step necessary for genocide: the wide-scale dehumanization of a race, ethinic or religious group.

We all witnessed in January that 80% of Israel supported its gov'ts descision to commit war crimes against innocent people in Gaza. Perhaps this professor went too far. But something must be done to stop this disturbing trend in its tracks!

[cali]

50. they aren't close. it's sad to see this kind of ignorance

In just two years hundreds of thousands of Warsaw Ghetto inmates were murdered. Not a few thousand over 60 years,but hundreds of thousand. In the Warsaw Ghetto, over 100,000 died of starvation and disease. There were no hospital. No medicine, most food was smuggled in by small children.

Lies shock me. And this side by side comparison is, quite simply, a lie.

Yes, the oppression of the Palestinians is both real and deplorable, but the Holocaust it's not. not in scale, scope or rooted in the same eliminationist philosophy. If it were, there would be no Arab Israelis. There wouldn't be a population of Palestinians that's grown not diminished. There would have been mass starvation. There would have been heinous medical experiments that almost defy belief.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

59. Again, Obama: Holocaust was unique; human emotions that drove it are NOT unique.

And that's where we must be careful.

[bemildred]

61. I once hashed this issue through here, with the Magistrate, maybe a couple others.

I forget exactly who, but it came down to that there have been many such events, some of larger magnitude; the things that make the Nazi genocide stand out are the level or organization and "efficiency" applied and the irrational hatred behind it; often in these sort of mass killing there is some real issue behind it, land, food, water, overpopulation in a word. It is only in religious wars that one sees comparable combinations of hatred with idiocy. The Nazis harmed their war effort in order to try to complete the genocide. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is interesting in this regard, as is Genocide Watch.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/

[Lithos]

96. I was one of those too who ventured into that conversation at times.

The Holocaust was unique in the prioritization and mechanization of the genocide. These were deliberate killings as opposed to creating a system which killed by neglect. The Nazis wanted these people to die as opposed to not caring whether they lived or died, a distinction quite different than that of Stalin and Mao who killed far more people. The system that was created was designed to not only kill the Jews and other "undesireables", but also wring out the last bit of efficiency that could be mustered; those who had no value were killed, those with value were allowed to work until they had no value and then were killed. A hatred which turned men into animals, coupled with an efficiency which dwarfed that shown in Sinclair's Jungle where animals were lead to the top of the slaughterhouse so the potential energy gained by gravity would assist in the reduction of their carcasses.

Gaza, the West Bank is not the Holocaust, nor is it likely to ever become so. The required hate is not there. The danger is not one of genocide, but the danger of both sides becoming so inured and unsympathetic that they cease feeling and caring. Outrage after outrage, bomb after bomb, bullet after bullet, word after word, have turned people inwards and created a rather significant social and political barriers of "us" and "them". It is no wonder the ultra-nationalists of both sides are finding a fertile environment.

If you want probably the closest repeat of a modern Holocaust, look to Kossovo.

[bemildred]

97. But there are so many to choose from ...

I could quibble about various things, but you are right.

[aranthus]

65. What's significant about the Holocaust is the non-unique.

Obama is absolutely correct that the event itself is unique in the level of technology and organization applied to mass murder. He's also right that the human emotions and drives that fed the Holocaust aren't unique. I think that where Obama would part company with Prof. Robinson (and certainly where I do), is that there is no comparison of kind between the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and the Nazi Holocaust. Bad as the Palestinians have had it, the Israelis aren't committing genocide.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

68. Agreed. However, the ability of so many Israelis to support the dehumanization of Palestinians,

along with the war crimes against them that follow is quite alarming and noteworthy.

As I said above, for me, "never again" means preventing the first step necessary for genocide: the wide-scale dehumanization of a race, ethinic or religious group.

[whoneedstickets]

98. The Holocaust analogy is wrong, Aparthied is MUCH closer....

I wonder what might have happened if the prof had circulated pictures of Gaza and Soweto

[aranthus]

11. No. It's just wrong to lie about the Israelis because you disagree with them. n/t

[cali]

34. ppressed in the same manner?

not even close. The bottom line is the Nazis systematically exterminated the Jews. The Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians, but they have not exterminated them.

It's beyond ignorant and stupid to make the comparison. Oppression is awful. It's not even close to as awful as genocide.

[Scurrilous]

22. The New Republic: Enough With the Campus Inquisitions!

<snip>

"William I. Robinson teaches sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Describing himself as a "scholar-activist" on his website, Robinson deals with recent economic trends such as globalization. He does so in a manner reminiscent of the leftism once so popular in the 1970s as if, no matter how much the world changes, academic fads should never go out of style. I try to keep abreast with the field of sociology; Robinson is not a name that would appear on any list I would make of its most distinguished practitioners.

In January, Robinson sent an email to the students in his "Sociology of Globalization" course. In it he accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza, drew analogies between the Israeli occupation of the area to the Warsaw Ghetto, and included photographs comparing Israeli actions in the region to the actions the Nazis had taken against the Jews. Some students complained. The Anti-Defamation League has called for an investigation. UCSB's response has been to say that an investigation is already underway. Many faculty have sent letters of protest arguing that Robinson's academic freedom is being abridged. On the contrary, say his critics: Robinson went way beyond his academic responsibilities by sending propagandistic emails to his students on a subject that had nothing to do with his academic interests.

For me, this is an open and shut case. Neither Robinson's leftist kind of sociology nor his activist kind of politics are mine. Yet the idea of investigating him is appalling and the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Precedents are being set in this case that could have serious ramifications for everyone teaching in public universities--and perhaps even private ones.

We ought to want professors in our universities who teach about controversial subjects to provoke, and even outrage, their students. We should be pleased that they care enough about the issues of the day and about what students believe to send emails to them when things happen in the world that bear on the major issues of the day. Academic apathy is a serious problem. No one could ever accuse William Robinson of that.

At the same time, we should be wary of anyone who views the university not as a place for the exchange of ideas, but as an environment for therapeutic self-affirmation. "This professor should be stopped immediately from continuing to disseminate this information and be punished because his damage is irreversible," one unnamed UCSB student argued. Nonsense. Whatever damage words and pictures can do is out-weighed by the arguments and discussion they provoke. This student was angry. That was the point. The idea that Robinson caused some kind of irreversible damage here is preposterous. Seeking to punish him is even worse."

more

[Dr Fate]

24. Unless the Professor was lying or presenting fake information- I agree with this take. n/t

n/t

[truebrit71]

27. Me too.

..

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. I'm not disputing his right to say ! Just as I don't think pro-Israeli professors should be fired

for teaching an interpretation of history that I personally might very well find utter nonsense and deeply offensive.

Academia - REAL Academia is meant to be a market place of ideas - Including some really hyperbolic, highly questionable and just plain far out ideas. That is what academia is for in a free and democratic society. I doubt that democracy can survive the demise of academic freedom - including the freedom to be inappropriate, hyperbolic and even wrong. Every attempt to undermine the free market place of ideas is an assault on democracy itself.

So unless they are intentionally lying or faking data - I would defend their right to say whatever - however offensive or wrong I or anyone else might find their interpretations.

[aranthus]

31. What he said is so blatantly false that it is tantamount to claiming that the earth is flat.

If he seriously believes that it's true, then he is too ignorant to teach. Now if he would fess up, and admit that he was engaging in deliberate and outrageous hyperbole, I might have some respect for his integrity. Otherwise, I think that he's just dishonest.

[Dr Fate]

32. Are the pictures he presented photo-shopped or forged?

Is there a certain context that might make me view those photos in a more favorable light?

I could take issue with over-used, emotionally charged comparisons as well- but I'm not sure that alone is cause for reprimanding him.

If I researched the facts, I might even disagree with his opinion-or find out that the modern photos are faked, taken out of context, etc.

As it is, I admit that I know little about either side's positions.

I'm not sure that I want to ban speech just b/c it is deliberate & outrageous hyberbole-or just b/c it might lead one to certain conclusions- but I could see a problem if he is lying out-right.

However- if he is indeed too ignorant or unable to teach, then I hope that the University would be able to establish this- my guess is that he is under review.

I wonder if some students would have a problem with his presentation of the modern photos or some other pro-Palestinaian speech even if he had never mentioned Nazis or the holocaust.

[aranthus]

36. Not relevant

It's not the photos that I am concerned with. It's the comparison to the Nazis, to the Holocaust, and the claim of genocide. Those claims are outright falsehoods.

The war in Gaza was awful, as all wars are, and perhaps more so.

If Robinson had written these things in an Op-Ed to the Times, I wouldn't be saying boo about it, and I doubt that many would. Saree Makdisi and George Bisharat have been publishing lies like this in newspapers for years, and I don't know of anyone talking about censuring them at their universities. The problem is that Robinson sent this as a class assignment. He has a responsibility to teach the truth, and to teach intellectually honest critical thinking, and this e-mail fails that obligation.

[Dr Fate]

39. I often find factual information to be 100% relevant.

If the more recent photos are real, then perhaps people could compare them to the old photos, side by side, and find some similarities.

I don't have to agree with someone's entire presentation in order to find factual information or a point of agreement, or to learn about something that I did not know.

For instance, I had never seen these photos b/f- and now I have. My guess is that might be true for many of the students- including the Jewish ones.

I'm not so sure his email does not foster critical thinking- for instance- I see lots of interesting arguments on this very thread that have made me think. I also feel compelled to research this issue a little more.

I seem to have more faith in college-aged students than you do- I think most 18-30 year olds who have made it to college can see such photos and still be able to question various positions and make up their own minds.

I had a history teacher in high-school who taught from a Right wing POV- He used to piss me off, and I spent many an hour finding counter points to his biased info. He probably did more to make me think that liberals are correct than anyone.

[azurnoir]

47. In his statement the Robinson stated that he

open to questions

Robinson said he regularly sends his students voluntary reading material about current events for the global affairs course, and that no one raised questions when he subsequently discussed his e-mail.

"The whole nature of academic freedom is to introduce students to controversial material, to provoke students to think and make students uncomfortable," said Robinson, a UC Santa Barbara professor for nine years

As I asked below if the two students are so very "intimidated" why did they allow their names to be public

ETA this incident smacks of staged drama on the part of the students

[Howardx]

49. "staged drama on the part of the students"

hence the call to the weisenthal center right away.

[azurnoir]

53. I will admit that I wondered if

the students first call was not to the ADL

[backwoodsbob]

92. so when x-tian professors send mass e-mails

telling his students that gays are sinning against Jabubu the sex God and they will burn in hell you will defend this as doing his students a favor by teaching *about controversial subjects to provoke, and even outrage, their students* ?

[Scurrilous]

33. Muzzlewatch: The chill of academic censure on the sunny West coast

<snip>

"William Robinson is a professor of Sociology and Global Studies at UC Santa Barbara. This attempted case of academic censure allegedly revolves around an email Robinson forwarded to his class containing an editorial (by a Jewish journalist) “condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as well as juxtaposed images of Nazi atrocities with congruent images of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians.” This was an optional reading for the class and was “intended to spark conversation by relating contemporary events to conceptual ideas discussed in class. “

The Anti-Defemation League wrote Robinson, who is Jewish, a letter a week later, charging him with anti-Semitism as well as other (spurious) alleged violations. A week after this two students in his class had filed complaints against him (according to the the UCSB Academic Senate Charges officer ) The complaints? 1) critique of Israel is evidence of anti-Semitism and 2) the Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be discussed in a class on Globalization. I kid you not.

Apparently the Senate Charges officer has violated elements of the “charges” procedure, shirked his responsibilities, and ultimately acted as a co-complainant by fabricating charges that were not raised by the students. The process is currently going through continuing levels of adjudication.

The Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB writes that:

The longer this case is pursued, the worse its chilling effect; it will spread fear among those who wish to present controversial and critical subjects. Even though the original complaint is regarding Israel/Palestine, the rights at stake extend beyond this specific topic. Academic freedom is a right that enables scholars to express diverse perspectives over contentious topics, free from the intimidation of political repression campaigns. If the case against Professor Robinson continues to go forward, it will lead down a slippery slope that may expose academics to repression tactics for addressing controversial issues such as stem cell research, evolution, feminism, LGBT rights, etc. It is incumbent upon members of the UCSB campus and the broader academy to roundly oppose this silencing campaign.

They go on to say that this “obvious attack” on Robinson’s academic freedom recalls similar attempts to silence critics of Israel and that this is part of a large campaign to "vilify any and attack any and all critiques of Israel’s policies……………..through unfounded use of the term anti-Semitic."

more

[aranthus]

35. Muzzlewwatch is so full of it.

They claim to support debate on the I/P issue, but don't allow it on their own website. I could bask all day in that irony. I will give them one thing. Attacking Prof. Robinson as an antisemite is just stupid and wrong. Not because he is Jewish himself (which is really irrelevant), but because comparisons of Israel to the Nazis aren't antisemitism. It's just so stupid and obviously false, that he should be censured for it. Professorship is not a license to spout whatever nonsense and bull a person believes in. He has a duty to the truth and to intellectual honesty, which test his comparison fails miserably.

[azurnoir]

40. A question

was this the first incidence of this Professor manifesting a Pro Palestinian POV?
I suspect not, why if the two students who found this email so "intimidating" in this class in the first place, and if they are so "intimidated" why have they allowed their names to be published?
I think the intimidation here is on the part of the ADL and these two students, not the Professor

[oberliner]

84. The email was sent to students who had only been enrolled in the class for a week

The two students in question dropped the class shortly thereafter.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. Ethnic cleansing or apartheid, arguably, but accusations of genocide are absurd.

Some of the Israelis - including some of the current government - support driving the Palestinians out, but almost none support exterminating them, and certainly nothnig Israel has done in the past has been an attempt to do so.

There have been some mass murders, but never anything even remotely approximating genocide.

[Dr Fate]

42. Are there historical examples of genocide that did not begin with ethnic cleansing or apartheid?

I only ask b/c I do not know.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Rwanda, and possibly Cambodia, so far as I know.

Besides, there has never been a genocide which didn't start with mild ethnic or political tensions, far enough back - that doesn't mean that mild ethnic or political tensions are genocide.

[Dr Fate]

44. I guess I don't know what the subtle differences between genocide & ethnic cleansing are.

My guess is that semantics aside, when you boil it down, one kills more people than the other. Is that about he jist of it?

I do realize that neither act should be defended- and both result in the deaths of people of a certain group.

Again, I guess it is all a matter of scale & degrees.

Since there has never been a genocide which didn't start with "mild"- or not so mild- ethnic or political tensions- maybe-from a free speech POV- the genocide inference is not so absurd afterall.

If he had said: "The type of ethnic & political tensions in these photos might lead to genocide one day, as it has in the past..."- would certain pro Israel students be any less pissed off at him? I'm not sure of the answer.

Hell- maybe someone can argue correctly that there is no ethnic cleansing going on either.

I don't know the ins and outs of this issue- but I do know how one thing can lead to another- and that there are many ways to get that point across.

I'm looking at this from a free speech absolutist POV, not a pro-I or pro-P POV.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. One is trying to kill a group, the other is trying to drive them out - simple.

In practice, ethnic cleansing is usually accompanied by mass murders, but ethnic cleansers try to create as many refugees as possible, whereas genocidaires try to stop people escaping.

If he had said "this type of ethnic cleansing in these photos might lead to genocide one day, as it has in the past" he would have been talking nonsense - Israel will never try to wipe out the Palestinians, and it is not currently engaged in ethnic cleansing, although it has done so in the past and the far-right are urging it to do so in the future.

The genocide inference is, indeed, absurd.

I don't view this as evidence that this professor is anti-semitic, but I do view it as evidence that he is very lacking in sense of proportion, analytical ability and common sense.

[Dr Fate]

48. I would have to take your word for it- or the professor's.

Until I research the issue on my own, that is. I guess I have a lot of work to do.

You say Israel won't take ethnic cleansing as far as they have in the past, but you also suggest that their far right is still for ethnic cleansing- which you say can lead to genocide.

All that does is takes me back to square one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

58. Heard a report on Democracy Now that 2008 was the deadliest year for Palestine since '48.

I do believe it's getting ratcheted up.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. I'm not accusing Israeli of genocide, but the goal of OCL was to murder, not to

drive anyone out. There was nowhere to go. I am earnestly asking how that reality fits into your categories?

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Idiot propagandist.

[azurnoir]

54. From Ha'aretz

A Jewish professor from California who is under review for disseminating material that equates Israelis to Nazis has petitioned other scholars to protest a probe of his actions, an Israel advocacy group has told Haaretz.

The University of California, Santa Barbara, is investigating allegations of improper conduct and anti-Semitism against Sociology professor William I. Robinson for sending an e-mail to 80 of his students in January that contained photos of Jews killed by the Nazis and similar photos of Palestinians killed in the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza.

The founder of the group whose members filed the complaint against Robinson, the U.S.-based Israel advocacy student group StandWithUs, told Haaretz that the e-mail used the terms "concentration camp" and "genocide" when referring to Gaza.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082136.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

56. It is utterly mind blowing

I'm sure "Stand With Us" cheered the Gaza massacre.
But whine because they are "offended" at the language used to criticize the massacre of women and children.

Good thing those whiners weren't born Palestinian. They wouldn't have lasted long.

[Vegasaurus]

55. Those in the Warsaw ghetto would have been so lucky

to have Gaza's billions of dollars in aid, the constant truckloads of food and supplies, the "government" to "protect them" (with weapons from aiding the abetting surrounding countries).

This is pure unadulterated *********.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. no, the Gaza is not the Warsaw ghetto - not by a long show

But it only takes little bit of effort for anyone to find out just how awful conditions in the Gaza are. It does not take a lot of research to see how absolutely inaccurate, how cruel and insensitive the picture you are painting of the conditions in the Gaza really are. All it takes is a little bit of a effort, a little bit of an open mind and a little bit of an open heart.

What is happening in the Gaza is certainly not the Warsaw Ghettos. But it is a crime against humanity and only a blindly hateful mind could think of trivializing the suffering even of a people that one happens to deeply despise.

If one is genuinely against making hyperbolic comparisons between the suffering of the Holocaust and the suffering of the Palestinians - basic human decency would require one to also be against making reverse comparisons to trivialize.

As President Obama said recently at a conference on the Holocaust, "The Holocaust was a unique event in human history. But the emotions that drove it, hatred, dehumanization are not unique."

[Vegasaurus]

69. I don;t disagree with you

The problem is that people continually make these false analogies, and they minimize the suffering on both sides.

Gaza may be dreadful, but it isn't the Warsaw ghetto.

Gaza isn;t a concentration camp.

Israelis are not Nazis.

No matter the suffering of the Gazans, or of any Palestinians, these types of false, inaccurate comparisons do not advance understanding.

To say the Gazans are suffering is indeed true.

To say they are suffering as those in the Warsaw ghetto did is ridiculous.

To be sensitive to suffering while being accurate is important.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

60. Enough With the Campus Inquisitions!

William I. Robinson teaches sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Describing himself as a "scholar-activist" on his website, Robinson deals with recent economic trends such as globalization. He does so in a manner reminiscent of the leftism once so popular in the 1970s as if, no matter how much the world changes, academic fads should never go out of style. I try to keep abreast with the field of sociology; Robinson is not a name that would appear on any list I would make of its most distinguished practitioners.

In January, Robinson sent an email to the students in his "Sociology of Globalization" course. In it he accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza, drew analogies between the Israeli occupation of the area to the Warsaw Ghetto, and included photographs comparing Israeli actions in the region to the actions the Nazis had taken against the Jews. Some students complained. The Anti-Defamation League has called for an investigation. UCSB's response has been to say that an investigation is already underway. Many faculty have sent letters of protest arguing that Robinson's academic freedom is being abridged. On the contrary, say his critics: Robinson went way beyond his academic responsibilities by sending propagandistic emails to his students on a subject that had nothing to do with his academic interests.

For me, this is an open and shut case. Neither Robinson's leftist kind of sociology nor his activist kind of politics are mine. Yet the idea of investigating him is appalling and the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Precedents are being set in this case that could have serious ramifications for everyone teaching in public universities--and perhaps even private ones.

We ought to want professors in our universities who teach about controversial subjects to provoke, and even outrage, their students. We should be pleased that they care enough about the issues of the day and about what students believe to send emails to them when things happen in the world that bear on the major issues of the day. Academic apathy is a serious problem. No one could ever accuse William Robinson of that.

At the same time, we should be wary of anyone who views the university not as a place for the exchange of ideas, but as an environment for therapeutic self-affirmation. "This professor should be stopped immediately from continuing to disseminate this information and be punished because his damage is irreversible," one unnamed UCSB student argued. Nonsense. Whatever damage words and pictures can do is out-weighed by the arguments and discussion they provoke. This student was angry. That was the point. The idea that Robinson caused some kind of irreversible damage here is preposterous. Seeking to punish him is even worse.

The ADL operates at the same level of this confused student. The director of its Santa Barbara office described Robinson's comparisons as "offensive" and claimed that writing to students is "intimidating." But there can be little doubt who is trying to intimidate here. The ADL's mission is to protect us against the hatred of anti-Semitism. Once upon it time it believed that the best way to do so was to call for open discussion on the grounds that minorities subject to majority stereotyping benefit most when the intellectual air is free. Now it has become part and parcel of the thought police, monitoring campuses for any sign of what it considers offensive speech and putting pressure to bear on university administrators to stop it. We now have a world in which Catholics try to prevent Barack Obama from receiving an honorary degree at Notre Dame while the ADL leads similar campaigns against Desmond Tutu speaking at North Carolina. This is the kind of ecumenicalism we do not need.

read on...
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/wolfe/archive/2009/04/29/enough-with-the-campus-inquisitions.aspx

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. Just saw the above; sorry for the dupe!

[Taitertots]

63. Nothing to do but drop the class

There is no point in debate with professors. All you will do is get them to lower your grades.

I would responded back with "Some genocide, the Palestinian population has been increasing exponentially."

[aranthus]

66. Students should not be put in that position by their professors.

That's why what Prof. Robinson did violated academic ethics, as well as intellectual standards. Students shouldn't be put in the position of either standing up for the truth or getting a good grade. The university is not the public square. It isn't a free marketplace of ideas where everybody has equal power. Students don't have the ability to challenge professors without fearing for their grades. That's why academic freedom also means the right of students to be free from indoctrination by their professors.

[azurnoir]

71. The students who you claim were "put into a position"

were members of "Standwithus" if anyone is being put into a position it was the Professor Robinson not the students who you keep insisting were intimidated with absolutely no proof. The practice of organizations with political agendas seeding students in to collage classes where the Professors might be teaching information against their particular party line has been well documented although this is the first case were a ProIsrael group has been involved at least that I have read about,as has been the activism of ProIsraeli groups on California campuses albeit the targets are usually Muslim and other students

[aranthus]

73. First of all

I don't think I ever said that these particular students, were intimidated. I have been discussing the issue generally. I believe I even said in a post somewhere above that we don't know if the students did or did not actually challenge the professor on this issue. Whether these students actually were intimidated is not the issue. Neither is it whether they "set up" the professor or whether they have an agenda opposite to the professor's views. As I see it the issues are:

1. Did the professor inject into his class his political views on issues unrelated to the course subject? Arguably, he did.

2. Did he do so in a way that was intellectually dishonest? I believe that he did.

3. Did he do so in a way that was one sided? Yes.

4. Did he state a position that was not academically or intellectually tenable? I believe that he did.

5. Do the above actions violate principles of academic ethics. I believe that they do.

Now if he was teaching a course on political rhetoric or propaganda, and he presented his e-mail as an example for discussion, that would be perfectly appropriate. But that isn't what his class was, and it isn't what he was doing. He was engaging in unwarranted political hyperbole, as a way of preaching his politics to his students. That's an abuse of his power as a professor whether any of the students were actually intimidated or not.

Unfortunately, the other side is spreading its own brand of bull. I don't think I have heard anyone in the media try to make any of the above arguments. Instead, they are all claiming that his e-mail was antisemitic. That's intellectually dishonest as well. Prof. Robinson is open to fair criticism for what he did, but calling him an antisemite for this is untrue, unfair, and wrong.

[azurnoir]

74. posts #9 and #19 n/t

[aranthus]

76. Those posts prove my point.

In neither did I say that the two students in question were intimidated. I was writing about the general situation. In post 19 I specifically said that I didn't know whether they responded to the professor or not, but that that wasn't the point. The point is the professor's conduct.

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. for crying out loud!! It's a university and universities are meant to be market places of ideas-

even and in fact, especially highly questionable and iconoclastic ideas. This experience is fundamental in teaching people to challenge and to question what they hear. This is an essential part of what universities are for.

I think Professor Robinson's analogy was nonsense too. But if we get into the practice of censoring professors because we think they are not giving a fair and balanced view - we create an atmosphere where only ideas with adequate political backing and only professors who promote such ideas have a place to compete in the market place.

To many people with a Middle Eastern background, the idea that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is entirely or almost entirely or even primarily the fault of the Palestinians and the Arab world is way beyond intellectually dubious. The word ludicrous does not even come close to describing how many with such backgrounds would see that opinion. So do we censor academia and prevent those who would argue such an opinion from competing in the market place of thought? I would certainly hope not! I want universities to remain places where no opinions are unchallengeable - an atmosphere where people learn to challenge and to think for themselves.

What if the political atmosphere were to change - would anyone want their ideas to be considered so far beyond the pale - that they cannot be allowed to compete in academia's free market place of thought?

Do we then censor a pro-free market capitalist professor for not giving economic interventionism a fair hearing?

Do we then censor a behavioral psychologist for not giving cognitive psychology a fair hearing?

Do we censor a pro-Israeli professor for not giving the Palestinian interpretation of history a fair hearing?

Do we censor a professor who argues in support of the belief in God that he is not fair to atheism or a an atheistic professor who does not adequately present theistic beliefs?

Universities are not grammar schools or high schools. They are places where one is expected to be bombarded with a wide range of iconoclastic ideas from highly opinionated people with the principle that in an open market of competing ideas - students learn to think for themselves and to learn the difference between solid ideas and challengeable opinion.

In the practice of censorship - even censorship of weekly supported and deeply offensive opinion - then only those ideas which have adequate political support will be allowed to compete.

[aranthus]

91. No they aren't.

The public square is wide open. It is a forum for discussion for it's own sake. Also it doesn't matter that competing residents of the public square are not intellectual equals. Finally, in general, one person in the public square is not beholden to another for any benefit that can be taken away if they disagree. The university is very different.

First, it isn't wide open. That's why there are discrete classes instead of a general discussion. Would a professor be given a class on geography and then be allowed to only teach history or engineering? Of course not. Could students come to class and demand tha tthe professor lecture on chemistry instead of sociology? No way. Also, the purpose is not to have discussion for discussion's sake. Students are there to learn. Faculty are there to teach. Third, in general, students are not the intellectual equals of professors. They don't have the knowledge, critical thinking skills, experience and poise of faculty. That's as it should be at a university, because it has a mission to teach. Finally, there is a grossly unequal power structure. Professors control the students' grades, and there can be a price for not regurgitating the professor's chosen party line. It happened to me. In today's Leftist orthodoxy dominated university, I would be very surprised if it did not occur even more frequently.

Should professors be censored in the classes that they teach. Only in the most rare cases where they are teaching utter drivel. I can't imagine a university allowing a professor to teach that the earth is flat. Would a professor be allowed to teach that Blacks are inferior to Whites? You know the answer. In fact, I posted somewhere above that had Prof. Robinson used this e-mail as an example of propaganda in a class on propaganda, then I wouldn't have a problem. But that isn't what he was about. He used this e-mail to vent his political ideas into a class that had nothing to do with the I/P conflict. He can do that on his own time, but he doesn't have the right to inject it into a sociology class. Students have rights too.

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. if a similar sociology professor had sent out photos of correction officer brutality

from American prisons and compared these photos to Nazis tactics, would there be this uproar? I doubt we would have ever heard of the story.

What I sense here is not that Professor Robinson used the hyperbole of comparisons to the Nazis. Because inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons to the Nazis are made all the time on a whole range of issues. He simply did so in a way highly critical of Israeli actions thus running afoul of a very powerful and influential political lobby.

Professor Robinson used hyperbole to the extreme and in a way I clearly would not approve. He did not however - fake data, plagiarize material, attempt to silence or penalize in any way those who disagreed with him. He did not even present this material as a required project.

Censoring faculty opinion could turn into a dangerous and slippery slope that could very well turn around at some point and censor opinions you do strongly support.

[aranthus]

95. Probably not, but we should.

I think that it's the injection of the Nazi comparison into a place that it does not belong that is problematic. If he were teaching a sociology class on prisons, and used something like that, it might not be as objectionable. But how about if he were teaching a course on French literature? Also, there is the question of professional competence. How bad does a professor have to be, how much nonsense can he teach before you say that he's a problem? Seriously, I don't think you would have this objection if he were teaching that the world was flat. So there has to be a point at which you would say that a professor is incompetent because of what or how he is teaching. If it were relevant to the subject matter, I probably would not fire him for using the comparison in a fair and balanced way, that explored the other side of the controversy. Prof. Robinson didn't do that. I'm not suggesting that he should be fired for it, but he should be talked to.

As for him running afoul an interest group. Of course he did, but that isn't the whole story. Had he taught that Blacks were inferior there would be outrage from Blacks (and I would hope from you, and the rest of us). Had he claimed that the Armenian genocide did not happen (as an intentional mass murder) there would be protests from Armenians. The fact that there is a group of people concerned with what he said does not mean that it is simply a case of not agreeing with him. He has a job at UCSB to teach sociology, in particular Globalization. The I/P conflict isn't part of that.

[Howardx]

75. coincidence theorists abound

they just happened to be members of standwithus, purely coincidental.

[aranthus]

77. What coincidence?

I haven't said anything about why they complained. In fact, for my argument so far, I've ignored anything that they might have said. I don't think it's relevant to the discussion of whether the e-mail was appropriate. All that's relevant is the nature of his class, and the nature of the e-mail, neither of which I get from the students.

[oberliner]

80. They were not members of standwithus

Please stop spreading this false information.

[Howardx]

81. your word doesnt make it false

prove it.

[oberliner]

82. The names of the students in question are identified in the OP

They are identified as senior Rebecca Joseph and junior Tova Hausman.

The person who is identified in the Ha'aretz article as being connected to Standwithus is Lia Yaiger.

She wrote a letter (with another Standwithus member) on March 16 in support of the initial student complaints.

The original complaint letters from the two students in question (Rebecca Joseph and Tova Hausman) were written in February.

The people who the Ha'aretz article mention as being connected to Standwithus are not the two students who were involved in the initial complaint about receiving the email.

Another poster here appears to have conflated the two.

[oberliner]

78. No they were not members of that group

The two students had nothing to do with that group that you cited.

The students who filed the complaint on behalf of Standwithus were not the two students mentioned in this article.

[azurnoir]

86. You seem to have some "inside knowledge" n/t

[oberliner]

88. Yes, I read the OP!

Which listed the names of the two students (not the same names as the person the Ha'aretz article mentioned as being part of Standwithus).

[azurnoir]

90. So did I the women you mention

trains students

[LeftishBrit]

70. 'Godwinizing' rarely helps a person's case.

Comparing your favourite bogeynation to Nazi Germany - whether it's Israel, Iran, the USA, Britain, or any other country - may be a way of letting off some emotional steam, but it rarely convinces anyone who wasn't already convinced; and indeed may lead to real injustices being taken less seriously.

There is a lot to condemn in Israel's policies and actions toward Gaza; but it isn't akin to Nazi Germany!

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. From Muzzle Watch: "I can call someone Hitler or a Nazi, but you can’t."

Let me say from the outset that I do not approve one little bit of Professor Robinson's over-the-top and inflammatory comparison. I have already stated and very clearly state above my precise reasons why in about three different post.

But the utter hypocrisy does concern me. People do make this unfortunate, emotional comparison of a number of things to Hitler or the Nazis all the time. I certainly think they should not do that. But I only seem to hear such total outrage and uproar when this comparison is tied into criticism of violent Israeli state actions against the Palestinian people. This leads me to believe that there is something more than just a little bit disingenuous about much of this uproar and outrage.

It is one thing to say Professor Robinson was wrong and wrong to make this comparison. It is quite another to engage in punitive censorship which could only have and could only be meant to have a chilling effect on academia's free market place of ideas.

I can call someone Hitler or a Nazi, but you can’t.

link:

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/05/01/i-can-call-someone-hitler-but-you-cant-i-can-compare-them-to-nazis-but-you-cant/

"Fresh from witnessing a neoconservative Hudson Institute-sponsored Alan Dershowitz/Jon Voight et al tirade smearing everyone from Hamas and Hezbollah to Ahmadinejad and, well, most Palestinians, as Nazis and Hitlers, it should come as no surprise that a {Jewish] professor is now actually being investigated by the Anti-Defamation League and his employers for suggesting a comparison between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto. With breath-taking hypocrisy, the Hudson Institute’s Ron Radosh even goes for the jugular, because, well, it’s not OK when the other side does it.

I can’t even keep track anymore of the number of people - Netanyahu, Hageee, Horowitz, who else?- who have compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Signs at pro-Israeli rallies regularly invoke Nazis (one sign in Geneva= UNazi). Glenn Greenwald wrote at length about the frequent, and un-challenged use of Nazi epithets against liberals on right-wing Fox TV. But if someone critical of Israel dares to invoke Nazis or Hitler, the thought police arrive in seconds . It’s an appalling double-standard, illustrating how selective outrage about the Holocaust is used for purely cynical purposes. This is a phenomenon that all of us, especially Jews, should oppose vehemently. If it were up to me, Holocaust comparisons would not be declared off limits, nor would they be used so casually.


According to Simon Wiesenthal Center’s video called “Jewish Students Under Siege from Professor at UC Santa Barbara.”

Yes, Sociology professor William I. Robinson, who is Jewish, is apparently the new front line for the all out attack on Jewish students on campuses.


His crime? Sending an email to students in his sociology and globalization class:

The e-mail contained more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of the Nazis, including those of dead children, juxtaposed with nearly identical images from the Gaza Strip. It also included an article critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and a note from Robinson.

“Gaza is Israel’s Warsaw — a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians,” the professor wrote. “We are witness

I remember a version of that viral email well from January-it did not originate with Robinson, but traveled around the net during the height of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. While inflammatory, and not something I would forward myself, the strikingly parallel images were enough to give anyone pause. I also remember telling my father at the time that the emails I was getting from a friend in Gaza during the bombing were nauseatingly reminiscent of the letters I keep from my great grandmother sent from inside the Warsaw Ghetto. I said I had no idea if my friend would be alive the next day. Even my 82-year-old father, who is mentioned in one of those letters signed “mama”, acknowledged with a sigh, “I see what you mean.”

I recently finished reading the book, “Who will write our history? Emanuel Ringelblum, the Warsaw Ghetto, and the Oyneg Shabes archives.” While the Warsaw Ghetto, with 400,000 packed into a tiny little area at one point, ended with the murder of all of its inhabitants in extermination camps-including members of my own family- the nearly 1.5 million people packed into a walled-off Gaza will never face such an unspeakable fate.

Nonetheless, it is impossible to read about day to day life in the Warsaw Ghetto and not be haunted by Gaza- people forcibly crowded into a small space and unable to leave; rampant health problems and slow starvation/malnourishment; a massive black market for goods and food; rampant corruption and collaboration; routine dehumanization by the occupying army; the desperate sense that if only the world knew they would come and save them. For any Jew who is aware of what’s happening in Gaza, this or any book about the Ghetto makes for very, very, very hard reading. It forces one to pause in self-reflection about how the unspeakable horror of what was done to us changed us, at least some of us, and became a kind of sickness.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, in the video above, defines anti-Semitism to include: “The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias.”

So did I just commit an act of anti-Semitism by writing those words? Should survivors Hajo Meyer or Annette Herskovits, among others, who have also looked at their own experiences and those of Gazans, be hauled off to the ADL’s re-education camp?

In Enough with campus inquisitions!, Alan Wolfe wrote a terrific defense of Robinson, saying,”the idea of investigating him is appalling and the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Precedents are being set in this case that could have serious ramifications for everyone teaching in public universities–and perhaps even private ones. “

link to Alan Wolf's article, "Enough with Inquisitions" From The New Republic: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/wolfe/archive/2009/04/29/enough-with-the-campus-inquisitions.aspx

link to this Muzzle Watch Article:

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/05/01/i-can-call-someone-hitler-but-you-cant-i-can-compare-them-to-nazis-but-you-cant/

.

[Scurrilous]

99. UC-Santa Barbara faculty member goes public about ADL pressure

<snip>

"Harold Marcuse, associate professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said he attended a March 9 meeting on campus where Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman pressured university officials to investigate charges of “anti-Semitism” against sociology professor William I. Robinson.

Marcuse said Foxman discussed the charges against Robinson for nearly an hour with about a dozen faculty members and university officials, including Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Young and the executive dean of the College of Letters and Science, David B. Marshall.

“When the meeting started, Foxman quickly launched into what I would call a rant about what he said was an antisemetic email that professor Robinson sent to his class,” Marcuse said. “We then had an open discussion about Foxman’s comments and the charges against Robinson. In my recollection, that was the only thing we talked about at the meeting. Nothing else was discussed.”

Marcuse said the meeting lasted about an hour, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

During Foxman’s presentation and the ensuing discussion, Foxman demanded that Robinson be investigated for introducing materials critical of Israeli state policies in a course on globalization in January.

The materials included a photo essay that Robinson forwarded to students from the Internet and that had been circulating in the public realm. The photos juxtaposed images of Israeli treatment of Palestinians during the recent military invasion of Gaza with Nazi abuses during the holocaust. Two students took offense at the images and withdrew from the course, prompting the Anti-Defamation League to pressure the university to investigate Robinson for “anti-Semitism.”

Cynthia Silverman, director of the ADL’s Santa Barbara office, accompanied Foxman to the meeting on campus."

more

[azurnoir]

100. U.S. professor cleared over comparison of Gaza war to Holocaust

Officials at the University of California, Santa Barbara, sent a letter Wednesday to sociology professor William I. Robinson saying the committee had closed the matter.

In January, Robinson offended some students and others with an e-mail to his "Sociology of Globalization" class that juxtaposed grisly photos from the Nazi era with a recent Gaza offensive.

The affair was exposed by Santa Barbara student Leah Yadegar ? a graduate of the StandWithUs Emerson Fellowship program, which trains students in campuses in "response techniques" to anti-Israel efforts on campus.

Robinson, who is Jewish, has said his justified criticism of Israel's policies should not be confused as anti-Semitism. Before the ruling, he had circulated a petition rallying colleagues and supporters against the internal probe into his actions.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1095571.html

[Howardx]

102. whiney censors lose again

thanks for the update

[Scurrilous]

103. Thanks azurnoir.

:thumbsup: