Mirroring the less credentialed antisemites and Israel derangers who blog from basements, Britain's largest trade union of academics, the University College Union (UCU), has voted to disassociate itself from the European Union working definition of anti-Semitism.
The reasoning given by this union of PhDs is the same that one encounters from the barely literate Israel-derangers in the blogging world, namely that accusations of antisemitism prevents "legitimate criticism" of Israel. The objection must relate to this portion of the EU definition of antisemitism:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
It is obvious why antisemites and Israel-derangers don't like this definition - it implies that singling the Jewish people out as not deserving self-determination is antisemitic, which it of course is.
Because Israel is the subject of incessant criticism from certain supposedly progressive and academic quarters repeatedly day after day, far out of proportion to its tiny size and without any recognition of the complexity of issues involved with the Israeli-Arab conflict, I find it the height of dishonesty and banality for anyone to claim that criticism of Israel is being in any way prevented or stifled. Criticism of Israel is indeed a full time job and obsession for too much of the world, whether the halls of the academic humanities, or in the basements of suburban houses where keyboard warriors ply their trade.
Whether one is a substitute kindergarten teacher in Pittsburgh or a PhD at one of Britain's top institutions, Israel obsession and excessive demonization is antisemitic. And of course, Israel derangers don't stop there - they routinely accuse their Jewish countrymen of being more loyal to Israel, and of controlling the media and government. These things are virulently antisemitic, and this prejudice is uniquely allowed to flourish in certain quarters of the academy.
I hope that Britain's silent majority of reasonable academics reject what the UCU has done. As someone who spent an extended research visit in the UK - albeit in a science and not the humanities - my experience was that the academic environment there was not at all compromised by Israel derangement and that the faculty, postdocs, and others were politically moderate, reasonable, and inclusive. I believe that the UCU does not speak for British academia as a whole, and I hope that they are marginalized by this step.
I'm not exactly surprised given its reputation. And, I don't think this will come as a surprise either: They're being subjected to legal action for antisemitism.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could say that there is a silent majority that is separated from this antisemitism masked as "anti-Zionism," but I do not have that faith. Being a student in the humanities (history), and, at one time in the social sciences as well (political science), before dropping it because my school's political science department had an unofficial policy of hiring only Marxists, I have seen first hand just how deranged faculties can be.
Believe me, I had those experiences - I did a history minor. Fortunately, in my experience I encountered both types of humanities faculty - those who were completely closed minded and stuck on a very narrow ideology, and those who were motivated by a love of research and teaching.
DeleteIt is so frustrating to someone in science academia because the standards are so high, and so much more objective. Yes, we have our supposedly ideological confines, outlined by Lee Smolin and others, but it is nothing like what is happening in the humanities.
But if oen considers academia as containing both science and humanities, there is hope for a silent majority.
When I was in school, the history department was roughly evenly divided between crazy Marxists consumed with ideology and a grouping of liberals, moderates and conservatives. At the heart of it all was a tenure fight in which the former were trying to deny tenure to a member of the latter. One of the leaders of that first group was an anti-Israel Jew who specialized in "teaching" the Middle East. That "teaching" included the 20th Century. An example of how he went about this "teaching" was using a textbook for the course that was authored by someone who was an anti-Israel activist. Another example was that he would use additional documents. For the Six-Day War, the only document he used was by a Palestinian on what it was like to lose. He didn't include anything by any Jewish or Israeli author on what it was like to win and to have, for the first time in 2,000 years, the Kotel, the holiest and most important site in the world for Jews, under Jewish sovereignty.
DeleteWish I could say I was surprised but unfortunately.....I would take criticism of Israel more seriously if I saw even half the outrage at their neighbors.
ReplyDeleteEven ten percent would represent a significant improvement. I know this relates to the media, not the academy, but have you ever seen this video?
DeleteThanks a lot for sharing this nice and informative post, This posts shows your efforts that how do you cover any topic research. I really like your blog because your blog has updated posts on different current issues. I would request you to keep sharing your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteHelp With Dissertation
Dissertation Writing