Its a separation of Church from State Issue

The problem Americans who care about safety of all people World wide have with Middle Eastern Studies programs is the lack of criticism by the programs of the control Islam has over the region.

For example, Americans are asked to go Afghanistan and Iraq to die while the Constitutions of those Countries name Islam as their official religion.

Not one Middle Eastern Studies program leader has been quoted in the press as either opposed to the control Islam has or the fact that our troops are in harms way without any intent to separate Church from State. The American Government will participate in hanging their former leaders without any possibility of making Americans safer at night.

Neither the Middle Eastern Studies nor the Journalism Departments focus on this issue so Americans can have tangible reasons to oppose the use of violence to change Middle Eastern ideology.

The Great Decision Maker has free reign because academia lead by the U. S. Department of Education does nothing to force the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity to set tangible standards by which to judge formal education in general and Middle Eastern Studies departments in particular.

Democracy is more than the election of the leader. Hitler was elected. If we value our way of life, we must educate our future leaders on how to protect us from harm.

War with a religion can work, but the extent of the bloodshed by use of nuclear energy makes that method risky. Albert Einstein said it best: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

If the Middle Eastern scholars want to avoid criticism from Horowitz and others, they must begin to be fair and balanced in their teaching. That begins with advocacy of separation of Islam from the governments of Middle Eastern Countries. Otherwise, the Middle Eastern departments are nothing more than a threat to the American way of life.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 7:35 am EST on January 15, 2007

The previous commentator, ostansibly from the ‘Judicial Equality Foundation’, writes:

“If the Middle Eastern scholars want to avoid criticism from Horowitz and others, they must begin to be fair and balanced in their teaching. That begins with advocacy of separation of Islam from the governments of Middle Eastern Countries.”

I too would like to see religion separated from government. I am tired of stores, banks, offices and government services being closed on Sunday. I want to see ‘In God We Trust’ removed from the money. Certainly the various religion-inspired prohibitions on things like harmless drugs and harmless nudity should be dropped (it would be nice to something replace the graphic violence on television). And swearing on the Bible is just silly; people should adopt the old ways and swear a blood oath.

But it is not my place to tell a society how to run itself. Certainly, most Americans would be offended were I to persist in a campaign to remove religion from the American body politic; just look at the howls of outrage that follow the few symbolic gestures that are attempted.

My tolerance of faith-based American legal and social institutions, though, does not make me — or anyone — unable to comment impartially on American society. There is a very large distinction to be made between describing a society and preferring that a society be organized in a certain way. One may become expert in a domain without necessarily wanting to change it, much less to change it in a particular way.

To suggest only advocates of the separation of Islam from government can be fair and balanced is ridiculous. Numerous scholars would argue, even today, for the presence of religion in American government and society. There is no reason why a similar appeal may not be made for Islam.

No, I wouldn’t want to live in such a society. But then again, east Texas ain’t so hot either.

Stephen Downes, at 11:10 am EST on January 15, 2007

Fair use of Freedom is the Topic

The handbook is a guide on how to get support for controversial views. Middle Eastern studies were merely an example of controversy. For one commentator to call another commentator’s opinion ridicules is an example of the source of the problem. No tolerance. We should all stay focused on the subject and avoid personal insults.

As an aside, advocacy of separation of church and state appears better than bombing them and then depart to allow them to kill each other.

Stay in Context, at 12:15 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Polarizing Labels

The “handbook” begins with language suggesting that its authors intend to be politically unbiased in dealing with issues of academic freedom: “This handbook provides university teachers tools with which to manage teaching and research confrontations that limit the range of academic discourse. It seeks to provide concrete suggestions both to respond to such attacks and to help avoid them in the first place. Unlike productive scholarly debates, these attacks often exploit polarizing labels, employ the strategies of blacklists, and use illegitimate or illegal means of gathering evidence. This handbook also addresses prickly pedagogical situations in which students may be engaged in larger campaigns against faculty, or may be participating in class in a way that disrupts academic discussion.” But the following advice, on how to manipulate media to work against perceived challenges to academic freedom, pretty well reveals the politics that underlie this feigned objectivity:"Most local papers are not going to approach freedom of speech issues related to the Middle East unless it’s in Detroit or somewhere with a large Muslim population, or unless you find a way to get the media interested. Find someone in the area, a known progressive, and see if they are game to help get the story in the media. Find well-organized organizations — whether ethnic associations, religious organizations, political groups, or student groups — and find out if they have connections to the local media. For example, if there is a local progressive leader, like Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, call that person’s office and say, “I’m just calling to let you know there’s a worrisome situation of censorship starting to unfold, to let you know this is happening, in case calls come your way, would you put out a press release in support of academic freedom. Ask this figure for advice about who else to contact, and what media might be useful.”

The implication is that progressives (not conservatives) are the natural allies of academic freedom.Again feigning objectivity, the document states that “academic freedom is not a liberal, progressive, or leftist issue, but a matter of concern for all scholars, regardless of their political beliefs,” which is certainly true, but then elsewhere document informs us that, ” institutions of higher learning have become ideological battlefields as conservative groups try to set precedents delimiting what can be taught, who can teach, and how subjects should be presented.” Conservatives are implicitly the aggressors in this battle, and left-leaning academics’ support of speech codes is not cited as a threat to academic freedom. To the contrary, activities of liberals are defended: At the same time that it skewers conservatives—and implicitly praises progressives like McKinney as allies in the fight against oppression of academic freedom— the document states that “recent threats to academic freedom often rest on the largely erroneous claim that college classrooms are bastions of liberal bias.”

In singling out conservatives and defending liberals, the authors of this handbook seem to forget their own advice that “attacks often exploit polarizing labels.”

This handbook is not an honest guide on how to deal with divisive and oppressive tactics that threaten academic freedom. Instead, this handbook would be more properly characterized as a guide on how to slyly use divisive and oppressive tactics in the service of a particular political view to damn persons of opposing views by accusing them of using those very same tactics. It is a model of rhetorical duplicity.

A slightly more honest title would be: “How Best to Explain the Way Those Freedom-Oppressing Conservatives Keep Hitting Our Objective Progressive Fists with Their Faces.”

Bathus, A Primer on Bias, at 4:50 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Academic Freedom Defined

Separation of Church and State is the counter-topic to Middle Eastern Studies at the center of controversy.

As Bathus points out, if the controversy is liberal v conservative bias, the handbook has no value whatsoever.

The handbook was published to help embattled Middle Eastern bigots in American academia the freedom to teach that Islam has the right to use violence to dominate a region of the World.

There is no evidence that these so called scholars are either liberal or conservative. Those labels are not applicable to the role of organized religion in society.

Mr. Downes is correct that remnants of organized religion’s domination of America still remain. We leave it to the ACLU, Sam Harris, Paul Kurtz, and Lori Brown to take up that battle. Our goal is to bring academic freedom to all levels of formal education. That means boundaries have to be set.

The first boundary is support for the American way of life. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Paul Craig Roberts, and David Horowitz all have that goal in common.

A solid instructor in Middle Eastern Studies would draw from them all to present a fair and balanced education that would teach Americans how to use knowledge and communication skills to eliminate the threat to freedom Islam and other organized religions present to the World.

William Sumner Scott, J. D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 8:30 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Op-Ed analyses Handbook

Analysis of this Handbook published:

The handbook suggests professors charge censorship when describing off-campus organizations and individuals who critique the field, and offers a script for calling reporters that reads in part, “it strikes me as a troubling crossing of a line, when outside organizations are stoking the flames on campus.”

Yet, for all the doublespeak and self-important victimization, the handbook offers advice long absent from MES. It calls for including ground rules for civil and courteous classroom debate in syllabi, and recommends that lectures and discussions remain on topic and not wander into political or personal territory. Transparency is lauded as a virtue in teaching, and the fact that both professors and students are responsible for forming a successful class is emphasized repeatedly.

Can Middle East Studies Regain Credibility? [on MESA, Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, et al.] by Winfield Myers The Washington Examiner January 18, 2007 http://www.campus-watch.org/artic...ast_studies_regain_credibility_.html

anon, at 8:21 am EST on January 18, 2007