I have long known that the idea of impartiality on the part of academics when it comes to denouncing the villians of this world was a complete and utter farce. They are quick to denounce those who are within the confines of unacceptability if it happens to be a person or group that does not squarely fit with their leftist worldview. Anyone else? Fuhgeddaboutit. They will turn a blind eye and completely ignore them just as quick as you can say Jack Robinson. Today's article citing an experiment by Prof. Fred Gottheil shows statistically that this is in fact the case....
"Prof. Fred Gottheil told Front Page Magazine that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, urging the U.S. to abandon its ally, Israel. Prof. Gottheil discovered that six of the signers, who hailed from more than 150 college campuses, were members of his own faculty.
“Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?” he wondered. “I felt it was worth a try.”
The results? “Almost non existent,” he told Front Page editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 “self-described social-justice seeking academics” agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.
The refusal of women’s studies professors to publicly condemn honor killings, or academic advocates of gay rights to speak out against the treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries, is just about as hypocritical as it gets. Their loathing (dare we call it hate?) of the UN-created Jewish state is so deep that it “trump[s] their professional interests,” leading them into a “ideologically discriminatory trap of their own making,” Prof. Gottheil added."
“Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?” he wondered. “I felt it was worth a try.”
The results? “Almost non existent,” he told Front Page editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 “self-described social-justice seeking academics” agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.
The refusal of women’s studies professors to publicly condemn honor killings, or academic advocates of gay rights to speak out against the treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries, is just about as hypocritical as it gets. Their loathing (dare we call it hate?) of the UN-created Jewish state is so deep that it “trump[s] their professional interests,” leading them into a “ideologically discriminatory trap of their own making,” Prof. Gottheil added."
Anyone with an open mind could have seen this coming if they would have just gauged the amount of rhetoric coming forth from academics against Israel and weighed it against the amount of criticism they reserve for the Muslim world. I think that such people fall into one of two categories for the most part.
1. Their leftist behaviour and pretentions to a supposedly high degree of intelligence allow them to disguise their anti-Semitism much better than those who do not care if the entire world knows that they are anti-Israel. Or..
2. They are sissies who are scared to speak out against a potential target of their consternation that might take offense to their criticisms and actually do something about it, violent or otherwise. Thus, they are content to pick "soft targets" for their scorn and condemnation and the real root of the problem (radical Islam) continues to fester.
9 comments:
I cannot find anything about Gottleib outside his own works and none of my sources know anything about him.
It would be interesting to see how his supposed quetionarre was worded. He provides no documentation of his "test" that I can find.
What little I could find out about Gott shows that he is a biblical supporter of Israel.
If his questions were posed on that tentet thne it is no surprise that some academics would be labeled anti-semetists.
Most academics support Israel's right to exist as they do other countries who's borders, nations were defined and created after WWII.
However, when someone declares that Isreal has the right to exist on the basis of bible myths and that they are chosen people, etc, then you will get some strong arguments.
If Israel were to disappear from the face of the earth right now, civilization would continue merrily on it's way. No Armeggedon. Nothing.
There are forces/ people within the USA who would make very bad decisions based on Iraels supposed position of favor with God, and bad decisions based on mythical bible prophecies that defy logic and reason.
Decisions on Israel and it's protection need to be based on rational thought not idiotic beliefs regarding the end times, etc.
Arielle,
Yes, indeed you are correct, but in my haste (I am building a goat barn for my daughter) I did not properly paste my entire comment.
So speaking to your observation, there is no evidence that this purported questionarre even exists.
Next, unless someone is living in a cave it is obvious that academia often speaks loudly and directly to the vile practices including female circumcision, stoning, and not only thr draconion practices of Islam but of certain Christian practices as well.
Any simple search yieds millions of articles deploring thse actions.
To make these statements about academics in general is absolutely absurd beyond description.
Thus, they are content to pick "soft targets" for their scorn and condemnation…
There is something deeply ironic about this accusation…
In what way GS?
Here is the link for the entire interview with Gottheil in Front Page Magazine. Quote...
"FP: What do you think explains this double standard on the Left in general and among leftist academics in particular?
Gottheil: Good question. And not an easy one to answer. I certainly claim no expertise but let me take a stab at it. You know, it’s not one size fits all. Some on the Left identify Israel with the US and that’s damning enough. Others, I think, see themselves as championing the cause of third-world people and, in this kind of mind-set, see Israel as white and successful, a deadly combination. There are some leftists — Marxists, mostly — who claim to oppose any form of nationalism and therefore regard Jews who are Zionist as enemy. Incidentally, these same leftists don’t seem to get too upset with African-style nationalism or even Arab-style nationalism. It’s just Jewish nationalism that gets their goat. Interesting, isn’t it? And we can’t discount the gorilla in the living room: plain old Anti-Semitism. It’s alive a well among the Left, and despite their vociferous denials, a growing phenomenon. In this respect, the academic Left is hardly different from the non-academic Left. They may be just a little more sophisticated in their loathing of Israel, but scratch the surface and it’s all the same."
I keep getting this dark feeling about you when you rail against academia, kinda like 1939 Germany. 1917 Russia.
Kill the academians!
I think you are making a huge leap from pointing out an obvious double-standard in academia with wanting to get rid of them all together.
my shit keeps getting eaten on this page.
As far as Israel, I think Froggie's correct about it's age having something to do with folks taking issue with it. While it's founding is in many ways not all that different from other countries--very few nations are populated now by the same people who've always populated it, and many stories of conquest and political maneuver include sad stories about the side that lost "their" land--it's different when there are people still alive who can personally recall when they lived there. Wars have consequences, and Israel is a fact--and has as much right to remain a fact as America, Australia, Mexico or any other country--but if you're one of those people who feels a little sympathy for or sense of injustice about the people who lost their land as a result of war or politics in the first place, the story of Israel, being so relatively recent that there are folks still alive today who used to live on that land, seems a little more sad and unjust. And yeah... That it's at least in part based on a Bible story doesn't help, especially if the Bible doesn't happen to be your Sacred Text.
As far as Dr. Gottheil, I have some serious questions about both his methodology and his motivations (and whether his motivations tainted his methodology, and thus his results.) Had he really wanted to gather signatures opposing human rights abuses in the Middle East--rather than "proving" the rhetorical point he came in with--he could've and would've done a far better job trying to do so than to send out a single "cold call" e-mail to a bunch of strangers and not even do any follow-up to make sure they received and read his e-mail. It seems to me that he wanted these academics to fail his little test, and wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, they did. Anyone interested can further explore my thinkin' on the subject here.
I did like Dr. Gottheil's Statement of Concern, however, and that's the real reason I dropped by. I posted it at PetitionOnline.com, and I'm trying to do a better job collecting signatures on it than Dr Gottheil managed to do. To that end, I'm hoping that you folks here (and anyone who comes along and reads this comment later) will follow the link, read it over, and consider adding your name. Support Regarding Discrimination in the Middle East against Women, Gays, and Lesbians Petition It may not do much good, in the general scheme of things, but it certainly cannot hurt.
Post a Comment