As a senior Middle East studies concentrator, I was disheartened by The Herald's recent article about a controversy between Rabbi Serena Eisenberg '87, executive director of Brown Hillel and an associate University chaplain, and Associate Professor of Comparative Literature Elliott Colla ("Prof.'s essay alleges threat to academic freedom," Oct. 31).
There are serious complaints both in Colla's article and in The Herald's coverage that involve the reputation of individual faculty members and the University as a whole. I was most upset by The Herald's choice to end this article with a quotation from Zack Beauchamp '10, a clear partisan in this dispute, who claims that, "Like so many issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, there are basically two narratives and two descriptions of what actually happened." This just has to be read as a sign of mauvais-fois from Beauchamp because it reveals an unwillingness to engage with the substance of Colla's original complaint and with the substance of the secondary criticism coming from Brown Students for Israel (of which Beauchamp is co-president) and Eisenberg.
Colla's main complaint was that a non-academic faculty member was persistently interfering with academic forums. The Herald's article, in my opinion, failed to adequately investigate this point and instead filled its pages with quotations from Omri Ceren, a clearly radical blogger based in Southern California. Ceren said last April, "We're determined not to let this conference go by without making it clear to the University that this disregard of academic standards/norms and disrespect for Brown's Jewish community is not acceptable." (I take this to be the position of the BSI in this debate.) The Herald's article should have been written about these conflicting complaints, about what constitutes academic standards in the area of Middle East studies. Is it a problem that non-academic faculty members interfere with academic courses and conferences? Is equal representation of conflicting view-points necessary at every event? Should there be equal numbers of events that "represent" both "sides"? Can only non-controversial or non-biased speakers take part?
Brown's president has repeatedly insisted that it is not the University's role to protect students or community members from opinions or viewpoints that might offend or wound their sensibilities. Robert Spencer's speech two weeks ago claiming that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion was held up as an example of Brown's willingness to hear diverse view-points that contain offensive material. No ideological balance was present at this event. Yet a conference about challenges in Middle East studies after Sept. 11, 2001, which slanders no group and no religion, is described, again by Beauchamp, as "outrageous"? This discussion of challenges to Middle East studies post-9/11 is not radical but rather has been a major feature in academic conferences and publications across the country and around the world. It is, then, frustrating to learn that President Ruth Simmons has, unofficially, taken sides in this debate. The Herald article depicts Simmons' support for Eisenberg being primarily based on her character, not on the events that occurred in relation to the conference. Colla must know the seriousness of publicly naming Eisenberg in an article in a prominent academic magazine, and it must be assumed, therefore, that he felt he had more than insidious rumors to support his description of the event.
However, Simmons' unofficial e-mail did say that Colla's article was "incorrect as to the facts of what transpired," but with all parties gagged, the "facts" are left to commentators like Ceren and Beauchamp. I think that the University has a responsibility to publicly address this controversy and to elucidate the facts. It is Brown's reputation as a place of open and rigorous discourse that is at stake. The response cannot just be from four faculty members from pediatrics, medicine, sociology and environmental studies who publish a letter of support for Eisenberg. If the University fails to respond to this situation, they are implicitly condoning the kind of double-speak that allows for Robert Spencer to come to campus but which also hassles the organizers of a conference dealing with an issue of national importance - that of the production of knowledge about the Middle East.
As a student of Middle East studies, I am disappointed with the way The Herald's article was written and with the University's failure to address this issue with the kind of alacrity that I think is necessary. I am not looking for a trial, with guilt laid on one party or the other, because the characters of Colla and Eisenberg are not the central issue. Instead, these challenges to academic freedom (no matter which way you define them, as overly pro-Israeli or maliciously anti-Israeli) need to be addressed and the University's position on this issue needs to be clarified.
Thalia Beaty '08 suggests you look at the article published Sept. 10, 2007, New York Times entitled "Fracas Erupts Over Book on Mideast by a Barnard Professor Seeking Tenure."
