Talk:Columbia Unbecoming controversy

TODO

• Find transcripts of the film.
• When was Columbia Unbecoming released to the public?
• Blasi committee.
• Find the original 25-minute-long version.
• Cover [1] and [2]
• Link Charles Jacobs (political activist)

ImTheIP (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It was NEVER "released to the public" in the usual sense, as far as I know (certainly not in 2005). AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary in lead section is unfortunately inaccurate

The accusation against the professors was NOT mainly that the professors were "pro-Palestinian and too critical of Israel" -- it was that they allowed their political enthusiasms to override their scholarly and academic ethics, taught biased classes, and treated students whose views disagreed with their own poorly. Also the University report was NOT a straight-up 100% vindication of the professors. It did not find any formal violations of laws or university regulations, but it did find that several incidents worthy of concern had occurred (though mostly outside the classroom), and that there was no procedure at Columbia at the time for students to file complaints on such matters (something which basically ensured that unresolved grievances would pile up until they became a public scandal). Some considered the report to be biased in favor of the professors, so that those things which the report did admit were highly significant. Also it was notable that some of the professors at the center of the controversy took sudden mysterious sabbaticals or leaves of absence... AnonMoos (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you please cite sources? ImTheIP (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To start with, the lead-section summary is completely incompatible with these New York Times articles, which suggests a need for some drastic rewriting: March 31, 2005 Columbia Panel Clears Professors Of Anti-Semitism By KAREN W. ARENSON, April 1, 2005 Panel's Report on Faculty at Columbia Spurs Debate By KAREN W. ARENSON. The "ad hoc report" is no longer on the Columbia University website at its original URL; I thought I had saved a copy to my hard drive, but if so, I can't find it now...

By the way, the article title "Columbia Unbecoming controversy" could be seen as problematic if it implies that the controversy was mainly about the movie, and not about the professors' behavior. AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm the sole author to this article. I've spent the last week writing it because I found the short blurbs attached to Massad's and Weiss' articles unsatisfactory. This is the first try and you cannot get everything right on the first try. You are right that the article title doesn't do the topic justice. It was a multi-year campaign that began in 2001 and culminated in Columbia Unbecoming in October 2004. The Battle of Midway of the Middle East studies war at Columbia, leading to some kind of precarious truce between the opposing sides. However, media reporting is what it is. A video, demonstrating exactly how much home video recordings sucked only 15 years ago, is what is remembered from this war.

Regarding the specifics: 1) I have probably read over a hundred articles about this controversy but I cannot find any mentioning any mysterious leave of absence. Please link to a source if you have any. 2) The accusations of bias is covered in detail in the section The_ad_hoc_committee's_report. It's not in the lead because its a foregone conclusion that someone isn't happy with a verdict complains. Massad's complaint isn't in the lead either. 3) The report found Schoenfeld's and Shanker's allegations "credible" and Saliba's defense "good deal more likely". But to claim that a claim is "credible" is not the same as claiming that it is true. The lead should in my opinion only establish facts and not delve into he said, she said-arguments. 4) The accusations against the professors and the MEALAC department were multi-faceted and in many cases confusing and based on innuendo. Weiss accused the professors of racism and of intimidation. Beery accused Massad of ignorance and of espousing "hateful and violent rethoric." However, it seem hard to not make the inference that these professors were targeted for their pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel views. Even if all the stories told by the students were true, anyone with some college experience must find it hard to believe that these three professors were the absolutely most intimidating on Columbia University! ImTheIP (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're consumed by personal feelings of rage when you contemplate what happened back then, but such feelings may not make you the best person to write this article. Unfortunately, the lead section to this article when I read it gave the impression that that the student complaints were found to be totally unsubstantiated, which is simply completely wrong (100% factually incorrect). Of course, the lead section shouldn't get into the nitty-gritty of detailed claims and counterclaims, but it also shouldn't give the impression that the professors were 100% vindicated and the students were 100% discredited when that's simply NOT the case. Also, I haven't read past the lead section of the article, because the lead section has so many big glaring problems; when some of these problems are fixed, then maybe I'll start to consider the rest of the article. There's no particular need to discuss at any length whether the Columbia University "ad hoc" report was biased in the lead section, but since there's a legitimate controversy about this, therefore the lead section should avoid giving the impression that the report is the unchallengeable gospel truth. As for the leaves of absence / sabbaticals, they were widely reported in late 2005; here's one random source I found through searching: "Professor Massad and his two embattled colleagues, Professor George Saliba and the department chair, Professor Hamid Dabashi, are now on leave.".

Maybe you should consider moving this article as a Draft under your personal userpage, until it's in better shape... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your personal attack was unnecessary -- please assume good faith.

Covering this controversy in a coherent narrative while not running afoul of either WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:SYNTH wasn't easy, but I've done my best and I think I've covered almost every remotely interesting little detail. Of course, this page is not perfect and can certainly be improved. I suggest you read through the whole page (and preferrably also the main sources) before you criticize it. There is a wealth of information there that might change your views.

The three students' allegations were only a minor part of the controversy. That is why they shouldn't be elaborated on in the lead. But they were indeed unsubstantiated: "not proven true", "lacking substantiation", "without evidence". However, an unsubstantiated claim does not imply that the accused party is vindicated. ImTheIP (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead section of this "article" had extreme biases when I first perused it on September 26th, and when I looked at it again on September 29th you had chosen to make it even worse! (Not something which is very consistent with "good faith".) I moved it to the Draft space in order to give you an opportunity to bring it within minimal compliance with basic reality. If you move it from Draft space back to mainspace without doing this, I will nominate it for Speedy Deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright. What about the lead do you think is biased? Please suggest alternative formulations so that we can reach compromises. I don't agree with moving this article to the draft space since the topic meets WP:GNG. The draft space is for articles that may not fit on Wikipedia, but this article does, even if you and I disagree on content issues. ImTheIP (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I tell you what, why don't you add {{cn}} tags to statements you don't think are supported by the sources? It would allow me to find sources for statements you think are either original research or plain incorrect. ImTheIP (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I thank you for your patience with these discussions, but your overall approach to the article is very problematic, since you seem to posit that everything was part of a conspiracy to undermine the Columbia Middle Eastern studies department, and that the students' allegations were completely unsubstantiated and without any merit. It's possible that The David Project and certain personalities who were not directly involved in the affair (but offered commentary from the sidelines) may have been part of such a conspiracy, but it's clear that most of the students involved were not, but were offended by behavior by the professors which they considered to be unethical between teacher and student in a classroom setting, and obnoxious and bullying outside the classroom. The ad-hoc report found no noteworthy violations of laws or policies, and no professors were formally disciplined, but that most definitely does NOT mean that the professors were 100% vindicated and the students 100% discredited -- several incidents worthy of concern were documented in the ad-hoc report, and many people don't think that the ad-hoc report is the final word on what happened anyway. And as I said, the professors weren't formally reprimanded, but three of them at the center of the controversy took sudden convenient leaves of absence in Fall 2005 -- and the Columbia administration freely and openly admitted that their lack of any usable complaint procedure worsened the problem by ensuring that unaddressed/unresolved student grievances would pile up...

Inline citation-needed tags won't really help, since the problem is that the basic overall frame of the article is overwhelmingly biased -- and I've been focusing on the lead section, and lead sections of Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have too many citations anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism. Though, I must say, that I feel strongly that you should read both the whole article and some of the important supporting sources before criticizing it.

Your criticism doesn't seem to center around any specific points. Instead, you argue that "the basic overall frame of the article is overwhelmingly biased." Well, I disagree with that. The overall frame (or "tone") of Wikipedia articles should reflect the overall frame of the sources they rely on. I believe that is the case here. If anything, the article is too unsympathetic toward the accused professors. E.g. the lead leaves the possibility open that there was anti-Semitism involved even though a supermajority of sources reject that claim. The one source that alleges anti-Semitism is Kenneth L. Marcus:

At Columbia University, a number of students have come forward claiming that they feel intimidated and fearful in courses in Columbia's Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC) Program. The documentary [sic] film Columbia Unbecoming, produced by the Boston-based David Project, details a pattern of anti-Semitic activities at MEALAC.

A large number of sources alleges that Massad and the other professors were the target of anti-Arab racism and/or a witch hunt based on their political views:

As a result, I viewed the controversy in 2004-05 over Columbia University's Middle Eastern studies program with some ambivalence ... They [the professors] were being subjected to an ashtonishingly vicious campaign of political and intellectual harassment, conducted not only by tabloid media but by a horde of opportunistic New York politicians and, perhaps most importantly, a right-wing pro-Israeli group called the David Project. ... the tactics employed by the right to harass Massad were far more corrosive of academic freedom than any pro-Palestinian analogies between Israel and South Africa; Massad has been receiving numerous death threats...

Since September 11, 2001 Americans have faced a resurgence of McCarthyite tactics that have palpably affected American universities. ... Three main Jewish organizations championed these attacks: Campus Watch, the David Project, and the American Jewish Committee. At issue for these groups is how Palestine and Israel are portrayed in the classroom and in scholarly work produced by professors of Columbia's Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC). What is especially troubling about the charges of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel perspectives in these professors' body of work is that it is unsubstantiated by the majority of students in the class. ... Professor Massad has never had a formal complaint filed against him. Indeed, what is not represented in this film is the fact that Massad is an award-winning teacher and scholar precisely because of the rigorous nature of his critical inquiry into the nature of the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

The Witch-Hunt at Columbia: Throughout the history of academic freedom, censorship most often prevails when two conditions are met: First, politically powerful enemies of academic freedom from outside the academy demand it; and second, powerful administrators, faculty, and advocacy groups within the academia fail to defend academic freedom. The witch-hunt against Middle East professors at Columbia University in 2004 and 2005 was a perfect example of how this happens.

As the three-month long inquiry proceeded, so did the campaign of fear-mongering and vilification. ... When the investigative committee's report was released in March 2005, it concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence of anti-Semitism.

nothing illustrates the preponderance of anti-Arab racism as clearly as the recent controversy surrounding the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC) at Columbia University. In late 2004, a shady outfi t dubbing itself the David Project released a film titled Columbia Unbecoming alleging that MEALAC professors have engaged in intimidating classroom behavior. ... I don't find it helpful to linger on the veracity of Columbia Unbecoming, for this approach would insinuate that the film transcends categorization as crass propaganda, an unfeasible possibility. ... like all neoconservative attempts to reduce American higher education to uncritical chauvinism, the David Project mitigates its undemocratic intentions by invoking a desire to encourage balance in classroom instruction. ... Massad, in short, is catching hell for telling the truth, and so he belongs to a venerable tradition of ostensible radicalism that actually intimates destruction of the falsehoods that underlie all manner of nationalistic celebration.

The Ad Hoc Grievance Committee cleared Massad and the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC) of promoting anti-Semitism, intimidating Jewish students, and punishing pro-Israel students with poor grades, but it did conclude that some allegations against Massad were "credible," pointing specifically to the charge that he had asked a Jewish student to leave his class. Oddly, the report reached its decision knowing full well that the student Deena Shanker, gave three different versions of the incident to the New York Sun, the New York Times, and the Jerusalem Post, that three students in the class had no recollection of the incident, and that Massad himself claimed that the incident never took place - all significant revelations regarding Massad's case, to say the least. In addition to the fact that the panel was never able to reliably substantiate any acts of intimidation, twenty students who were present in Massad's class during the supposed incident sent a letter to the university administration stating that Shanker's accusations against Massas were "unequivocally false" and that the Ad Hoc Committee was "incorrect" to grant them any credibility. ... Shanker's accusation was reported to the press three years after the incident allegedly took place and only after the release of the film Columbia Unbecoming. ... The tabloid press attacked him [Massad] incessantly, and pro-Israel students, who viewed any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, met with other right-wing faculty at Columbia University to conspire to get Massad fired.

Editors' note: In the first years of the twenty-first century, Columbia University in New York was the target of ongoing attacks by the Israel lobby against several faculty members from its Middle Eastern studies program. Professors Joseph Massad, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, all leading international scholars on Middle East history and contemporary affairs - and all Palestinian - faced sustained harassment ... Perhaps the most egregious persecution was suffered by Professor Massad.

A number of campaigns were launched against individual professors in these years. Joseph Massad at Columbia was one prominent target:

Attacks on academics follow a clear pattern: A professor is singled out for criticism. ... The recent attack on Professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University offers a perfect example of how this process unfolds.

Columbia's travails did not end there: in 2004, the David Project produced a propaganda film alleging that faculty in Columbia University's Middle East Studies program were anti-Semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who defended Israel. Columbia was raked over the coals in neoconservative publications like the New York Sun, but a faculty committee assigned to investigate the charges found no evidence of anti-Semitism and the only incident worth noting was the possibility that one professor had "responded heatedly" to a students question. The committee also found that the ac­cused professors had been the target of an overt intimidation campaign

The attack on Arabic, especially since 2001, and Midle Eastern Studies in general, has been relentless.

Your other arguments are difficult to understand because you don't mention any specific passages or paragraphs you disagree with. Some of them are repetitions of arguments I've already responded to:

you seem to posit that everything was part of a conspiracy to undermine the Columbia Middle Eastern studies department No I don't. But please focus on the article, not on what I "posits."

which they [the students] considered to be unethical between teacher and student in a classroom setting, and obnoxious and bullying outside the classroom This is covered in detail in the article. Everything from the April 2002 pro-Palestinian rally to the film festival to Massad's columns in Al-Ahram.

that most definitely does NOT mean that the professors were 100% vindicated and the students 100% discredited My response: The report found Schoenfeld's and Shanker's allegations "credible" and Saliba's defense "good deal more likely". But to claim that a claim is "credible" is not the same as claiming that it is true. The lead should in my opinion only establish facts and not delve into he said, she said-arguments.

many people don't think that the ad-hoc report is the final word on what happened anyway. My response: The accusations of bias is covered in detail in the section The_ad_hoc_committee's_report. It's not in the lead because its a foregone conclusion that someone isn't happy with a verdict complains. Massad's complaint isn't in the lead either. ImTheIP (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for belated reply, but when I saw in the talk page history that you had added "13,185 bytes", my interest in dealing with this attempted article underwent a sudden precipitous temporary decline. The lead section isn't as bad as it formerly was, but the sentence "For years, he was harassed by students in his class who disagreed with him" isn't about the "Columbia Unbecoming controversy" (again, a name which considered unsuitable if it implies that the controversy was mainly about the film rather than about the professors' behavior), it's a bout some other topic. If you want to write an article about that topic ("Conspiracy to undermine MEALAC" or whatever), feel free to do so (if you think it can meet Wikipedia standards), but don't introduce material that would belong on the "Conspiracy to undermine MEALAC" article into the "Columbia Unbecoming controversy" article. AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

External link caption "Bari Weiss, speaking against campus free speech"

Was that title added by Bari Weiss or someone allied to her, or by someone opposed to her? In the latter case, it could be NPOV... AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on EI use (depreciation)

EI is depreciated and certainly highly biased in the area at hand. However, I am unsure about the way it is used here, as I am unfamiliar with this case. Can someone weigh in? FortunateSons (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)