"Thought Control for Middle East Studies"

Joel Beinin, CommonDreams.org

A band of neoconservative pundits with close ties to
Israel have mounted a campaign against American
scholars who study the Middle East. Martin Kramer, an
Israeli-American and former director of the Dayan
Center for Middle East Studies at Tel-Aviv University,
has led the way in blaming these scholars for failing
to warn the American public about the dangers of
radical Islam, claiming they bear some of the
responsibility for what befell us on September 11. In
2003, proponents of this position took their complaints
to Congress. The Senate is expected to review them
soon, as it discusses the Higher Education
Reauthorization bill.The neocons initially urged Congress to reduce the
appropriation for Title VI of the Higher Education Act.
Since 1958 this legislation has provided federal
funding to universities to support study of less
commonly taught languages, such as Arabic, Turkish, and
Persian. Now they want to set up a political review
board to discourage universities and scholars from
tolerating bad thoughts.

Last year 118 international area studies centers,
including 17 Middle East centers, received about $95
million for graduate fellowships, language training,
and community outreach. The Middle East studies centers
train the great majority of Americans who are competent
in difficult Middle East languages. No other
institutions are now able to do this job on the
required scale. Lack of Arabic speaking agents hindered
the FBI from understanding some of the pre-September 11
clues that might have prevented the attacks.
Fortunately for our safety, Congress rejected the
neocon proposal to reduce support for foreign language
study.

Having failed in their first effort, the
neoconservatives are now attempting to assert political
control over teaching, research, and public programs of
the international area studies centers. In June 2003,
Stanley Kurtz, a contributing editor of National Review
Online and a fellow of the Hoover Institution, a
conservative think tank located on the campus of
Stanford University, testified before the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce. His testimony
summarized the arguments of Martin Kramer’s attack on
American Middle East studies. Kurtz asserted that
"Title VI-funded programs in Middle Eastern Studies
(and other area studies) tend to purvey extreme and
one-sided criticisms of American foreign policy." He
urged legislators to take action to ensure "balance."
Kurtz, Kramer, and other neocons such as Daniel Pipes
of the Middle East Forum who have written on this
subject are concerned that Middle East scholars often
say things American politicians don’t want to hear —
including criticism of U.S. Middle East policy and
criticism of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians.
Some might conclude that perhaps scholars who study the
modern Middle East know something worth listening to.
But the neocons already know what they want to hear.
They have not been able to win in the marketplace of
ideas. Critical and inconvenient thoughts continue to
be expressed. So the neocons want the government to
help crush wayward ideas.

Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan) obliged by
introducing the International Studies in Higher
Education Act, designated H.R. 3077. The bill passed
the House of Representatives, after a suspension of the
rules, by a voice vote in October 2003. The bill was
then referred to the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, which is now taking up
the issue.

H.R. 3077 calls for establishing an International
Higher Education Advisory Board with broad
investigative powers "to study, monitor, apprise, and
evaluate" activities of area studies centers supported
by Title VI. The board is charged with ensuring that
government-funded academic programs "reflect diverse
perspectives and represent the full range of views" on
international affairs. "Diverse perspectives," in this
context, is code for limiting criticism of U.S. Middle
East policy and of Israel.

Under the proposed legislation, three advisory board
members would be appointed by the Secretary of
Education; two of them from government agencies with
national security responsibilities. The leaders of the
House of Representatives and the Senate each would
appoint two more.

This proposal represents a dangerous threat to academic
freedom. The advisory board could investigate scholars
and area studies centers, applying whatever criteria it
pleases. The criteria almost certainly would be
political. The whole point of the legislation is to
impose political restraints on activities of Middle
East centers.

The legislation, if passed, could actually diminish our
national security. No first-rank university would
accept direct government intrusion into the educational
process. Such institutions would likely refuse to
accept Title VI funding if it were subject to political
oversight. The already dangerously low number of
Americans competent in Middle Eastern languages would
then be reduced.

Neocons believe it is better for the government to
control teaching and research rather than to allow
established policy to be questioned. But we are more
likely to understand "why they hate us," and what we
can do about it when old ideas can be challenged
without fear. Freedom, including academic freedom, is
the best way to make Americans safe.

[*Joel Beinin is Professor of Middle East History at
Stanford University and a former president of the
Middle East Studies Association.]

For more information about Middle East Studies:

Steven Heydermann, "Warping Mideast Judgments," Chicago
Tribune, March 14, 2004, online:
Here

Martin Kramer, "Title VI: Turn on the Defogger," March
17, 2004, online:
Here

Daniel Pipes, "Defund Middle East Studies," New York
Sun, February 24, 2004, online:
Here

"Middle East Forum," Right Web Profile,
Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), March 2004,
online: Here