|
| |
|
| |
| |
"... It's no longer about ideologies or diversity of ideas, but about dollars, how much, and who gets them ..."
|
| |
| |
It all boils down to a little law you've likely never heard of, Title VI of the Higher Education Act. That law calls for grants to fund college programs in international studies, mainly because it recognizes that having Americans knowledgeable about foreign affairs couldn't be bad for our interests abroad. Though Title VI doesn't target Middle East studies specifically, university programs that focus in that area have benefited from Title VI grants. Following the events of September 11th and two wars involving American troops, Middle East studies has arguably skyrocketed to the top of the list when it comes to funding priorities under Title VI.
All of which means, in short, that your taxes have gone to fund Middle East studies in universities across America. Last fiscal year saw a record 26% increase in Title VI funding, courtesy of Uncle Sam, to some $27 million. That's chump change in the federal budget, which numbers into the trillions of dollars, but it's been critical to keeping Middle East studies afloat in a tight economic climate.
 But while professors at those centers are more than happy to cash the checks, those who allege an anti-American or anti-Israel bias in Middle East studies aren't the least bit amused. With Stanley Kurtz of the National Review serving as head cheerleader, campaigns to have Title VI funding slashed or, at the very least, better monitored picked up steam after 9-11. By last summer, Title VI supporters were feeling the heat.
The American Council on Education, proponents of the funding, fired back with talking points and letters to Congress. A lobbying war had begun, and this Thursday it'll come to something of a head in the most unlikely of places, the House Subcommittee on Select Education.
University professors who hate America?
The debate hasn't really been about dollars and cents, but about ideas. It's an accepted fact that most of academia leans left, and that is nowhere more true than in Middle East studies. Edward Said, who virtually invented the field, has criticized the United States as having a "history of reducing whole peoples, countries, and even continents to ruin by nothing short of holocaust." In 2000, Said referred to the Constitution as a "document reflecting the wealthy, white, slaveholding, Anglophilic men who wrote it," and implied it was treated with too much reverence by patriotic fundamentalists.
 Said isn't alone in raising the ire of critics. John Esposito, a scholar of Islam at Georgetown and one-time president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), once claimed that when Yasser Arafat calls for jihad against Israel, it's comparable to a "literacy campaign" or the "fight against AIDS." He further frowned on comparing Islamic fundamentalism "with radicalism and terrorism [as it] becomes a convenient pretext for crushing political opposition."
Without question, professors like these aren't spouting sound bites. Their work is nuanced and demands context, but that doesn't mean their particularly flagrant tidbits haven't sent critics into seizures. Daniel Pipes, who's been nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Institute of Peace, launched Campus-Watch.org last year to much fanfare and even more media controversy. The site monitors Middle East studies and critiques what it views as politicized and apologetic scholarship.
Pipes has been joined by Martin Kramer, author of Ivory Towers on Sand, a blistering assault on the state of Middle East studies today. According to Kramer, "A closer look at Middle East studies in America reveals that the universities have been a thoroughly unreliable guide to the Middle East itself." To say Middle East scholars are routinely wrong about their own subject, or worse, is no minor indictment. Kramer, however, hasn't let up. The Middle East studies community is "intolerant of diverse opinions" with "limited accountability" and steeped in a "tradition of apologist behavior."
Kramer, for his part, has insisted he's not trying to silence Said, Esposito or anybody else. While "the Edward Saids of the world have been dismally wrong about the last 20 years in Middle Eastern politics," says Kramer, "The problem is not whether the Edward Saids are right or wrong; no one is consistently one or the other. The problem is that Middle Eastern studies are peopled almost exclusively by the Edward Saids of the world."
The boycott that was...or wasn't?
To borrow a phrase, the debate has largely been academic. That changed in the fall of 2002. Two programs, the National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI) and its parent, the National Security Education Program (NSEP), are both designed to help pay for a college education in exchange for a service commitment to jobs in national security. The goal is to recruit Arabic speakers who can then help defend America by gathering intelligence for the U.S.
Middle East studies centers, however, were accused of boycotting them. In April of 2002, MESA adopted a statement "deploring the channeling of funds for education through defense or intelligence agencies." Protesting the involvement of the CIA and Defense Department, the group "resolved to work actively with other concerned organizations" to gut NFLI's connections to the defense and intelligence establishment.
Critics immediately called it a boycott and went on the offensive. Middle East scholars at the University of Michigan refused to take part in NFLI planning. Carol Bardenstein, a Michigan professor was quoted in Time magazine: "We didn't want our students to be known as spies in training." Whiffs of a boycott were further reinforced by the fact that a similar boycott of the NSEP was launched in the early 1990s, when it was first introduced.
But Middle East studies centers and their supporters continue to claim there is, in fact, no boycott. President of the American Council on Education, David Ward, wrote in a letter to Congress, "The higher education community has strongly supported [NSEP] since its inception and continues to do so. Those who have expressed concerns about NSEP have always made it clear that having the program funded and administered by the U.S. Department of Education would ameliorate this problem."
Dona Stewart, director of the Title VI-funded Middle East Center for Peace, Culture, and Development at Georgia State University, also bristles at the accusations of a boycott. "There is no boycott of NSEP. As a member of the Middle East Studies Association, I have never heard of a boycott or even anyone pressuring people not to apply," she told Jewsweek.
Stewart also cites the chronic need for funding at Middle East studies centers, calling NSEP "a great source. In the past [Georgia State] has applied for NSEP funding at the institutional level, and I have written letters of recommendation for students applying for NSEP fellowships."
Still if there is no boycott, there's at least some ill will towards the program, and it's manifested itself in interesting ways. At Michigan State University, for example, a letter was circulated amongst students expressing some "objections that some MSU faculty members have to [NSEP]" and encouraging them to look into "additional language and culture programs available through other universities, institutions, and agencies."
The rhetoric gets real
As it turns out, programs like NSEP and Title VI have yanked the raging arguments out of the ivory towers and into the public square, making the rhetoric very real. It's no longer about ideologies or diversity of ideas, but about dollars, how much, and who gets them. Just when you thought the argument couldn't get any hotter, out comes the cash.
"The field lacks a diversity of approaches," says Kramer, "and functions as a closed guild with insufficient internal incentives for promoting diversity. Title VI could be an efficient lever for promoting just that."
That is exactly what critics of Middle East studies have in mind. Kurtz has used his column in the National Review to call for three changes in the way money gets dolled out to Middle East studies centers. "Congress needs to create a supervisory board to manage Title VI," he writes, as well as "pass an amendment that would take funding out of the hands of any Title VI center that engages in or abets a boycott of national security related scholarships." For added measure, Kurtz is calling for Congress to "reduce the funding for Title VI [and redirect it] to the Defense Language Institute, which could then issue scholarships for students interested in well paying jobs at our defense and intelligence agencies."
At the June 19th Congressional hearing, Kurtz will get to testify in favor of his proposals. Whether or not he'll be successful is anyone's guess, but it's likely it will depend on grassroots lobbying and how much of a critical mass he can get behind him. That's why he's calling for letter-writing to the committee, and his opponents are doing the exact same thing.
In truth, the debate will continue to rage long after Congress has said something about it. That doesn't minimize the stakes. The quality of our intelligence gathering, the strength of our national defense, and our ability to see another 9-11 coming is all at stake. Odder still, a small sub-committee on education funding will be the place it likely gets decided.
Stewart, for her part, bemoans the entire controversy. "These attacks on Title VI are really unfortunate," she says. "My sense is that a lot of it is based on personal animosity among a small group of senior scholars -- it hurts the entire Title VI program and reduces our national capacity."
Maybe, but Stanley Kurtz will have something very different to say in Congress. |
