Dershowitz v. Finkelstein:Harvard Law Professor Works to Disrupt Tenure Bid of Longtime Nemesis at DePaul U.
Posted on April 8 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Alan Dershowitz , Educational Institutions , Norman Finkelstein.That’s the headline from the April 5 Chronicle of Higher Education.
“His scholarship is no more than ad hominem attacks on his ideological enemies.” No, that’s not a statement about Alan Dershowitz (whose multi-part ad hominem attack on his ideological enemy Jimmy Carter is nicely dissected by Mitchell Plitnick here). That’s Dershowitz on Finkelstein, explaining why he sent a “dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions” to “everybody who would read it ” at DePaul University. (Dershowitz says he compiled the file at the request of some 24 people associated with DePaul.)
We wrote earlier about The Holocaust Industry author Norman Finkelstein’s battle for tenure at DePaul. It should not come as a surprise that Dershowitz is back: several years ago the famed First Amendement advocate waged a scorched earth campaign, prior to publication, against Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah:On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, which contained several hundred pages chronicling, to put it more charitably than Finkelstein did, errors in Dershowitz’s book, The Case for Israel.
In this must-read article in the Nation in 2005:
What do you do when somebody wants to publish a book that says you’re completely wrong? If you’re Alan Dershowitz, the prominent Harvard law professor, and the book is Norman Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, you write the governor of California and suggest that he intervene with the publisher–because the publisher is the University of California Press, which conceivably might be subject to the power of the governor.
Payback looks an awful lot like this (from the Chronicle):
The highly public feud between Norman G. Finkelstein of DePaul University and Harvard Law School’s Alan M. Dershowitz has taken an unusual procedural twist, with Mr. Dershowitz attempting to weigh in on Mr. Finkelstein’s bid for tenure at DePaul.
How Mr. Dershowitz’s move will play out remains to be seen. Mr. Finkelstein’s department supported his tenure bid, but the dean of his college has refused to support him. A final decision is expected next month.
Howard continues:
Given Mr. Dershowitz’s history of clashes with Mr. Finkelstein, some might conclude that the matter had by now become more personal than professional. Mr. Dershowitz denied that. “For me, it’s not personal. It’s institutional.” He said that Mr. Finkelstein sent “a message to other pro-Israel writers: If you dare write anything scholarly in favor of Israel, I will call you names, I will call you a plagiarist.”
Mr. Dershowitz’s involvement has stirred serious concern among the DePaul faculty.
Gil Gott, a professor of international studies at DePaul who is chairman of its Liberal Arts and Sciences’ Faculty Governance Council, said in an e-mail message on Wednesday that the council had taken up the matter at its November 17, 2006, meeting. (Mr. Gott was not then chair of the council.)
According to the minutes of the session, the council voted unanimously to authorize a letter to DePaul’s president, Dennis H. Holtschneider, and the university’s provost, Helmut P. Epp, along with the president of Harvard University and the dean of Harvard Law school. The letter was to express “the council’s dismay at Professor Dershowitz’s interference in Finkelstein’s tenure and promotion case” and also to explain “that the sanctity of the tenure and promotion process is violated by Professor Dershowitz’s emails.”
The minutes add: “A discussion followed in which members expressed their views that this was a very disturbing intrusion which attacked the sovereignty of an academic institution to govern its own affairs.”
Asked whether it was unusual for a scholar to weigh in on tenure deliberations at another university, Mr. Dershowitz responded, “What’s so unusual about a concerned academic’s objecting to his receiving tenure? He would be the first person in history ever to receive tenure based on no scholarship other than personal attacks.”
Mr. Finkelstein contacted The Chronicle last weekend to discuss his concerns about the status of his case. He said that his department had investigated Mr. Dershowitz’s claims and “concluded that none of the scholarly allegations that Dershowitz leveled against me had any merit.”
There’s plenty of evidence so far to back up Finkelstein’s claim. His department voted 9-3, in favor of granting tenure and a collegewide faculty panel voted unanimously to support hime (5-0). Concerns raised about Finkelstein seem largely to focus on the tone of his writing and “frequent personal attacks.”
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
April 8th, 2007 at 3:08 am
What’s going on with the DePaul dean though? Why is he against tenure?
April 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Last year when the Presbyterian Church was deciding whether, as an institution, it should reverse a decision made two years earlier regarding divestment from the State of Israel, Professor Finkelstein wrote to every voting member of the organization urging them to continue down the divestment pathway. He even showed up at the Presbyterian gathering to testify before the committee that would be making a final recommendation on the subject.
Now lest you think I’m saying that this was inappropriate for him to do, not being an official member of the organization he was lobbying, surprise! I think Dr. F. was well within his rights to communicate his opinion to the church (as was I since I also wrote to every member of the church as part of a personal lobbying effort asking them to change their position on divestment - a course they ultimately took, voting 95-5 in favor of abandoning the divestment option).
That said, I’m not exactly sure why an outsider trying to influece De Paul university is somehow considered anything than just another example of an exercise in free speech.
Any thoughts, or is university and tenure (or at least this example of tenure) one case where outsiders should abandon their free speech rights in deference to academia?
April 8th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Of course “outsiders” do not abandon free speech rights “in deference to academia.” The more fruitful question in this case is: what are the procedures at DePaul University for documentation in the tenure process?
The only clues in the article were the votes of the department and the liberal arts faculty. The college dean also had a voice but it’s unclear how it fits into the entire process.
April 8th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
A church has a moral duty to do what it believes is right. A university has a duty to academic freedom. Thus, while a church is perfectly free to sanction Israel and as such is free to consider “outsiders” views, a unviersity dean who bases a tenure decision on a political basis separate and distinct from the academic qualifications of the prof is being dishonest.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Apologies while I catch my breath.
At last, an eloquent and logical response to a point I added to this forum to spur debate. Hass - Your point is very well taken. While I do address the question of just who is acting politically in my next post, I just want to take a moment to thank the very first person at Muzzlewatch who took the time to read what someone else has said and craft a well-reasoned and well-articulated answer.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Regarding the behavior of the faculty committee vs. the dean in the tenure decisionmaking process at DePaul, there seems to be an assumption that department faculty make their decisions (or at least this decision) purely on the basis of scholarship and teaching ability, without a hint of politics, either personal or national/international and that it is the administration that is making its decision based solely on weighing various political pressures.
But isn’t it equally possible that it is the faculty that has made its decision regarding Norman Finkelstein based primarily on politics, either because they share his political positions, or fear political wrath from a “colleague” who has shown a willingness to visit revenge on those who cross him? If this is the case, might it be the administration which needs to balance faculty politics with the need to review Finkelstein’s contribution to scholarship and teaching?
Of course, I am only speculating as to the dynamics of the tenure decisions in DePaul, but then again, so are Finkelstein’s supporters here at Muzzlewatch when they claim to know that the faculty is deciding things based soley on scholarship, while the administration is playing politics. The only difference is that I will acknowledge the speculative nature of my conjecture, while the Muzzlewatchers will take their projection of the situation as gospel.
Having many friends who have received tenure, been rejected for tenure and sued universities for not having been given tenure (some successfully, some unsuccessfully), I can attest that there are two things one never wants to see close up: the making of sausage and the making of tenure decisions. Becuase of the secretive nature of the process, the only thing we know for sure is that we will never know for sure exactly what goes into the decision to accept or reject tenure for the good Dr. Finkelstein.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Academics, Filmmakers, Artists, Intellectuals, and Doctors for Intellectual Freedom In Support of Dr. Norman Finkelstein have established a website (http://normanfinkelstein.wordpress.com/) and drafted a letter to the DePaul authorities. The site provides the text of the letter, as well as the memos from the Political Science Department, the Personnel Committee, and Suchar. If you are concerned about the erosion of academic freedom and hegemony of the Zionist discourse, I encourage you to visit the site and add your signature to the statement.
April 9th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Jon is absolutely correct to say that political factors arise and are indeed decisive in all kinds of decisions. The very concept of what constitutes sound scholarship, etc. is ultimately politically determined.
He needs to recognise, however, that a church and a university are fundamentally different kinds of orgnisations in many respects, including that the former is more or less open to the public and actively encourages membership, while the latter applies standards of some kind for admission to the ‘community’ and so forth. This particular distinction is relevant to the question of the extent to which outside ‘interference’ ought to be welcome.
Furthermore, it is disingenuous to speculate about the reletive motivations of the Dean and the staff at DePaul in this case. We know that the Dean EXPLICITLY based his recommendation on blatantly subjective factors, like ‘personalism’. We are also quite familiar with Finkelstein;’s work and are quite capable of assessing it’s academic merit. Now it may be that Finkelstein is so intimidating that most (but significantly, not all) his colleagues voted to keep him around to intimidate them further, but since we know about his work first hand, that can’t have een their motivation in voting to grant tenure.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Haber wrote: “The only difference is that I will acknowledge the speculative nature of my conjecture, while the Muzzlewatchers will take their projection of the situation as gospel.”
Whoa! That’s quite an evidentiary reach and a type of personal “gospel” all its own. “[S]peculative. . .conjecture” about the MOTIVATIONS of a departmental committee, the liberal arts faculty as a whole, the administration, a particular dean, the tenure candidate, the nemesis of the tenure candidate, and Muzzle Watch “gospel” commentors.
The mind-numbing and humbling process of applying for promotion and tenure in a university begins, in this case, with DePaul’s written policies. Divining human motivations is closer to the work of the pulpit which Mr. Haber discusses in his original post.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:47 am
DePaul University has its guidelines for promotion and tenure at: http://www.snl.depaul.edu/contents/current/forms/promotion_and_tenure_guidelines.doc - 2006-10-31 - Text Version
The section on scholarship and creative activities seems relevant to this discussion (IMO).
Prof. Finkelstein’s CV, where his publications are listed, is at his website, at: http://condor.depaul.edu/~psc/faculty/finkelstein/FinkelsteinMain.htm
April 9th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Engorged ego there, Haber?
Yes, the rest of us have just been drooling and dragging our knuckles until like the chimps at the keyboard, one of us finally managed to reply to yourpost to your satisfaction. That’s one small step for a man…
Thanks for the laugh first thing this morning.
April 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Thank you, Leah, for the links to DePaul’s docs. My comment, #9 above, was submitted before the first caffeine-injection of the day. I didn’t intend to omit my name and now, ex-post published, acknowledge its authorship.
Again, to the question of evidence. Avoiding the hauteur in Haber’s reference to “the good Dr. Finkelstein,” it’s fair to ask Mr. Haber for verifiable, non-annecdotal evidence in the case-at-hand for his “conjecture” that “the only thing we know for sure is that we will never know for sure exactly. . .” the reasons for the DePaul community’s decision regarding Finkelstein’s tenure application. Never? for sure? exactly? How does such vocabulary even begin to advance the discussion?
April 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
This website currently has three articles on Norman Finkelstein. Isn’t that three more than he’s published in any recognized, peer reviewed academic journal?
April 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I believe the Journal of Palestine Studies and the New Left Review, in which Finkelstein has published a number of articles, are recognized, peer reviewed academic journals. Most of his books were published with Verso, which also put out such widely respected and admired books as Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities. He has two books with excellent university presses, U of Minnesota and U of California.
He is certainly given to polemic, but publicationwise he’s done more than enough to get him tenure at many academic institutions.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Alan Cheney Said:
[Engorged ego there, Haber?
Yes, the rest of us have just been drooling and dragging our knuckles until like the chimps at the keyboard, one of us finally managed to reply to yourpost to your satisfaction. That’s one small step for a man…
Thanks for the laugh first thing this morning.]
Dear Alan – Having made it a point to respond to each posting on this site with something other than invective, or pastes from third-party Web sites, I was simply expressing my appreciation for someone finally doing the same for me after nearly two weeks of contribution to a site ostensibly set up for facilitate polite discussion and debate. If you find some saying “thank you” to a debating partner a case of an “engorged ego” or somehow laughable, I guess we simply have a differing opinion of what constitutes online manners.
April 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Ernie Said:
[Jon is absolutely correct to say that political factors arise and are indeed decisive in all kinds of decisions. The very concept of what constitutes sound scholarship, etc. is ultimately politically determined.
He needs to recognise, however, that a church and a university are fundamentally different kinds of orgnisations in many respects, including that the former is more or less open to the public and actively encourages membership, while the latter applies standards of some kind for admission to the ‘community’ and so forth. This particular distinction is relevant to the question of the extent to which outside ‘interference’ ought to be welcome.]
Ernie – My gratitude for a point well made vis-à-vis universities vs. other types of institutions should not be mistaken for fully conceding that point. After all, members of university communities (notably professors and students) routinely make their opinions known through protests, testimony, and other forms of interventions, not just with churches, but government (including local governments where they are not part of the constituency), businesses (including businesses that the university has no stake in) and even other universities. To site just the subject I know the most about, divestment and boycott debates over the last several years, professors such as Dr. Finkelstein have tried to join a debate over how the Presbyterian Church should be investing its retirement portfolio, hoping that those investment decisions could further the political agenda of the divestment community (an agenda that 95% of church members did not share). Students and teachers from faraway states were involved with divestment decisions in my former hometown of Massachusetts, and have launched campaigns against Caterpillar Tractor, largely because of the Corrie Affair. Now point of fact, I believe all of this activity on the part of academics and students is completely legitimate, I simply point out that such activists are on pretty shaky ground when they state that there is only one institution – their own – where no similar outside contribution to decisions is allowed.
This is even more apparent when you look at how certain educators (such as academic union members in the UK) have tried to intervene in the workings of other universities (such as those in Israel) through boycott and blacklist proposals. Again, if academics feel it is within their right to intervene in the decision making process of other institutions of learning, I don’t see what ground they have to stand on when outsiders try to have a say on the boycotters home turf.
If you read my writing on the subject of civil society and divestment (notably this piece: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525979283&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FshowFull), I have generally made the case that people should be very respectful of institutions such as churches and schools, or at least try to assess the potential damage they might cause such an institution by using their reputation to leverage a political agenda. This call for respect is not a call for people to avoid speaking out, but to simply understand the potential consequences of their actions. While there might be a certain pleasure in seeing the gander get the sauce meant for the goose in DePaul, I believe everyone would benefit if they stood back and decided whether or not the Middle East conflict (either side) must be put on the agenda of every civic organization in the land.
April 11th, 2007 at 7:31 am
I think this ‘thank you’ speaks for itself.
April 11th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I hope it does, for in each of my responses to each of the postings on this site, I’ve chosen to zero in specifically on the point being discussed, rather than making assumptions about people’s motives (or critquing their typing skills). In this instance, this involved sincerely thanking someone who provided a direct response to the point brought up in one of my postings, something I wish would happen more often (given that this site is supposed to facilitate a discussion, not monologue).
Once again, you have made it clear what subjects you would like to debate (or, in this case, not debate). I chose to debate the points that have been highlighted by the creators of this site as important. To each his own.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Yes, to each his own. But to say you’re sincerely thanking one person by insulting everyone else on the board is… what is it? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? What motivates you to believe you have to respond (your words) “to each of the postings here”?
April 11th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
What motivates you to believe you have to respond (your words) “to each of the postings here”?
Alan, for one thing it certainly steers the conversation in the direction he wants thereby intimidating or discouraging dialog that may lead in another direction.
i think carmen said it best
How does such vocabulary even begin to advance the discussion?
it doesn’t.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Annie Says:
[Alan, for one thing it certainly steers the conversation in the direction he wants thereby intimidating or discouraging dialog that may lead in another direction.]
It never occurred to me that engaging in conversation (which, by its very nature means the topic will vary based on the contribution of participants) is an example of “discouraging dialog.” Honestly, if you would prefer the conversation to only go in one direction, I urge you to lobby the creators of this site to simply shut down the comments section, or restrict access only to those who are ready to submit “approved” opinions. That would be the best way to ensure that dialog only goes in the direction you wish.
April 12th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Alan Says:
[Yes, to each his own. But to say you’re sincerely thanking one person by insulting everyone else on the board is… what is it? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? What motivates you to believe you have to respond (your words) “to each of the postings here”?]
I assure you that my complimenting someone’s response to me on this thread was not meant as an insult to everyone else. If that was the impression you got, I assure you it was not my intention.
Regarding what motivates me to contribute to this site, that is a more complicated (as well as interesting and appreciated) question.
I’ve actually not engaged in Internet debate in any earnestness for quite some time (really since the days of talk.politics.mideast on UseNet – for anyone else old enough to remember the real Wild West days of the Internet).
I was actually not involved with Middle East politics for many years (years that coincided with the birth and raising of children), but got re-engaged in 2004 when my former home city of Somerville Massachusetts became the site of the first major battle over municipal divestment from the state of Israel. While just one of many volunteers in the battle to see divestment defeated, I also chose to create my own web site (www.somervilleMEjustice.com) which allowed me to explore the divestment issue from many angles over many years. This experience helped me understand what political activity such as anti-Israel divestment can do to civil society, a theme I was able to fully synthesize in my last contribution to the subject which was published here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525979283&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
My interest in the subject of “muzzling” was actually triggered not by this site but by an article in the Boston Globe Magazine that alleged that criticism of Israel has become a taboo subject in universities for many of the reasons Muzzlewatch claims debate on the Middle East is routinely stifled elsewhere. Given what I knew from my work on divestment, this was clearly a demonstrably false premise since college campuses were the birthplace of the divestment movement in the US and – as far as I can tell – criticism of Israel is often the only common thread among alleged human rights activists on every campus in the country.
Unlike divestment (an issue which led me to create two Web sites, one for Somerville, one for the Presbyterian Church), this subject did not involve me deeply enough to start my own site to reflect on the topic. However, the existence of Muzzlewatch provided the ability to engage with people who hold an opinion that I believe is incorrect, in hope that – like the writing I did over time on divestment – the product of such a dialog will be insights into this subject that can only be derived from the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis dynamic of engaged political debate.
Some themes have begun to become clear since I started in this forum, such as the automatic awarding of merit (scholarly or artistic) to people or works of art (such as Norman Finkelstein or the Rachel Corrie play) who reflect certain agreed-upon opinions. However, there is clearly more to be discovered, which is why I continue to take part in this forum.
I hope this helps you understand where I’m coming from.
April 12th, 2007 at 8:52 am
“To each his own,” indeed.
One benefit has perhaps accrued to Mr. Haber because of his comments. Possibly others besides myself checked out the link to his article in the Jerusalem Post. It didn’t work so I created a Tiny Url which also failed. Investing still more time, I searched the JP by author’s name and found the article. The piece detailed the political efforts of groups to which he is sympathetic in getting the Presbyterian church to reverse its divestment decision re Israel.
Then I re-checked the title of Cecilie Surasky’s post above which is: “Dershowitz v. Finkelstein:Harvard Law Professor Works to Disrupt Tenure Bid of Longtime Nemesis at DePaul U.”
Perhaps, and I’m not being snarky, Mr. Haber could ask to submit a post of his own on divestment titled as clearly as is Ms. Surasky’s submission. Wouldn’t that focus us more directly on the subject of the thred and save time?
April 12th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
[…] Here’s more information, and debate on MuzzleWatch. […]
April 13th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Dear Carmen - My discussion (and posting) of information on divestment was simply to illustrate the thinking process I went through on another issue to demonstrate why I am going through a similar process now by taking part in debate on this site. Now that divestment is all but dead in the US, I have no interest in carrying on discussion of that issue here, but it was relevant to a series of questions I was asked regarding why I have been posting frequently to this comments section. As far as I can tell, discussion of the Finkelstein tenure dispute is continuing quite nicely on this and a half a dozen other Muzzlewatch threads.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
To #14 SLSanders conclusion that Finkelstein has done “more than enough to get him tenure at many academic institutions,” one wonders why, instead of tenure, he was fired at his last jobs in New York. Not only no tenure, no job.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
[…] The academic world can be a brutal place. Academics in many fields attack each others’ work all the time. But the case of Norman Finkelstein and his tenure bid at DePaul University stands out as being very unusual. It’s been reported on at our sister blog, Muzzlewatch. What makes it unusual is that the process seems to have been influenced by a scholar who has no expertise in the field in which Finkelstein works. Alan Dershowitz and Finkelstein have had a running feud for years, each viciously attacking the other’s integrity. But in fact, Dershowitz is no more than an interested lay-person on the Middle East.He is a professor of law, and criminal law, not international law, at that. […]
April 18th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
finkelstein is not a middle east expert too. writing a hateful book about a so-called holocaust industry is not scholarly, and it is certainly not about the middle east, except in an underhanded way, attempting to undermine israel.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
The Norman Finkelstein solidarity campaign will continue to take sigantures on our website until the struggle is over (i.e., until he receives tenure. We welcome all signers and all visitors to our website. We have many documents directly from DePaul University, that illustrate Alan Dershowitz’s involvement in the process. We invite readers to download them and decide for themselves what is really going on and to take a stand for academic freedom and the silencing of voices in the U.S. who are critical of Israel.
normanfinkelstein.wordpress.com
Dr. Marcy Newman
Visiting Professor
Center for American Studies and Research
American University of Beirut
normanfinkelstein.wordpress.com
April 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[…] Dershowitz v. Finkelstein:Harvard Law Professor Works to Disrupt Tenure Bid of Longtime Nemesis at DePaul U. Dershowitz v. Finkelstein:Harvard Law Professor Works to Disrupt Tenure Bid of Longtime Nemesis at DePaul U. […]
April 18th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
“We invite readers to download them and decide for themselves what is really going on and to take a stand for academic freedom and the silencing of voices in the U.S. who are critical of Israel.”
they will, and they won’t be fooled.
reasonable people can tell the difference between criticism of israel and holocaust denial.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am
With all due respect, how is it exactly that Finkelstein is a “Holocaust Denier?” One can disagree with his analytical conclusions or criticize his tone, but how and where has he denied the holocaust?
April 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“how is it exactly that Finkelstein is a “Holocaust Denier?” ”
he wrote a book called the holocaust industry, which claims that the holocaust was exaggerated, and that jews exaggerate it on purpose in order to control the world or whatever. he’s written other books in the past with similar themes.
check it out yourself, his works can be found at all the best “progressive” book stores in the bay area.
thanks for asking.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“When I say a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.” -Humpty Dumpty
Like “anti-semite” and “self-hating Jew,” the term “Holocaust denier” or now “9/11 denier” is just a nonsense phrase that is thrown at people and too often defended against without taking a moment to say ‘Huh?’ Now we see the trolls on this board calling Finkelstein and anyone they disagree with that stupid nonsense term. Just as I suggested before that we just laugh when someone throws out “self-hating Jew,” let’s do the same, or better yet give back a hearty raspberry, when someone uses the dumb, made up term “Holocaust denier.”
Trolls: name one person you’ve ever read or heard of who denies the Shoah. Be sure you use an accepted dictionary definition of ‘deny.’
April 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
now you’re playing semantics.
are you going to tell us that anti-semite is not a good phrase because arabs are semitic too? whatever, we all know that the term is used to mean an irrational hatred of jews.
you want to give another name to someone who acknowledges ww2 but disputes, radically, the number of jews that were killed by the nazis, or who claims that there were no gas chambers, only disease, then feel free.
the point still stands, and you can’t muzzle it with your semantical games.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
While you may call playing fast and loose with words semantical (sic) games, I contend it’s a matter of precision. There are consensually accepted definitions for words. You and your ilk using them incorrectly is not a game. At best, it’s an eye rolling nuisance; at worst, it can be dangerous.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:08 am
A Real Voice for Peace said:
“he wrote a book called the holocaust industry, which claims that the holocaust was exaggerated, and that jews exaggerate it on purpose in order to control the world or whatever. he’s written other books in the past with similar themes.”
Just so we’re clear: I have read the book, and it makes no such claims. Read it. Then, let’s talk.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
i did read it, that is what it says. it says so on the jacket cover.
of course i put it into my own words. how would any of you describe what it’s about?
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
Because I purged my cookies, the two earlier posts I contributed above were attributed to “anonymous” rather than to “One more thing,” which, for better or worse is the handle I’ve been using these past few weeks in discussions here, so let me now restore it as I respond to “a real voice for peace”’s comments on Finkelstein.
a real voice for peace said:
“i did read it, that is what it says. it says so on the jacket cover.
of course i put it into my own words. how would any of you describe what it’s about?”
My copy says nothing on the cover like what you express with your own words. The book’s subtitle is “Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,” and that’s exactly what the book is about. It’s argument can be paraphrased more or less simply: he claims first of all that there is a difference between the actual historical facts of the Nazi exterminations and what is usually meant by “The Holocaust,” as a term that functions in certain political or ideological discourses. He calls “The Holocaust” an “ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust” (p. 3). He also argues that since the late ‘60’s a loosely associated network of institutions and individuals has worked very hard to construct this representation (this network is the “industry” of the title), and that the representation itself is designed to support certain agendas (some are directly political and economic, others are less clearly defined and have to do with what we call “identity politics,” with ideologically inflected ways of defining and maintaining ethic identity and community). He identifies a number of key elements in this “representation” or construction: one is the idea of its historical uniqueness, another is its exclusively Jewish character, a third is the idea that it is the expression of a what sometimes gets called an “eternal anti-semitism” (that the animus of the Nazis did not have a particular character, but was the climatic expression of an animus against the Jews that has always existed), yet another is the idea that the horror and the very nature of the Nazi extermination is inexpressible, beyond human rational comprehension, etc. There are other elements, and each of these can be further anatomized (some are more closely related to reality than others), but Finkelstein’s basic argument is that they do not in any simple or direct ways way follow from the actual historical facts. They are designed to make the facts useful for the agendas I referred to before (for Finkelstein, the most important of these have to do with the justification of certain Israeli policies and related U.S. foreign policies, and with attempts to secure reparations on “behalf” of survivors). Nowhere in the book, as far as I can tell, does he claim that, as you put it, the holocaust was “exaggerated.” In fact, it’s clear that he doesn’t think it had to be. The moral horror of it is not in dispute for him, and neither are the basic historical facts themselves (he’s neither a “denier” or what some people in the “industry” her refers to like to call a “minimizer”). In fact, he claims to have been driven to write the book primarily by a sense of moral horror at what he takes to be a misuse of terrible historical realities (which include the experiences of his parents who were both survivors), a misuse that he finds morally deadening, rather than of any real moral use.
Now one can argue with some of his conclusions on a case-by-case basis. As I point out above, certain aspects of the “representation” are closer to historical reality than others. I think that at times, for rhetorical effect, he exaggerates the disconnect. At other times, he gives-in to hyperbole of another kind—-a tendency to dismiss too quickly and too fully the value of whole swathes of scholarship and testimonial literature. But his basic argument is a serious one and I think a salutary one. It holds up, and it matters. He is right that the facts of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis have been exploited. Saying and doing this or that in the memory of the dead can either do honor or dishonor to their memory, and we, therefore, have to be careful about what we claim to do or not do on their behalf (as a Jew, how could I believe otherwise). If we’re not prepared to anatomize our own intellectual constructs, our “ideological representations,” to hold them up against the facts against our most deeply held principles, we will never be able to make clear and proper ethical decisions at all, let alone do right by the dead. You are free to think and do what you will after reading the book and interrogating your own thoughts, feelings, and commitments. All I can say is that the book helped me to see more clearly certain distinctions. For example, as Finkelstein himself notes in the book’s “Introduction:”
“Before the Nazi holocaust became The Holocaust, only a few scholarly studies such as Raul Hilberg’s *The Destruction of the European Jews* and memoirs such as Viktor Frankl’s *Man’s Search for Meaning* and Ella Lingens-Reiner’s *Prisoners of Fear* were published on the subject. But this small collection of gems is better than the shelves upon shelves of shlock that now line libraries and bookstores.” (p. 7).
I would add some titles to that list of gems. I would also note, as Finkelstein himself of course acknowledges throughout his study, that there have been more gems written since—-works that have avoided the pitfalls of the “ideological representation” he describes and that have spoken with a bracing moral clarity (Primo Levi’s works, for example, are at the top of the list both before and after the advent of the representation). Finkelstein has helped push me to think more critically about how the holocaust has been represented. He has helped me with the important ethical work of distinguishing between sentimental and ideologically inflected shlock on the one hand and real attempts to come to terms with horror on the other. Despite the occasionally intemperate hyperbole of the book, and my sense that at times he fails to provide enough in the way of detailed critique to back up what I suspect are correct evaluation, I have to say that, as far as my thinking about the holocaust is concerned, *The Holocaust Industry* belongs on the list of gems.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
One more thing, IMHO this is an excellent review of a very important book. Thanks for taking the time to compose it for us!
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
yes, thanks for that review.
taking history, and accusing jewish people of changing that history into some sort of ideology to further some vast conspiratorial plan IS anti-semetic, and does obfuscate or even deny the historical facts. (i understand you don’t agree.)
for example, you say “he claims first of all that there is a difference between the actual historical facts of the Nazi exterminations and what is usually meant by “The Holocaust,” as a term that functions in certain political or ideological discourses.”
making any sort of 2nd definition here is denial. redefinition is denial. history is history. the holocaust is the name some people (not really jews, the word we use is shoah) use to describe the planning and execution of the nazi plan to destroy european jewry.
any reference to the holocaust in any political or idealogical discourse that differs from the history is denial, an invention.
the facts were bad enough, no one had to invent any sort of idea that is different than the history.
“Before the Nazi holocaust became The Holocaust,”
a distinction without a difference. there is no such thing as the latter. it’s offensive to claim the jews are distorting the horror as a means to acheive anything. claiming there is a distortion is the TRUE distortion.
see how it’s denial? by redefining holocaust away from the history and toward some jewish conspiratorial ideology, you are confusing the real definition, which is the history.
“He also argues that since the late ‘60’s a loosely associated network of institutions and individuals has worked very hard to construct this representation”
sure sounds like an anti-jewish conspiracy theory to me. i just don’t think that kind of argument is helpful. it’s a crass accusation. jewish groups have worked hard to protect jews and preserve the memory of the holocaust, especially in these days of genocide in darfur and increasing anti-semitism in europe. but to claim that there is some jewish conpiracy to change history in people’s minds, that’s not only absurd, it is, imho, antisemitic.
oh i realize many of you disagree. but can anyone understand what i’m saying??
April 24th, 2007 at 1:36 am
I can understand that you want to use a word in a way that is not an accepted definition of the word. There is a very specific, consensual definition for the word ‘deny.’ You want to invent a new definition or you want to use a word inappropriately and have all of us accept that usage. No. No! Just as with other words you make up or use inappropriately (e.g., anti-semite, self-hating Jew), I will not agree to scrap the accepted definition of a word so that you can be free to hurl it at those you disagree with. No! I’m tired of you and the ADL types and that clown Dershowitz using our language inappropriately for your own nefarious agenda. No, no, no!
“making any sort of 2nd definition here is denial.”
No it’s not.
“redefinition is denial.”
No it’s not.
“any reference to the holocaust in any political or idealogical discourse that differs from the history is denial, an invention.”
No it’s not!
April 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
• a real voice for peace said::
“yes, thanks for that review.
taking history, and accusing jewish people of changing that history into some sort of ideology to further some vast conspiratorial plan IS anti-semetic, and does obfuscate or even deny the historical facts. (i understand you don’t agree.)”
There’s more here than just a matter of agreement or disagreement. And I say that because I don’t think you’re being as clear and consistent as you need to be. I agree that it’s possible for a given act of ideological distortion to be anti-Semitic. The “blood-libel,” for example, in so far as was and is motivated by an animus against Jews that has nothing to with what Jews actually do in their religious rituals, is a good example. The historical fact of the matter is that Jews have never used the blood of Christian children in, say, the making of matzot for Pesach. To claim against that fact that they have always in fact done so, and to claim that one has evidence of this (for example, a coerced confession from some Rabbi who admitted, while being tortured, that he had done so, or some fake document that purports to be a prescription for the rite) is a good example of this kind of distortion (it’s in fact a wholesale invention). I don’t see how anyone except those who are indeed committed to that kind of distortion and to anti-Semitism itself would deny this argument. But I don’t see how *Finkelstein’s* argument is anything like this. It’s your account that, here at least, is perpetrating a distortion. He never claims, for example, that what he calls “the industry” is a conspiracy. The “industry” is his term for a loose association of institutions and individuals whose interests coincide in only one way. They all have used reference to the holocaust in one way or another to further their interests, and they ways they have chosen to refer to the holocaust have been shaped by the desire to prosecute their agendas more than with any real concern for the historical facts, some of which don’t fit with the agendas very comfortably. Some of these interests are unrelated to each other in any direct way, some are more closely related. You can argue against Finkelstein’s identification of this loose association, you can claim that he overstates the coherence and consistency of the activities and positions of the people and institutions he associates, but to do so you have to do more than just say he’s wrong or that you’re offended or insulted by or afraid of what he concludes. You should at least acknowledge that he stops short of calling these activities a conspiracy. He never claims there’s some sort of central coordinating committee (no meetings in some smoke-filled room upstairs in some synagogue or JCC in NYC, let along in the Prague cemetery at midnight on Yom Kippur). He also never claims, as I’ve already noted, that the agendas of these various people and institutions are the same.
So, if you’re uncomfortable about the aspects of Finkelstein’s arguments that edge toward conspiracy theory, identify those aspects and explain why you think he misinterprets the evidence he brings to bear. If you can do that in a convincing manner, and you can also show that his motive for exaggerating the coherence and consistency is also in some clear way anti-Semitic, fine. Then there’s at least something to talk about.
More importantly, your claim that what Finkelstein argues about how various people have represented the holocaust obfuscates or denies the historical facts makes no sense. Which “historical facts” do you mean? I might accept your point—or at least I’d be able to engage it—if you meant the historical facts about what various people and institutions (the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the ADL, Elie Wiesel, Daniel Goldhagen, Steven Katz, whomever you wish to pick among the many that Finkelstein criticizes) have actually said and done. If you mean the historical facts about the holocaust itself, however, I don’t see the logic. Just making the argument that someone else has distorted historical facts (and that is what Finkelstein argues) does not in-and-of-itself mean that you yourself have also distorted the facts in question. Now it’s possible that you do think that Finkelstein has engaged in distortions of his own for his own ideologically determined purposes. But if so, you have to show me where. If you can point me to a place in the book where he distorts or denies or minimizes, etc. some important body of facts about the Nazi attempt to exterminate European Jewry, then we can talk about it. You would be on stronger ground, however (as you are later in your post), if your stuck to the argument that Finkelstein distorts or misrepresents the arguments about and representations of the holocaust rather than the facts of the genocide itself. More on that below.
As I said, it’s not a matter of my disagreeing with you, it’s a matter of my not seeing exactly what you’re arguing. If you could clear it up, I might be able to respond in a more engaged and less frustrated way.
You went on to say:
“for example, you say ‘he claims first of all that there is a difference between the actual historical facts of the Nazi exterminations and what is usually meant by “The Holocaust,” as a term that functions in certain political or ideological discourses.’
making any sort of 2nd definition here is denial. redefinition is denial. history is history. the holocaust is the name some people (not really jews, the word we use is shoah) use to describe the planning and execution of the nazi plan to destroy european jewry. any reference to the holocaust in any political or idealogical discourse that differs from the history is denial, an invention. the facts were bad enough, no one had to invent any sort of idea that is different than the history.”
The question of how you’re using the term “denial” here aside, I think it’s important for you to realize that what you’re saying here is exactly what Finkelstein himself is arguing. He doesn’t use the term “denier” in this sense (that’s a term that functions within the “industry’s” discourse, not within his), but he is arguing exactly this: that the particular redefinitions he criticizes are falsifications or misuses of the historical facts. What he is saying is exactly what you’re saying: that history is history, and it cannot and should not be falsified.
Next you said:
“ ‘Before the Nazi holocaust became The Holocaust,’
a distinction without a difference. there is no such thing as the latter. it’s offensive to claim the jews are distorting the horror as a means to acheive anything. claiming there is a distortion is the TRUE distortion.”
This does make cogent sense as a criticism of the book, but the burden is on you to marshal evidence that contradicts Finkelstein’s evidence or to show how his interpretations of the evidence he brings to bear are incorrect. As I said before, if you can do that we have something to really talk about, a genuine agreement or disagreement might be possible.
Then you said:
“see how it’s denial? by redefining holocaust away from the history and toward some jewish conspiratorial ideology, you are confusing the real definition, which is the history.”
This I don’t see. Not only is it not denial to say that someone else has falsified the historical facts, but your criticism misses the fact that Finkelstein is arguing in *service of* the historical facts (I think he should be granted the dignity of beginning taken at his own words even if he sometimes fails to grant that to his own opponents). How is it denial, for example, to say that Raul Hilberg’s account is, for example, more historically reliable that, say, Daniel Goldhagen’s? That judgment might be wrong, but the difference between the two historians is a matter of how they interpret the evidence and how well or completely they marshal it. If Goldhagen’s or Hilberg’s interpretations can be shown to be guided by ideological considerations rather than by the requirements of rigorous historical inquiry—which has to include the possibility that you will discover truths you don’t like or that smash your preconceptions or threaten your ideological commitments—then there’s something to argue about. Finkelstein argues that Goldhagen’s work is deliberately designed to fit with certain ideological presuppositions and that Hilberg’s is more rigorous and therefore more reliable as a basis from which we might make judgments or gauge our moral responses. He could be wrong about this, but I don’t see how the proposition is “denial” of any historical facts. Maybe it’s denial of Goldhagen’s interpretations and a criticism of his methods, but that’s simply not the same thing as “Holocaust Denial.”
Next you said:
“ ‘He also argues that since the late ‘60’s a loosely associated network of institutions and individuals has worked very hard to construct this representation’
sure sounds like an anti-jewish conspiracy theory to me. i just don’t think that kind of argument is helpful. it’s a crass accusation. jewish groups have worked hard to protect jews and preserve the memory of the holocaust, especially in these days of genocide in darfur and increasing anti-semitism in europe. but to claim that there is some jewish conpiracy to change history in people’s minds, that’s not only absurd, it is, imho, antisemitic.
oh i realize many of you disagree. but can anyone understand what i’m saying??”
I do understand this part of your argument, and what I’ve already said responds to it. Let me add here, however, that I am much less concerned about what is “helpful” than I am about what is true—in-so-far as truth can be determined (and I do believe that important aspects of it can be determined, even if a perfect grasp on it may be impossible). One of the things that concerns Finkelstein is exactly the kind of conflation you make here: if we’re going to be really rigorous about the truth, we need to be very careful about we treat things like the “genocide in darfur and increasing anti-semitism in Europe” together. I’m not sure what it is you had in mind here, but a few things suggest themselves. Either you meant to suggest that the genocide in Darfur and the anti-Semitism we can see growing in Europe are morally equivalent matters (I think that’s at best a morally dangerous proposition because it ignores very real differences in actual human suffering—those pesky facts again) or you may have meant that the two phenomena are symptoms of the same social and historical dynamic (something having to do with Islam, I assume). The second of these is at least an arguable proposition, but I don’t think it’s a strong one because it ignores other kinds of differences—this time of motive and cause. It ignores the possibility that whatever has caused some Sudanese to kill other Sudanese has nothing or at best a tangential relationship to with what causes a young Palestinian or Iranian or Moroccan man living in Paris to vandalize a synagogue or attach a Jewish man on the street.
On the other hand, it’s possible that you meant to refer to Darfur as a contemporary example to the same sort of evil that was perpetrated on the Jews in the 1930’s and ‘40’s by the Germans, and that knowledge of the latter teaches us the kind of moral sensitivity that leads to principled actions designed to stop things like the Sudanese atrocities. If so, you are right in line with how Finkelstein thinks the “lessons of the holocaust” can and should be construed. He would, however, I think, differ with you about the appropriateness of so quickly associating that application of the lesson with the rise of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe today. I think he would probably argue—though I don’t want to put words in his mouth—that a proper application of the lessons of the holocaust in this case would be to help us note the differences between what the Germans did and why and how they did it and what too often happens today. He world probably ask us, as we decide how to respond to such events to remember that, for example, there’s a difference between what might be done by a German or Belgian or Dutch citizen, immigrant, or resident alien of Lebanese or Syrian birth or descent and what might be or has been done by a native German or Belgian or Dutch member of a German, Belgian or Dutch Neo-Nazi party or organization. He’d also ask us to compare the motivations of the Nazis of the past with those of the present and with the present-day motives of the German or Belgian or Dutch citizen, immigrant, or resident alien of Lebanese or Syrian birth or descent. We might come to any number of conclusions after thinking carefully and rigorously about what’s really going on, and the memory of the historical facts of the holocaust should be part of our thinking (as should, he’d no doubt add, the policies of the Israeli government). I do think, however, we’re more likely to act reliably on what’s true if we’re careful not to let our sense of the meaning of the holocaust be determined by the things Finkelstein argues have distorted its meaning (I describe these things in my other post, so I won’t repeat them)—particularly when we deal with the difficult area of the relationship between what happened in the holocaust and what Israel does or doesn’t do. I would certainly agree that some of what Israel does and has done (certain aspects of the whole Zionist project despite it’s very real moral failings) have been justified in a certain sense by European anti-Semitism in its Nazi form and its other and earlier forms. But there’s a limit to the power of that justification, and it stops short of doing evil things to others that are even remotely like the evils that have been done to you. Especially when you begin by claiming rights that interfere with the rights of others. Such situations (such conflicts between incompatible rights) require either the annihilation of one side or the other (evil answering evil answering evil until only one side is left) or some kind of reasonably just compromise. On that, see what Grif argues in some other threads and my responses along with those of others.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“I can understand that you want to use a word in a way that is not an accepted definition of the word. ”
actually, it’s quite the opposite, thank you very much. i use the word ‘holocaust’ to describe the nazi program to exterminate european jewry.
Finkelstein is using it as a term that functions in certain political or ideological discourses, as described earlier.
as for the rest of your post, it reminds me of the monty python sketch about the guy that wants to have an argument. automatic naysaying does not an argument make.
yes it does!
no it doesn’t!
April 24th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Real voice:
I think “oh please” was referring to your use of the word, “deny,” not your use of the word “holocaust.”
April 25th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Thanks, OMT. This is very typical of these guys. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate. Just like his twin brother Nonny, real voice for peace will bend over backward to misstate and misunderstand a post. It’s all part of his wierd idea of fun. Like another poster said, we shouldn’t reward either manifestation.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:32 am
ahh, nothing like a personal attack when you’re lost on the substance, eh?
sorry if the subtleties of my previous post were too much for you to appreciate. i spoke with an open heart and you mock.
i may have misunderstood your post, but you made no effort to even comprehend mine.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
one more thing,
i appreciate your reply, even if we disagree, i thank you for your thoughtful response.
i don’t have time to respond in depth right now, but at least we have a discussion.
you’re right that he doesn’t talk about a conspiracy in terms of secret meetings or anything. but by defining one entity, calling it the holocaust industry, and saying that everyone does it, does imply some kind of conspiration.
and yes, it’s not as blatant as making up lies about blood and matza. that’s why i called it a distortion, not an invention.
i think you’re giving him too much credit. he’s not arguing that the historical holocaust was terrible and we should never forget. the distortion he mentions, the holocaust industry, is his invention, not anyone else’s. he’s the one using the word holocaust and redefining it.
“Let me add here, however, that I am much less concerned about what is “helpful” than I am about what is true”
that’s interesting. i feel the other way. the truth is relative, different people’s truths are different.
for example, on another thread here people are arguing about the history of some of israel’s wars, who started them, etc.
i don’t find that to be a very useful conversation. for me, the question is what can we do now to move towards peace and understanding.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Real voice,
You’re welcome and thank you for taking the time to read my post and reply yourself.
I’m not sure there’s much to be gained by us quibbling back and forth about who’s giving Finkelstein too much or not enough credit, but I do want to point out that he never makes the argument that “everyone” (and by that I assume you mean all Jews) is part of what he calls the “industry.” He has a great deal of respect for those who have provided us with reliable accounts of what happened and who have articulated thoughtful moral, religious, and/or philosophical responses based on those accounts. He’s primarily concerned with what happens when too many people (both Jews and non-Jews) turn off their own critical faculties.
I think we need to be careful about simply following the versions of history we find “helpful,” because the moment you do that you run the risk of putting expediency as well as your own ideas about what’s best *for you* ahead of careful thought about whatever parts of reality might be available for agreement *between* competing ideas about what’s “helpful.” Truth may be relative in a certain absolute sense, but human history and experience shows that not only are people capable of killing each other over competing ideas about what’s true or helpful, they’re also capable of coming to agreement about certain goals, values, and facts and then acting in accord with one another (or at least not in conflict). That sort of thing only happens when people dedicate themselves to the idea that there’s a version of the facts out there somewhere that both parties can agree on reliably and that demands action on the grounds of more than just their own ideal interests.
In the end, I think that *that’s* the most “helpful” thing you can do.
June 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Most professors do not receive tenure. By the way, most professors do receive the thumbs-up at the department level and still get rejected at the higher levels.
Also, there were major problems with Finkelstein’s scholarship.
The real question is not why he was rejected, but how could such a wacademic get so close to tenure.
Troubling.
June 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
In the letter to Finkelstein denying him tenure, I think the President of the University really, really “got it”. That is, he precisely nails some of the problems with giving Finkelstein tenure.
See:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/pdf/tenuredenial/Finkelstein,Norman06.08.2007.pdf