You many not have heard of Norman Finkelstein. You may hate his guts. You might have seen him embarass and enrage Alan Dershowitz on Democracy Now. You may have read everything he’s ever published. Whatever your relationship to the controversial scholar, the decision by DePaul University to deny Finkelstein tenure says a lot about the state of public debate and academic freedom in the United States.
An outspoken critic of Israel and the political uses of Anti-Semitism, Finkelstein is an intensely polarizing and divisive thinker. His very public clashes with pro-Israeli public figures- such as his public pantsing of Dershowitz- have made headlines and earned him many stauch allies and bitter enemies. He’s also been accused of being anti-Semitic, despite the fact Finkelstein is Jewish and his parents were both holocaust survivors. But the controversey that surrounds Finkelstein is not the issue. The issue is how universities, in contradiction of their own founding principles, can act to stifle debate and punish scholars for exercising the freedom to publicly, frequently, and loudly criticize received truths.
Although he was recommended for tenure by the Political Science Department at DePaul, the University Board for Promotion and Tenure (UBPT) voted 4-3 to deny Finkelstein’s Application. On June 8, 2007, DePaul President Dennis H. Holtschneider upheld UBPT’s decision.
Why was Finkelstein denied tenure? The UBPT itself praised his scholarship:
The UBPT acknowledges Professor Finkelstein’s record of accomplishment. By all accounts, he is an excellent teacher popular with his students and effective in the classroom. He is a nationally known scholar and public intellectual, considered provocative, challenging and intellectually interesting.
The UBPT also notes that the two external reviewers of Finkelstein’s application rated his scholarship favourably, although several faculty colleagues raised some question as to the accuracy of his evidence.
Here’s the real nub of the UBPT’s complaint:
The UBPT expressed several concerns touching upon [Finkelstein's] scholarship, specifically what they consider the intellectual character of their work and his persona as a public intellectual. The UBPT acknowledges that Dr. Finkelstein is a controversial author, provocative and challenging. Yet, some might interpret parts of gus scholarship as ‘deliberately hurtful’ as well as provocative more for inflammatory effect than to carefull critique or challenge accepted assumptions. Criticism has been expressed for his inflammatory style and personal attacks in his writings and intellectual debates.
President Holtschneidern adds:
I have considered the fact that reviewers at all levels, both for and against tenure, commented upon you ad hominem attacks on scholars with whom you disagree.
There are several red flags here. First of all, ‘character’ and ‘persona’ are never acceptable criteria to evaluate a tenure candidate. Tenure applications are typically evaluated against teaching, research, and service, both to the university and the community at large.
Second, The UBPT makes very vague aspersions about critics expressing ‘several concerns touching upon’ Finkelstein’s scholarship. Holtschneider comments that ‘reviewers at all levels’ have criticized Finkelstein’s ad hominem attacks. But he never says how many reviewers, and what the precise nature of their concerns may be. Accusations of ad hominem attacks, by their very nature, must be taken with a grain of salt. Just because a flustered, red-faced Alan Dershowitz claims he’s been made the victim of an ad hominem attack does not make the attack real. It is entirely possible that an ad hominem charge is simply a defensive tactic to cover a weak or incoherent argument. At the very least, DePaul has the duty to investigate these charges before making a decision on Finkelstein’s application. There is no evidence this investigation ever took place.
Also, there may have been inappropriate outside interference in the tenure hearings. Shortly after Finkelstein made his application, Dershowitz began to actively campaign against a tenure appointment. He even sent DePaul faculty dossier of what he categorised as the “most egregious academic sins, outright lies, misquotations, and distortions” of the political scientist. Dershowitz has no place interfering in Finkelstein’s tenure application. He is not an external reviewer, and does not even teach within Finkelstein’s discipline. Moreover, his intervention cannot be reasonably characterized as objective. Ad Hominem personal attacks, Mr. Dershowitz? You should talk.
All of this appears even more sketchy in light of a Chronicle of Higher Education report that a second DePaul professor was denied tenure, ostensibly for supporting Finkelstein.
To put this all in perspective, only a small proportion of tenure applications are denied every year. Denial of tenure is the exception, not the rule. Finkelstein’s rejection is particularly bizarre, given his substantial publication record and high ratings as a teacher.
The upshot of all this is that DePaul’s refusal to grant Finkelstein tenure appears to be a political decision. It is therefore hard not to agree with Finkelstein when he calls the decision an egregious violation of academic freedom.
“Rationally, [DePaul] has to deny me tenure. Any time I wrote or spoke would evoke another hysterical response and would be costly for them,” said Finkelstein in the New York Times.
And he’s not alone in his views. Here’s what pre-eminent Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg had to say in the Chicago Tribune:
“I have a sinking feeling about the damage this will do to academic freedom.”
Oxford professor and authority on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Avi Shlaim, has this to say:
“Professor Finkelstein specializes in exposing spurious scholarship on the Arab-Israeli conflict. And he has a very impressive track record in this respect. He was a very promising graduate student in history at Princeton, when a book by Joan Peters appeared, called From Time Immemorial, and he wrote the most savage exposition in critique of this book. It was a systematic demolition of this book. The book argued, incidentally, that Palestine was a land without a people for people without a land. And Professor Finkelstein exposed it as a hoax, and he showed how dishonest the scholarship or spurious scholarship was in the entire book. And he paid the price for his courage, and he has been a marked man, in a sense, in America ever since.”
Incidentally, Shlaim also offers some insight into the bearing of Finkelstein’s ‘public persona’ and his scholarly work:
I would like to make one last point, which is that [Finkelstein's] style is very polemical, and I don’t particularly enjoy the strident polemical style that he employs. On the other hand, what really matters in the final analysis is the content, and the content of his books, in my judgment, is of very high quality.
In other words, you may disagree with how Finkelstein makes his arguments, but his arguments are ultimately sound. And style cannot be a justification for denying tenure.
Finally, The Guardian doesn’t mince any words with its headline this morning: ‘US college rejects Jewish professor over anti-Israel stance’.
These comments reflect a reality apparent to most observers. Denying Finkelstein tenure was a political act aimed at silencing a prescient, if highly controversial, voice. A combination of powerful opponents and skittish university administrators fearful of the fundraising implications of controversey have combined to attack Norman Finkelstein’s academic freedom. This is an unacceptable outcome, one that cannot be endorsed by anyone interested in open, informed debate on difficult issues.
UPDATE: Check out Dr. Dawg for a pretty enlightening (and funny) exchange with David Horowitz on this topic.
Great post! I don’t want to exaggerate so I’ll just say that I’m thinkin Pullitzer.
Very good post! Recommended for sure plus I’ll link to it.
Graeme,
You’re on the wrong track here, I’m afraid. Tenure is not granted solely on the basis of teaching, research and service — if indeed it ever was. Tenure applications also turn on the nebulous virtue known as “collegiality”. It means, as far as I can tell, how well you get along with the people in your department and faculty, and, thus, how well you play the political game. It seems that this is where Finkelstein ran into trouble: he had sufficient allies in his department to vote him through, but not on the tenure board itself.
I’m also not sure why you think it’s rare for tenure to be denied. It may not be common, but it’s far from rare. There’s certainly no guarantee that, after teaching, researching and serving the university for a fixed period of time, you’ll get tenure.
I should also note there’s an argument from ignorance under the surface of what you’re saying. You note that we don’t know that the claims about Finkelstein’s conduct as a “public intellectual” were investigated, but you try to conclude from this that no investigation occurred. That doesn’t follow: what follows is we just don’t know if the investigation took place. I’d be surprised, honestly, if we ever did know, given that these sorts of investigations are usually kept private by universities.
Excellent post. Academic freedom the US is fast becoming a memory. I shall take the liberty of forwarding this to David Horowitz of FrontPage Mag, who claims he is even-handed in his alleged support of academic freedom. We shall just see about that.
Superb post, and a fine summary of the situation so far. I share Hilberg’s “sinking feeling.” We’ve seen this before, unfortunately.
ADHR,
Thanks for the comment- very thoughtful. I will have to defer to you on the qualifications for tenure. However, if ‘collegiality’ is the only quality evaluated in a tenure approval process, then we must all receive our university education from sub-par, if affable, professors.
My comment that tenure denial is rare is based on a brief internet survey of high-profile private institutions in the USA (like DePaul). The rates of approval vary wildly form 60 per cent at Stanford, to 93 per cent at lower-profile schools. On balance, you’re more likely to be approved for tenure than denied.
Fair game on the argumentum ad ignorantiam. But given the amount of attention this case was receiving even before the decision came down, you’d expect DePaul to document ethical violations by Finkelstein more closely and make the results of any investigation public. The way it appears now is that Dershowitz’s dossier and similar critiques may have had an inordinate and unwarranted effect on the proceedings.
Anyways, thanks again for the comment. Hope you come back again.
Maybe Canadian numbers differ a bit, then. Although, I must say that a 40% rejection rate sounds like “uncommon” rather than “rare”!
Collegiality isn’t the only qualification, but it matters more than many people, including many academics, know. Every story I’ve ever heard around my department re: someone not getting tenured boils down to an inability to play the political game. So, teaching, etc. are necessary conditions but, unfortunately, not always sufficient.
I have a doctorate, and my impression has always been that most tenure applications are rejected. A relative of mine has been rejected this year.
Tenure is a promise of lifetime employment, and for this reason it is routinely denied to middling applicants.
Actually I thought Dershowitz kicked Finkelstein’s ass on Democracy Now, especially when you consider the fact that Amy Goodman had set up an ambush for him. As a matter of fact it was Finkelstein in that debate that started questioning Dershowitz’s credentials for professorship. Finkelstein has been hoisted on his own petard.
People who follow the links should also be aware that the university president, in his self-serving letter to Finkelstein, announced the termination of his employment next year.
“Anti-Semitism” is the new McCarthyism, make no mistake. Finkelstein is only the latest casualty, as the thought police continue to comb through American universities to root out anyone suspected of harbouring anti-Israel sympathies. One simply has to remind oneself of Daniel Pipes’ execrable promotion of campus snitching on his sick-making “Campus Watch” website. And here is the ADL, that redoubtable bastion of freedom of speech, on the Finkelstein decision:
To the extent that DePaul’s decision to deny tenure to Prof. Finkelstein is intended as a repudiation of his hateful and bigoted ideas, we applaud the University for its actions in standing up for its principles.
Only pro-Israel ideas, it appears, will be permitted in universities in the land of the free.
Dr. Dawg,
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that Finkelstein has gone from almost-tenured to being fired. When you’re on the tenure-track, you really only have two ways to go: get tenured or go somewhere else. Tenure-track appointments are time-limited. So, if you don’t get tenure, your appointment will end and you will have to go somewhere else. That’s why tenure’s such a huge deal to academics: if you don’t get it, you’re pretty close to being out of a job. There’s no middle-ground, whereby you can stick around and try again in a year or two.
if collegiality was the issue here, how come his own department approved his tenure 9-3? It was a different, higher up, committee that voted 4-3 against tenure. There was another committee that voted 5-0 in favour, but I’m kinda losing track of all the positive votes
the guy has solid publications, and is acknowledged to be a good teacher. At any Canadian university, that is enough to get you tenure. It’s much harder to actually get a tenure-track position in many fields than it is to reach the tenure stage!
They also criticized him for “Advocacy”. I thought that was unbelievable. In my field many profs are clear advocates for social change, so I’m not sure what the point is on that account. I guess when your enemy is “big business” you can attack all you want. But if it’s a hot, multi-sided debate like this, it’s dangerous to be an advocate. Noam Chomsky would have been denied tenure years ago if this was the case.
This just shows that anyone doing a PhD should not delve into controversial topics. Do something nice and uncontroversial, then get tenure, and then do the controversial work that you really want to do.
[...] of course, is slightly suspect. A few weeks ago I posted on Norman Finkelstein, another academic denied tenure apparently for the controversial and confrontational style of his [...]
[...] put on leave, vows to fight Norman Finkelstein, professor and subject of an extremely controversial tenure decision at DePaul University, has been put on ‘administrative leave’ (subscription required) [...]
My wife and I have listened to and long admired Norman Finkelstein’s expressions of truth about Israel for ten years.
As for Attorney Dershowitz, anyone who takes Joan Peters and Mark Twain to be scholars should be at Slippery Rock, at best, rather than Harvard.
If being Jewish requires a whimpering, nose-to-the-ground obedience to all that AIPAC pushes about Washington and all that Zionists distort in promoting Israel, then justice in the Middle East, and peace, are impossible.
A jury of true scholars on this issue would not be wimps equal to the LA prosecutors who did not know that unused leather gloves shrink and that men who eat lots of salt on large quantities of food end up weighing more, with thicker fingers.
[...] the war on idiocy Finkelstein affair ends with a whimper Professor Norman Finkelstein’s long battle with DePaul University is over. The embattled academic announced his decision to resign from [...]