THE SCANDAL THAT ROCKED NEW YORK

ACADEMIC WAR AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

DEFENDING JEWISH STUDENTS’ RIGHTS IS A “CAREER SUICIDE” AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, said a tenured professor.

Columbia University’s President: “The committee will not investigate anyone's political or scholarly beliefs."

IF YOU were a Jew or an Israeli, how would you feel and react, if your teachers in your classroom preach and advocate the destruction of Judaism and Israel? What and how would you reply to a teacher who tells you, right in the face: “You, Jews, you are a bunch of killers”? And what would you say to a roommate or a peer on campus who describes your Jewish mother, your Jewish father and your Jewish family and community as “EVILS”? Would you complain to the university administration? Would you report such abuses and biases to the officials of the school? And if you did, and later on, you found out that, the dean of students and the president of the school either could not do “a thing about it”, ignored those racism and anti-Jewish campaigns or defended them as perfectly legal, for they are the expression of the freedom of speech, liberty, human rights and democracy? What would you do then?

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL, If upon visiting an American, publicly funded educational and cultural organization, a college, a museum or a gallery, and all of a sudden, you see on the premises of one of those institutions, a highly visible, well-displayed, well-funded and a HUGE anti-Israel, anti-Jews art show exhibiting 30 paintings depicting atrocities committed by the Jews and Israelis, portraying the Jews as murderers, “ugly, devilish creatures” with big noises, sadistic eyes, long dirty finger nails, heinous looking faces? Art shows on the American soil, where Americans, Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians curators, side by side distributing brochures and pamphlets against Israel and the Jewish people?

Now, let's turn the table around and ask these questions: How would you feel, if you are a Palestinian student, and your teachers at school tells you: "Get out of my class, YOU TERRORIST!" ? Would you feel offended and intimidated? Are all Palestinians terrorists? Are all Jews "Hard Core Zionists"?

WHAT would you do, next, if you find out that the anti-Israel, anti-Jews art show, exhibited right here in New York, has been funded, sponsored and co-produced by American corporations, and some of our most illustrious American artists who were the recipients of national awards and recognition, including citations from The White House? How would you look upon those illustrious American artists who participated in the show and displayed their artworks, accompanied with slogans and illustrated statements against the Jews and Israel? Well, all these alleged and or true infamous events did happen, right here, in our backyard. We have investigated those alarming events. The findings are shocking! The consequences and implications could become very catastrophic in general, and enormously damaging and threatening to the Jews in the United States, in particular.

ANTI-SEMITISM HAS BECOME WELL-CRAFTED IDEOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL HATRED CAMPAIGNS

Anti-Semitism has become a well-crafted ideological and social hatred campaign, effervescently fueled and orchestrated by individuals and organizations who hate the guts of the Jews. And this, could become very dangerous to the well-being, safety and businesses of the Jews in America, if such campaigns continue to propagate and infiltrate the world of business, industry, commerce, manufacturing goods, media, arts and academia. For years, we have witnessed racism and anti-Israel/anti-Jews sentiments all over the world. And each country which felt not at ease, recognizing the talents and contributions of Jewish scholars, businessmen/businesswomen, artists, scientists, inventors and geniuses, used in the open or secretly, Machiavellic ways and methods to destroy the JEWISH IDENTITY. And this alarming reality is occurring TODAY in our city. Right here, in New York. Many New Yorkers would deny it, for they claim, that the Kosher Market is next door to the Muslim Halal Market all over the city, and particularly in Queens, a Jewish stronghold. They tell us, for instance, Astoria is the melting pot of New York City where Hindus are next to Sikhs, and Pakistanis are next to Indians, Koreans flirt with Japanese, and Jews do business with Arabs and vice versa. This is very true on the surface. But, once you start to dig deeper in the social and ideological fabric of the city, avalanches of mixed feelings, contradictory racial statements and anti-Jews sentiments burst and explode like a tsunami. And nothing is more real and evident than what happened, most recently in the world of arts, business and academia at Columbia University, “Made in Palestine” art show in New York and the ARAB MEDIA WATCH GROUP, launching the most aggressive campaigns to boycott everything Jewish. In the past, various anti-Israel and anti-Jews groups and individuals expressed their hatred, disdain and defiance toward and against the Jewish people through an infinity of media, resources, tools, stimuli, methods, publications, brochures, cartoons, editorials and articles. Some, used extreme measures and violent acts to decimate the very existence of the Jews. The KKK, PLO, Muslim Brotherhood, for instance did not hesitate to kidnap, torture and murder Jews. But today, new pulverizing tools surfaced on the Arab and Muslim landscape of hatred to annihilate the: 1-Jewish Persona; 2-The Jewish Identity; 3-The Jewish Business and Commerce; 4-The very Existence of Jews in America; 5-And the Jewish way of life. And these new Arab tools are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS! They are built upon a new form and platform of orchestrated racism campaign via: 1-ACADEMIA; 2-SCHOLASTIC publications; 3- AWAKENING of the “intellect” of Muslims and Arabs in America; 4-And ART PROPAGANDA.

Obviously, we do expect to read editorials against Israel, Zionism and Judaic culture in Arab newspapers. Most recently, the cable television of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Financed by Syrian and Arab Gulf businessmen) aired a documentary showing “Zionist plotters” slaughtering small Christian boys and drinking their blood to “nourish their flesh”. All this, is expected from Fundamentalist Muslims and fanatic Arabs in the Arab geography. But in New York?

It did happen. But it did happen through the power of intellect, academic editorials, “brain washed” training and seminars, and abstract and illustrative arts; manifestations of hatred against the Jews, unprecedented and unheard of before.

The United States’ major events of catapulted racism and disinformation campaigns intending to destroy the credibility of the peace efforts of Israel, and to portray the Jews as demoniac and “evil people” came in the form of:

1- Series of articles against the Jews, published by the “Spectator”, a Columbia University’s on campus daily newspaper. Articles written by Mr. Sharod Baker, president of Columbia University’s Black Students Organization;

2- Alleged Columbia University faculty statements against the Jews. Alleged statements issued by Mr. Joseph Masaad, professor at Columbia’s Middle East Studies Department and by Dr. Rashid Khalidi, Dr. Saliba et al.

3- Alleged Columbia University faculty intimidation of Jewish and Israeli students;

4- New York exhibition’s of “MADE IN PALESTINE”, a major Palestinian art show against Israel and the Jews;

5- Most aggressive campaigns of “boycotting Israeli and Jewish products and companies in the United States, waged and financed by “BOYCOTT ISRAELI GOODS GROUP”;

6- Advanced cultural, editorial, “intellectual”, “brain washing”, and psychological training programs and seminars to influence the American public opinion and media, created and sponsored by MEDIA ARAB WATCH GROUP.

7- A weekly Muslim campaign and street rioting and gatherings in New York’s Little India in Jackson Heights (Queens) to convert people to Islam and to diffuse hatred against the Jews. The Hindu community has constantly complained to the local authorities and police, but their complaints and serious concerns were met by the usual “freedom of speech” rhetoric and jargon of the law enforcement officers and officials of the city.

COLUMBIA’S PRESIDENT DID NOT EXPRESS ANY SERIOUS CONCERN, BUT HE IS WORKING ON IT!

The “Columbia Spectator” newspaper published an article which depicted the Jews as "devils". The article portrayed the Jewish people as "leeches sucking the blood from the black community," and there is nothing we can do about it, except, to express our concerns for an extremely accentuated hatred campaigns against the Jews worldwide, and particularly against successful Jewish businesses in the United States. Columbia University’s officials, faculty and administrative staff explained that the article, although, might have caused pain and discomfort to the Jewish community, “there is nothing it can do about it.

The Spectator is an independent newspaper fully protected by the First Amendment.” This was the official statement of Columbia University. There is a lot of things, Columbia University’s Board of Trustees can do “about it”, especially, when an article published by a paper on the “turf of Columbia” fuels hatred, “scenarios” insulting lies and creates racism on campus. Very easily, and without usurping the human rights and freedom of speech of any party, the President of Columbia, could have voiced out his concern about the outcome, negative effects and ramifications of the article on the Jewish community, the safety of Jewish students on Columbia’s campus and on the pages of accuracy in history. But he did not! Columbia’s president could have, at least, and out of courtesy, conferred with Mr. Sharod Baker, the author of the article and president of the school's Black Students Organization at Columbia, to verify the author’s claims and false accusations, but he did not! Columbia’s president did not show any interest, nor express any serious concern about the veracity of the claims of Mr. Baker!

DEFENDING JEWISH STUDENTS’ RIGHTS IS A “CAREER SUICIDE” AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, SAID A TENURED PROFESSOR

Mr. Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia University’s president and an outstanding legal and social scholar, claims to defend the freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus. That is fine with me. However, if Mr. Bollinger, honestly believes in such freedom, how about if he gives himself the right and freedom to express something or anything about the nature and contents of Baker’s article? Mr. Bollinger, an outstanding first amendment scholar did not issue any statement. Bollinger, after all, also has the freedom of speech and First Amendment rights! Honestly, President Bollinger did not personally offend the Jewish communities, nor encourage any shape or form of anti-Semitism on campus. He is an expert on human rights, civil rights and the first amendment with a distinguished academic career. However, a “humanistic” statement from Bollinger would have been highly appreciated by those who suffered from those infamous anti-Israel and anti-Jews incidents, articles, editorials and remarks which occurred on the very territory of Columbia University, which is under Bollinger’s full auspice and control.

ALLEGED MISUSE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO HURT THE JEWS!

“Columbia Unbecoming” is a documentary which honestly and cleverly raised significant questions about the misuse of academic freedom, insufficient academic integrity in teaching about the Middle East, student intimidation, and how professors use the classroom as a political platform to diffuse and preach their own political views and geo-political theories.

Jewish students at Columbia are seriously embarrassed, humiliated and chagrined by a series of articles against everything Jewish, which were written and published by Arab, Muslim and Black students at Columbia, Also, they are enormously disturbed by alleged anti-Israel and anti-Jews statements issued publicly by Arab professors at Columbia.The documentary explained that, the anti-Israel campaign on college campuses differs greatly from legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies. This racist campaign hides behind the language of human rights and national liberation to demonize Israel, Israelis, and their supporters. It includes the national divestment movement and promotes a one-sided and misleading view of the Middle East conflict that favors Israel-bashing over fair and honest discussion.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S INDIVIDUAL PROFESSORS DROVE ANIMUS TOWARD ISRAEL

The documentary went on accusing Columbia’s faculty and individual professors, who too often, drive animus toward Israel and pro-Israel viewpoints on campus by using their positions to promote a narrow political agenda that clashes with free and open inquiry. Sometimes such animus is directed at students who dissent from the professors’ political point of view. The documentary raised fundamental questions about liberal arts education and the use of the classroom for the purpose of political propaganda against the Jews and Israel, quite often, initiated by Arab and Muslim professors, including Christian Arab teachers. It did document a certain bias and intimidation toward Israel and its supporters on campus and by the same token, it proposed constructive ways to aid in working with students, faculty, alumni and administrators to change the hostile environment.

TENURED PROFESSOR DAN MIRON: “FACULTY ABUSE OF STUDENTS IS A LONG EXISTING PROBLEM…GOING ON FOR YEARS.”

The most alarming part of the documentary is the section which revealed disturbing news about a dozen professors identified as pro-Israel agreed to give off-the-record interviews but declined to appear in the film. These faculty members reinforced the students’ concerns and agreed that the problem of departmental bias was serious, but those who had yet to receive tenure equated participating in the video with "career suicide," and most of those who were already tenured claimed that it would jeopardize their credibility as scholars. However, tenured MEALAC Professor Dan Miron told the press that

faculty abuse of students is a “long existing problem ... going on for years,” and that students told him—on a weekly basis—about being humiliated in class. Professor Dan Miron, a scholar of modern Hebrew and Yiddish literature at Columbia's Middle East Studies Department, commenting on the charges of anti-Israel bias among some of his colleagues, told The New York Sun: "Israelis are put to a test that is not applied to anyone else. You will not hear any murmur about the people of Sudan but . . . Israel is singled out in a way that is racist." The Middle East Studies Department at Columbia University have become a question mark to many students. Ariel Beery, a student in that department, told the The New York Sun's Jacob Gershman about the anti-Israel, anti-Jews professors teaching in that notorious department: "They teach everything in the context of one special, small struggle, where there are 23 countries out there where minorities are being oppressed, where women are bound to their homes, where homosexuals are put in jail. They're ignoring the rest of the Middle East in favor of a small dimension of it."

COLUMBIA’S OFFICIALS IGNORE THE COMPLAINTS OF JEWISH STUDENTS.

Columbia’s Jewish students reported that many students could not lodge complaints through the appropriate channels at Columbia and arranged a press conference as a last resort after six months of private meetings. Columbia University’s highest officials have acknowledged that the grievance policies in place were inadequate and provided no effective recourse for students with complaints of intimidation by faculty members. Moreover, the students who have spoken out against professors state that the officials charged with handling such grievances either ignored them or directed them to other officials who were unresponsive.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S PRESIDENT: “THE COMMITTEE WILL NOT INVESTIGATE ANYONE’S POLITICAL OR SCHOLARLY BELIEFS.”

Two Jewish students met with Columbia Dean Kathryn Yatrakis to complain about Professor Saliba and how the dean effectively ignored their complaint suggesting that perhaps their Jewish upbringing may have affected their reaction to the professor’s behavior. In the Spring of 2004, President Bollinger appointed a faculty committee to investigate bias in the MEALAC Department. The committee headed by Professor Vincent Blassi heard testimonies from students and the director of Hillel, Rabbi Charles Sheer. The committee did not submit a written report, only an oral one, and it concluded that they had “not found claims of bias or indoctrination.” Columbia University’s administration did not issue a response to the students’ concerns. Columbia University’s president said “The committee will not investigate anyone's political or scholarly beliefs."

PROFESSOR’S ALLEGED ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR

The idea of documenting biases by some of Columbia’s professors was initially generated by a student at a meeting organized by The David Project, in October 2004. The David Project came to Columbia University to meet with 30 students who were upset with professors’ abusive behavior directed at students with pro-Israel viewpoints. Each student agreed to be interviewed and video-recorded. Some asked that their names be withheld or their faces obscured, and their requests were honored. The students were deeply involved in the six-month internal effort to deal with the challenge of student grievance procedures within Columbia. This six month effort included meetings and viewings of the film by alumni, donors, faculty, trustees, and senior members of the University administration including the Provost. Finally, it was the students’, not The David Project’s, decision to publicize the issue after they were ignored by the administration and after the public disclosure of the existence of the video by the President of Barnard College, the sister school to Columbia.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

The history of American Academia taught us that traditionally, academic freedom in America was never fully understood, nor clearly observed by faculty members, boards of trustees, administrators and students, as well. Long-lasting disputes, rhetoric and clashes over academic freedom have pitted academic thinkers, politicians, state boards of education, governors, donors, and schools’ administrators against professors who expressed personal opinions and political points of view. Especially those teachers who taught according to what they believed in and or as saw fit. But nowadays and increasingly, it is the schools’ students who are screaming murder and invoking academic freedom. The examples are abundant and the more illustrative ones, are those which came from the students of Columbia University and the University of North Carolina. Students claim biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination. In the past, it was the activists on liberal campuses who defended the importance of "diversity" and freedom of speech. They pressed for curriculum changes and students-teachers participation in ideas, forums and exchanges of points of views. Ironically enough, “conservatives”, now, are adopting much of the same principles, language and concerns. By the same token, academic freedom structure and guidelines were traditionally crafted and cited in order to protect students who were considered “left-learning” students.

Protecting students from what and from who or whom?

Protecting them from punishment for challenging their teachers and disagreeing with them on vital and controversial issues such as, the topics of Vietnam, America’s neutrality before and during the very beginning of the second world war, American tigers-flyers in occupied China, the Franco’s Spain war, America’s invasion of Iraq, the Canal El Suez conflict, Israel, Britain and France attacks on port Said in Egypt, the infamous McCarthyism, et al…Those same guidelines are now being invoked by conservative students who support Bush’s war in Iraq! Professors are deeply concerned with the issue of academic freedom on campus. The Associated Press reported that, at the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sue over a reading assignment they say offends their Christian beliefs. In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicizes student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty get hate mail and are pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college says a teacher received a death threat. And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel draws the attention of administrators. The three episodes differ in important ways, but all touch on an issue of growing prominence on college campuses.

“ANTIDOTE TO LIBERAL DOMINANCE”

The CNN reported that those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs -- an essential part of education. Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship. "Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State Univer-

sity in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air." Conservatives say a chill is in order. Indeed, there is an alarming and troubling aspect of these debates. Professors claim that students are trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught on campuses. And students claim that many professors are opinionated and biased! "Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Does this academic metamorphosis apply to faculty and concerned Jewish students at Columbia University?

JEWISH STUDENTS BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT…

Columbia’s Jewish students believe that academic freedom is a precious cornerstone of a democracy that should be cherished and upheld and their honest concerns about fighting racism and exposing the anti-Jews and anti-Israel sentiments on campus, is in no way working to suppress this important freedom. Jewish students along with The David Project agree that universities should be very concerned with protecting free speech; this includes the right of professors to offer courses that take a view of the Middle East that is not consistent with that of the pro-Israel community. However, universities also have a responsibility to ensure that all views can be articulated in an atmosphere conducive to enlightenment rather than one of pressure or fear. An environment that is hostile to the presentation of legitimate alternative points of view is troubling precisely because it does not allow for the kind of free expression the public reasonably expects from a university. Professors who permit expression of only those views with which they agree make a mockery of academic freedom.

ADVOCATING THE ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL AS A JEWISH STATE

Supporters of the MEALAC department have evaded dealing with the real issues of bias and intimidation by mislabeling criticisms as attacks on academic freedom. This is simply an obfuscation of what is actually happening at Columbia University, furiously claims a great number of angry students. Of course professors have every right to voice their opinions but this same right must extend to their students.

PROFESSOR MASSAD: “ISRAEL IS A JEWISH AND A RACIST STATE.”

Those professors at Columbia University who allegedly are advocating the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are entitled to be heard, even if they represent only a small sliver of the wide range of opinions about the future of Israel. But, when a scholar and a professor like the “learned” Professor Massad allegedly describes Israel as a “Jewish and a racist state” and teaches that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the dissolution of the State of Israel, the freedom of speech become a mockery and a dangerous tool. For the spirit of liberty and the essence of the freedom of speech are built upon the understanding of TRUTH, not malicious intentions and false statements. Especially when a so-called advocate of freedom of speech like Massad et al have allegedly and continuously silenced opposing views in their classrooms and beyond.

The practice by certain professors of “advocacy teaching,” which focuses exclusively on a particular perspective, a biased view of a very complex Middle East conflict, while suppressing dissenting views IS DANGEROUS and DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

MASSAD ALLEGEDLY SAID TO AN ISRAELI STUDENT: “GET OUT OF MY CLASSROOM!”

Columbia’s students did not demand the dismissal of any professor, instead, they argued that MEALAC must also address other major challenges in the Middle East, such as the oppression of women, gays, and ethnic and religious minorities, and the challenges of democracy, human rights, and civil society in a region ruled by tyrannical regimes. However, Some of the students were extremely disturbed by Massad continuous attacks on Israel and discussed Massad statements and pertinent incidents which took place inside the classroom, outside the classroom and at public lectures sponsored by the University. For example, one of the incidents described is when Professor Massad refused to answer the question of Tomy Schoenfeld, an Israeli student, and instead demanded to know “How many Palestinians did you kill?”. This occurred at a public lecture, according to the version of the Israeli student. Since the issue has become public, Massad has stated that Schoenfeld was never his student and that he had never met him, but he has never denied the incident in question. Columbia University’s student Noah Liben reported verbatim that, Professor Joseph Massad was teaching the class about the Jenin incidents during the Palestinian resistance, and a girl raised her hand and tried to bring up an alternative point of view and before she could get her point across, he quickly shouted at her, 'I will not have anyone sit through this class and deny Israeli atrocities.' Which pretty much limited the students' ability to even question him, or bring up an alternative point of view. Deena Shanker, who was a student of Professor Massad, told the Jerusalem Post (12/31/04) that Massad shouted at her: "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people then you can get out of my classroom!" And the Post published this: She was in a class called "Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies," taught by Prof. Joseph Massad, and in a discussion in the spring of 2002 on Israel's military incursions into Palestinian areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Shanker said she raised her hand to point out that Israel often issued public warnings prior to its bombings to warn Palestinian civilians in the area. Massad, she said, exploded with rage. "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against the Palestinian people then you can get out of my classroom!" Massad shouted, according to Shanker's account. And Shanker was shocked.”

NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION GETS INVOLVED

In a letter dated December 20, 2004 and addressed to Mr. Lee C. Bollinger, President of Columbia University, by New York Civil Liberties Union’s Arthur Eisenberg, Donna Lieberman and Udi Ofer, Massad’s incidents were described as follows: “The David Project produced a documentary depicting Massad’s two episodes involving him with interactions with students who were identified in the film. One incident involves an alleged exchange outside the classroom between Professor Massad and Tomy Schoenfeld, a former member of the Israel Defense Forces, in which Mr. Schoenfeld reportedly asked Professor Massad a question and the Professor responded that he would not answer the question until Mr. Schoenfeld revealed "How many Palestinians [he had] killed."

The second incident as depicted in the documentary involved an exchange between a student, Noah Liben, who was defending the treatment of Sephardic Jews by the Ashkenazi majority in Israel and who concluded this discussion by asking whether Professor Massad understood the student’s point. Professor Massad allegedly answered that he did not understand the point that the student was trying to make and, according to Mr. Liben, the Professor "smirked" during the student-teacher exchange. In the film, and elsewhere, Professor Massad is further accused, in his lectures and writings, of describing the State of Israel as "a racist state that does not legitimately represent Jews."

NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION DEFENDS COLUMBIA’S ACADEMIC FREEDOM

The main objective of the NYCLU was to defend Columbia University’s academic freedom. The authors of the letter did not presume to lecture President Bollinger on the principles and importance of academic freedom. However, they felt “compelled to address this matter because of its seriousness as a public controversy and because of the need -- in circumstances such as this when fundamental principles as well as the university itself are under attack -- to lend our voice in defense of academic freedom and to express our long-standing commitment to ideological diversity, pluralism and tolerance upon which any community of scholars and any system of intellectual discourse must ultimately rest.” The New York Civil Liberties Union went on vigorously defending the freedom of academia at Columbia. A critical part of their statement goes as follows: “The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) believes that it is vitally important to foster an academic environment conducive to the free exchange of ideas. We further believe that, in order to foster such an environment, freedom of thought and expression must be scrupulously protected even when, in doing so, protection is bestowed upon ideas that are deeply offensive to a distinct segment of the community. We recognize that, as Provost Alan Brinkley has observed, "… students have a right to learn in an atmosphere that permits an open exchange of ideas." We do not, however, regard these rights of students, correctly understood, as incompatible with principles of academic freedom. Moreover, when one closely scrutinizes the assertion of student rights as set forth in the film and when one considers the film’s accusations directed at the conduct of certain Columbia professors in failing to provide an appropriate classroom atmosphere, the line between ideological content and conduct seems to blur significantly and one is left with the distinct impression that these accusations are really about the content of academic lectures and writings. Thus, in the end, the attempt by some outside the academy to transform these accusations into a demand for the termination of a scholar or other sanctions reduces to a direct attack upon principles of academic freedom.” NYCLU adds that, the attack upon Professor Massad and others in the MEALAC Department is fundamentally about their scholarship and political expression. Thus, the criticism of these academics must be seen for what it is: an assault upon principles of academic freedom and upon political speech.

THE INCIDENTS MAKE A BIG BUZZ IN NEW YORK AND NATIONWIDE

The New York Civil Liberties Union became concerned with the accusations set forth in the film, for professors Massad, Rashid Khalidi and other Muslim and Arab teachers at Columbia have provoked strong reaction and a variety of responses nationwide, and particularly in New York city. Congressman Anthony Weiner has called upon Columbia University to terminate Professor Massad’s appointment. New York City Councilmember Michael Nelson has threatened to have the City Council investigate the academic environment at Columbia. The New York Sun has written an editorial criticizing Columbia and urging the University to "fire Mr. Massad … and to discipline Mr. Rashid Khalidi for the errors in his book."

The New York Daily News issued a more moderate statement but its editorial, nevertheless, grudgingly described academic freedom as a "guise" rather than recognizing its important instrumental value. It has been further reported that potential donors to Columbia have read accounts of this controversy and have threatened to withhold funding unless Columbia responds adequately to the accusations set forth in the David Project film. On the other hand, many scholars within the university and around the country have rallied to the defense of the professors who were accused of misconduct in the film.

MASSAD DENIES MAKING SUCH REMARK

"Sometimes teachers and professors yell at students - it happens - but this was not like anything I've ever experienced. He was not treating me like a student," said Shanker. She added: “I had grown accustomed to Massad's antagonism toward Israel, but the professor's rage at me for speaking up was frightening…I felt - I wouldn't say 'intimidated' was the right word - I would say: humiliated, violated, scared. This was very overt and explicit." Massad denied making the remark to Shanker, saying, "I have never asked and would never ask any of my students to leave my class no matter what their comments or questions were. If indeed Ms. Shanker is claiming that I asked her to leave my class, then she is an outright liar." Moreover, Professor Massad has issued a detailed and vigorous response to the accusations. Professor Massad asserts that the David Project film is part of a "witch-hunt that aims to stifle pluralism, academic freedom and the freedom of expression on university campuses"; that such a campaign is "pressuring the university to abandon proper academic procedures for evaluating scholarship"; and that "the major strategy " of those engaged in this campaign is to "equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism." As to the specific accusations set forth by students in the film, Professor Massad asserts that Tomy Schoenfeld was not a student of his and he does not recall ever having met Mr. Schoenfeld. As for his exchanges with Noah Liben, Professor Massad asserts that he "remembers having had a friendly rapport with Noah" characterized by ongoing communications between Professor and student long after the incidents which were described in the film. Moreover, Professor Massad states that "the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent." Professor Massad further asserts: "I have never made such a reprehensible equation."

STRONG AND MASSIVE SUPPORT FOR MASSAD

Massad is not alone. He has strong allies and supporters. Ad infinitum websites were created to support him and to take side with him. Sites like:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3282.shtml,

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mealac/faculty/massad,

http://www.petitiononline.com/jmassad/petition.html.

Some of the headlines posted on the Internet go like this : “Urgent Call to Support Professor Joseph Massad.” And “SIGN THE PETITION IN SUPPORT OF PROFESSOR MASSAD”. And glowing articles and statements about Professor Massad’s integrity and academic excellence filled pages and pages on the world wide web. Here is, a sample of those complimentary narrations: “Background: Joseph Massad, Assistant Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, is the target of a new and particularly viscious (sic) attack by the pro-Israel lobby in the States, aimed at getting him dismissed and destroying his highly promising career. Joseph Massad, who I know personally, is a man of dazzling scholarship, academic and personal integrity, and a tireless advocate for peace with justice in the Middle East. He is, in my view, an Edward Said in the making, hence the campaign by the pro-Israel lobby to put an end to his career. CAMPUS WATCH, the infamous neo conservative site that encourages students to 'report' their lecturers if they speak against America or Israel, started the campaign against Professor Massad sometime ago. See the following Editorial for a taste of what the current campaign is about: http://www.nysun.com/article/3639. Links to other articles are included in Neville Hoad's cover letter below. For a more recent and more balanced report, see the article in The Jewish Weekly, 29 October 2004.”

MASSAD FIRES BACK AND RESPONDS TO THE ACCUSATIONS

Professor Joseph Massad sharply responded to his accusers on the pages of The Electronic Intifada, an Israel Lobby Watch website, on November 3^rd, 2004. Here is his response: he recent controversy elicited by the propaganda film "Columbia Unbecoming," a film funded and produced by a Boston-based pro-Israel organization, is the latest salvo in a campaign of intimidation of Jewish and non-Jewish professors who criticize Israel. This witch-hunt aims to stifle pluralism, academic freedom, and the freedom of expression on university campuses in order to ensure that only one opinion is permitted, that of uncritical support for the State of Israel. Columbia University, the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures, and I personally, have been the target of this intensified campaign for over three years. Pro-Israel groups are pressuring the university to abandon proper academic procedure in evaluating scholarship, and want to force the university to silence all critical opinions. Such silencing, the university has refused to do so far, despite mounting intimidation tactics by these anti-democratic and anti-academic forces.

The major strategy that these pro-Israel groups use is one that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. But the claim that criticism of Israel is an expression of anti-Semitism presupposes that Israeli actions are "Jewish" actions and that all Jews, whether Israelis or non-Israelis (and the majority of world Jews are not Israelis), are responsible for all Israeli actions and that they all have the same opinion of Israel. But this is utter anti-Semitic nonsense. Jews, whether in America, Europe, Israel, Russia, or Argentina, are, like all other groups, not uniform in their political or social opinions. There are many Israeli Jews who are critical of Israel just as there are American Jews who criticize Israeli policy.

I have always made a distinction between Jews, Israelis, and Zionists in my writings and my lectures. It is those who want to claim that Jews, Israelis, and Zionists are one group (and that they think exactly alike) who are the anti-Semites. Israel in fact has no legal, moral, or political basis to represent world Jews (ten million strong) who never elected it to that position and who refuse to move to that country. Unlike the pro-Israel groups, I do not think that Israeli actions are "Jewish" actions or that they reflect the will of the Jewish people worldwide! All those pro-Israeli propagandists who want to reduce the Jewish people to the State of Israel are the anti-Semites who want to eliminate the existing pluralism among Jews.

The majority of Israel's supporters in the United States are, in fact, not Jews but Christian fundamentalist anti-Semites who seek to convert Jews. They constitute a quarter of the American electorate and are the most powerful anti-Semitic group worldwide. The reason why the pro-Israel groups do not fight them is because these anti-Semites are pro-Israel. Therefore, it is not anti-Semitism that offends pro-Israel groups; what offends them is anti-Israel criticism. In fact, Israel and the US groups supporting it have long received financial and political support from numerous anti-Semites. This is not to say that some anti-Zionists may not also be anti-Semitic. Some are, and I have denounced them in my writings and lectures. But the test of their anti-Semitism is not whether they like or hate Israel. The test of anti-Semitism is anti-Jewish hatred, not anti-Israel criticism. In my forthcoming book, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, I link the Jewish Question to the Palestinian Question and conclude that both questions persist because anti-Semitism persists. To resolve the Palestinian and the Jewish Questions, our task is to fight anti-Semitism in any guise, whether in its pro-Israel or anti-Israel guise, and not to defend the reprehensible policies of the racist Israeli government. I am now being targeted because of my public writings and statements through the charge that I am allegedly intolerant in the classroom, a charge based on statements made by people who were never my students, except in one case, which I will address momentarily. Let me first state that I have intimidated no one. In fact, Tomy Schoenfeld, the Israeli soldier who appears in the film and is cited by the New York Sun, has never been my student and has never taken a class with me, as he himself informed The Jewish Week. I have never met him. As for Noah Liben, who appears in the film according to newspaper accounts (I have not seen the film), he was indeed a student in my Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies course in the spring of 2001. Noah seems to have forgotten the incident he cites. During a lecture about Israeli state racism against Asian and African Jews, Noah defended these practices on the basis that Asian and African Jews were underdeveloped and lacked Jewish culture, which the Ashkenazi State operatives were teaching them. When I explained to him that, as the assigned readings clarified, these were racist policies, he insisted that these Jews needed to be modernized and the Ashkenazim were helping them by civilizing them. Many students gasped. He asked me if I understood his point. I informed him that I did not. Noah seems not to have done his reading during the week on gender and Zionism.

One of the assigned readings by Israeli scholar and feminist Simona Sharoni spoke of how in Hebrew the word "zayin" means both penis and weapon in a discussion of Israeli militarized masculinity. Noah, seemingly not having read the assigned material, mistook the pronunciation of "zayin" as "Zion," pronounced in Hebrew "tziyon." As for his spurious claim that I said that "Jews in Nazi Germany were not physically abused or harassed until Kristallnacht in November 1938," Noah must not have been listening carefully. During the discussion of Nazi Germany, we addressed the racist ideology of Nazism, the Nuremberg Laws enacted in 1934, and the institutionalized racism and violence against all facets of Jewish life, all of which preceded the extermination of European Jews. This information was also available to Noah in his readings, had he chosen to consult them. Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have never made such a reprehensible equation.

I remember having a friendly rapport with Noah (as I do with all my students). He would drop off newspaper articles in my mailbox, come to my office hours, and greet me on the street often. He never informed me or acted in a way that showed intimidation. Indeed, he would write me E-mails, even after he stopped being my student, to argue with me about Israel. I have kept our correspondence. On March 10, 2002, a year after he took a class with me, Noah wrote me an E-mail chastising me for having invited an Israeli speaker to class the year before when he was in attendance. It turned out that Noah's memory failed him again, as he mistook the speaker I had invited for another Israeli scholar. After a long diatribe, Noah excoriated me: "How can you bring such a phony to speak to your class??" I am not sure if his misplaced reproach was indicative of an intimidated student or one who felt comfortable enough to rebuke his professor! I am dedicated to all my students, many of whom are Jewish. Neither Columbia University nor I have ever received a complaint from any student claiming intimidation or any such nonsense. Students at Columbia have many venues of lodging complaints, whether with the student deans and assistant deans, school deans and assistant deans, department chairmen, departmental directors of undergraduate studies, the ombudsman's office, the provost, the president, and the professors themselves. No such complaint was ever filed. Many of my Jewish and non-Jewish students (including my Arab students) differ with me in all sorts of ways, whether on politics or on philosophy or theory. This is exactly what teaching and learning are about, how to articulate differences and understand other perspectives while acquiring knowledge, how to analyze one's own perspective and those of others, how to interrogate the basis of an opinion. Columbia University is home to the most prestigious Center for Israel and Jewish Studies in the country. Columbia has six endowed chairs in Jewish Studies (ranging from religion to Yiddish to Hebrew literature, among others). In addition, a seventh chair in Israel Studies is now being established after pro-Israel groups launched a vicious campaign against the only chair in modern Arab Studies that Columbia established two years ago, demanding "balance"! Columbia does not have a Center for Arab Studies, let alone a Center for Palestine studies.

The Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures encompasses the study of over one billion South Asians, over 300 million Arabs, tens of millions of Turks, of Iranians, of Kurds, of Armenians, and of six million Israelis, five million of whom are Jewish. To study these varied populations and cultures, MEALAC has three full time professors who cover Israel and Hebrew, four full time professors to cover the Arab World, and two full-time professors who cover South Asia. One need not do complicated mathematics to see who is overrepresented and who is not, if the question is indeed a demographic one. Moreover, the class that this propaganda machine is targeting, my Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies course, is one of a number of courses offered at Columbia that cover the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. All the others have an Israel-friendly perspective, including Naomi Weinberger's "Conflict Resolution in the Middle East," Michael Stanislawski's "History of the State of Israel, 1948-Present" and a course offered in my own department by my colleague Dan Miron, "Zionism: A Cultural Perspective." My course, which is critical of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, is in fact an elective course which no student is forced to take.

Let us briefly review these claims of intimidation. Not only have the students (all but Noah have not even taken my courses) not used a single university venue to articulate their alleged grievances, they are now sponsored by a private political organization with huge funds that produced and funded a film about them, screened it to the major US media and to the top brass of the Columbia administration. Last Wednesday, the film was screened in Israel to a government minister and to participants at a conference on anti-Semitism. The film has still not been released to the public here and is used as a sort of secret evidence in a military trial. The film has also been used to trump up a national campaign with the aid of a New York Congressman to get me fired. All this power of intimidation is being exercised not by a professor against students, but by political organizations who use students against a junior non-tenured faculty member.

A senior departmental colleague of mine, Dan Miron, who votes on my promotion and tenure, has recently expressed open support for this campaign of intimidation based on hearsay. Indeed with this campaign against me going into its fourth year, I chose under the duress of coercion and intimidation not to teach my course this year. It is my academic freedom that has been circumscribed. But not only mine. The Columbia courses that remain are all taught from an Israel-friendly angle.

MASSAD: “718 INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS AND STUDENTS DEFENDED ME.”

The aim of the David Project propaganda film is to undermine our academic freedom, our freedom of speech, and Columbia's tradition of openness and pluralism. It is in reaction to this witch-hunt that 718 international scholars and students signed a letter defending me against intimidation and sent it to President Bollinger, with hundreds more sending separate letters, while over 1400 people from all walks of life are signing an online petition supporting me and academic freedom. Academics and students from around the world recognize that the message of this propaganda film is to suppress pluralism at Columbia and at all American universities so that one and only one opinion be allowed on campuses, the opinion of defending Israel uncritically. I need not remind anyone that this is a slippery slope, for the same pressures could be applied to faculty who have been critical of U.S. foreign policy, in Iraq for example, on the grounds that such critiques are unpatriotic. Surely we all agree that while the University can hardly defend any one political position on any current question, it must defend the need for debate and critical consideration of all such questions, whether in public fora or in the classroom. Anything less would be the beginning of the death of academic freedom.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HAS BECOME A HOSTILE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT

Students at Columbia claim that the –Masaad-Shanker’s incident is not “an isolated one.” Students told the media “Week after week over the past several months, a growing number of Columbia students have come forward to detail charges that classes in the school's Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures department (MEALAC) have become a forum for anti-Israel vitriol. They say professors routinely use their positions to promote anti-Israel activism, discourage free intellectual discourse on the Israeli-Arab conflict and denigrate students sympathetic to Israeli policies. The result, they say, is a hostile academic environment in which it is impossible for students to express their opinions freely.”

COLUMBIA’S PROFESSOR: “THE PALESTINIAN IS THE NEW JEW, AND THE JEW IS THE NEW NAZI.”

On Columbia University’s campus, there are disturbing stories about how Arab and Muslim professors intimidate their Jewish and Israeli students, and how those very professors orchestrate campaigns and demonstrations against Israel on and off campus. Columbia’s students told us about a Muslim professor who asked an Israeli student "how many Palestinians have you killed," and about another

Muslim professor who took his class to participate in a stormy pro-Palestinian demonstration. The most appalling one is about an Arab professor teaching in the classroom, dogmatic political philosophies against the Jews as people and as nation. In one of his inflammatory statements, the Arab professor stated: "The Palestinian is the new Jew, and the Jew is the new Nazi."

MORE ARAB AND MUSLIM PROFESSORS’ ALLEGED ATTACKS ON JEWS AND ISRAEL

Aside from Massad, a fleet of anti-Jews professors at Columbia University is parading day by day, before the very eyes of Jewish and Israeli students. Hamid Dabashi, referred to as “the Hagop Kevorkian of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” is a professor of Iranian Studies, the chair of the MEALAC department, and the director of Graduate Studies at the Center for Comparative Literature and Society. and George Saliba, a professor of history of Islamic science, have been constantly accused of bias and intimidating Jewish, Israeli and pro-Israel student. Both, accused professors and their academic defenders pretend that “ those behind the charges are McCarthyites, and their intent is to silence the voice of truth and academic freedom.” And they go on to say: “those accusers intent on stifling any criticism of Israel by labeling critics of Israeli policies anti-Semites.” Columbia alumna, Madiha Tahir, a leader of a group calling itself the Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Academic Freedom at Columbia, said “This is about politics and the stifling of the debate and discussion on the question of Palestine and Israel."

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM IS FLAWED

Columbia’s Jewish students hoped that Columbia will work to “resolve the relevant concerns”, but unfortunately, the “ad-hoc committee assembled to deal with this issue is flawed in its composition”. The membership of the committee was strongly influenced by Nicholas Dirks, who signed a petition last year calling on Columbia to divest its holdings from companies selling hardware to Israel. Professor Dirk’s wife is a professor. According to the reasonably angry and concerned Jewish students, all five committee members are either personally or professionally close to the professors named by students as hostile. Lisa Anderson served as a dissertation advisor to Joseph Massad, who acknowledges her contributions in his book "Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan." Two of the committee members, Vice Provost for Diversity Initiatives Jean Howard and comparative literature professor Farah Jasmine Griffin, also signed the divestment from Israel petition last year. Another member of the committee is a severe critic of Israel and has suggested that the rise of global anti-Semitism is Israel’s fault. Finally, the remaining committee member served as the Vice President of Arts and Science at the time these incidents took place. Nat Hentoff in the Village Voice wrote “Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, facing the first major challenge of his two years in that position, is not likely—for the rest of his tenure and beyond—to forget the David Project.

That organization's 25-minute film Columbia Unbecoming has been primarily responsible for the subsequent local, national, and international coverage of charges that some professors in the university's Middle East studies department abuse their academic freedom by intimidating students who don't agree with them. Ever since the accusing students went public with their criticism of the professors - in part with the encouragement and financial support of groups outside the university - a host of Columbia students, alumni, trustees, Jewish organizational officials and even a US congressman have demanded that Columbia rein in its delinquent teachers. Faced with the growing controversy, university officials have met with aggrieved students, set up an ad hoc committee to review the allegations until a more permanent one can be established and pledged to overhaul Columbia's grievance process for students charging professors with inappropriate academic conduct.

PRESIDENT BOLLINGER: “THIS IS A COMPLETELY NEW PROCESS ,”

"THIS IS a completely new process that has been set up," Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, told The Jerusalem Post. "This is a very important, careful, delicate process to think about behavior in the classroom." But many critics are already bringing charges that Columbia University’s appointed committee to investigate the student claims of bias, racism and intimidation is totally tainted. The critics claim that said committee is stacked with faculty members who are pro-Arab and extremely hostile to Israel and that some members of the infamous committee are “signatories to a petition demanding that Columbia divest from companies that sell military equipment to the Jewish state - and who have personal relationships with the professors they have been asked to investigate.” The Jerusalem Post reported that at least one former Columbia dean, Robert Pollack, a biology professor, said the university has already botched its handling of the issue by letting it fester in public view and not making clear what is and what is not inappropriate conduct for professors. "The response has not been clear because the different groups here have not been asked, nor told, or expected to do their jobs properly," Pollack said. "That was an administrative lapse that incomprehensibly continues today, two years later, with the appointment of a faculty committee to consider, in public, the students' charges. This abrogation of administrative responsibility has hurt Columbia. The principles at stake at Columbia go beyond the problems in the university's Middle East studies department. At issue is the university's academic reputation, the principle of academic freedom and the question of whether McCarthyite tactics are being used to silence critics of Israeli policies. "We will not allow intimidation of students, but we must also defend academic freedom," Bollinger said. "Pursuing one can put stress on the other. I think it's inevitable."

EQUALLY DAMNING CHARGES….

The controversy at Columbia has blended together two separate but probably equally damning charges: 1-The professors of Columbia University are biased against Israel; 2- Columbia’s professors have acted improperly toward students who are sympathetic to Israel. The dilemmatic distinction between those two damning charges has not always been clear. Observers claim that the issue of anti-Israel bias at Columbia is the more vital one. Critics on both sides of the fence, each one with a subjective version, students and eyewitness accounts of particular inside and outside classroom events remain subject to speculation, rhetoric, interpretation, sketchy recollections and lack of verifiable evidence. Yet, students ascertain that those incidents DID HAPPEN!

DANIEL PIPES: “THIS IS ABOUT POLITICS. COLUMBIA HAS A DEEPLY BIASED FACULTY.”

"This is about politics," says Daniel Pipes, founder of CAMPUS WATCH, a pro-Israel group that monitors Middle East activities and studies departments for political bias. "Columbia has a deeply biased, radical faculty in this area," Pipes said of the MEALAC department. "This is extraordinary given the fact that the university is supposed to be a place where there is debate and learning. I would say it's the place where you have the least debate in the country."

Rabbi Charles Sheer, who recently retired as Columbia's Jewish chaplain after 34 years, says the larger problem is that Columbia students are being taught distorted views of the Middle East. "It's an academic question," Sheer says. "It's not that easy for the university to clarify whether the students were intimidated. It ends up being a kind of 'he said, she said' thing. But that's not the point," he says. "The point is you have to step back and see if the future State Department members, who are going to be trained at Columbia - because many of them are trained at our university - are they getting an education that's a balanced one?" According to Shanker, a MEALAC major, the bias was most obvious in Massad's classroom. "If you counted the number of times that Massad called Israel a Jewish supremacist racist state, it's unbelievable. He teaches that the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the dissolution of the State of Israel," Shanker says. "The focus is on the intimidation, but people should be focusing on the fact that he's teaching things that aren't true." Mr. Bollinger admitted that Columbia has lot of work to do when presenting the full scenario of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Middle East is major issue on the academic discussion landscape.

NEW UNIVERSITY CHAIR FOR MODERN ISRAELI AND JEWISH STUDIES

Already, President Lee C. Bollinger stated that , he brought new faculty and added new programs focusing on Israel, raised funds for the endowment of a new university chair in modern Israeli and Jewish studies. Bollinger has already invited scholars and academicians from Israel to come teach at Columbia, said university officials.

"How are we doing and how can we improve our teaching and research on subjects involving the Middle East and Israel-Palestinian issues in particular?" Bollinger said. "I see that as the most important outcome of this."

IS IT A REACTION TO THREATS?

President Bollinger's response and willingness to create a new chair for Jewish and Israeli studies appeared to critics and observers as a reaction to threats by alumni and donors to withdraw their financial support for the university. Massad willingly admitted that the MEALAC department is unbalanced, but he insisted on the fact that, the department favors studying Israel. MEALAC, Massad said, is fully charged with dealing with one billion south Asians, 300 million Arabs, tens of millions of Turks, Iranians, Kurds and Armenians, and six million Israelis. The Post reported that MEALAC has devoted three full-time professors to cover Israel and Hebrew, four full-time professors to cover the Arab world, and two full-time professors to cover South Asia. The proportions hardly seem fair. But Pipes and others say that misses the point: It's not the number of professors studying Israel versus other areas, but the political orientation the professors bring to the classroom that matters. Daniel Pipes said: “I'm not interested in having Israel studies; I'm interested in having balance in Israel studies. Where it counts - diversity of opinion - it's locked down and it's one outlook." In the meantime, Columbia’s controversy has become a bitter political war for the spirit of Columbia's Middle East studies department. It could cripple that department.

A POLITICAL WAR ON CAMPUS. IT IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL

In October, Rep. Anthony Weiner, a congressman from Brooklyn, sent Lee C. Bollinger a letter asking the university to fire Massad. In his letter, Weiner stated: “Columbia would enhance the public perception that it condones anti-Semitism if it did not discipline him.” The New York Civil Liberties Union’s executive director, warned Bollinger against taking any action which could jeopardize the status quo of Massad, his job, his academic career and academic freedom at Columbia. The NYCLU’s letter was a warning to Bollinger. The crafter of the letter advised Bollinger “Not to descend into an inquisition into the political views of professors. At Columbia, both sides in the controversy couch their arguments in terms of preserving academic freedom and open debate.” Massad in defending academic freedom and his own philosophical pedagogy stated: “ commented as follows: “This witch-hunt aims to stifle pluralism, academic freedom and the freedom of expression on university campuses in order to ensure that only one opinion is permitted, that of uncritical support for the State of Israel,"

ISRAELI FILM FESTIVAL DECAFED WITH SWASTIKAS. JEWISH STUDENTS SAFETY IS AT RISK!

Massad and Saliba both claim that they have not seen the film documenting their biases. Dabashi declined to comment. According to students accounts and an investigative reporting by the Post, in the film, Jewish and non-Jewish students describe an atmosphere of anti-Israel sentiment both inside and outside the classroom.

They tell of outright calls for Israel's destruction in academic discussions, describe campus posters for an Israeli film festival that were defaced by swastikas, Arabic slogans and anti-Israel screeds, and recount a pro-Palestinian demonstration on campus to which some professors took their classes. Mira Kogen, a Jewish student who appeared in the film, , stated that a pro-Israel professor in Columbia's Middle East studies department told her in private, that she should not be alone at the department's copy machine.

“BECAUSE YOU HAVE GREEN EYES, YOU COULD NOT BE A SEMITE.”

Lindsay Shrier claimed that professor Saliba told her in a private discussion that she and the Jews have no claim to the Land of Israel. And furthermore, Saliba told Shier, that she has no right to express opinions about Israeli-Palestinian issues because she had green eyes and consequently, she could not be a Semite. "I was horrified and hurt and shocked. I never approached him after that, and that's exactly what he wanted me to do." Of course, professor Saliba strongly denied the charge,. He said that he couldn't even be sure Shrier had ever been a student of his.

PRO-PALESTINIAN DEMONSTRATION DESCRIBED AS A “FIELD TRIP”!

However, Saliba admitted to taking his class to a pro-Palestinian demonstration on campus. He called it a "field trip" intended to show students in his class , the various aspects of contemporary Islamic culture and civilization. Ralph Avi Goldwasser, the David Project's executive director, has been accused of being himself biased and racist. He denied that The David Group took advantage of the candor and “innocence” of Columbia’s students. He firmly defended the reason for keeping his film on the shelves and not showing it to a wide audience of both sides of the fence. Goldwasser said “why the film has not yet been released to the general public - not, as some have charged, because the David Project is operating surreptitiously.

GOLDWASSER: “THE FILM WASN’T MEANT TO BE A DOCUMENTARY.”

Critics and supporters of the accused professors have also charged that the professors were not given a fair “break” and an “honest opportunity” to defend themselves in the film. "When there are calls for people to be fired without anything but a few biased, emotional students presenting slanted evidence, that's a witch hunt. It's not as if anybody had the opportunity to defend themselves," says Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia and director of the school's Middle East Institute. Goldwasser says the film wasn't meant to be a documentary; it was merely an effort to collect students' testimony about classroom incidents. That's why it was shown to Columbia administrators and community members months before it was screened to reporters, he says. "We wanted to give Columbia a chance to deal with the issue without the publicity and the potential negative impact on Columbia. We wanted to help Columbia," Goldwasser said.

"If the administration were to take this seriously, then we as students at Columbia would be in a different place," said Ariel Beery, a Columbia senior. But, like a great number of students who appeared in the film, Beery never took a course with any of the allegedly offending professors. A crucial point quite often made by the professors' defenders. But Beery and others explained their statements and commented on this by saying that's irrelevant. They maintain that many of the charges made against the professors involve incidents that oc