NEIU's president against the boycott

TO: University Community

FROM: Sharon Hahs, President

DATE: January 3, 2014

RE: Opposition to Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions

Northeastern Illinois University upholds the principle and practice of academic freedom, and, therefore, opposes boycotts of academic institutions or scholars in any region of the world. We strongly endorse the Association of American Universities’ (AAU) statement opposing a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The AAU statement, issued on December 20, 2013, and signed by the organization’s executive committee, says that:

“Any such boycott of academic institutions directly violates academic freedom, which is a fundamental principle of AAU universities and of American higher education in general. Academic freedom is the freedom of university faculty responsibly to produce and disseminate knowledge through research, teaching, and service, without undue constraint. It is a principle that should not be abridged by political considerations. American colleges and universities, as well as like institutions elsewhere, must stand as the first line of defense against attacks on academic freedom.”

We join higher education institutions nationally in support of this statement.

An academic scandal headed for Chicago

By Amy Stoken and Jack S. Levin

January 1, 2014

Academicians from all over the world will gather in Chicago for the 129th annual convention of the 30,000-member Modern Language Association. The MLA, according to its website, provides opportunities for teachers of English and foreign languages "to share their scholarly findings and teaching experiences with colleagues and to discuss trends in the academy."

The four-day convention, starting Jan. 9, features exhibitions, opportunities for job interviews — and 810 sessions, all but one of which will address topics connected to the study of language and literature. The one exception is entitled "Academic Boycotts: A Conversation about Israel and Palestine." "This roundtable," the MLA website explains, "addresses the political movement Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel, seen by its defenders as a viable means to end the Palestinian occupation."

That the only political session at the MLA targets Israel must appear strange to the unbiased observer. Anyone familiar with the Middle East will wonder what is meant by ending "the Palestinian occupation." Does it refer to Israel's presence on the West Bank? Israel took control of that area in 1967 in the course of defending itself against an invasion from the army of Jordan, the country which then ruled the West Bank territory. For decades Israel has pursued a series of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority — just as it did, successfully, with Egypt and Jordan — in hopes of reaching a peace deal to end any Israeli presence on the West Bank. The latest phase of those Israeli-Palestinian talks, under U.S. sponsorship, is ongoing even as the MLA prepares to gather in Chicago.

Or, perhaps, by "occupation" the conveners of this MLA session mean the very existence of Israel itself, which, according to some diehard opponents of the Jewish state has no international legitimacy, even though the United Nations mandated Israel's creation and admitted Israel to U.N. membership. If that's the case, this roundtable of academics is simply seeking to dismantle a U.N. member state.
One would think that an organization dedicated to languages and literature would value Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, where academic freedom is alive and well, a free press flourishes, and there is no discrimination based on race, religion, sex or sexual preference. If the MLA wants to pronounce on international politics, why are there no sessions on countering repressive regimes such as those in Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea, where people, for example, suffer imprisonment or worse for expressing politically incorrect ideas or adhering to the wrong faith?

Even worse, this MLA boycott "conversation" doesn't even pretend to examine both sides of the question. All of the announced speakers are on record favoring an Israeli boycott. In fact, presiding officer Samer M. Ali informed The Chronicle of Higher Education that Israel's guilt is not open to doubt but rather, "(t)he question that panelists will be debating is not whether Israel is violating the rights of Palestinians, but what to do about it."

This academic scandal headed for Chicago will not be an isolated incident, but simply the latest phase in an effort by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel to get American scholarly bodies' help in delegitimizing the Jewish state. The Association for Asian Studies, the American Studies Association and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association — all relatively small —have endorsed academic boycotts of Israel, and the "conversation" at the MLA convention is designed as the opening wedge to pry an endorsement from a larger and mainstream body.

What happened to the concept that academic organizations were designed to facilitate communication between both educators within a single country and educators in different countries, rather than to build walls between groups of educators in pursuit of one or more perceived political goals?

Thankfully, the boycott movement is opposed by all the responsible voices in the academy who have spoken. The American Association of Universities and the American Association of University Professors, as well as numerous individual scholars, have condemned it as a violation of academic freedom. Most of our prestigious local academic institutions, the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago, have voiced their rejection of these academic boycotts. But the battle is far from over.
An alert to fair-minded scholars in every academic field: Don't let your profession become a haven for Israel-bashers.

Amy Stoken is director of the Chicago Regional Office of the American Jewish Committee. Jack S. Levin is a past president of AJC Chicago and a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago and Harvard University law schools.

Senator Mikulski's response about NSF funding

Dear Dr. Adler:
 

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Coburn amendment (S. Amdt. 65) to the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 113-6)).  It's good to hear from you. 

 

I share your concerns about the proposed elimination of funding for the National Science Foundation's (NSF) political science program.  As the Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, I have long supported the funding of scientific research that advances our understanding of political science, including political systems around the world.  NSF is one of the major sources of funding for all fields of basic science research. NSF fosters growth, innovation, and knowledge across this country and I am committed to robust funding for all of the agency's scientific initiatives. 

 

Originally, Senator Coburn's amendment would have eliminated funding for the NSF political science program.  An agreement between the Senator from Oklahoma and myself modified his amendment to allow for the continuation of political science research projects when the Director of NSF certifies that they promote the economic or national security interests of the United States.  Furthermore, this provision will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. 

 

Many of our nation's leading thinkers, including the late Nobel Prize winning political scientist Elinor Ostrom, rely heavily on NSF grants to conduct research essential to the breakthroughs that enrich so many lives.  Knowing of your views on this issue will be helpful to me as the Senate continues to work on this issue. 

 

Again, thanks for writing.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance to you in the future.  

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Predatory journals

This is a great example of the kinds of predatory journals that everyone was speaking about yesterday.  This message below came in my Spam folder today.

Call for Papers

American International Journal of Contemporary Research

ISSN 2162-139X (Print), ISSN 2162-142X (Online)

American International Journal of Contemporary Research (AIJCR) is an open access, peer-reviewed and refereed multidisciplinary journal published by Centre for Promoting Ideas (CPI), USA. The main objective of AIJCR is to provide an intellectual platform for the research community. AIJCR aims to promote contemporary research in business, humanities, social science, science and technology and become the leading journal in the world.

The journal publishes research papers in three broad specific fields as follows:

Business and Economics

Management, marketing, finance, economics, banking, accounting, human resources management, international business, hotel and tourism, entrepreneurship development, business ethics, development studies and so on.

Humanities and Social science

Anthropology, communication studies, corporate governance, criminology, cross-cultural studies, demography, education, ethics, geography, history, industrial relations, information science, international relations, law, linguistics, library science, media studies, methodology, philosophy, political science, population Studies, psychology, public administration, sociology, social welfare, linguistics, literature, paralegal, performing arts (music, theatre & dance), religious studies, visual arts, women studies.

Science and Technology

Astronomy and astrophysics, Chemistry, Earth and atmospheric sciences, Physics, Biology in general, Agriculture, Biophysics and biochemistry, Botany, Environmental Science, Forestry, Genetics, Horticulture, Husbandry, Neuroscience, Zoology, Computer science, Engineering, Robotics and Automation, Materials science, Mathematics, Mechanics, Statistics, Health Care & Public Health, Nutrition and Food Science, Pharmaceutical Sciences, and so on.

The journal is published both in print and online versions.

AIJCR publishes original papers, review papers, conceptual framework, analytical and simulation models, case studies, empirical research, technical notes, and book reviews.

AIJCR is indexed with and included in Cabell’s, EBSCO, Ulrich’s , IndexCopernicus International, and Gale. Moreover the journal is under the indexing process with ISI, ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, DOAJ and Econlit.

AIJCR is inviting papers for Vol. 3 No. 3 which is scheduled to be published on May 31, 2013.

 Send your manuscript to the editor at editor@aijcrnet.com, or editor.aijcr@hotmail.com

For more information, visit the official website of the journal www.aijcrnet.com 

With thanks,

Dr. Andrew Lessard

The Chief Editor, American International Journal of Contemporary Research

Contact: editor@aijcrnet.com

Does the Internet make citizens love democracy?

Catie Bailard, of George Washington University, has been blogging at The Monkey Cage on the extent to which Internet access changes citizens' awareness of political events and their willingness to engage in voting and other political activities. You can follow the above link for information about her experiments and her findings.

Rick rolled

The Oregon state House gets Rickrolled. On purpose.

The flip side

As a corrective, this article in Newsweek is useful, reminding us that not all technological advancements are good for the world. Like anything, the Internet and social networking can be used for good or evil.

Something we didn't discuss yet

We haven't spent a lot of time discussing the role of wikis as a new media tool, other than looking at Wikileaks briefly. Candidates for office seem to be largely reactive, making sure false information doesn't appear on their bios. Once in office, however, some of them are bending the rules - staffers changing information to make their bosses look better.

The new new media

Obama and the others will have to deal with it.

Seems like everyone is doing it

Creating a wiki, that is. The gold standard of new media productions is becoming popularized - how often do you hear people say "I'll wiki it"? Well, that may usually mean Wikipedia, but the concept of a wiki is more widespread, as we saw with Wikileaks.

Take the new site Wikicountability (quite a mouthful). The Times reports today about it. The site was created by American Crossroads, the organization run by Karl Rove, to put the spotlight on what they see as the Obama administration's failures. This could be a powerful new tool.

Does NBC have a corporate bias problem?

Posted without comment. You decide.

Pawlenty on cap-and-trade

Yesterday we discussed the power and danger of new media tools for presidential candidates, specifically former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Today there's a story out that Pawlenty is continuing to apologize for his past stand on the issue of capping carbon emissions. I guess he realizes he's got some work to do. The most interesting part of this, to my mind, is who he's speaking to - Laura Ingraham, conservative radio talk show host. Here's a bit of "old media".

The power of images, part 3

Rolling Stone today has published a story following up on the reports of American soldiers in Afghanistan murdering civilians for sport. There are more graphic pictures and videos attached to the story, partly because any photographs of this sort, whether caused by normal casualties or otherwise, are prohibited by the military's rules - so that in and of itself is newsworthy.

The more this stuff trickles out, the more likely it is that our presence in Afghanistan will be undermined.

The power of images, revisited

The German newspaper Der Spiegel is reporting on a series of gruesome photographs taken by US Army soldiers. The soldiers apparently killed Afghani civilians and then took photos of the dead bodies in contorted positions, being held up by their hair or twisted and battered. You can read the story and look at the images here (warning: graphic content).

This only further underscores the power of images to shape our understanding of political events. If these images get published in the Muslim world, there could be a backlash like the one that happened after the Abu Ghraib revelations.

Some things are good

In our rush to condemn some of the worst trends of the modern-day media, we shouldn't forget that there are still journalists doing incredible work under difficult circumstances. This article in today's New York Times points out how foreign news coverage of the Japanese earthquake, Middle Eastern rebellions, the air war over Libya, and the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia has really been exemplary. Credit where credit is due!

Seriously, don't plagiarize!

Or you may end up like this reporter for the Washington Post, fired for copying material from someone else's story.

Bob Woodward, still at it

See here for more.

Disaster coverage

The news is full of stories about the horrific devastation in Japan. Meanwhile, here's some thoughts on how journalists cover disaster-related stories, as compared to other, slower-moving events.

Oh, and here's Jon Stewart's take:

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Maybe I've been wrong

This month's issue of The Atlantic has a long and counter-intuitive piece by James Fallows, a well-known journalist and commentator on the media. Fallows argues that, contrary to the accepted wisdom that I've been echoing this semester, the media isn't doing such a bad job in its primary tasks. Moreover, he states that although change is inevitable, it doesn't have to mean an inevitable slide down.

He starts off by showing that in every generation journalists look back in the belief that the past was always better, a mythical golden age that can never be recaptured. But we can't fight changes caused by shifting cultural trends and technological advancements. Fallows spends a lot of time discussing Gawker, which until recently has had the reputation of nothing more than a scandal-mongering platform. Now, as Fallows points out, it's become the source of revelations about candidate's personal lives and the newest scandals. This may seem tawdry, but it's the kind of news that sells and that people demand.

So, rather than fight this trend, perhaps we should embrace it. Accept that media is a business, accept that people's tastes have changed, and let the media evolve to fit what people want. There will always be a market for high-end publications, like The Atlantic or Harper's or even the New York Times, but maybe not everything has to meet this standard of elite-defined excellence.

Be careful what you say

A lesson in why politicians should be more careful about their language:

In 2008, candidate Obama declared in no uncertain terms that he would close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

In 2009, President-elect Obama issued an executive order saying that the prison would close within one year (for which he was criticized by outlets like the Wall Street Journal).

Today? It's staying open, the Obama administration says.

Oops.