Hate Comes To Columbia?

This is a response to the Op-Ed "Hate Comes to Columbia" by Chris
Kulawik and Josh Lipsky, heads of the College Republicans and the
College Democrats. In this piece, they criticize the invitation of
Professor Norman Finkelstein to a speaking engagement at Columbia
by United Students of Color Council, and other like-minded student
organizations. From the tone of the piece, one would have thought
Mr. Finkelstein were Hitler's lost brother. Yet the quotes of Mr.
Finkelstein they garnered are surprisingly un-provocative. It is
not necessarily "anti-Semitic" or "terrorist sympathizing" to say
"some of the things Bin Laden says are true", or that Holocaust
denial has provoked a "level of mental hysteria" among the Jewish
community, or to criticize those who profit from the tragedy of the
holocaust. Nor do I think it is in bad taste for Mr. Finkelstein to
criticize the concept of "Jewish choseness", considering that it
has led to a segregated Israeli state in which Palestinians are
second class citizens, if citizens at all. They also accuse Mr.
Finkelstein of Holocaust revisionism, but I see the editor has
wisely issued a correction. Far from being a "holocaust denier",
Mr. Finkelstein refers to his own parents as "holocaust survivors".
If this is all the criticism they can muster against Mr.
Finkelstein, then to say that he "spews hate" or to question his
professorship is inappropriate.
They also cite an argument made in the Yale Daily News which makes
an analogy to slavery, asking: "Would the university sponsor a
speaker who criticized the African-American community for
‘exploiting’ slavery and segregation? No—of course not—and rightly
so." It's interesting they would give this example, because
conservatives who get speaking engagements at Columbia and Yale
routinely make precisely this assertion when they accuse
affirmative action advocates of having a "victimization complex".
For instance, David Horowitz, who spoke at Columbia in 2003 (and
incidentally has a cover story in yesterday’s Spectator), paid for
ads across the country just a few years before attacking slavery
reparations. Horowitz asked the questions: "What about the debt
blacks owe to America? …Where is the gratitude of black America and
its leaders for those gifts?" Horowitz was implying blacks should be
grateful for their ancestors’ enslavement, and that they were
exploiting slavery by seeking reparations. This did not stop
Columbia from inviting Horowitz to a speaking engagement in 2003.
Now there’s a man who spews hate, yet judging from yesterday’s
front page Spectator article in which Horowitz accuses three
Columbia professors of "indoctrinating" students, Columbia is ready
and willing to listen to this man, despite his history of accusing
blacks of exploiting slavery. If Horowitz is given such credibility
despite his apparent hatefulness, clearly we should give Finkelstein
the same leeway, even if his opinions are shocking and
controversial.

To those who still question Mr. Finkelstein’s professorship, I would
encourage them to do a little online research on politically neutral
sites. According to Wikipedia, Finklestein initially achieved fame
for discrediting the 1984 historical bestseller "From Time
Immemorial", by Joan Peters. At the time, Finkelstein was virtually
the only person to criticize Peters’ demographic argument that most
of the Palestinians had only immigrated to Palestine in ’48 (this
argument was used to discredit Palestinian right to statehood).
Finkelstein’s assessment is now widely accepted; even Daniel Pipes,
the ideological equivalent of Ann Coultier with respect to Israel,
now acknowledges that Peters’ book "uses statistics sloppily, and
ignores inconvenient facts". Thus Kulawik and Lipsky’s claim that
Finkelstein "makes his living off of absurd statements that garner
comfortable speaking engagements" is extremely unfair. It is
difficult to deny that Finkelstein’s eternal questioning has led to
the debunking of myths about Israel that may have otherwise
perpetuated indefinitely.

In my opinion, the best assessment of a professor’s scholarship
comes not from the heads of political organizations, but from peers
in academia. Raul Hilberg, the foremost expert on the holocaust, has
this to say about Finkelstein’s much-maligned book:
"When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time
of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of
these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the
right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with
the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining
to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually
conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He
is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the
reserch, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results.
I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years,
will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

update: here's a good response piece in the spectator