tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452233.post5716225290702591043..comments2023-11-24T02:59:25.896-06:00Comments on College Freedom: John K. Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07095262644379400681noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452233.post-55171968104652665482007-05-14T12:18:00.000-05:002007-05-14T12:18:00.000-05:00One small correction - Novick's letter was sent to...One small correction - Novick's letter was sent to Patrick Callahan, who was at the time a former chair of the political science department. The chair of political science in 2006 (and now), is Michael Budde, a supporter of Norman's bid for tenure and promotion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5452233.post-72054919713209163992007-05-05T18:26:00.000-05:002007-05-05T18:26:00.000-05:00I'm posting below Peter Novick's letter to DePaul ...I'm posting below Peter Novick's letter to DePaul in response to a request by the then-chair of the DePaul's political science department for negative information about Finkelstein. This was printed in the Chronicle of Higher Education, but shortened for space. Here is the original letter, minus some small changes that Novick requested:<BR/><BR/>16 June 2006<BR/> <BR/>Professor Dershowitz has intervened in Finkelstein's case not--God forbid!--as a partisan, but "in defense of scholarly standards," the same slogan Finkelstein invokes in his attacks on Dershowitz. Can anyone doubt that all of this high-minded talk of scholarly standards is a charade? Each charges the other with poor or dishonest scholarship not as part of any desire to uphold scholarly standards, but in order to discredit the (political) substance of the other's arguments.<BR/><BR/>At this point it might be responded that the political origin of the charges against Finkelstein are irrelevant--the sole question before De Paul is whether his work in fact contains scholarly flaws. To this, I would make three replies.<BR/><BR/>The first reply is that of course Finkelstein's work--like that of all of us--is "flawed." ("Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.") The question is not whether the work is flawed, but whether, on balance, the positive contribution of the totality of his scholarly work outweighs its faults. As you well know, the differential weights which each of us assigns to various sorts of merits and demerits makes this an enormously complex and controversial calculus. What I call tendentiousness, another scholar (not obviously stupider than myself) will call moral commitment; what I might call dishonesty, another will call an "excess of zeal." I say this as one who has been highly critical of Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, and I don't withdraw any of those criticisms. My criticisms reflect my values, my sensibility, who I am--and were those I judged appropriate in a particular (German and political) context. But I don't confuse those criticisms with holy writ. To some this will seem pernicious "relativism." To me, it is acknowledgment that works exist in multiple contexts, and that we live in a pluralistic academic community.<BR/><BR/>My second reply also involves an appeal to pluralism. There are those who relish the adversarial role, who delight in combat, whose greatest joy is in advancing a cause--and vanquishing an opponent of that cause. Such people are often inclined to stretch evidence to the breaking point (and occasionally beyond) in the service of their arguments. Professor Finkelstein seems to be of that number, as does Professor Dershowitz. (They are, in this respect true soulmates.) This is, to understate the matter, not my style, which is much more tentative and cautious. It would be disastrous, I believe, to have a university composed exclusively of people like Finkelstein and Dershowitz . . . and equally undesirable to have a university composed exclusively of people like me. <BR/><BR/>My third reply is, in a sense, a positive response to your request that I advise De Paul in its adjudication of Finkelstein's case. Dershowitz's highly-publicized intervention has, it seems to me, made it impossible for De Paul to reject Finkelstein's bid for tenure without everyone concluding that De Paul had capitulated to Dershowitz's bullying. For example, I anticipate that press coverage would contrast such a decision by De Paul with the refusal of Governer Schwarzenegger of California and the University of California Press to yield to Dershowitz's attempt to block publication of Finkelstein's most recent book. It may be, of course, that your examination of Finkelstein's written work, his teaching, and his other contributions to the university will lead you to conclude--on grounds having nothing to do with Dershowitz's intervention--that he is unworthy of tenure at De Paul. If that's the case, you'll have to live with the opprobrium which the denial will bring to the institution. . . .<BR/><BR/>Peter NovickJohn K. Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095262644379400681noreply@blogger.com