I doubt that Massad has been denied tenure, or even if we had that it happened at the same time El-Haj got it. But even if I'm wrong, there is no reason to think the two developments are related at all, let alone that they are part of a "back room deal". Massad and El-Haj teach not only in different departments (Middle Eastern staudies and anthropology, respectively), but different *institutions* (Columbia and Barnard). There is no one Columbia could even make such a deal with, and no reason it would do so even if it could.

I tend to agree with CU Alum. Conspiracites is a highly contagious disease.

Nothwithstanding, I would hate to see Massad given the bona-fides of tenure. He is beyond belief, in the kind of material he teaches to his students about Israel or the Middle East. That Zion is a Hebrew name for penis, that homosexuality in Muslim socieity is a fabrication of Colonialist criminal master minds intended to emasculate the Arabs in order to better control them. What kind of academic institution could possibly tolerate these tales except for columbia?

The actual rumor, on campus, not in the blogs, is not that Columbia gave something to Barnard in exchange.

The idea is that when people like Solomon began in his wisdom to point out how deeply flawed and pliticized Abl El Haj's scholarship was, Columbia saw an opportunity.

You must understand that while Al Haj shocks scholars (real scholars, especially historians and archaeologists, not the postmodernists and postcolonialists in anthro) Massad shocks alumni and donors.

Firing him, however, would raise a furor among Columbia's highly politicized arts and sciences faculty.

so, instead of firing him last year when he came up for tenure - the administration punted. i.e., they deferred the decision for a year, apparently hoping for a miracle.

The miracle appeared in the shape of a comely young scholar from, OK, not Nazareth, El Haj was born in NYC, but close enough.

The thing about El Haj is that you almost have to be an archaeologist or a historian of that period and place to understnad how truly shody, how offensive, her book is. (normal people know the words inthe book, only people accustomed to post-modern cant know what she means when she uses them - just look at the idiot journalists who read the book and didn't know what it says) but anybody with ears can know that Joseph Massad is an anti-Semite.

So by letting Massad go bollinger appeases the alumni and donors, but by keeping El Haj he appeases the radical left on his faculty without offending very many donors or alumni.

It wasn't so much a deal as it was an opportunity, that Bollinger seized, to get rid of a bad apple (Massad) without inciting a faculty revolt (because he tenured El Haj)

There are other complexities, but that is the gist.

Bollinger may regret this when her book on Jewish Race Science comes out. But he may no longer be president of Columbia by then anyway. Judith Shapiro is leaving now, she'll probably have a cushy job running a foundation by the time el Haj's book arouses the fury of all decent alumnae.

Noga - the answer to your last question is : The University of Pennsylvania, where they just put Ian Lustick in charge of Israel Studies.

Is Ian Lustick very anti-Israel? Didn't he use to teach at Dartmouth some time back?

Anon --

Leaving aside the question of what an "actual rumor" is, what makes you think Massad was up for tenure last year, let alone that Columbia "deferred the decision for a year, apparently hoping for a miracle"? Massad was promoted last year to associate professor, albeit without tenure. A promotion is usually a sign of approval, not disapproval. Columbia often gives promotions like this to scholars who are not yet up for tenure review, and it does so when it thinks they show great promise. When Columbia expects to deny tenure to an assistant professor it tends to let them remain at that level.

CU Alum,

I know these things because faculties are small communities, and this small community is intensely interested in the quesiton of whether Massad and El get tenure. The Massad process was not a secret. Neither was the El Haj process at Barnard. Ditto for Massad.

People don't just happen to come up for tenure. They get hired, sometimes advised to look elsewhere after the second or third year, if not, shought is given to the coming tenure, almost always in a kindly and collegial way. People keep track, offer advice, but certainly if they want to know ehen, they know when.

What was unusual about Massad and El Haj is that so many outsiders were watching, not the the faculty knew exactly what was happening and on what schedule.

Ian Lustig is anti-Israel. The easiest way to guage this re: a professor of Middle Eastern Studies is to type his/her name into Campus Watch. they usually have archived the more damning articles.

With professors who hate Israel but teach, say , Engllish lit, you would have to google around and read more.

I mentioned Lustig not because he is worse than others, but because this appointment was just announced.

The fact is that American campuses are crowded with professors who truly believe that America is an evil force in the world. the leading evil force in the wold. And that Israel is an evil nation whose citizens have no right to be living in the Middle East.

On many campuses, a moderate position could be expressed like this: the Zionist movement is fundamentally racist and the Israeli State is an illegitimate intrusion onto Palestinian land. However, they do not want to actually see all of the Jews actually driven into the sea.

That is the moderate position.