FROM: James Schreiber, Esq.

President Lee Bollinger February 11, 2005
Columbia University Presidents Office
202 Low Library
New York, New York 10027

RE: CURRENT CRISIS AT THE SCHOOL

Dear President Bollinger,

This is the first time I have written to the President of Columbia and I do so as some one who loves the school. I am a 1968 graduate of the Law School, have contributed generously in the past and currently serve on its Board of Visitors. A copy of my biography from the Board is included for your information.

I have just seen the film Columbia Unbecoming from the David Project and I suspect that alumni and many others have besieged you on the issues raised in that film. I want to describe what I experienced myself a few years ago so that you may have more information than perhaps you do. I certainly do not envy you since this is a problem not of your creation, but one which poses serious and complex problems for the University, the resolution of which will have long term consequences both to the school and potentially to you personally as well

I am very active in the Middle East. For many years, I have served on the Executive Committee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a DC based think-tank on the Middle East. Ambassador Dennis Ross, the principal US peace negotiator under Bush 41 and Clinton, works for the Institute and its Board of Advisers includes four former Secretaries of State, namely, Schultz, Christopher, Eagleburger and Haig. Its focus is US policy in Region.

I am also the originator of the Palestinian Rule of Law Project, which brings Palestinian lawyers to the U.S. for a one year LLM program on the promise that they return to the Region for two years and work in approved projects that build democratic institutions. Begun about six years ago, and supported by former Dean David Leebron (now the President of Rice) and Dean Alice Haemmerli of Graduate Legal Studies, the project envisions creating a cadre, over the next few years, of 50-60 western trained professionals who might become Founding Fathers and Mothers of a democratic Palestinian State. Last year there were seven participants and this year there are nine, with Columbia having one each year. I recruited, now with some regrets, Soros's Open Society Institute to administer the program. There are about ten Palestinian businessmen in Kuwait, Amman, London and Athens who I have also brought into the program that help fund it as well.

This brings me to my experience with Professor Joseph Massad.[...]

About two and half years ago, I received an email that the Middle East Institute and the School of International and Public Affairs were sponsoring a lecture to be given by Joseph Massad on what I felt was a most intriguing topic, entitled Zionism and Jewish Supremacy. Coincidentally, Ambassador Ross and his wife had been our guests the evening before to see the Producers and had stayed over in the morning before returning to DC. I attended the noon lecture and was dismayed by what I experienced.

Purporting to be a scholarly lecture, I regret to say that it was instead an anti-Semitic diatribe with only a patina of scholarship that one might have perhaps heard at a neo-nazi rally. Massads thesis in summary was that Jews Zionists-- viewed themselves as superior to other people and Arabs as less than human, that as a consequence they would never give up the West Bank and Gaza and therefore they had to be boycotted, blockaded and destroyed.

A few people out of perhaps 50-60 who attended the lecture in the question period raised their hands and praised him for his insight and balance. At that point, I raised my hand and said that I was profoundly disturbed by what he was saying, that while his delivery was matter-of-fact, the words were incendiary but most importantly his underlying premise was simply not accurate. I said that it was contradicted by what had been offered to Arafat at Camp David Two and at Taba, with the Clinton bridging proposals, namely, as we now all know some 97% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and a compromise on Jerusalem and holy sites, with the Right of Return to Israel being waived for compensation. Massad said, no that was not correct, that what was actually offered was merely 65% of the West Bank and that it was all bantustans, not contiguous.

I responded that it just so happened that I had spoken with Dennis Ross, the evening before and that morning, that we had discussed this very point and that he had said that such contentions were regrettably becoming part of a false mythology increasingly prevalent in the Region. At that point, someone in the audience shouted out, Dennis Ross is a JEW! the purpose of which obviously was to undermine a flat contradiction of the speaker. Neither the moderator nor anyone in authority in the room said anything. I sat there stunned.

What happened next stunned me even more. After a few questions from the floor, a graduate student raised his hand and tried very gently, in my opinion, to deal with Massads contention of Jewish supremacy by saying that perhaps he misunderstood what he called Jewish particularity, that arose from unique Jewish experiences most recently during World Ward II. He then gave in a few brief sentences a quick summary, for the benefit he said of perhaps some students from the college who might not know the history of the Region. Shortly thereafter, an older gentleman said that he too was disturbed by Massads talk, that he felt anxious that if given to a student audience in an Arab country who were told how incorrigibly evil Israel and the Jews were, that it could incite not only hatred but also extreme behavior, even acts of terrorism.

At that point, a professor whose name I do not recall spoke up and said if I recall correctly that he was the head of the Middle East Studies program at the college. He then did two things that surprised me. First, he said that he did not need a graduate student to patronize him; in fact saying, How dare you patronize me!--since he was already fully knowledgeable about the Region and was in fact the head of the department. Second, he criticized the moderator for allowing the last person in the audience to call Massad a terrorist, which of course had not been either said nor intended. But he then went on to say that Massads view was correct, that he was very brave to say what he said and then made it clear, at least to me, that this was essentially the orthodoxy being taught in the college and upon which grades were determined.

The issues raised in this instance and in the David Projects Columbia Unbecoming are very troubling. They of course include issues of intimidation, free speech and the creating of a hostile environment in an academic setting, which can never be condoned nor tolerated. Leaders such as you must aggressively oppose such behavior. These of course need to be balanced by allowing and if not encouraging the expression of all points of view, even those that might be unpopular and/or offensive.

This is why I do not envy your situation. It is apparent that it can get complicated quickly. But the point that I want to make to you is that, in this context of academic freedom and free expression of ideas, there need to be at least some minimal standards of scholarship and accuracy. This is especially critical at a university of the caliber of Columbia and this is what is missing here. Otherwise there is license to use a respected scholarly position for propaganda purposes to promote hatred if not incitement.

It was apparent to me that Massad was using his position as a Columbia professor, entitled to the respect of students, to promote vile and insidious anti-Semitic hatred in the language of anti-Zionism, He was ostensibly using his scholarship in doing so, but what in fact it entailed was transparently flimsy and more importantly factually and demonstrably untrue.

What makes this complicated and of concern to me are a number of things that are gathering more and more strength. First, while you have appointed a committee to look into these allegations, regrettably it is seen as already biased because a majority of the panel members have personal and professional connections to those being criticized. This means that whatever the panels conclusions are will be immediately subject to further criticism. And regrettably you too will be criticized for having appointed an obviously biased panel to begin with and the University will suffer as a consequence.

Donors and alumni potentially will be reluctant to continue their support. It is this aspect which concerns me greatly because it is gaining force and movement and strength. I do not know if you are aware of this, but if unchecked, it could have serious negative consequences for the University. I would be happy to share with you a growing tide of angry emails that is now circulating on this issue. The seriousness of it should not be ignored.

At the same time, the faculty will likely be arguing for the need for academic freedom, saying that they should not be intimidated by donors and alumni, particularly those who are Jewish and who do not like what a few isolated professors might be saying at a particular moment in time. Moreover, I can imagine them asserting that you must protect academic freedom in this context. All of this is true as well.

But I feel that you should be aware that even in an otherwise benign setting where Jewish life is vibrant and dynamic, as it seems to be at Columbia, there can still arise --right along side it-- a virulent and dangerous anti-Semitic movement that intimidates and frightens both students and faculty alike. Promoted in a respected academic environment rightly concerned about academic freedom, but left unchallenged, the danger is even greater. The Nazi movement in Germany arose in the most civilized society at the time, alongside an otherwise vibrant Jewish community there. While I am not suggesting that the situations are comparable, we know from history what can result from silence.

Responsible leaders can not rightfully close our eyes to what is really being said and what is actually happening.

All the best,

James Schreiber