A Bitter Spat Over Ideas, Israel and Tenure

[oberliner]

If the longstanding fight between two professors, Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein, was under the jurisdiction of family court, a judge could issue restraining orders and forbid inflammatory statements. But, alas, this nasty and zealously pursued feud is taking place in scholarly precincts, so each protagonist is continuing his campaign, unhampered, to destroy the other’s professional reputation and career.

In this corner: Alan Dershowitz, left, and Norman Finkelstein.

In the latest round, first reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Mr. Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard and a prominent defender of Israel, is trying to derail Mr. Finkelstein’s bid for tenure at DePaul University in Chicago. He has sent a blast of e-mail messages to faculty and administrators there accusing Mr. Finkelstein of shoddy scholarship, lying and anti-Semitism.

Mr. Finkelstein, who is going before a university-wide review panel on Friday, the third and final step of the tenure process, said that so far two committees — one from the political science department and one from the college as a whole — voted in favor of tenure. But the college dean rejected his advisory committee’s vote and recommended against an appointment.

“I am personally confident that had the process been without outside interferences, I would have gotten tenure,” Mr. Finkelstein said. (Tenure decisions will be announced in June, said Denise Mattson, a spokeswoman for DePaul.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/arts/12tenu.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[bemildred]

1. Not a pretty picture, is it?

Frankly, I find the notion that this is about ideas a bit of a stretch.

[msmcghee]

2. You're right. It's about beliefs.

The ideas are to justify them.

[bemildred]

4. Well, egos was what I had in mind.

But it's blood sport now, so it's more than that, too.

[msmcghee]

11. One's strongest beliefs are always driven by ego . .

. . because they form part of one's identity.

[bemildred]

12. Do you strongly believe that? nt

[msmcghee]

15. Good one!

Actually, no. I arrived at this hypothesis about two tears ago. I'm still looking for counter evidence. But as time goes by and it seems to apply to so many conflicts that I observe (and participate in) I'd say that it's moving up the scale in that direction. (Strong belief)

Examples abound in I/P. Here's one I just pulled from this thread - I guess because I was just thinking about it.

Dershowitz believes that torture is good and that Guantanamo is wonderful! Updated at 1:50 PM

Any candidate for the Presidency that fails to condemn Dershowitz's views on torture and Guantanamo, should also be condemned.

Israel's subservient megaphones in America have tried very hard to silence the voices of the likes of Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Jimmy Carter. This is evidence enough that this crowd of ultra-Zionist and PNAC/PPI-warmongers pose as much a threat to our liberties as the Bush regime.

See what I mean?

I am still open to counter evidence but I'd be surprised at this point to find any. Have any candidates?

[bemildred]

16. No, you can think that if you like.

I would only suggest you consider where "ego" comes from; I mean it doesn't just pop out of an egg fully formed, does it?

And also, consider how your idea relates to the one I mentioned here a while back that self-interest is the surest guide to human behavior.

Sometimes I consider that the primary function of human "thinking" is to construct socially acceptable rationalizations for the dictates of instinct and self-interest.

[msmcghee]

19. Your comments seem interesting.

But I'm not sure what you mean by some of them. Correct me if I guess wrong.

I would only suggest you consider where "ego" comes from; I mean it doesn't just pop out of an egg fully formed, does it?

Are you asking about the development of ego? I think the first time a baby cries - that behavior was caused by the "ego" that they were born with. In that sense, ego is a motivator (emotional force) behind behavior that is most directly concerned with survival. Survival is simply the process of preserving one's identity. Ego is an "identity protector".

I don't think one's ego changes so much during development - though I think it can become a stronger or weaker force in one's personality - depending on how besieged we feel as we grow up. I think those who's survival (identity) is often besieged as they mature will probably form a personality around an ego that is somewhat more defensive toward life, generally.

And also, consider how your idea relates to the one I mentioned here a while back that self-interest is the surest guide to human behavior.

Yes, I remember that exchange. I think it relates well.

Sometimes I consider that the primary function of human "thinking" is to construct socially acceptable rationalizations for the dictates of instinct and self-interest.

You are definitely going down the right track there IMO.

Beliefs have their effect on us through emotion. The emotions attached to our beliefs provide the "force" behind behavior choice. Even behavior as simple as changing the channel on our TV is due to a temporary and relatively weak emotional belief that channel 6 is better at that moment than channel 4. But, if insufficient emotion is available to back up that belief, then we just won't bother.

Humans get all the usual mammalian inputs to our belief formation mechanism - like instinct, event memory, social awareness, sex drive, etc. But we also have access to another one - intellect.

If we already have beliefs that cover a problem we face - we'll use them. Thinking requires more metabolic energy. Also, using our trusted beliefs just feels more secure. We were there before. It worked before. What's to worry about? Egos like to feel secure.

We use intellect when we don't have beliefs that we are confident in for a situation. We don't rethink the streets we take to get to Safeway every time we go there. We have that route in memory as a trusted belief. But we might have to think about how to get to that gift shop somebody just told us about. Of course, as we grow there are ever fewer situations that our beliefs don't cover - so some older folks can seem to be "set in their ways".

In a forum like this (which is about beliefs) we constantly face challenges to our beliefs from opponents who are using their intellect to trip us up - to present us with novel problems that we don't recognize or for which we don't have well rehearsed beliefs that we've worked out before. So, in I/P we engage our intellects continuously and often in high gear to deal with this set of unique problems centered on justifying our existing beliefs.

I/P is like a gym where both sides of the brain can get a thorough work out - although some posters consistently favor one side over the other.

But, you are right. In a forum like this it does seem that we are all using our intellects to construct rationalizations for our beliefs - no matter how we arrived at them - because that's what we are being challenged to do. There is very little new belief formation going on here.

*******

Strong beliefs are very trusted beliefs that over time and through testing in the real world - become part of our identity. We've learned to depend on them for our survival. You could say that we are more likely to use our intellect to justify those strong beliefs than change them. We don't often question our identity - but we are always ready to defend it.

The value of a forum like this - is that others who don't share our strong identity beliefs are more than willing to challenge them for us.

That's not to say any of us are going to change our strong beliefs easily. But, it does happen. And if it does, it will probably be the result of relentless challenges to our beliefs in a place like this - that eventually acquire more emotional strength than our own egos.

[msmcghee]

17. Sunday morning bonus video - very "on topic"..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x22953

[IndianaGreen]

7. Dershowitz believes that torture is good and that Guantanamo is wonderful!

Any candidate for the Presidency that fails to condemn Dershowitz's views on torture and Guantanamo, should also be condemned.

Israel's subservient megaphones in America have tried very hard to silence the voices of the likes of Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, and Jimmy Carter. This is evidence enough that this crowd of ultra-Zionist and PNAC/PPI-warmongers pose as much a threat to our liberties as the Bush regime.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I've missed you being round these parts, Indy...

Even when I don't agree with what yr saying, which has happened at times in the past, yr passion and lack of tolerance for bullshit makes yr posts stand out from the bunch...

[IndianaGreen]

10. Not much happening in I/P. We are standing on the same spot we were 6 years ago.

Sure, we might be rewarded with the illusion of movement. Condi Rice may go here or there for a photo op. King George might make an appearance from time to time. Whoever is occupying Sharon's chair might say this or that. Unfortunately, it is only an illusion that things are moving along. We have a better chance of getting a bowel movement out of a dead cow than we can from leaders in America and "over there."

[bemildred]

13. Yep. nt

[msmcghee]

14. Heh. Finkelstein, Chomsky and Carter . .

. . are some of the better known personalities on the inti-Israel side of the debate. The are paid very good money to speak on the subject, they get interviewed repeatedly by journalists and millions buy their books.

To say that "subservient megaphones" are trying to silence them - mostly speaks to the nameless paranoia of some true-believers who see dark conspiracies behind every attempt by people like Dershowitz to challenge the validity of their cherished beliefs.

Almost everything that Dershowitz has said or written on the subject since Carter published his book has been an attempt to get Carter to engage publicly in a forum where Carter would have to defend his ideas.

That's about as far from "trying very hard to silence" him as one can get. In fact it's the exact opposite. But I'm sure the "dark conspiracies to silence them" meme feels so much better to those who sense that maybe the beliefs they share with Finkelstein, Chomsky and Carter are not so easy to justify in a public forum.

[madrchsod]

3. put boxing gloves on them and make`m go three rounds

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Who needs The Bold & The Beautiful when this soap opera keeps on running? n/t

[bemildred]

6. "The old and the relentless" is what I was thinking. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

8. That's a pretty apt title, imo...

I do have to wonder if either of them stop for a second to think about what complete fools they're making of themselves? My guess is no...

[bemildred]

18. There is far too much at stake to even consider being sensible. nt