fbpx

UCLA’S Center for Near Eastern Studies: A response to a groundless attack

Recently, the Jewish Journal published an opinion piece by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith, who have spent the better part of four years bashing the Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES) at UCLA.
[additional-authors]
January 12, 2015

Recently, the Jewish Journal published an opinion piece by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith, who have spent the better part of four years bashing the Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES) at UCLA.  Their goal?  To make an example of CNES to pressure Congress to abolish the Title VI program.  Title VI provides funding to a number of National Resource Centers such as CNES that provide programming, community outreach, research opportunities, and language instruction so that students, faculty, and members of the community might better be able to understand the world around them.  The method they have chosen to accomplish their goal is to disseminate false and misleading information, to use that false and misleading information to lobby Congress and fear-monger among the Jewish community, and to publish opinion pieces in outlets such as this one to demonstrate that CNES and similar institutions have violated the parameters of the federal program.  In other words, they are accusing CNES, its leadership and its 76 affiliated faculty of providing a platform for, or at least condoning, anti-Israel animus and even anti-Semitism.  None of this comes even close to the truth.         

Let’s look at the issues they raise in their piece.  First, they reach back to a panel discussion sponsored by CNES in 2009—2009!—entitled, “Human Rights in Gaza.”  For them, this event alone is enough to prove a pattern of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic bias (although one would think that if there was a pattern they wouldn’t have to reach back six years to find an example).  Their description of the event, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. 

For instance, they state that in her introductory remarks the director of CNES told the audience that the purpose of the panel was to present “the truth” about (Israeli) human rights abuses in Gaza.  She is later quoted as telling the audience that “she had no intention of presenting future CNES events with perspectives less biased against Israel.”  The director’s opening remarks are podcast and can be found here.  They bear no resemblance to what was reported. 

The second purported statement is belied by the fact that the next month CNES did, indeed, co-sponsor an event titled, “Christmas in Gaza: An Adventitious War,” featuring a distinguished faculty member noted for his pro-Israel views.  They claim one speaker said that “nations which act like Israel are ‘enemies of all mankind,’” when, in fact, the speaker in question applied the legal term of art (English for the Latin hostis humani generis) to individuals—not Israel—who violate laws which fall under the category of “universal jurisdiction” (that same speaker also cited suicide bombings as a crime).  Then they quote a former UN official’s critique of Israel’s 2008-9 action in Gaza.  They do not, however, quote his statement that that firing rockets from Gaza into Israel was “wrongful, unlawful, immoral.”

Were these simply misunderstandings?  Another statement in their piece indicates not. Here’s a quote they claim to have taken from a posted CNES response to a report the two had written denouncing the center:

“[T]hose responsible for programming at CNES saw no reason to 'balance' the criticism (of Israel)…no reason to bring in speakers who would defend it.”  

Here’s what the response actually says:

Those responsible for programming at CNES saw no reason to ‘balance’ the criticism of the governments of Arab states, Turkey, Iran, and other states by bringing in speakers who would defend them. Speakers invited by CNES are, after all, accomplished scholars presenting original work. Likewise, in that programming where the Israeli government has been criticized, those responsible for staging events saw no reason to bring in speakers who would defend it.

In short, Rossman-Benjamin and Beckwith are serial fabricators.

The two authors make a number of other charges—equally distorted or spurious—in their piece.  They seem to have no inkling that CNES, like most area studies programs around the U.S., is subject to multiple layers of scrutiny, including that of the Department of Education and internal and external peer review processes. They misunderstand the role of center director, who must consult with a faculty advisory committee appointed by the Interim Vice Provost for International Studies on all important programming and budgeting decisions.  And there is more.  I therefore urge readers of the Jewish Journal to read the complete rebuttal to their charges here

I urge them to think about something else as well: Considering all that is going on in the world, isn’t the quixotic campaign of Rossman-Benjamin and Beckwith against Title VI funding misguided? Shouldn’t we be expanding support for area studies at this critical time rather than trying to do away with it?

James L. Gelvin is Professor of History and Co-Chair, Faculty Advisory Committee at the Center for Near Eastern Studies, UCLA

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Print Issue: Got College? | Mar 29, 2024

With the alarming rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, choosing where to apply has become more complicated for Jewish high school seniors. Some are even looking at Israel.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.