APOLOGIA FOR HAMAS AT HARVARD

Sara Roy, a senior research scholar at Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, complained recently of censorship because her review of a book by the Washington Institute’s Mathew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, was rejected by a peer review panel at Tufts University’s Fletcher Forum on World Affairs as one-sided and lacking in objectivity. (Apparently, peer review is regarded by Roy as a mere formality, something akin to the approval of a presidential decree by the Syrian parliament). Cinnamon Stillwell has a detailed account of the issue. Roy’s review was in the end published elsewhere and upon re...

APOLOGIA FOR HAMAS AT HARVARD

Sara Roy, a senior research scholar at Harvard University’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, complained recently of censorship because her review of a book by the Washington Institute’s Mathew Levitt, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad, was rejected by a peer review panel at Tufts University’s Fletcher Forum on World Affairs as one-sided and lacking in objectivity. (Apparently, peer review is regarded by Roy as a mere formality, something akin to the approval of a presidential decree by the Syrian parliament). Cinnamon Stillwell has a detailed account of the issue. Roy’s review was in the end published elsewhere and upon reading it, the justification for its earlier rejection is readily apparent.

From George Brown University's History News Network: http://www.hnn.us/blogs/entries/40970.html

1. Daniel Mandal, the other of this paragraph, implies that book reviews are commonly subject to peer review. This isn't so. It is odd and unusual that a journal would flatly reject Roy's review (rather than ask for revisions) AFTER inviting her to write it and AFTER the editor-in-chief signed off on it. It was pretty damn shabby as well (especially since writing book reviews doesn't get one tenure, promotion, or raises in universities).
2. Interested readers can judge for themselves whether or not Roy is an apologist for Hamas by reading her review here. Apparently, having a different view of Hamas's political trajectory is suf...

1. Daniel Mandal, the other of this paragraph, implies that book reviews are commonly subject to peer review. This isn't so. It is odd and unusual that a journal would flatly reject Roy's review (rather than ask for revisions) AFTER inviting her to write it and AFTER the editor-in-chief signed off on it. It was pretty damn shabby as well (especially since writing book reviews doesn't get one tenure, promotion, or raises in universities).
2. Interested readers can judge for themselves whether or not Roy is an apologist for Hamas by reading her review here. Apparently, having a different view of Hamas's political trajectory is sufficient for Mandel to dismiss one's work as an "apologia" for Hamas. He is clearly not interested in carrying on a serious dialogue, and his article is only proof that there is a contingent of die-hard zionists who feel they have to suppress dissenting views in order to support Israel.

The truth, as is often the case, is somewhere in the middle. Her piece makes a couple of unsubstantiated comments about Hamas. Mandal considers them 'apologetics.' Was that enough to turn down the review? Frankly, I don't know. I think I would have published it, and let someone respond in a future issue. But, I must add that I've also been asked to write articles that have then been rejected. Usually a re-write is possible, but not always. As another author wrote, "The truth is that under the banner of preserving "academic freedom," scholars such as Roy object to any and all efforts to hold their work accountable. But accountability does not equal censorship." On this I would agree. The fac...

The truth, as is often the case, is somewhere in the middle. Her piece makes a couple of unsubstantiated comments about Hamas. Mandal considers them 'apologetics.' Was that enough to turn down the review? Frankly, I don't know. I think I would have published it, and let someone respond in a future issue. But, I must add that I've also been asked to write articles that have then been rejected. Usually a re-write is possible, but not always. As another author wrote, "The truth is that under the banner of preserving "academic freedom," scholars such as Roy object to any and all efforts to hold their work accountable. But accountability does not equal censorship." On this I would agree. The fact that discussions regarding the review lasted several months, there were obviously attempts made to accommodate Roy. I think the piece would have been acceptable with very slight editing (for example, suggesting that Hamas would consider anything remotely like a two-state solution is just laughable) but I guess she wouldn't budge, and they chose not to publish which was their right. Every publication that I've ever worked for has an editorial policy and a bias. That's the way it goes. Freedom of the press (which as a writer I obviously support) doesn't mean EVERY publication must run every EVERY article. It's a general principle.

Her piece makes a couple of unsubstantiated comments about Hamas.

That is true, but this is also a book review, where space limits the opportunities for substantiating and backing up comments.

there were obviously attempts made to accommodate Roy.

That isn't obvious at all. Roy refers to "difficult exchanges" with the journal's editorial staff, but that doesn't mean they were trying to "accommodate" her. By her account, it was the journal that pulled the plug, not her.

"The truth is that under the banner of preserving "academic freedom," scholars such as Roy object to any and all efforts to hold their work accountable. But accountability doe...

read more»

Her piece makes a couple of unsubstantiated comments about Hamas.

That is true, but this is also a book review, where space limits the opportunities for substantiating and backing up comments.

there were obviously attempts made to accommodate Roy.

That isn't obvious at all. Roy refers to "difficult exchanges" with the journal's editorial staff, but that doesn't mean they were trying to "accommodate" her. By her account, it was the journal that pulled the plug, not her.

"The truth is that under the banner of preserving "academic freedom," scholars such as Roy object to any and all efforts to hold their work accountable. But accountability does not equal censorship."

I am all for accountability, regardless of one's views about Israel. But, Roy's case is another instance where views that go against Zionist assumptions get extra scrutiny, while others get a free pass ( another example: Brandeis University letting Jimmy Carter speak at their campus, but only if he was followed by a rebuttal by Alan Dershowitz).

You quote a person claiming this is all about holding Roy accountable. But Roy was holding Matthew Levitt, author of the book she was reviewing, accountable for his writings. That, I suspect, was the real problem the editors at the Fletcher Forum had with her review.

I don't know if we're that far apart. I still think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Roy may be correct that Levitt's book is one-sided (it appears to be and I'd like to read it) , and she has every right to hold him accountable in a review; I really only had a problem with a few absurd lines about Hamas. She is certainly on the mark with her determination that the development and growth of Hamas (and other groups) are linked to Israel's actions. If he's failed to address this, he's missed an important element of the conflict: the rise of Islamism after Israel's humilating defeat of Egypt and Nasser's Greater Arab World plans. But, it's impossible to comment on a book I haven't read.

...

I don't know if we're that far apart. I still think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Roy may be correct that Levitt's book is one-sided (it appears to be and I'd like to read it) , and she has every right to hold him accountable in a review; I really only had a problem with a few absurd lines about Hamas. She is certainly on the mark with her determination that the development and growth of Hamas (and other groups) are linked to Israel's actions. If he's failed to address this, he's missed an important element of the conflict: the rise of Islamism after Israel's humilating defeat of Egypt and Nasser's Greater Arab World plans. But, it's impossible to comment on a book I haven't read.

I will say, however, that I can appreciate the editorial conundrum; Hamas isn't simply some foreign agency. They're on the current list of US designated terrorist organizations! That, in itself, adds a lot of baggage to the issue, especially for institutions that receive government funding. That is likely the reason for a peer review. I also still maintain that the two month period of discussions implies some sort of attempt at resolution; I've been down this road as a writer many times. You are generally offered a chance to do a re-write or edit or it will be done for you. Or, the article is simply not accepted. That doesn't take two months. I believe she was offered a chance to remove a few contentious lines and she wasn't willing to do so to their satisfaction. But who knows? Either way, I would have run the review, and let the shit fly. Controversy, I think, is good for business and helps raise awareness of complex issues.

Also, I added the rebuttal to the original post because it's important to have (at least) two perspectives. Otherwise it's just a rant, and I think people can look at an issue and make up their own minds. I also have an issue with her petulant attitude. Every writer has been rejected for myriad and sometimes irrational reasons. But, it's not censorship when a publication refuses to run an article/review and it's picked up somewhere else. Her life, let alone her livelihood, hasn't been threatened; no government agency, or shadowy cabal, has prevented her from publishing; she is free to speak on whatever subject she wants, even criticize an employer who she feels maligned her. If that's not d...

Also, I added the rebuttal to the original post because it's important to have (at least) two perspectives. Otherwise it's just a rant, and I think people can look at an issue and make up their own minds. I also have an issue with her petulant attitude. Every writer has been rejected for myriad and sometimes irrational reasons. But, it's not censorship when a publication refuses to run an article/review and it's picked up somewhere else. Her life, let alone her livelihood, hasn't been threatened; no government agency, or shadowy cabal, has prevented her from publishing; she is free to speak on whatever subject she wants, even criticize an employer who she feels maligned her. If that's not democracy in action, I don't know what is. And frankly, any suggestion of censorship here belittles real censorship; every year, repressive regimes around the world are responsible for the deaths or arrests of hundreds of journalists (although journalists killed in war zones gets the most press, far more reporters and writers are murdered by their own governments), and the concealement of terrible atrocities. http://www.cpj.org/index.html

The problem is that the academy is devoted to the idea of a free exchange of ideas. When academic journals and universities fall short of that ideal, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize them and accuse them of censorship, even if there are much worse instances of censorship.

Of course, "free exchange of ideas" doesn't mean you publish everything that comes your way, or you give tenure to everyone with a PhD. You have to uphold certain standards of evidence, professionalism, and discourse. Granted, it is not so easy to parse out the differences between rejecting a work because it fails to meet expectations and rejecting a work because you just don't like its conclusions. But I str...

The problem is that the academy is devoted to the idea of a free exchange of ideas. When academic journals and universities fall short of that ideal, it is perfectly acceptable to criticize them and accuse them of censorship, even if there are much worse instances of censorship.

Of course, "free exchange of ideas" doesn't mean you publish everything that comes your way, or you give tenure to everyone with a PhD. You have to uphold certain standards of evidence, professionalism, and discourse. Granted, it is not so easy to parse out the differences between rejecting a work because it fails to meet expectations and rejecting a work because you just don't like its conclusions. But I strongly suspect that what happened here is that the Fletcher Forum is inconsistently applying standards to views its editors did not like. Consider:

a) Roy's review was measured and she acknowledged the contributions (or potential contributions) of Levitt's book. She clearly laid out what his book said and why she found his arguments wanting, giving the reader enough information to know whether or not they would find the book helpful. I strongly suspect that would meet the standards of most academic journals carrying book reviews. (I can't say the same about Daniel Mandal's piece on HNN, btw)
b) The editor-in-chief signed off on the review, suggesting that it met the usual standards of the Fletcher Forum wrt book reviews.

The Fletcher journal can publish whatever it wants, but when it acts this way it goes against the academic ethos, and it cannot complain when people recognize this fact.