NoIndoctrination.org - View Listing

[Help NoIndoctrination.org - Donate Now Through Network For Good]

Warning: Postings are only opinions. (See Terms of Service)

Note: Although the postings appear to be anonymous, NoIndoctrination.org knows the posters' names. We communicate with the posters before putting their comments online. We also research each posting and ask for corroborating material when appropriate.

Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #135.

Brooklyn College, The City Univ of New York (BC)

Jan. 11, 2003

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu

Course: HIST 54.C: History of the Middle East in the Twentieth Century

Course Catalog Description: Ottoman and colonial heritage of the Middle East; competing ideologies; oil and its impact, origins and development of the Arab-Israeli conflict; Iran under the Shahs and clergy; roots of radical nationalism in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and Syria, sectarianism and class conflict in Lebanon; Islamic reform and revivalism; changing role of women and minorities.

Professor: Stuart Schaar

Required? No, purely elective

Lecture Bias: Excessive

Comments: Despite its seemingly innocuous title and banal course description, this class was replete with examples of ideological cant and bias. In addition to demonizing adherents of a different point of view--especially in lectures having to deal with discussion of the precepts of Islam and the methods in which Muhammed acquired his emprire, the professor also routinely disparaged any student who questioned his baseless assertions on certain subjects. For example, when a young woman deigned to raise the question of how Sadam Hussein treated one of Iraq's smaller minorities (the Chaldeans), he perfunctorily dismissed her question with the bald assertion that: "they don't count." His lectures dealing with the Israeli "occupation" of Judea & Samaria and the Gaza Strip were even more monolithic. He did not even entertain the possibility that these territories could indeed be part of a Jewish state, and often would refer to people who questioned this liberal nostrum, e.g, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, as extremists. Of course, we expect scholars to have a different standard than say, reporters, who are supposed to present a unvarnished account of a given situation without inserting their personal biases. My objection rested primarily on his refusal to entertain opinions that contravened his own. His reading of certain events, e.g. the Six Day War, was very selective in its allocation of the facts. The fact that he relied solely on the arabic perspective in his analysis of this crucial historical event is evidence of his ideological pedigree.

Discussion Bias: Objectionable

Comments: Even though the discussions were not quite as one-dimensional as the lectures, they did provide an opportunity for some of the professor's acolytes to heap scorn on the few students who dissented from his ideological programme vis-a-vis, the modern historiography of the Middle East. In fact, some of his more eager disciples took this opportunity to reiterate the views of the professor in a much less nuanced manner. Some of the numerous examples of bias that were exhibited during these discussions--led by the professor, of course, were the constant verbal attacks on Israeli settlers, the foreign policy of the United States, and a favorite of some of the class's "Palestinian" students-- ad hominem attacks against Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The fact that the other students knew that they could ingratiate themselves with him by aping his viewpoint on certain subjects, certainly did not help matters. Overall, I found this portion of the class to be the most annoying, if not quite so intimidating. I can't say that he was particularly hostile. However, there were certain times when his ideological predilections made themselves abundently clear, especially during back-and-forth exchanges he had with a classmate. He also made some snide comments about the relative knowledge (or lack thereof), of the students attending his class. While these may have been warranted, I don't think that they were the most tactful way to begin a class. While I commend the professor for allowing several of us--in fact only two--to express our disagreement, and appreciate the fact that he kept his word not to penalize students for their personal political beliefs, I still think that he could have done a much better job providing a forum for dissenting voices.

Readings Bias: Objectionable

Comments: Actually, this portion of the course was not as objectionable as the rest of the class would lead you to believe. Nevertheless, there was a distinctly anti-Israeli, pro-Islamic and pro-Arabic point of view disseminated to the student body. The main text: William Cleveland's "A History of the Modern Middle East", was written by an academic in league with Islamists and distinctly hostile to the interests of Israel and America's Middle Eastern allies. Aside from a few readings that included the revisionist movement of Zionism, the Herut platform, etc., there was virtually no contextualization for a variety of important events that have occurred within the Mid-East over the past half century. In fact the Six day War was presented from the perspective of a radical muslim, with no countervailing Jewish point of view!

General Comments: Overall, I'd have to declare this course to be thoroughly biased. You would have no idea what the general thrust of the class will be like simply by glossing over the course description in the Brooklyn College Bulletin. In fact, one of the reasons I chose to take this class was because there was no blatently political broadsides included in the course description. I concede that Professor Schaar did a magnificent job of covering most of the topics listed in the description. However, the manner in which he covered them left a lot to be desired.

Rebuttal

When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here.