[DEBATE] : On pluralism and academia

[Ran Greenstein]

This is the 'party line' from Tel Aviv university and is likely to be adopted by 
others. The issue, of course, is not the opinions of the intended professor 
but her practices. It's the difference between an Alan Dershowitz who voices 
despicable opinions and a John Yoo who shapes despicable policies. The 
former is legitimate, the latter is not. She cannot be compared to a lawyer 
who defends a nasty client and uses whatever legal tricks are available to 
exonerate him. Rather, she is like a Tom Hagen consigliere, who shapes 
criminal actions before they take place and is thus an accomplice, even 
without pulling any triggers

========

On pluralism and academia
By Hanoch Dagan
Haretz, 30 January 2009
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060146.html

The editorial in yesterday's Haaretz discusses the decision by Tel Aviv 
University's law faculty to appoint Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch to teach a 
course on international law. The editorial referred to my reaction to critics of 
the decision as "misleading" and my reasoning as "demagogic."

The editorial is based on an article in which two university professors 
expressed opposition to the appointment. The reporter who wrote the piece 
used only a portion of the information I submitted to the newspaper, despite 
my request that my comments be printed in full.

I made comments including: "Without commenting on the facts stated in 
the article, I am not convinced that the faculty of law must examine and 
appraise the legal, political and moral positions of its instructors as long as 
these are within the bounds of the law and the accepted limits of a 
democratic society. On the contrary, the faculty always makes an effort to 
expose its students to a variety of opinions and viewpoints, and encourages 
informed, academic discussion on controversial issues."

I also said that "the faculty higher-ups are not authorized and not fit to 
ascertain the factual questions described in the article ... As long as these 
questions have not been cleared up, as we know is being done at the 
present time, there is no room for drawing conclusions."

In contrast to the author of the editorial, I am hesitant to engage in 
scapegoating based on newspaper articles. Such field trials are not, after 
all, the way of academia. On the contrary, academia that is worthy of its 
name, and the law faculty in particular - which justifiably was labeled in the 
editorial as "the spearhead of academic legal research in Israel" - always 
strives to expose its students to the best teachers available while taking into 
account their academic contributions, not their institutional affiliations or 
worldviews.

The faculty has sometimes been attacked from the right because its halls 
include a fair representation of opinions that differ from those of Sharvit-
Baruch (as opposed to what was suggested in the editorial). Our responses 
to these attacks have always been, and will continue to be as long as I bear 
responsibility, unchanged and determined: Pluralism is the air breathed by 
academia; it is part of its raison d'etre and its important social function.

In the critical battle for the identity and image of Israeli society, we, the 
members of the academy, have an important function in nurturing students 
who think critically and independently. We are not deterred from dissent or 
from voicing different opinions. The opposite is true. We encourage them.

Tel Aviv University has adopted a strikingly liberal policy in this area. It 
allows the expression of various opinions in the classrooms, in public 
protests on campus lawns, and in the plaza at the university's entrance. 
Our policy has often attracted criticism. For some, we are too liberal. For 
others, we are insufficiently liberal.

Either way, the university follows a clear policy, and it has no intention of 
yielding to pressure from this or that camp. The editorial adds that due to 
the law faculty's standing, it bears an academic and public responsibility to 
hold an in-depth, fundamental discussion on what is permitted and what is 
not in combat. Obviously, I agree with this. The faculty fills this role 
adequately and will continue to do so while taking into consideration facts 
that have been confirmed by the use of academic tools.

We have held, and will continue to hold, conferences on the subject. In 
these discussions, we will ensure we hear a variety of opinions of those who 
sit in ivory towers and those who face the difficult dilemmas in real time and 
are ready to place their thought processes to a professional, academic test 
in retrospect.

It is specifically due to the faculty's public and academic responsibility that 
we cannot adopt the unequivocal and hurried legal conclusions that 
appeared in the Haaretz editorial. This is especially valid with regard to the 
argument, which to my sorrow qualifies as demagoguery, that states that 
these conclusions justify the cancellation of Sharvit-Baruch's appointment.

The writer is the dean of Tel Aviv University's law faculty.

========

Ran Greenstein
Johannesburg, South Africa