The New Republic

The points about Finkelstein's insanity and DePaul's mediocrity are dead-on. But I would disagree with the broader critique of Catholic education--there are several very good Catholic universities: Georgetown, Boston College, and Notre Dame. Their law schools in particular are highly ranked - e.g., Georgetown is always a top 10 or 15 law school. I can't think of another religious denomination that has schools of this calibre in the United States.

- litwinski

October 9, 2006 at 9:52am

litwinski is correct in defending Catholic college-level education. I may not have Marty's highly refined discretion in such matters, not being an academic myself, but there are more than 200 Catholic colleges and Universities in the USA, and the suggestion that they have little but mediocrity to offer seems to be a bit unfair (or at least unsupported by more than this DePaul anecdote). These schools do tend to be more liberal than the Vatican, and having sent three of my own to college in the past six years, I have observed that the students at Catholic colleges are more inclined to oppose the war in Iraq than the average wingnut or TNR publisher. You can resent them for it, but the fact is that the war in Iraq has not helped our national security interests, as recently confirmed by the NIE, and it hasn't helped the Israeli cause among anti-war liberals - who are coming to see the Israelis and Bushies as evil twins. Blame these students all you want - you were all for this war and will have to live with its consequences. I happen to think they are wrong about Israel, and tragically deluded about the Palestinians, but let me ask you - did you not advocate for this war in part because you thought it would be good for Israel? If so, you can hardly blame those who have come to see Israel as part of the problem. .

- purcellneil

October 9, 2006 at 10:55am

it's funny how these issues are fought again and again. aren't finkelstein's parents survivors? finkelstein's book are published by well-respected presses, incidentally (Cal and Verso)

- bstahlbe

October 9, 2006 at 12:17pm

Yes, according to US News Georgetown is ranked 14, Notre Dame 22, and Boston College 27. Given that there must be several hundred law schools in the country, those are well above the middle.

- winnie2001

October 9, 2006 at 12:40pm

For a post what wasn't meant to "offend anyone," that was fairly prejudiced on both the facts and the opinions. On the facts: just to reiterate what litwinski said, you clearly didn't look at a recent college ranking before you wrote this article. Had you done so, you would have seen Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College, and several other Catholic institutions on there (I'll admit it's hard: not all Catholic organizations have Latin names) for both undergraduate and graduate rankings. No, they're not Ivy League schools, but -- and I don't mean to offend anyone -- neither are Brandeis and Yeshiva. Somehow I doubt you consider their lower-tier status an indictment against Jewish institutions. As an aside, they were founded for exactly the same reason most Catholic colleges were: because the WASPish Ivy League culture couldn't abide Jews and Catholics joining their ranks. C'mon, where's the solidarity, Marty? Second, Catholic universities don't discriminate against non-Catholics (quite a few Georgetown alums I know aren't Christian at all), and I think it's telling that you assume they did: telling in terms of both your personal views on Catholicism and your understanding (read: lack thereof) of modern American Catholic attitudes towards... well, education at least. Equally telling is your interpretation of a case of runaway PC in a Catholic university -- a scenario all too common in secular universities -- as somehow uniquely damning against parochial schools. For someone who does a fair bit of railing against double-standards, that right there was quite a doozy of one. Just my opinion, and I don't mean to offend anyone: until you whip out your rolodex, invite your Catholic friends over for dinner (remember, if you host on a Friday, serve fish just to be safe), and get up to speed on what real Catholics think as opposed to what centuries of New World stereotypes think Catholics think, you really have no business writing about Catholicism again.

- primwallflow

October 9, 2006 at 2:02pm

"Would the Holy Father be permitted to speak at DePaul?" Alas, as an alum, I wish the quesion were merely rhetorical.

- rrkunz

October 9, 2006 at 3:19pm

Martin Peretz, on the issue of anti-semitism in Catholic academia, you are both right and wrong. You are wrong in thinking that Catholic schools are somehow incapable of excellence, and that the tolerance for anti-semitism is derived therefrom. I got my MS in Arabic linguistics at Georgetown during 911. While Georgetown's Arabic program is the best of its kind. Moreover, you yourself point out that you can find the same sort of Israel-bashing at Ivy League schools such as Columbia.

This being said, I did notice a marked degree of anti-Semitism within the department, mostly among my classmates. I heard things such as, "People need to accept the fact that violence against anyone who supports the existence of the state of Israel is entirely justified," or, "America is ruled by Jews and Zionists," or, "9/11 is the result of an Israeli plot," or, "Americans are racist because they think that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 are Muslims," or, "The only reason I am here is because America stole my country's [Egypt] wealth." I think my favorite by far was a series of fliers placed on the department's bulletin board which showed photographs of Israeli soldiers arresting or rounding up Palestinians alongside photos of the Gestapo, in approximately the same poses, rounding up Jews. Although I was deeply revolted to hear these things being said among supposedly "educated" people, I had come to expect it - for many, conspiracy theories like these are an easy way to explain the vast failure of Muslim civilization. (Strangely enough, many of these same students had no qualms about applying for jobs with the NSA or the FBI) What deeply disgusted me was the indifference of the professors. Nothing was said against any of these comments.

The situation was different if you were like me and were dumb enough to suggest alternate ideas. "The Palestinians' misery is as much a result of official corruption as anything else." "Then the Americans should give them more funding so they won't need to do this." "Terrorism is the political equivalent of a temper tantrum." "What about American foreign policy, which is nothing but state-sanctioned terrorism?"

- bbbullock

October 9, 2006 at 4:40pm

Sorry, pressed the "submit" button too early. My point is that these attitudes are deeply embedded in many Muslims' world view, and you will find them being propagated in many universities, regardless of their quality. I think the only mitigating factor is whether or not there are significant numbers of faculty and students who will express their indignation. At Brown, I remember the Arab student's union organizing a protest about the supposed plot by the Israelis to inject Palestinian children with HIV, or the Saudi and Lebanese students who threw a party when Rabin was assassinated. Many Jewish students and faculty took offence at this, and made it known.

- bbbullock

October 9, 2006 at 4:52pm

I am guessing that Mr. Peretz read about this at the American Thinker [www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?artic le_id=5917]. I would point others to the article as well.

- eutopian

October 9, 2006 at 5:17pm

of the situation at DePaul in a conversation with Alan Dershowitz. And then I went to google where you can drown in materials, among which are articles in American Thinker. Then I spoke with other folk. If the contrasts between how the university has treated Klocek and Finkelstein is not an academic scandal, I don't know what is.

- peretz

October 9, 2006 at 9:29pm

- nsakun

October 9, 2006 at 11:34pm

i am pretty sure that finkelstein does not deny the holocaust peretz's ability to say that finkelstein is a holocaust denier says it all, once again, what a SPIN MACHINE!!! a lot of people thought the israeli invasion and destruction of lebanon was the work of terrorists. and the destruction of fallujah by americans likewise. but of course, by definition, if the US likes the violence than it is not terrorism. how lucky for TNR.

- nsakun

October 9, 2006 at 11:40pm

I stand corrected about my "guess" and still agree with you about your original post. Love the blog. -Garrett, crap student, TNR reader

- eutopian

October 10, 2006 at 3:25am

DePaul mishandled the Klocek matter from the beginning. He had an argument about the Arab/Israeli conflict with a group of pro-Palestinian students at a student activities fair. The details of the argument as reported by the students were published in an article in the student newspaper and clearly were typical of arguements about the subject. The students decided they had been victimized and together with their faculty advisers, a few sympathetic faculty advocates and the Chicago office of CAIR, demanded that Klocek be fired. Letters, phone calls and emails were sought by the students from outside groups sympathetic to their cause. Instead of caving to the pressure, the school should have simply told the students that they had engaged in a political debate and such things are part of the political process and are protected speech. In other words, the same free speech provisions of the constitution that give them the right to pass out literature claiming that Rachel Corrie was deliberately murdered and that Israel is an apartheid state is the same provision that gives Tom Klocek the right to disagree. And furthermore, if you take that right away from Tom Klocek, who is to say that the rights of the students won't be taken away next. If they had simply defended the most basic right of free speech, the issue would have ended there and the students would have learned a valuable lesson about respecting the rights of others to disagree. Instead he was summarily suspended with pay for the fall quarter and a promised contract offer for two winter courses was withdrawn. The president of the university sent out a letter to the entire university community relating that their had been two unfortunate incidents in which faculty members had violated DePaul's tradition of tolerance. While his letter didn't mention Klocek by name, his identity became public with the publication of the article in the DePaulia. A week after the DePaulia article came out, the school newspaper published a letter from the Dean of the School for New Learning, apologizing for Tom's alleged abuse of students and saying that nobody should be insulted for their religion or ethnicity and no professor should force his erroneous opinions on students. Rather than hold a hearing to listen to the facts in the case including a public airing of Tom's version of events, the school summarily suspended him and subjected him to a public scolding by both the Dean of his school and the president of the university. Klocek was offered a course for the spring quarter if he would agree to unannounced monitoring of his classes. In need of the money and the continuation of health benefits, Tom agreed to the offer but shortly before the start of spring quarter, the school added extra conditions. He had to meet with the students, hear their complaints and issue a public apology for his conduct. Tom refused and instead sought legal counsel and filed a lawsuit against the university. DePaul is a good school. It's professional schools, particularly music and theatre, are excellent. But its disgrace is that in its treatment of Tom Klocek, it surrendered common decency to a climate of unreasoned political correctness. On the complaints of a few students with fairly extreme views on an extremely contreversial subject, they terminated the employment of a teacher with an unblemished record of fourteen years of teaching at the school. If that doesn't define political correctness run amok, I don't know what does.

- Jonathan Cohen

October 10, 2006 at 8:50am

you folks, peretz in the lead, who see klocek as a poor innocent victim of political correctness, do you suppose that maybe finkelstein's lack of academic success (peretz harped on that) is due to the opposite end of the political correctness crowd? probably not. what's good for the goose is never good for the gander.

- nsakun

October 10, 2006 at 11:30am

The subject of Peretz post was DePaul. Klocek lost his job and Finkelstein was first hired as a visitor and then as a tenure track assistant professor. There is no way that Finkelstein has been victimized for his views by DePaul. On the contrary, it is likely that he was hired because people who hired him agreed with his views. There are procedures in place at DePaul to which all tenure candidates submit. Finkelstein will be judged by his peers according to those standards. There is absolutely no reason to expect DePaul to use any different criteria for his review than they would for any other candidate. The point is that DePaul has been fair and supportive of Finkelstein and terribly unfair to Klocek and this situation is reflective of the political culture of DePaul.

- Jonathan Cohen

October 10, 2006 at 3:26pm

I took Peretz's challenge: "Look at any one of the ratings charts (there are many) and see how low these institutions fare on the competitive scales and how few of them rate at all." It isn't just in law school rankings that those schools do well. US News National Universities: Top Schools Notre Dame 20 Georgetown 23 Boston College 34 Also, regarding the exclusivity question: I happen to know Atheists, Jews, and Protestants (and even that mix of people coming from other countries!) who attend those and other Catholic schools (including De Paul). I await Peretz's learned disquisition on how there haven't been any really eminent Catholic thinkers contributing to science or the social sciences (best not to discuss poetry, philosophy, or law because the obvious objections will be raised) down through the centuries. That nasty old Inquisition was (is? not sure, but it doesn't really matter) keeping a lid on things.

- dabeffert

October 10, 2006 at 11:37pm

This is bizarre. If what Peretz says about Klocek and Finkelstein is true, then I'm with him, but what's with the gratuitous attack on Catholic universities? The relevant question to ask, when dissing Catholic universities, is "Compared to what?" What religious denomination has a better network of colleges than the Catholics? And as far as Catholic responsibility for the Holocaust is concerned, I don't recall reading anything about WASP America standing up and demanding action from the Roosevelt administration. When my mom was growing up in Chicago, Jews went to Loyola because Northwestern shut them out.

- daveyjoe

October 11, 2006 at 2:45am

"So when the largest Catholic university in the country--that's how DePaul advertises itself--makes itself victim to its own fashionable left-wing politics, one almost begins to yearn for fascists like Father Coughlin and McCarthyite right-wingers like Cardinal Spellman. At least, then, we were dealing with a recognizable Catholic tradition." Marty, this is seriously outrageous. The only Catholic tradition you recognize is one a tradition of fascism? I know you have a lot of venom towards Arabs and therefore gleefully caricature them, but I didn't realize you did the same towards Catholics. One would think someone as learned as you would have come across Catholic traditions of social justice, Jesuit thought, the center-right and -left Catholic parties of post-war Europe, or the principle of subsidiarity (the original "third way" explicated in an encyclical, Rerum Novarum, in 1891--before Blair or Clinton or even Saint Joseph Lieberman took up the theme)--all of which are pretty far from fascism.

- dabeffert

October 11, 2006 at 10:59am

I think some of the respondents are missing the point. Peretz is not saying that the school is anti-semitic or that Catholics are fascists. He is suggesting that it is marketing itself as a Catholic university while at the same time defining its Catholicism as a kind of fashionable left-wing politics. I have taught at DePaul for more than eighteen years and I am afraid there is more truth to that statement than most would like to admit. When we were looking for a new university president the governing council of the college of liberal arts circulated a lengthy document outlining qualities that the faculty was looking for in the new president. One line that stood out was an expressed hope that the new president would respect the unique secularized Catholicism that characterizes DePaul. There are a lot of faculty and administrators at DePaul that are what Peretz described as fashionably left. They have made their agendas part of much of the decision making processes of the university. Their political agenda intrudes into hiring, promotions, merit increases, committee assignments, strategic planning, student affairs, conferences, invited speakers and honorary degrees. Since the school's Catholic identity is a central part of DePaul, it was inevitable that the various political ideologies and agendas would dress themselves up as part of the schools Catholic nature. Ten years ago there was a discussion of DePaul's Catholic identity at a quarterly meeting of the College of Liberal Arts. There were two presentations to start the discussion. The one I remember was by someone who was not Catholic and who described two Catholicisms, the first was the traditional one which she was had feared when she took the job and the second was one of helping the poor and being interested in social justice which she liked and felt was the predominant one at DePaul. During the discussion, one faculty member said that she felt that as a faithful catholic she had to keep her traditional views in the closet. Another faculty member responded "I know exactly what you mean, I'm gay and I just came out of the closet." The discussion continued along similar lines with nobody seeming to me to be talking about a religion that actually exists and has been defined by 2000 years of beliefs and practices. About five years later I was on a committee that was asked to recommend speakers for LA&S graduation exercises. We were told to think big. I suggested the pope. The reaction was "who would want him, he is too conservative." Obviously, there was no way his health would have permitted him to come but their reaction was very revealing. I had always admired the pope for his role in opposing Soviet tyranny. Last year a big issue for faculty was that the school refused to distribute condoms to students. It seemed quite reasonable to me that it would be somewhat difficult for a Catholic university to make it its business to make sure that every student at the school had their own condom. Since they are readily available at a store a hundred yards from campus, it didn't seem to me to be a big problem. It was as if the faculty was asking for some kind of official Catholic sanction for pre-marital sex. A political group on campus wanted to organize a DePaul free-choice group. When they were not given official recognition they complained loudly about it. The students were not denied permission to engage in pro-choice activities such as leafleting and sponsoring speakers. They were only told they could not be an official DePaul pro-choice group. At a campus meeting that resulted from the dispute, it was clear that a substantial number of people at DePaul not only were pro-choice but had considerable contempt for those who were opposed to abortion. DePaul is for the most part a humane institution. Students are treated with a great deal of respect. To a large extent its politics is an extension of its desire to be humane. But it has allowed its better nature to be seduced by a moronic political correctness that was at the root of what happened to Tom Klocek; a decent man and a fine teacher who paid the students from the Students for Justice in Palestine the compliment of taking them seriously enough to stop and challenge their ideas when he thought they were wrong. One of the things I found so appalling in the treatment of Tom Klocek is that in my own experience with campus activism, I always welcomed the opportunity to speak with people who didn't agree with me. Afterall, isn't that the point of setting up a table and passing out leaflets. You are trying to convert those who disagree. You are not there to preach to the choir. Unfortunately that wasn't what the students had in mind and I was unable to convince any of the administrators that they should have viewed the encounter as a political argument rather than an example of offensive speech.

- Jonathan Cohen

October 11, 2006 at 4:48pm

for deepening my story about DePaul. It's a pleasure to have a reader like you.

- peretz

October 11, 2006 at 5:33pm

I think I got the point, and with Peretz's main point, and certainly your re-statement, I don't disagree. However, I think you are brushing off the first two paragraphs of the post, because you find the main point so important. I can understand that, but you really should re-read the introduction. If Peretz wants to blast De Paul, then, by all means do so. I don't care. But, to write, "But the Catholic college and university is not one of the faith's big achievements in America" is really preposterous. Because it, and the system of elementary schools and high schools often serving less privileged students across the country, really are one of the faith's big achievements in America. I appreciated your enlarging the discussion and adding your first-hand experiences. It is pretty clearly an injustice, but somehow I don't think it is a uniquely Catholic one, nor is it even primarily so. As others have mentioned, this could have happened at Columbia or any of the Ivies really-and even at lots of middle ranked liberal arts schools.

- dabeffert

October 11, 2006 at 9:37pm

1. Where there is so much rightism, there must be something left left. 2. Do not be astonished, most Catholics are prochoice - but as the "infallible" pope says no, they cannot admit it. 3. Mr Klocek could be the one I was told about years ago - he made some enemies who are very high now. This may well not be an American thing, but a innercatholic one. The Jesuits try hard, but Catholicism is not a democracy (said the deceased pope!)

- knowcatholicism

October 12, 2006 at 11:29am

Peretz's accusation that Finkelstein is a "holocaust denier" is an utterly untrue libel. As the Washington Post reported here, "[t]hese charges have proved baseless." This is not an ambiguous matter: Peretz's accusation is just false, false, false.

I second what dabeffert wrote above. I think you're letting Marty off the hook a little too easily. My sense of the discussion is that few people here disagree that Klocek was an unjust victim of some phenomenon at DePaul. We're pretty much all on the same page on that point. What I do disagree with is Marty's all-too-glib attempt to portray the forces behind his dismissal as something uniquely endemic to Catholic institutions, which he incorrectly and unnecessarily characterizes as universally second-tier or worse. It really surprises me that as someone who worked at DePaul, you saw fit to ignore that entire line of reasoning. On to your arguments: while the distinction may be clear to you and Marty, I have no idea what "fashionably left" really means at all. Does it refer to the "cafeteria Catholicism" you saw firsthand at DePaul? While I share your distaste for that kind of selective theology, it's hardly the exclusive territory of the left, fashionable or otherwise. When I lived in Louisville, the activities of my neighborhood parish put a great deal of emphasis on issues of morality (abortion, contraception, euthanasia, gay marriage) and relatively little on social justice concerns. Here in Berkeley, CA, it's the exact opposite. Maddening? Yes, but once you put aside your personal prejudices it's actually a heartening sign that the church -- far from being a static leviathan -- changes to fit the character of the community. That partially explains DePaul and other Catholic colleges, because since the Middle Ages universities have almost without exception been liberal bastions. DePaul's character is also shaped by the conscious decision by the Church and the university's founders to be an inclusive, heterogenous institution, accepting non-Catholic students and faculty: a good decision, in my humble opinion, but perhaps not in yours. But if not the elasticity of the church, to what then was "fashionably left" referring? Are you implying that, say, pro-choice activists on a college campus are only trying to be "fashionable" and lack any real commitment or devotion to their cause?

- primwallflow

October 13, 2006 at 12:58am

I wasn't addressing the first paragraph of the post. I was hoping people wouldn't read it. Obviously there are plenty of good Catholic colleges and universities. DePaul is actually a pretty good school and it does have a long tradition of being open to the whole community, something which is admirable. Fashionably left means that there are certain sacred cows of the political left including positions on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, Cuba, Iraq, the war on terror,Israel, the Patriot Act, George Bush, etc. There isn't a whole lot of nuance to people's views and conformity plays a role in the campus discussion of these issues. There was nothing that I saw in Peretz's post to indicate that he sees the PC problem as a Catholic one. And my point was exactly the opposite. It's that the PC problem has attached itself to the school and has produced for some a politicized version of a religion that has little to do with its beliefs and customs. Social justice is a laudible goal but it is not at all clear what it consists of. Certainly the Vincentian interest in charitable works is by any definition a form of social justice and I certainly like it. What I don't like is the uncritical acceptance of the litany of left-wing talking points parading as Catholic and Vincentian values. I am not implying that pro-choice activists are not devoted to their cause. I am criticizing them for being contemptuous of those who believe abortion is wrong. Personally I am for the most part pro-choice but I can see there are two sides to this issue. All this is in a way beside the point since my main point is that Klocek was badly treated. I am greatful to the New Republic for taking up this cause. He was an adjunct, poorly paid, and got mistreated after 14 years of loyal service. It stinks. I can see why people are upset with the comment about Catholic higher education but I hope people didn't conclude that I agreed with it because I didn't address it.

- Jonathan Cohen

October 13, 2006 at 11:09am

I still disagree with you 100% about Marty's seeing something uniquely Catholic about the Klocek dismissal. He consciously chose to frame his post as one about Catholic institutions of higher education in general. Maybe he was just trying to get a snarky broadside in before moving on to his main point, but if that's true, then Marty's argument is also confusing, in addition to the other adjectives I've used in this discussion. I'm more sympathetic to your viewpoint after reading your last post. The problem, though, is not the presence of liberal "sacred cows" that promote conformity and lack of nuance. You usually don't need a lot of nuance when you're preaching to the choir. That doesn't mean you haven't thought deeply about the issue or that it's not important to you. As for conformity, while I agree with you that it certainly does happen, who, pray tell, are the conformists, as opposed to the independent believers? Pardon me for being blunt, but what gives you the right to question the motives behind people's stated beliefs? I used to be involved in a pro-life organization in college, so I know you're right when you say that the left can be contemptuous of the other side; but please, that's not the sole realm of the left, ESPECIALLY in the abortion debate (the main reason I left the movement, even though I'm still pro-life). No, I think the real problem that the Klocek affair exemplified is simply one of cowardice. Cowardice on the part of the administration, certainly, but also cowardice on the part of the rank and file faculty and students who didn't speak up earlier. Blaming a culture of "political correctness" or "fashionable leftism" is really just a poor, poor excuse. I know, because I've used these excuses before, and they're completely ineffective at preventing another Klocek. We can spend days mulling around our bedrooms, formulating a rationale for why it seems the weight of a college community leans liberal -- conformism, lack of nuance, rank stupidity, etc. -- that makes perfect sense to us. But what I said before hold true: most liberals truly believe what they preach, and to pretend otherwise is missing an opportunity to engage them as people with sincere principles, to say nothing of being grossly insulting. How would you take someone who argued that you believed "x" only because you were "fashionably conservative" (I don't know if you're a conservative, but just for argument's sake...) or "fashionably Catholic?" It's not a particularly incisive argument, and it wouldn't influence you much, justifiably so. What's dangerous about the right & center falling into these lazy argumentative traps is that a left-dominated culture clearly CAN be wrong... witness Klocek. You can blame the plenitude of liberals in the faculty and student body, but how exactly would you change that? You can blame the Administration, and they do deserve culpability, but how do you check their decision-making power? You do so by 1) having the courage to engage people in the first place, and 2) engage them directly and respectfully. If campus liberalism is lacking nuance, then certainly campus conservatism lacks the wherewithal to be effective opposition.

- primwallflow

October 13, 2006 at 3:39pm

For what it's worth about Finkelstein, here's a WaPo article whose author, Michael Powell, calls the accusations that Finkelstein is a Holocaust-denier "baseless." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/10/08/AR2006100800817.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

- primwallflow

October 13, 2006 at 8:41pm

Marty's post was a classic piece of bigotry. It deserves nothing more than to be identified for what it is.

- tlcastle

October 13, 2006 at 10:50pm