This post is one of a series of posts publicly defending William I. Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) from charges of anti-Semitism. I studied under Robinson when he taught at the flagship campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. I took his courses on political economy and globalization.
The controversy centered around an email that Robinson sent to his students. In the email, he included photographs and a side-by-side comparison of images from the Holocaust and the Israeli military action in Gaza. The email was sent during the winter 2008 semester as part of a course on global studies. In it, Robinson expressed his criticism of Israeli policies and accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza. The email sparked intense controversy, with some students and outside groups accusing Robinson of anti-Semitism and promoting a hostile learning environment.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center were among the organizations that criticized Robinson’s email, alleging that it crossed the line into anti-Semitism. They argued that the comparison between Israeli actions and the Holocaust was inappropriate and offensive. Supporters of Robinson, including faculty members and students, defended his right to free speech and academic freedom, contending that the email was intended to stimulate critical thinking and discussion.
The controversy gained significant media attention, both nationally and internationally. The university administration initiated an investigation into the matter, led by the Office of Judicial Affairs. They examined whether Robinson’s email violated university policies on academic freedom, free speech, and creating a hostile environment. In April 2010, after a review process, the UCSB administration concluded that Robinson’s email did not violate university policies. The administration acknowledged the concerns raised by some students but emphasized the importance of free speech and academic freedom within the academic community.
The controversy surrounding William Robinson’s email at UCSB sparked broader discussions about the boundaries of academic freedom, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the line between criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism.
Here is a good summary of the matter from Not My Tribe. You can read a comment from me towards the bottom.
“You can criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza,” Abraham Foxman is arguing. “But to compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of their citizens to what the Nazis did to the Jews is clearly anti-Semitism.” It may be a bad comparison, but it’s not anti-Semitic. The adequacy of comparing what Israeli is doing to Palestinians in Gaza to any historical event is an intellectual matter not something that one is forbidden to make at the risk of being branded something akin to racism. It is also a moral matter.
Intellectually, which historical events most closely approximate the invasion of Gaza? If one finds William Robinson’s analogy rationally inadequate, then one can certainly criticize the comparison for that. But it’s alleged inadequacy is not to be found in accusations of racism. Such accusations are an attempt to silence the analogy. Morally, if the analogy is adequate, the question revolves around why groups that have experienced historic oppression would use similar forms of oppression on others, especially when justifying their actions based on slogans such as “never again,” a slogan which one assumes has universal application.
Suppose that blacks forced whites in South Africa into a white ethnic enclave, built walls around it, and routinely launched cross border attacks on the enclave, killing ethnic whites and destroying their property. Would it be racist to accuse the black majority of using apartheid-like tactics against whites? Here’s an even stronger case, since the white ethnics were the ones who practiced apartheid against the black majority. Would it not seem relevant to ask the black majority why they are doing this to the white minority given the experience of blacks with apartheid?
* * *
The course in question concerns global issues. Robinson is an historical sociologist whose forte is researching and teaching global issues. Comparative analysis is the method of historical sociology. Cultivating critical comparative thinking in students is its striving. This is why Robinson was hired and tenured and promoted: he’s a brilliant comparative historical sociologist. Robinson would have been failing his students and acting ideologically had he avoided this topic. After all, it was the major global story of the day. It is a common teaching method to illustrate classroom concepts with contemporary public issues.
The email, whether you agree with the content or not, is appropriate in the context of a sociology class covering global issues. In his comment, Roland Radosh misses the point of a public education, which is troubling given that he has attempted to provide one for so many years. The purpose of a liberal arts education is to promote, along with critical, comparative, and historical thinking, the work of citizenship, an endeavor that demands attention to moral concerns. This isn’t technical or vocational training we’re talking about here, but a liberal arts education. This is the place where these types of discussions are supposed to take place. Why else would the school have a sociology class on global issues if not to enlighten students and encourage them to actively engage the world around them?
For Radosh, it’s as simple as this: he doesn’t like what’s in Robinson’s email. He’s gotten himself all twisted in knots trying to argue for the suppression of speech in a way that allows him to preserve his self-identity as somebody who believes in academic freedom. The effort is an obvious failure. More broadly, this affair is a transparent attempt to intimidate the critics of Israel into silence and discredit them in the eyes of the public. They are making Robinson an example. I don’t think it’s going to work. For liberty’s sake, I hope it doesn’t.
* * *
Note (7/3/2023): Radosh’s comment, as did many others, disappeared from the Internet after Robinson was vindicated.
freedom and reason 