Ring a Bell?

The Financial Times serves up this editorial on the Walt & Mearsheimer paper:

Doctrinal orthodoxy was flouted last month in a paper on the Israel lobby by two of America's leading political scientists....They argue powerfully that extraordinarily effective lobbying in Washington has led to a political consensus that American and Israeli interests are inseparable and identical.

Only a UK publication, the London Review of Books, was prepared to carry their critique, in the same way that it was Prospect, a British monthly journal, that four years ago published a path-breaking study of the Israel lobby by the American analyst, Michael Lind.

Moral blackmail - the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism - is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views.

Judgment of the precise value of the Walt-Mearscheimer paper has been swept aside by a wave of condemnation. Their scholarship has been derided and their motives impugned, while Harvard has energetically disassociated itself from their views. Mr Walt's position as academic dean of the Kennedy School is in doubt.

On various counts, this is a shame and a self-inflicted wound no society built on freedom should allow.

Oh, please. First off, don’t you like that line about how “Walt’s position as academic dean” is in doubt. Hey, FT, it’s not “in doubt” – he’s stepping down in June because because his tenure as academic dean is over. (Though, I imagine it makes for a better sounding editorial to claim that he’s being hounded from his position by the thought police.)

Second, let’s keep in mind that this paper is not just a critique of AIPAC…Walt & Mearsheimer are attacking the Lobby (capital “L”), which they portray as a network of pro-Israel individuals, organizations, think tanks, academics, and media institutions who collectively maintain a stranglehold over U.S. foreign policy—and, in doing so, have brought down the wrath of Al-Qaeda upon the United States, and forced America into a war in Iraq. This is volatile stuff. (Even Christopher Hitchens, no fan of Israel, found their conclusions “partly misleading and partly creepy.”) At best, it’s an example of oversimplified scholarship and intellectual overreach (see, for instance, Noam Chomsky’s critique) ; at worst, it regurgitates well-worn conspiracy theories that portray supporters of Israel as a shadowy fifth column in the body politic.

Which brings me to point three, concerning this FT comment about how “their scholarship has been derided and their motives impugned,” and how this is undermining the principles of free society.

As the Brits would say, “Bullocks.”

Shall we take a moment to recall the furor over another highly questionable academic study some years back, titled The Bell Curve?

A brief overview: In 1994, Richard J. Hernstein (a prominent psychologist) and Charles Murray (a political scientist) published a book exploring the role of intelligence in American life. The study was hugely controversial because of two chapters on race and intelligence—essentially, the authors argued that group differences in IQ between blacks and whites are primarily genetic.

The book was a bestseller, defended by some, but criticized by many others who cast significant doubts on the methodology and motives of the authors. Stephen Jay Gould, released a revised and expanded edition of his 1981 work The Mismeasure of Man intended to refute many of the Bell Curve's claims regarding race and intelligence. A collection of essays condemning the Bell Curve was published in 1997 under the title Measured Lies.

A condensed version of the study was published by The New Republic. The editor at the time was Andrew Sullivan, who later called it one of his “proudest moments in journalism”, and added that “I'm proud of those with the courage to speak truth to power, as Murray and Herrnstein so painstakingly did.”

Writing in Slate, Stephen Metcalf had this to say about such “moral courage”

Imagine that the labels "morally courageous" and "intellectually honest" didn't refer to inner personal qualities but instead were prizes in a language game. The goal of the game is to be awarded the labels "morally courageous" and "intellectually honest." To win the prize, you must obey the rules: Never parrot conventional wisdom, and whenever possible, cast yourself as the victim of a speech-suppressing enemy....As is usually the case, the downgrading of truth brings with it an upgrading of sheer chutzpah, frequently under the guise of moral courage.

By the rules of our language game, however, the motives of people who distrust (or, frankly, revile) The Bell Curve are instantly suspect, while the motives of people who spend their entire professional lives trying to prove black people are dumber than white people escape all scrutiny.

Metcalf’s words have a familiar ring when it comes to the Lobby. We hear people like the FT editors praising Walt and Mearsheimer for their “courage” in confronting a taboo subject, defying doctrinal orthodoxy, and speaking truth to power. Accolades are heaped upon the London Review of Books, since no American publication would “dare” publish it. Those who attack Walt and Mearsheimer’s scholarship are deemed opponents of free speech or purveyors of moral blackmail.

Here’s something that the editors of the FT should keep in mind: Criticizing an academic study--especially one that is published with the expressed intent to provoke controversy--is not an assault upon free speech, it is the very definition of free speech. Those who speak out against this study are no less morally suspect than those who spoke out against The Bell Curve.

Meanwhile, Walt has said that he and Mearsheimer stand behind their work, but are declining to respond to specific criticisms being raised. “Anybody who writes on a controversial topic is bound to face criticism and may also face personal attacks of various kinds,” he said. “Our purposes in writing the piece was to open up a broader discussion of American policy in the Middle East. We hope people will read what we wrote and engage in a serious discussion of the arguments.”

Such remarks prompted University of Chicago professor Daniel Drezner to comment: “So let me get this straight: the authors have written and published a paper because they want to provoke an open debate — and then decide not to respond to any of the critiques made of the paper.”

Or, to quote the FT: “On various counts, this is a shame and a self-inflicted wound no society built on freedom should allow.”