Why is UC Press Taking an Explicit Political/Ideological Position on the Conflict Between Israel and the Palestinians?

One can hardly expect neutral academic review of a proposal or manuscript if the press has an official position on the matter.

|

This came over the transom from the UC Press blog:

Solidarity and Support for Palestinians in their Fight for Liberation

University of California Press has a well-known and powerful list on the Middle East, including influential titles, series, and journals in Palestinian Studies. We feel it's imperative to speak out in horror at the ongoing violence experienced by Palestinians in Gaza, Jerusalem, and across historic Palestine.

We want to recognize the powerful expansion of international solidarity with Palestinians in their fight for liberation and stand with them. We support scholarship that confronts all forms of settler colonialism, US racial formations including Islamophobia, and prioritize pedagogies that reflect intersectional, anti-colonial, anti-racist action. As a university press, it is our responsibility to disseminate scholarship that challenges dominant narratives and makes understanding these injustices possible.

We encourage you to support local organizations that empower the Palestinian community; here are a few that operate in the Bay Area and work transnationally: Palestinian Youth Movement, Arab Resource and Organizing Center and Middle Eastern Children's Alliance. 

University presses are subsidized by their universities to be forums for academic inquiry, not to propagandize in favor of preconceived political positions. If the UC Press believes it has an ideological mission as described above, there is no reason for it to be getting a dime from California taxpayers.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: May 23, 1991

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I just hope Kirkland is right, and the fanatics who have taken over our mainstream institutions are truly in favor of goodness and progress - because what an embarrassment for Kirkland if they aren't!

    1. Yeah, you don't quite grasp the concept. You WILL agree that what they're in favor of is goodness and progress. You will be made to agree, or you will be disposed of.

      You "open wide" or it goes badly for you.

    2. The higher ed bubble can't burst soon enough....

      1. Ed,
        This seems to be a meme of yours that is highly unlikely,
        BUT why do you think that would be desirable?

        1. Have you looked at tuition inflation? Since 1980, college tuition is up about 1,200%, compared to about 236% for general inflation.

          When I went to college in the late 70's, early 80's, it was still possible to pay one's college expenses with a summer job, and living cheaply in college. I paid off my college debt within months of entering the job market, it wasn't even tuition or books, just having to pay for my off campus apartment through the summer I wasn't there, since they only signed contracts for a full year.

          Today graduating college students find themselves hugely in debt. It's one of the factors suppressing family formation in America.

          How is this not a problem?

          If the money were resulting in proportionately greater pay on the job, that would be great. But it's not going into a better product, it's being absorbed by vastly greater overhead. And, yes, to some extent luxury, today's college students are not living in attic or basement apartments, or three to a room in the dorms, as was typical back then. I checked out my niece's dorm a decade ago, and it was nicer than anything I lived in until middle age.

          She's still paying for that.

          1. Brett,
            I am very well aware f tuition inflation. I like you was able to pay for my college at a state university with money from a summer job. And two years ago the tuition for my grandson's montessori pre-school was $35K not counting the supplement for him to stay from 3:30 to 5:00

            That increase you speak of has been driven by the compliance culture demanded by the Feds, by the growth in admin for items such as diversity offices that did not exist in our times. But it has also be driven by legitimate increased health and safety costs, and for public universities by ever decreasing taxpayer support of costs.
            Costs are also higher to support new woke departments that do not bring in any funds and must be supported by higher tuition and larger overheads on grants to science and engineering schools.

            However, none of those real matters explain Ed's position. If admissions tank, why do you expect that tuitions will drop? Why do you think that universities below Tier 1 will improve?

            1. I respectfully disagree. The data suggests that the increase in tuition is a direct result of the availability of debt in the form of student loans and subsidies. In other words, government meddling with the demand curve, not with government changes to the cost structure.

              The diversity offices you describe, for example, are not required by the government. They are overhead that colleges chose to saddle themselves with. "Health and safety costs" have also not materially changed. Healthcare is still primarily paid by the students' parents' employer-provided insurance. (Yes, there are exceptions now - and there were exceptions then.) Safety mostly involves universities choosing to establish their own police departments rather than rely on the police of the town they are in. There are interesting small-town political reasons why a university might want to do that but there are few to no true safety reasons.

              And, yes, I think there is a credible argument that if a cut in subsidies causes admission to tank, universities will react like any other rational company with declining sales. First, they will attempt fear and protectionism. When that eventually fails, they'll either improve their product or start to cut unnecessary costs. Or do nothing and lose market share to institutions that can run themselves profitably.

              1. "The data suggests that the increase in tuition is a direct result of the availability of debt in the form of student loans and subsidies."
                I must correct your formulation.
                The data do not suggest your conclusion. However, the data are consistent with your claim.
                You must be dead wrong about health and safety costs. I am not talking about costs of health care but of maintaining a safe and heath environment. Perceptions about necessary improvement to avoid negligence and that are have change d dramatically even in the past 30 years. And associated costs have increased in almost every workplace.
                The diversity offices are not mandated but the heavy hand of OEO has lead to the establishment in most large institutions. Universities like hospital practice defensive administration.
                Your hypothesis generates the self-fulfilling prophecy of your last paragraph. Tell me what you mean by improve their product?

                If you are arguing that many students in 4 year colleges would be better severed in trade schools and 2 year programs, I'll agree with you. BUT many large institutions insist on a 4-year degree for upward mobility. So unless that market pull changes, you won't see a large migration to 2-year programs.

                1. " I am not talking about costs of health care but of maintaining a safe and heath environment."

                  There is something to that: At Michigan Tech, while I was there, the basement of Wadsworth hall had a room called "The pits"; Row after row of bunk beds with lockers. If, as a freshman or sophomore you didn't luck out in the housing lottery, (Off campus living was not permitted unless they were locals.) you ended up in the pits. Otherwise, you'd share a single dorm room with two other students.

                  Typically the 1st year dropout rate was high enough that the pits would empty halfway through the year, and most of the dorm rooms would be down to normal double occupancy.

                  I do remember hearing that, a few years after I left, the pits were shut down by the local fire marshal, who started enforcing occupancy limits. I gather they had to relax the on campus living rule after that.

                  I would mostly blame tuition inflation on the ready availability of student loans, due to their being government backed and non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. They've become the closest thing America has to indentureship, outside of an enlistment in the military.

                  But this only enabled the tuition inflation, it didn't compel it.

                  1. Oregon State University has a "historic" dorm called Weatherford hall. Photos of it are often featured in promotional materials for the University. It was on the edge of being declared uninhabitable back when I was a student. Sometime between then and when my oldest enrolled at OSU, they converted it to a special-use residence hall. On the other hand, the three newest dorms were where all the freshmen got assigned. They were furthest from campus.

                2. "If you are arguing that many students in 4 year colleges would be better severed in trade schools and 2 year programs, I’ll agree with you."

                  I spent 10 years working for a vocational college. A good number of private, for -profit schools are scams, providing poor quality product at inflated prices. The one I worked for happened to have a person running it who truly believed in vocational education. Many of the others do not. Accreditation can address some of the problem, but not all of it.

            2. >health and safety costs
              Have you been on a college campus lately? Kids are all fat — often drunk, stupid, and more STD ridden than a gay man in 1980s San Francisco. Law Student aesthetics are even worse.

              1. I am a faculty at a major university. I am am not talking about the issue of student personal health. I m speaking about what in business we call Environment, Health , and safety as enforces by state and national EPAs, and OSHAs

              2. "Have you been on a college campus lately? Kids are all fat — often drunk, stupid, and more STD ridden than a gay man in 1980s San Francisco."

                I have. My primary offspring unit is currently a graduate student, having recently completed an undergraduate degree and none of your descriptive terms applies to her. Perhaps you need to explore more of the campus?

          2. I don't actually have an argument with any of your complaints. They are all legitimate worries for middle and working class families, and even for families with two working professionals who can count on little or no scholarship help. I lived through that with two kids in top professional schools at the same time.

            But none of these matters are likely to improve if enrollments tank

            1. I think you're looking at the tuition inflation as though it represented unavoidable costs. It doesn't, not remotely.

              This figures in the current lawsuits over universities charging full charges for students forced to attend remotely. If students start attending remotely, from home, you can get rid of most of the overhead and dead weight. There has even been talk of instituting a system similar to the GED for undergraduate studies, where you would be permitted to just test out of most of the content.

              So, the question is, would imploding enrollments force any change in the way things are done? At the schools with huge endowments? Probably not. The schools with their survival on the line? Maybe.

              1. I don't think it is completely unavoidable, but compliance matters have increased and continue to do so. Legal issues seem to increase monotonically. How much could be avoided, I have never tried to study, but I have heard the regular talks from our provost about various matters that are driving overheads.
                Remember that at major research universities, tuitions don't come close to paying expenses. Neither do English departments or departments of woke studies.
                There is more "dead weight" than when I went to college, but not as much as you suggest, and many of those overheads are not going away.
                In fact support effective distance learning is surprisingly costly. A high quality MOOC for a 3 semester hour, 1 semester course costs more than $200K to make to be fully compliant with ADA. a fully equipped classroom for quality telepresence costs s few hundred K$.
                I also agree with your last paragraph. Those schools on the edge, should close rather than die a lingering death

                1. Are these compliance costs really irreversibly climbing, in the event of a major shakeout? They're at least theoretically subject to democratic influences.

                  I think we might disagree about what is dead weight. Or perhaps some of what is dead weight is government mandated dead weight.

              2. There are some university programs which allow the student to demonstrate mastery of some subject matter by being certified by a third-party organization that certifies mastery, as is very common in the IT industry. Similarly, if a sequence of accounting classes give a student the knowledge they need to be certified as a management accountant, then a student who can pass the management accounting certification exam should get academic credit for the classes that provide that knowledge and those skills. This rewards self-directed learners. The problem is that there aren't independent certifications for everything in academia. Someone still has to teach you how to write in academic doublespeak.

                To put it into terms more familiar to readers of a legally-oriented blog, practicing lawyers are expected to take a full-course of academic law classes, then sit for a couple of exams to be qualified to practice law. Many people who sit for the bar exam take a "bar review" course to prepare for the exam, and then even the people who pass the bar exam are usually not prepared to practice law and need to be supervised by an experience lawyer before they are any good at the job. How much more efficient would it be if we let various vendors offer "bar review" courses directly to members of the public, and the ones who pass the exams get matched up to a practicing lawyer to supervise their early work and make sure the new lawyer is doing competent work. Just cut the universities and law schools out of the process entirely. This would let new lawyers enter the field without running up a quarter-million of debt, and they'd have time for seven more years of productive work in their careers, minus the time they'd be expected to supervise and mentor newcomers to the field. That sounds like a win for everyone but law school faculty, who'd have to find real jobs. That's how it works in IT, a field you can enter without going to college if you can do the work.

                1. "then a student who can pass the management accounting certification exam should get academic credit for the classes"
                  James,
                  Let me repeat what the registrar at my university told me when we were discussing how much the university should collect in a situation similar but not identical to yours.
                  "If you think that our disagreement is all about the money, you're right. It is all about the money."

                  1. You think the school would have a problem with collecting tuition for a class they didn't actually have to offer?

          3. "If the money were resulting in proportionately greater pay on the job, that would be great. But it’s not going into a better product, it’s being absorbed by vastly greater overhead."

            The schools I went to have had a few upgrades. For example, back in my day there was only one air-conditioned building on campus, the computing center. during the summer, they'd periodically go 'round the building and kick out everybody who didn't need to be there. They also didn't used-ta provide wireless Internet service throughout campus. Now they do. In the law school I went to, there's an electrical outlet for every seat in the lecture rooms, for the students who bring laptops. At the state university, this upgrade has not been made. sucks to be you if your laptop battery can't last for the whole hour.

        2. Why would it be desirable for tuition to return to amounts that a student could earn with summer wages, as it was a short time ago?

          Seems like a question with a rather obvious answer, no? And that is what the market would bear, absent the federal government's incredible trillion dollar interventions.

          Those interventions are essentially a welfare subsidy program for professors and the generally leftist institution of higher academia.

          1. "Why would it be desirable for tuition to return to amounts that a student could earn with summer wages, as it was a short time ago?"

            there were a lot fewer students in that "short time ago" window. Another way of looking at that same comparison would be how awesome it would be if everyone, not just students, could support themselves for an entire year off of [one season's] wages.

      2. "The higher ed bubble can’t burst soon enough…."

        Get out of it.

  2. Imagine if the UC press put out a statement about how it as fighting against the oppressive Christian agenda, how silent Bernstein would be.

    1. Half the posts here denounce what people *might* do, or what crazy people *think* they're doing.

    2. But it didn't. And why are you mind-raping Bernstein?
      So what are you yapping about.

    3. I can't speak to Bernstein, but some of us don't make a distinction because we know that it is the Judeo-Christian tradition that is under attack, and that we need to defend.

      Now as to why American Jews continue to vote Democrat, who knows why....

      1. "Now as to why American Jews continue to vote Democrat, who knows why…."

        Unlike you, they're pro-freedom.

    4. I would think Bernstein would be happy. He is after all getting exactly what he voted for.

    5. I can imagine it - and the Bernstein in my imagination is not especially silent. I disagree with Prof Bernstein frequently but hypocrisy is not one of his notable failings.

    6. Shorter Y81: "Damn you, Bernstein, for not writing what I want you to write about!"

  3. If UC Press is a non-profit, it should lose that status.

    1. You want to give them profits?

  4. Some day, there may very well be a Palestinian state. Millions will cheer...as another dictatorship and kleptocracy is created?

    I like to think I'll be wrong. But history is on my side.

    What the heck do you think the leaders are fighting for?

    1. Peace, rainbows, cute little bunny rabbits, that sort of thing?

    2. "What the heck do you think the leaders are fighting for?"

      Not having their neighborhoods blown up with the "leader" of the next country over needs to take attention away from his corruption problems?

      1. So the leader of the next country over made them fire rocket into his own country? What kind of conspiratorial minds do you posses?

        1. It seems that one of your letter s's has slipped out of the word "possess" where it belongs and attached itself to the word "mind" where it didn't. One of your own typing fingers seems to be a tad rebellious. Get your own ducks in order before whining about anyone else's.

  5. if we want to put an end to financial privileges for religions we oughta look first at the billions upon billions of taxpayer money enjoyed by indoctrination centers (leftwing colleges)

    1. I'm onboard. Defund state colleges / universities. (It sure makes more sense than defunding the police!)

      1. They've had their public funding cut for decades.

  6. How does this statement change their publishing mission? Does Prof. Bernstein think it means they'll be less than fair in their standards of who to publish? Because I don't see them saying anything like that.

    Professing an ideological position does not mean one is going to unprofessionally push that point of view.

    1. I suppose all that depends on how the Press will apply the following (from its statement):

      "We support scholarship that confronts all forms of settler colonialism, US racial formations including Islamophobia, and prioritize pedagogies that reflect intersectional, anti-colonial, anti-racist action. As a university press, it is our responsibility to disseminate scholarship that challenges dominant narratives and makes understanding these injustices possible."

      I wonder how anyone could get the idea that this would be relevant to their publishing mission?

      1. Here are 50 of their upcoming books:

        https://www.ucpress.edu/coming-soon.php?s=pd&o=desc&r=50

        There’s one or two about the Ottoman Empire – in favor of decolonization, I presume.

        And here’s Rethinking Statehood in Palestine, which will be released as a free ebook because it’s just that important:

        “The quest for an inclusive and independent state has been at the center of the Palestinian national struggle for a very long time. This book critically reexamines this quest by exploring the meaning of Palestinian statehood and the challenges that face alternative models to it today. Rethinking Statehood in Palestine gives prominence to a young set of diverse Palestinian scholars, both men and women, to show how notions of citizenship, sovereignty, and nationhood are being currently rethought within the broader context of decolonization. Bringing forth critical and multifacetted engagements with what Palestinian self-determination entails within a larger regional context, this groundbreaking book sets the terms of debate for the future of Palestine beyond partition.”

        Sounds promising!

        1. A Field Guide to White Supremacy

          "Covering immigration, antisemitism, gendered violence, anti-Black lynching, and organized domestic terrorism, the authors exhume white supremacy as a motivating force in manifold parts of American life. The book also offers a sampling of some of the most recent scholarship in this area in order to spark broader conversations between journalists and their readers, teachers and their students, and activists and their communities."

          Gaza

          An Inquest into Its Martyrdom

          by Norman Finkelstein

          "Based on scores of human rights reports, Norman G. Finkelstein's new book presents a meticulously researched inquest into Gaza’s martyrdom. He shows that although Israel has justified its assaults in the name of self-defense, in fact these actions constituted flagrant violations of international law.

          "But Finkelstein also documents that the guardians of international law—from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to the UN Human Rights Council—ultimately failed Gaza. One of his most disturbing conclusions is that, after Judge Richard Goldstone's humiliating retraction of his UN report, human rights organizations succumbed to the Israeli juggernaut."

        2. A most interesting list demonstrating a clear ideological bias of the Press' editors.
          Even the photography book is suspicious in that regard.

      2. Are you trying to use examples to prove that their publishing is biased?

        Because that won't get you there.

        And until that's established, I don't see why they can't say what they want.

        1. I was never sure I liked people calling you Gaslighto, but this "feel the gentle rain on your leg" attitude seems to fit the description.

          1. Anecdotes aren't proof, no matter how hard you soak in confirmation bias.

            You argument is 'they say a thing I disagree with. Also they publish a thing I disagree with.'

            Can you not see how you have not proven any viewpoint discrimination?

            1. A soft summer shower is descending on my leg!

              1. So you're not interested in establishing anything. Well, then, go enjoy your viewpoint discrimination.

              2. "A soft summer shower is descending on my leg!"

                If you trace it to it's source, it appears your Depends are not dependable.

            2. "Anecdotes aren’t proof,,,"

              So The actions of a few hundred people on Jan. 06 don't lead to a nationwide right-wing conspiracy to destroy Democracy?

              Glad we cleared that up.

              1. "That's different, because shut up", to coin a phrase.

              2. The usual "whataboutism"

              3. The actions of a few hundred people on Jan. 06 don’t lead to a nationwide right-wing conspiracy to destroy Democracy?

                ...That's correct.

                Trump acted very badly both before and during, but the only criminal acts were the a-holes who broke into the Capitol.

                1. Your pro-insurrection attitude has been noted. You can expect a visit from your friendly local FBI office any day.

                  1. Don't write fan-fiction. The FBI is not going after anyone who wasn't part of the crowd that broke into the WH, except for a conspiracy charge for some Proud Boys I can't quite figure out.

                    1. The FBI is not going after anyone who wasn’t part of the crowd that broke into the WH,

                      "According to the search warrants, agents could collect any electronics that might be suspected to have been involved, items stolen from the Capitol, a laptop with descriptors and a serial number - "which they didn't find," she said - and any paperwork related to planning violence.

                      Hueper said she has not heard back from federal authorities, nor have agents returned her laptop, two iPads, two cellphones or the 50-cent pocket-sized Declaration of Independence booklet they confiscated April 28."

                      I suppose technically the Declaration of Independence could be considered "paperwork related to planning violence"; Maybe the agents simply weren't familiar with it.

                    2. Looks like an investigation predicated on someone being at the Capitol protest, Brett. That favors my thesis of a narrow net of criminality, not Ed's.

              4. I do think the continued support for the Big Lie that Trump secretly won the election is anti-democratic protected speech. Not a conspiracy, but nevertheless morally indefensible in our republic.

                1. Any more anti-democratic than the big lie that the 2016 election was illegitimate?

                  1. You saw Dem officials arguing Hillary secretly won the election in 2016?

                    No, you didn't. But you're trying for a false equivalence because pointing elsewhere lets you continue to excuse your party's screwed up behavior.

                    1. "You saw Dem officials arguing Hillary secretly won the election in 2016?"

                      I saw Hillary claiming that the election wasn't legitimate. I saw Dem officials repeatedly claim that our election was hacked, that our country was attacked in an act of war by Russia, etc. It's not exactly the same rhetoric, but it's not far off.

                    2. No new goal posts.

                    3. "it’s not far off"

                      Pathetic. What happened to you?

                2. S_0,
                  The weak and infirm of mind will always be with us.
                  The support of the T-- Big Lie is prima facie evidence of mental illness

                  1. Not clinically.

                    Any of us can make ourselves mentally ill by confusing desire+passion with reality. Social media does hypercharge that process, though.

              5. "So The actions of a few hundred people on Jan. 06 don’t lead to a nationwide right-wing conspiracy to destroy Democracy?"

                You got cause and effect backwards.

        2. "Are you trying to use examples to prove that their publishing is biased?"

          It sounds like he's using their statement that their publishing is biased to show that their publishing is biased, and re-enforcing it with examples.

          1. Saying 'we're going to foreground these views' does not make for a biased publisher. It's not an uncommon position to take, actually.

            But you've got a viewpoint you don't like and would very much like someone to do something about it.

            The number of times I end up taking the libertarian position against the commentariat of this blog is pretty staggering.

            1. "Saying ‘we’re going to foreground these views’ does not make for a biased publisher. "

              Lol. Of course it does.

              1. Allow me to rephrase: It is well within the usual role of a publisher.

                Sounds like you want to make publishers into common carriers. You know, for the freedom.

                1. Not of an academic press. Especially problematic at a state university.

                  1. Neither your university nor even your state. Are they telling you what you can publish ANYWHERE? Or only what you can publish with this particular publisher?

                    1. It's the only press of University of California, and university presses publish scholars from everywhere so the fact that I'm not a faculty member of UC is entirely irrelevant. And even if I never would even potentially interact with the press, I'm not sure why I shouldn't comment on matters of public concern that don't directly affect me.

                    2. "I’m not sure why I shouldn’t comment on matters of public concern that don’t directly affect me."

                      Matters of public concern that don't affect members of the public aren't matters of public concern. They're matters of private concern taken public.

                      You don't like the editorial policies of this publisher, so publish with one that you DO like. Or at least, with one that will take your stuff.

                  2. I don't think it's really established that even an academic press's speech is constrained by the Constitution.

                    1. This just feels a lot like you saw a viewpoint you didn't like, and are trying to silence it.

            2. "The number of times I end up taking the libertarian position against the commentariat of this blog is pretty staggering."

              You're taking the "libertarian position" in support of the UC Press? Of course a private publisher can have whatever bias it wants.

              1. Yeah, I am.

                You're the one who appears to want to constrain it's discretion.

                Government speech and association are still liberties. Maybe with different protections, but not to be ignored.

                And here the governmental nexus is not as strong as many. But you clearly don't care at all.

                1. "Government speech and association are still liberties. Maybe with different protections, but not to be ignored."

                  Wtf? Government speech is literally speech by the government. You're saying that the government enjoys the "liberty" to be free from constraining its own speech? That doesn't even make sense.

                  "And here the governmental nexus is not as strong as many."

                  The UC Press describes itself as "the nonprofit publishing arm of the University of California system". That's about as strong as it gets.

                  1. Look up the government speech doctrine, and educate yourself.

                    1. Me? You're the one that's ignorant.

                      The government speech doctrine says that the government can determine the content of its own speech. You're claiming the exact opposite.

                    2. "The government speech doctrine says that the government can determine the content of its own speech. You’re claiming the exact opposite."

                      You carefully establish that the UC Press is part of the University of California system, and are saying that they aren't allowed to regulate what they publish. Who's claiming "the exact opposite" here?

                    3. "You carefully establish that the UC Press is part of the University of California system, and are saying that they aren’t allowed to regulate what they publish. Who’s claiming “the exact opposite” here?"

                      Their statement is government speech. What they publish is not.

                      But even if it were, there's no "libertarian position" that they, as a public entity, are protected from losing funding based on what they say on behalf of the government.

      3. I would think disseminating scholarship challenging dominant narratives would be fairly obviously the kind of thing a University Press should be doing. YMMV.

        1. Challenging the dominant narrative in academic publishing would mean saying "we should support Israel," "Trump did some good things," "abortion is bad," "discrimination against white people is wrong," etc.

          If they want studies opposing Israeli or American "colonialism," or defending "anti-racism" and "intersectionality," you may as well face it: You're not exactly a bold academic dissenter.

          1. I would think the guy who thought one couldn't be more 'woke' in academe than Sean Wilentz should be a little more cautious before making pronouncements about what the dominant narratives in academe are in various fields....

            1. The dominant narratives in university are all anti-American, anti-Western, anti-white, anti-male retreads of Karl Marx or less savory types.

              1. Sure, that's why in the list of most cited academics that come out here about every year it's those Marxist retreads of law and economics professors that are so highly represented. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

                1. Citations in literature are a very poor indicator of dominant theologies in universities. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know this.

                  1. "Citations in literature are a very poor indicator of dominant theologies in universities."

                    WTF?

            2. You'd think that anyone with an IQ above 12 could see just how antisemitic academia has become in the past 30 years.

              1. Yes. Antisemitic, anti-American, anti-Western, anti-white. "Goodness and progress" indeed...

                1. Do the two of you somehow add up to 12 IQ points?

            3. Astonishingly, this time you managed to land somewhere near the truth.

              I did in fact say "...Sean Wilentz ought to be able to out-woke the New York Times or just about anyone else."

              Of course, now I see the error of my ways - Wilentz still retains vestiges of respect for logic and evidence, and this plus his race and sex/gender deprive him of precious Woke points.

              1. Another take might be that there's quite a bit of room between people even in the academic left that you might not be aware of.

        2. Disseminating scholarship challenging dominant narratives would be nice, so long as you're open to scholarship defending those dominant narratives, too.

          But are you so sure about what the dominant narratives in academia, as opposed to the larger world, are? I suspect they're not challenging dominant narratives at the university, they're reinforcing them.

          1. You've kind of unwittingly stumbled on what those folks say in your last your last paragraph.

            1. In other words, yes, I think many defending that view would say that a big part of a university's goal is to challenge narratives that are dominant outside of academe, that are 'in power' in some real socio-political-historical sense (the alternative would be a weird navel gazing).

              1. I think it should be neither their goal to challenge narratives, nor reinforce them, but instead to impartially follow the truth wherever it leads. Which requires openness to all sides of questions, not just contra-narrative sides.

                Sometimes this will result in challenging narratives, but sometimes the narratives ARE the truth, and ought to be defended by any impartial truth seeker.

                If their goal is, explicitly, to challenge the narratives dominant outside of academia, regardless of whether those narratives are valid, they are not impartial truth seekers, they are, literally, the enemies of outside society.

                And should be treated as such.

                1. "I think it should be neither their goal to challenge narratives, nor reinforce them, but instead to impartially follow the truth wherever it leads."

                  Impartially following the truth without challenging any narratives sounds a tiny bit conformist.

                  challenging narratives that happen to be true is not a threat to narratives that really ARE true.

                  1. Fortunately, I never said that they shouldn't challenge any narratives. I said that neither challenging nor reinforcing narratives should be their goal.

                    If the truth is contra-narrative, they should challenge the narrative. If the truth accords with the narrative, they should reinforce it. They should be guided by the truth, not by the narrative.

                    "challenging narratives that happen to be true is not a threat to narratives that really ARE true."

                    In educational institutions? It damned well is.

                    1. "'challenging narratives that happen to be true is not a threat to narratives that really ARE true.'

                      In educational institutions? It damned well is."

                      Sure. There's lots of educational institutions that have successfully challenged the narrative of universal gravitation.

    2. " Because I don’t see them saying anything like that."
      You and I see it very differently.
      In any case I'd never publish with the UC Press as UC has a long history of corruption at the top.

      1. By any chance does "corruption at the top" mean anything like "they keep sending my manuscripts back"?

    3. Agree, Professor Bernstein has this backwards. We should care whether UC system is discriminatorily funding speech based on viewpoint. Withdrawing funding for bad speech isn’t the way we First Amendment.

      1. "We should care whether UC system is discriminatorily funding speech based on viewpoint. "

        And they say that that's what they're doing.

        1. No. Nothing in their statement says that they will not publish pro-Israel or Palestine critical books. Now, the statement could be used as evidence of viewpoint discrimination if a Palestine critical book was rejected for publication, but the statement saying “we like X and support X adjacent scholarship” is not the same as saying “we refuse to publish anti-X books.”

          1. Why would you expect a press that announces publicly that it stands with the Palestine Solidarity Movement to be willing to publish a pro-Israel book?

            1. Because I take them for professionals.

              I presume you teach both sides of the issue, even if you passionately advocate for one side when you speak about it.

              1. "I presume you teach both sides of the issue, even if you passionately advocate for one side when you speak about it."

                Sure. A professor should be capable of putting his personal opinion aside when his profession requires it. An organization is not capable of doing that because ... it is not capable of having a personal opinion.

                1. An organization is not capable of doing that because … it is not capable of having a personal opinion.

                  There are countless counterexamples of organizations saying something and remaining professional.

                  1. Sigh. Organizations are not capable of independent thought. So if an organization puts out a statement that says, "Our organization likes X" then they are either conveying nothing, or they are conveying that their organization behaves in a certain way.

                    You keep insisting that we should interpret the statement as meaning nothing. Why? Why not assume that it means something?

                    1. You keep insisting that we should interpret "we support something" as indicating 100% dedication to that something. As an individual, I can say "I like mint chocolate ice cream and it does not mean that I never enjoy strawberry ice cream. It means that if you offer me some ice cream, with a choice of flavors, I'm probably not reaching for butter-rum flavor first. Why that wouldn't scale up to an organization that includes the taste preferences of multiple people doesn't make any sense.

            2. Because if they are a state actor, then engaging in viewpoint discrimination could violate the First Amendment (assuming UC Press would not be able to argue that choosing whom to publish is government speech).

              I am generally uncomfortable with the idea that the appropriate response is for the state to defund bad speech.

          2. "but the statement saying “we like X and support X adjacent scholarship” is not the same as saying “we refuse to publish anti-X books.”

            In what sense is the UC Press capable of liking X and supporting X adjacent scholarship that is not reflected in its publishing decisions?

            1. "In what sense is the UC Press capable of liking X and supporting X adjacent scholarship that is not reflected in its publishing decisions?"

              They can sponsor colloquia in which the authors they specifically support are featured but other scholars also appear.

              1. I've no idea if they DO do this, but if they do, it's an example of the thing you were asking about.

  7. Hear! Hear!

    Now do church tax exemptions.

    1. You mean 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax exemptions? Universities have those too, as do various think tanks.

      1. Thanks for the link.

        This exemption seems rather narrow in that it only prohibits a tax-exempt organization from a, "political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

        It doesn't prohibit a tax-exempt organization from taking sides on issues (and perhaps that's covered under a different section).

        1. It leaves a broad discretion to the organization. It can publish "studies" and commentaries describing public issues in ways which are more palatable to some candidates' supporters than others. So long as they don't blurt out "vote for x," then the risk of an audit is fairly low, according to my understanding.

          Of course, I don't think one's rate of taxation should depend on how explicit you are in criticizing or opposing candidates, it should be based on the common good.

          1. So . . . what law covers Prof. Bernstein's statement, "If the UC Press believes it has an ideological mission as described above, there is no reason for it to be getting a dime from California taxpayers?"

            1. I presume they're being subsidized out of the California treasury.

              The tax-exemption question, which is certainly pertinent and interesting, applies to nonprofits generally, not just churches and not just state-subsidized institutions.

            2. Bernstein never claimed that there was a law. He mad a statement of a guiding principle.

              1. If he's not claiming there's a law, then he's just whining.

                One would expect a LAW PROFESSOR on a LAW BLOG to address LAW ISSUES (again IF he's not discussing a law).

                1. Have you ever read this website before

                2. "then he’s just whining."
                  as are you now.

                  1. And then you, and now me.

  8. "can hardly expect neutral academic review of a proposal or manuscript if the press has an official position on the matter."

    By this logic I guess a student could hardly expect neutral academic review of class assignments from a public university professor who has taken a strong position on matters (as, for example, Professor Bernstein regularly does).

    1. That depends - did Bernstein issue a formal policy statement that "it is my responsibility to disseminate student scholarship that challenges dominant narratives by promoting Zionism.”

      1. He's said that about focusing on left wing antisemitism, and leaving right wing antisemitism to others.

        But so what? I don't think that point of view means he does his job badly.

        1. Just to be clear - he wants to promote students scholarship about left-wing antisemitism?

          1. No, that's what he said on here. But even if he signed onto some letter or something saying he was going to do that, it'd be fine.

            You're allowed to have a viewpoint and work for a public school.

            1. You would be OK if he publicly stated he thought it was his responsibility to promote student scholarship of a certain viewpoint?

              1. Yes, so long as he wasn't stifling student scholarship of another viewpoint.

                I mean, professors encouraging scholarship they like is the status quo in academia.

                1. " professors encouraging scholarship they like "
                  It has been a way of life for centuries..

              2. "if he publicly stated he thought it was his responsibility to promote student scholarship of a certain viewpoint?"

                Yeah, this happens all the time. A law and economics professor will work their entire career to foster and push their advisees and mentorees to publish stuff advancing the law and economics perspective in debates. Etc.,.

                1. If the law and econ professor is known to push students to take a certain "line," then the public should know, and maybe withdraw their subsidy from that professor. Just because it's an established practice doesn't make it OK.

                  1. It's normal because of a conspiracy, there's a logic to it. Researchers and professors that develop or investigate area inevitably are going to conclude that some frameworks, theories, etc., are superior for explaining and understanding the topics they study/teach. And, being convinced, they are often going to make a passionate case about why their view is the correct one. Some might say that's a very good thing because you get the best minds arguing what they are familiar with and convinced by with the most energy. As long as there are competing frameworks, theories, etc., then third parties-the public, students, other researchers, can compare and contrast the approaches and get at what's the 'truth.'

                    1. Yeah, but you lied about me.

                    2. No, we can all read your pedantic dodge attempt:

                      "That depends – did Bernstein issue a formal policy statement that “it is my responsibility to disseminate student scholarship that challenges dominant narratives by promoting Zionism.”"

                    3. So you misunderstood me - you gave my remark the least plausible and least charitable explanation, then you doubled down when I assured you that wasn't what I meant. To go against the evidence like this is dishonest and violates charity, so you can go off and fuck youself.

                    4. You 'responded' by asking if DB was on record with something closely tracking what UC said in its statements. That's pedantically irrelevant to the point (which is whether one can hardly expect a neutral academic review of their work from an evaluator that has a well known/expressed bias) and then to boot DB *had* said something closely tracking what UC said.

                    5. "You ‘responded’ by asking if DB was on record with something closely tracking what UC said in its statements."

                      Closely tracking? You're retreating. At first you said I wanted an "exact" parallel in the statements. Now that I've pushed back against that, you're quietly and without acknowledgement abandoning this ridiculous claim.

                      You also said I was looking for "magic words."

                      Now you've retreated to "closely tracking."

                      So your original attack against me was bogus, and you're implicitly acknowledging it, after indignantly ranting about my insistence on magic words that are "exactly" the same.

                    6. "exact[]"

                  2. "Now you’ve retreated to “closely tracking.”

                    So your original attack against me was bogus, and you’re implicitly acknowledging it, after indignantly ranting about my insistence on magic words that are “exactly” the same."

                    Good grief, you're determined to get out of the pedant quicksand via more and more struggle this morning.

                    1. It was you, not I, who dropped the original accusation.

                      You said I wanted "magic words." You said I wanted "exact[]" phrases.

                      Now you're abandoning that position, and I won't let you take it up again.

                    2. Look, my original point was: "By this logic I guess a student could hardly expect neutral academic review of class assignments from a public university professor who has taken a strong position on matters (as, for example, Professor Bernstein regularly does)."

                      Your response was not about the general point of expecting neutrality from someone with a well known/expressed bias, instead you asked about wording extremely closely tracking UC's:
                      "That depends – did Bernstein issue a formal policy statement that “it is my responsibility to disseminate student scholarship that challenges dominant narratives by promoting Zionism.”"

                      *Note the 'that depends, as if if he didn't formulate his expression of bias in this fashion you've got a distinction to run with or something

                      Also:

                      " Imagine a university press publishing this statement:

                      “We support scholarship that confronts all forms of communism, atheism, neo-Marxism, and prioritize pedagogies that reflect 100% Americanism. As a university press, it is our responsibility to disseminate scholarship that challenges dominant narratives and makes understanding of America’s greatness and our glorious Christian heritage possible.”"

                      Again, you want to frame this as a 'did he say it like UC said it' (note, I'm paraphrasing what you're saying, not attributing a quote citation here, don't want you to go on another uber-pedantic rant about how 'I didn't say did he say it like US said it!!!'

                      Now, here was your problem and I think the source of your embarrassment and now natural anger: it was and is irrelevant to my original point whether his statements of bias tracks UCs, the general principle is unaffected by that. But then, to make matters worse, he was easily and quickly shown to be on record closely tracking UC's language. So, your attempt to rebut my original point about DB's hypocrisy here failed and failed utterly. I get that's made you mad and upset, that wasn't my intention.

                      Now, I'll let you have the last word, you seem to really need it today.

                      "

                    3. "Now, I’ll let you have the last word, you seem to really need it today."

                      No, but since you offered it me the last word I'll try to say something gracious: thank you for abandoning your original claim that I wanted to see the "exact[]" words and that I was looking for "magic words." That was the crux of your attack against me, and now you seem to realize it was silly.

                      After insisting on your position against the evidence and in the face of my explanation that I didn't mean that, you finally yielded and dropped the claim.

                      It was nice of you to climb down like that, and I appreciate it.

                    4. And I'm glad I asked you for actual evidence to show wrongdoing by Prof. Bernstein, rather than your vague and irrelevant accusations - wanting more evidence for your assertions is hardly the same as defending him or closing my ears to evidence, which of course is the opposite of what I did once you provided evidence which was actually relevant. You belatedly provided information which *if true,* would actually be in the right ballpark in that it shows him promoting a particular viewpoint in student scholarship (assuming, as I said, that he has students at this institute is and assuming also that it's state-funded, which to be fair would be necessary for the parallel to be complete).

                      You really should have brought out your best evidence first, rather than start with irrelevant stuff which indicated you had no useful or relevant evidence.

                2. What individual professors do or practice is one matter, but what an official element of the University corporate structure does is quite another. Conflating the two only serves to generate and amplify confusion.

                  1. If'n you don't approve of what the corporate structure says its viewpoint is, why are you associated with that corporate structure?

              3. Poor Cal. A quick Google search reveals:
                David E. Bernstein
                University Professor and Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center
                About
                Liberty and Law Center is a forum to learn about the relationship between liberty and law, challenge government encroachment upon liberty, and lead the discussion of the law’s role in protecting and promoting liberty.

                ILLARS

                Freedom of expression is foundational to individual liberty and democratic governance.

                Government at all levels consistently threatens to encroach upon our constitutional liberties.

                Adherence to the rule of law has a vital role in promoting and protecting liberty.
                https://libertycenter.gmu.edu/about/

                Uh Oh, looks like he's taken some official positions to promote scholarship of a certain viewpoint! And even used the magic word 'challenge!'

                1. I didn't say there was no evidence, I asked you to show some evidence. You hemmed and hawed, and now you've provided some evidence. Took you long enough.

                  If I was submitting a "statist" paper to the Liberty and Law Center, I would not expect an impartial evaluation, I'd expect my paper to be disfavored in favor of something saying liberty was awesome.

                  1. Lol, 'if you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball!'

                    1. WTF are you suggesting?

                    2. Shove your wrench and your ball up your ass.

                    3. Here's a sentence I wrote above.

                      "You would be OK if he publicly stated he thought it was his responsibility to promote student scholarship of a certain viewpoint?"

                      Observe that the punctuation after that sentence is a question mark. You and Sarcastro both said you'd be fine with such discrimination.

                      Then you gave evidence of such discrimination, in Bernstein's capacity as someone at the Law and Liberty Center.

                      Then you deceptively proclaimed that you'd refuted something I'd said.

                      You don't seem to understand what a question mark means.

                    4. Btw-I think you're confused in using ' viewpoint discrimination' to refer to a center, press or professor who thinks that a certain theory or approach is a more accurate reflection of the phenomena they study and therefore they tend to 'defend and extend' that approach in their research and teaching. I think DB honestly thinks that approaches that are skeptical of government and promote free market alternatives helps understand what he studies better than other approaches. He's an expert in this approach and is convinced of its' superiority, if he then organizes his class around extolling this approach I don't think that's 'viewpoint discrimination,' especially when, as usually is the case, there are other professors on campus with different ideas about which approaches that are superior and you can get the 'best case' explanations about them from those profs.

                      Now, if a professor or center has this conviction about an approach I don't think they should negatively evaluate someone's work under them *just because they don't come to the same conclusion the professor or institute* does. But I don't think the fact that a professor or institute engages in what I've described in the first paragraph means they can be expected to do that, and that is exactly my original point.

                    5. "I think"

                      I no longer give a flying fuck what you think.

                2. Again, you confuse an academic study structure with a corporate business enterprise of the university. And confusion reigns

            2. "You’re allowed to have a viewpoint and work for a public school."

              Sure. But the public school isn't allowed to have a viewpoint that conflicts with its mission. There's a difference between organizational viewpoints and personal viewpoints.

              1. If corporations are people, I don't see how this is different.

                1. It's not different. Saying a corporation has a viewpoint means something different than saying that the individual stakeholders have viewpoints.

                  Saying than an organization has a viewpoint means that people acting on behalf of the organization are expected to act to advance that viewpoint. And that's what the UC Press is saying when it says here that it is prioritizes scholarship with certain viewpoints.

                  1. Saying than an organization has a viewpoint means that people acting on behalf of the organization are expected to act to advance that viewpoint

                    Nonsense - that is not how people work. You have viewpoints, and I expect you manage to do your job without injecting them into everything you do.

                    Do not assume everyone's viewpoints consume them.

                    1. "Nonsense – that is not how people work. You have viewpoints, and I expect you manage to do your job without injecting them into everything you do."

                      Again, saying that an organization has a viewpoint isn't the same as saying that a person has a viewpoint.

                      Saying that the UC Press likes apple pie would be meaningless even if everybody associated with the organization liked apple pie.

                      Saying that "this company respects customers" means that you better respect customers while acting on behalf of the company.

                      How else do you think an organization can have a viewpoint, other than by requiring people acting on behalf of the organization to act according to that viewpoint?

                    2. How else do you think an organization can have a viewpoint, other than by requiring people acting on behalf of the organization to act according to that viewpoint?

                      By releasing a statement agreed on by the organization's leadership.

                    3. "By releasing a statement agreed on by the organization’s leadership."

                      So you think if the UC Press leadership agreed to release a statement that "the UC Press likes apple pie" then the UC Press would like apple pie? No, Sarcastro, that's not how organizational viewpoints work.

                    4. Similarly, if an organization puts out a statement, approved but the leadership, that says, "we respect customers" that doesn't mean that the organization respects customers, if the respect isn't reflected in their actions toward customers.

                    5. So you think if the UC Press leadership agreed to release a statement that “the UC Press likes apple pie” then the UC Press would like apple pie? No, Sarcastro, that’s not how organizational viewpoints work.

                      ...Except that's my point, not yours.

                      Liking pie does not constrain an organization's actions any more than an individual's statement of the same does.

                    6. "Liking pie does not constrain an organization’s actions any more than an individual’s statement of the same does."

                      Sigh. An organization can't like pie.

                    7. They can say the like pie.

                    8. "They can say the like pie."

                      But why would they? It doesn't mean anything. It's like saying that they're a square circle.

                    9. "'They can say the like pie.'

                      But why would they? It doesn’t mean anything. It’s like saying that they’re a square circle."

                      Are you saying there really isn't an "official pie of Major League Baseball"?

                  2. "Saying than an organization has a viewpoint means that people acting on behalf of the organization are expected to act to advance that viewpoint."

                    Of course, people who are ideologically opposed to the organization remain free to mischaracterize and mis-state the organization's viewpoint as they see fit, no matter how silly they sound when they expound their hated group's message.

          2. While leaving right wing anti-semitism to others. See, you're really being pedantic now to try to come up with some distinction, but the point you're wriggling away from is it is common for academics, both professors and 'institutes' and centers and such, to take political stands all the time. So, the question is, if this horribly and necessarily taints some of them that do, why does it not do the same for others? Glass houses and stones and all.

            1. The university press statement was about what it planned to do *as* a university press, picking scholarship with a certain viewpoint.

              Let's try to put this in terms you'd appreciate. Imagine a university press publishing this statement:

              “We support scholarship that confronts all forms of communism, atheism, neo-Marxism, and prioritize pedagogies that reflect 100% Americanism. As a university press, it is our responsibility to disseminate scholarship that challenges dominant narratives and makes understanding of America's greatness and our glorious Christian heritage possible.”

              1. You lose Cal. It happens.

                PILLARS

                Freedom of expression is foundational to individual liberty and democratic governance.

                Government at all levels consistently threatens to encroach upon our constitutional liberties.

                Adherence to the rule of law has a vital role in promoting and protecting liberty.

                1. Like I said, I asked you for evidence to back up your assertions, and commented on your initial failure to do so. You rose to my challenge and provided something that looks like evidence.

                  So if he has students at the Liberty and Law Center, then no, I wouldn't expect him to evaluate a "statist" paper the same way as a "libertarian" paper.

                  The California Legislature should cut off its subsidy to the Liberty and Law Center, so as not to subsidize one viewpoint over another.

                  I presume the Liberty and Law Center has students and is getting a state subsidy, otherwise we're back to square on in your search for examples.

                  But I'll cut you a break and make those assumptions.

                  1. No, you were trying a pedantic feint/dodge based on the idea that DB's point wouldn't apply to his work unless he used the same magic formulation of expressing his well known bias as UC did. But feints/dodges by themselves never win a fight, and worse in this case you feinted/dodged right into a haymaker KO punch because, lo and behold, he actually did have an expression almost exactly tracking the magic formulation you were hinging everything on.

                    Btw-to be clear, while I tend to favor less overtly biased approaches I also think it's quite normal in academe to have the more biased approaches. The logic is that there's always going to be some bias and you should let people and organizations make the best cases for what feels naturally correct to them, then third parties can ponder all sides and get at truth (kind of like our adversarial model in the courtroom). So I don't think any of the work DB does with his center is unusual or wrong, but I also don't assume that about UC Press either.

                    1. "No, you were trying a pedantic feint/dodge based on the idea that DB’s point wouldn’t apply to his work unless he used the same magic formulation of expressing his well known bias as UC did."

                      No, you stupid person, I said nothing of the sort, and if you say otherwise you're a fucking liar.

                    2. And you're being deceptive because I specifically criticized Bernstein's viewpoint discrimination with students at his institute (assuming that's what he's doing of course), with taxpayer funds (assuming he's getting those).

                    3. Of course you were, that's why you were stuck on 'did DB say exactly this that UC did?' It was a pedantic attempt to create a distinction worth a difference. In this case not only did it have the usual failings of most pedantic endeavors but it also walked right into a haymaker meeting the so-called distinction head on.

                    4. No, you lying fuck, I criticized what you *said* Bernstein was doing, though if you're lying about him as much as you're lying about me then maybe he isn't actually guilty.

                    5. Right, and your criticism was the pedantic 'did he say exactly what UC said?' That's 1. irrelevant, well known biases don't have to be expressed in some magic formula for the principle DB invoked to apply and 2. walked right into it because, as I suspected, DB had said something almost exactly like UC.

                      And now you're upset and angry because you stepped right in it and I pointed out what's all over your shoe.

                    6. Muted, you useless sack of shit.

                    7. My, so triggered.

                    8. I'm really beginning to wonder whether my criticism of Bernstein was fair, because the "information" on which I relied comes from you - that is, from a polluted source.

                    9. It's worse than I thought, because you quoted me using the word "exactly" - I found only one place where I used that word, and it was in the context of someone promoting political correctness is "not exactly a bold academic dissenter."

                      But you quote me as asking, ‘did DB say exactly this that UC did?’ I never said "exactly" in this context.

                      Perhaps the charitable explanation is correct - if you have a pet rock, the average IQ is raised considerably.

                    10. "But you quote me as asking, ‘did DB say exactly this that UC did?’ I never said “exactly” in this context. "

                      I get this is ex post facto anger talking, but talk about uncharitable interpretations.

                    11. "I’m really beginning to wonder whether my criticism of Bernstein was fair, because the “information” on which I relied comes from you – that is, from a polluted source."

                      Again, I get it's the anger talking, but dude *I provided a link* to it all.

                    12. I didn't say "exactly." This word you misattributed to me is the lynchpin of your whole bogus attack on me. Now I'm calling you on it.

                      Too bad for you.

                    13. "I didn’t say “exactly.” This word you misattributed to me is the lynchpin of your whole bogus attack on me. Now I’m calling you on it."

                      Again, who's got the uncharitable read now? And, what other than pedantic point do you think you've scored here? 'You said I said exactly but I didn't use that exact word, I win!'*

                      *note, 'x' doesn't mean I'm quoting you in a dissertation or something, lol

                    14. Cal<
                      "and if you say otherwise you’re a fucking liar."
                      With those words, you've lost the argument

                    15. "With those words, you've lost the argument"

                      By that reasoning, he lost the argument with "pedantic feint/dodge."

                      And dodging is, strictly speaking, what you've done.

                    16. If I say "I didn't say that" and you say I'm lying, I'm going to call you a liar, or maybe that you're guilty of a terminological inexactitude, if that meets your parliamentary sensibilities.

                  2. Notice he doubles down on his lies and tries to make things true by mere force of repetition.

                    I'm particularly "angry" because I went into this thinking Queenie was one of the good ones - debating topics in good faith.

                    But once he misstated my position, and doubled down even after I corrected him (for a mistake he should never made in the first place), I have no difficulty calling him a liar, unless of course we simply assume that he's dumber than the proverbial box of rocks.

                    1. "Notice he doubles down on his lies and tries to make things true by mere force of repetition."

                      How very Republican of him.

                  3. "And you’re being deceptive because I specifically criticized Bernstein’s viewpoint discrimination with students at his institute "

                    Well, yeah, after I pointed out he met your magic word formulation.

                    1. Doubling down?

                      Look, I'll provide you with an honorable way out - you can say you weren't wearing your glasses, and you mistakenly believed I had used the word "exactly."

                    2. I think you need a GPS to get directions out of Pedanticville this morning...

                    3. Thank you for, in the above comments, backing off your claim that I had a "magic word formulation" and wanted to see "exact[]" phrasing.

                      If insisting on accuracy is pedantic, I guess I should get the keys to the city of Pedanticville.

                    4. (Those comments were further above than this subthread)

      2. He actually said, Iirc that he took up championing Israel because he didn't want his kids to ask 'where were you' during the second Infitida and of course he's a long history of publicly championing Israel. There's nothing wrong with that, but of course everyone familiar with his work knows where he stands on the issue. So should students of his who disagree (and are known to disagree) hardly expect neutral academic review of their work when he's grading them?

        1. That depends – did Bernstein issue a formal policy statement that “it is my responsibility to disseminate student scholarship that challenges dominant narratives by promoting Zionism.”

          1. Ah, Pedant's Progress! It's the magic words your looking for, only those have that certain specific power...

            1. So we could only expect bias when there is a 'formal' statement (does it have to be on letterhead or what here?) and has to use the word 'challenge' in it, or else no one 'can hardly expect neutral academic review' from the evaluator. I mean, no other formulation could lead one to 'hardly expect neutral academic review,' just that magic formulation.

              As I said, Pedant's Progress.

              1. The quote you gave was from Bernstein.

                "So we could only expect bias when there is a ‘formal’ statement (does it have to be on letterhead or what here?) and has to use the word ‘challenge’ in it"

                Of course not, people and institutions can hide their bias.

                I thought your claim was that Bernstein had made statements announcing a comparable bias to that of UC press - an institutional bias regarding what scholarship he supports in his capacity as a professor.

                Are you now saying he's biased but *hasn't* admitted it?

                1. "I thought your claim was that Bernstein had made statements announcing a comparable bias to that of UC press" well, of course that can't be true*, he didn't use the magic word formulation you point to, that's the only possible expression that would lead someone to hardly expect neutral review, amirite?

                  *Except, whoops, now you don't even have that path to progress pedantically on because he has made such a formulation, see, supra.

                  1. I kept asking you for the evidence, I begged you to provide some.

                    I'm interested in evidence, and it took you long enough to show me something remotely relevant.

                    I should be doing the victory laps, not you, because I finally got you to come up with something relevant.

                    1. "I kept asking you for the evidence, I begged you to provide some. "

                      It sure looks like you made this demand expecting there to be none, but it turned out there was. Oops.

                    2. Take your Helm of Telepathy and your Crystal ball and put them where the sun doesn't shine, to keep your head company.

                    3. And you get all self-righteously angry when you get corrected.

                2. "Are you now saying he’s biased but *hasn’t* admitted it?"

                  Yeah. That would be the complaint. It's the Fox News Gambit...demand "fair" and "balanced" work that's biased the way you want it biased.

                  1. You have no comprehension of the dispute you're intervening in, but that doesn't stop you from being a moron.

                    1. Just because YOU can't read, nobody can read?

                    2. Lame. Next you'll say the jerk store called and ran out of me.

                    3. No, they were fully stocked with you.

          2. He doesn't have to. That is what academic freedom is all about.
            If you don't like his viewpoint, don't take his class.

            1. "If you don’t like his viewpoint, don’t take his class."

              The free speech remedy for bad speech is more speech, specifically, speech that points out the flaws and errors in the original.
              If you don't like having your flaws and errors pointed out, don't make them public.

    2. "By this logic I guess a student could hardly expect neutral academic review of class assignments from a public university professor who has taken a strong position on matters (as, for example, Professor Bernstein regularly does)."

      Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a person having an opinion and an organization having an official viewpoint.

      1. A person can have a viewpoint that might conflict with some of his responsibilities, and set aside that viewpoint when required.

        An organization is incapable of having a free-standing viewpoint. Having a viewpoint as an organization means that the organization will act in furtherance of that viewpoint.

        1. By what mechanism is an organization with a viewpoint bound to implement what they say in a way a person is not?

          1. What happens to the ASPCA if they publicly state a claim that maybe sometimes mistreating animals would be OK?

          2. "By what mechanism is an organization with a viewpoint bound to implement what they say in a way a person is not?"

            They're not. But that's the only way an organization is capable of having a viewpoint. So it's meaning to claim that your organization has a viewpoint if it's not reflected in the organization's actions.

            1. *meaningless

            2. Organizations say stuff to say a thing without it becoming an integral part of their agenda all the damn time.

              You're caught in some argumentative idiocy cycle here.

              1. "Organizations say stuff to say a thing without it becoming an integral part of their agenda all the damn time."

                They say stuff to signal that they behave a certain way. It's true that they might not behave that way.

                "You’re caught in some argumentative idiocy cycle here."

                You're the one insisting that an organization can like apple pie.

                1. When Wendy's twitter says it is weeping for the death of Mr. Peanut, I don't think it's actually weeping for Mr. Peanut.

                  I don't think you do either, and yet here you are.

                  1. Wendy's twitter feed was being humorous.

                    UC Press was not being humorous.

                    You keep insisting that UC Press's statement didn't mean that they intend to act as an organization to suppress viewpoints that they don't like, but you won't say what you think it did mean.

                    Do you truly think that it meant nothing?

                    1. "You keep insisting that UC Press’s statement didn’t mean that they intend to act as an organization to suppress viewpoints that they don’t like"

                      that's how English works. Saying I like Ford automobiles says nothing about Subaru automobiles, nor Toyota, nor Kia.
                      You're insisting that saying "we like X" implies "we are against any- and everything that is not X" and getting angry that nobody else is buying in on that.

                2. "You’re the one insisting that an organization can like apple pie."
                  I'm trying to recall which brand of automobiles ran ads in favor of mom, apple pie, and the United States during the 70s and 80s.

  9. The reference to “historical Palestine” would appear to include Occupied Tel Aviv. If so, the press release is characterizing the existence of Israel as an oppressive act.

    1. Making assumed connections to make something more radical than the text on the page is quite lawyerly, but also not a great move if you want to keep the discussion fact-based.

      1. What's a motte, and what does it have to do with a bailey?

        1. "would appear to include Occupied Tel Aviv" is not established.

          1. You've never heard the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"? Look at https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/palestineremix/maps_main.html and let us know exactly when you think "historic Palestine" is talking about.

            1. I don't know what the UC Press is talking about, and neither do you.

              Maybe they're doing a dog whistle they want to end Israel (and I'm not a dog and thus missing it), but I don't think it's a conclusion worth jumping to.

              1. Israel is currently a thing because Europeans were poorly treating Jewish people in the 1940's, and because Europeans were ALSO poorly treating Palestinians in the 1940's. "hey, here's a great idea! Let's give this land in Palestine to the Jewish people as atonement for the way they were treated in Europe!" "YEAH! Its not like any of US lives there! Great idea!"

                1. Just FYI, no one "Gave" Israel to anyone. Israel announced its independence, and then fought a war for its survival in which 1% of its population died, and it received no assitance from any world power, save it was able to buy weapons from Czechoslovokia. And the reason Israel was able to declare independence and win a war is that it already had 600K Jews living there, who were a majority in part of the country.

                  And btw, all this discussion of a university professor having strong views on Israel vs. an academic press is very interesting, but rather irrelevant given that I don't teach any classes that relate to Israel.

                  1. " I don’t teach any classes that relate to Israel."

                    I don't either. Why does this subject keep coming up? It's almost like somebody's obsessed with it...

                    1. My post was actually about UC Press taking a position on a political issue, which is contrary to the accepted mission of university presses to be academic institutions, not centers of ideological activism. But others want to take about Israeli policy in this context.... like you.

                    2. I don't have a complaint if Israel wants to have a policy of university presses either taking or not taking positions on foreign policy.

                  2. And the reason Israel was able to declare independence and win a war is that it already had 600K Jews living there, who were a majority in part of the country.

                    This table that came up quickly from a search shows what I had thought was the case. Prior to the late 1800's, the Jewish population of what was called Palestine was a small percentage of the total. (I don't know much about it, but the organization that runs that website seems pretty clearly pro-Israel to me, so I don't see any reason for them to be inaccurate with the data.)

                    It is interesting how the "replacement theory" advanced by Tucker Carlson and the like seems to be exactly what happened in Palestine/Israel. Maybe us white people really should be worried?

                    1. Yes, maybe American white supremacy has something to teach us about Israel and Palestine.

                      You think you're helping?

                    2. You think you’re helping?

                      Given your username, I'd have thought you'd have better detected my sarcasm!

      2. I haven't encountered the phrase before, but that portion would certainly make sense if "historic Palestine" is read to mean "Israel"-—probably more sense than any alternative I can think of.

        But if it's a term of art with another established meaning, please go ahead and educate us.

        1. I'd say the burden is on the guy assuming the statement is saying without saying it wants an end to Israel.

          Not saying it's not a question to put to the author, but certainly not worth going forth and assuming as a hidden meaning.

          1. They praise the Palestine Youth Movement, which issued a statement criticizing Palestinians who speak at J Street events because that's collaborating with the enemy or some such.

            1. Well, of course anyone who issues a statement that criticizes people is Not to Be Trusted.

          2. "historical Palestine" -- since there never was an independent country named Palestine, it can only refer to either (a) the Roman province by that name or (b) the British Mandatory territory by that name. Both of which included what is now Tel Aviv. (In Roman times it was sand, in British times it was a settled city, albeit smaller than today.)
            So, yeah, it is pretty "established." Unless you are willfully blind. (Which is criminal and civil law is the same as knowledge. I know, I wrote the article on it.)

            1. "in" not "is"
              We still need an edit function, Prof. Volokh.

              1. There is one. You just have to do your editing before clicking on "Submit".

        2. You are correct. For those interested, this article explains the history of the term, and its misuse by Palestinian politicians.
          https://honestreporting.com/historic-palestine-misleading-anachronism/

          And they clearly mean it to include all of Israel, and possible also Jordan.

          1. You're casting an extremely wide net, if anyone who says 'historical Palestine' is secretly advocating for an end to Israel.

            1. I think the claim is that anybody who isn't 100% supportive of Israeli policy is OPENLY advocating for an end to Israel, not that they're secretly doing so.

  10. the UN addressed this i 1948.

    1. Did they use black helicopters and mind-control gas?

  11. I'd say the following should abstain completely from promoting their own independent "foreign policy" at all.

    1. Cities, counties, school districts
    2. Public colleges and universities

    On top of that, states should avoid any "foreign policy" that isn't strictly about facilitating trade and investment with no favorites.

    It applies to both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian policies, and it applies to appeasing local diaspora of whatever origin.

    For that matter I don't see any value in cities or colleges making statements and resolutions about human rights or global issues, especially if that implies praise/criticism of some foreign country. At best it's virtue signaling and grandstanding, at worst it's an attempt to embarrass or corner someone else on the city council or board of trustees.

    1. "I don’t see any value in cities or colleges making statements and resolutions about human rights" [...]
      " At best it’s virtue signaling and grandstanding, at worst it’s an attempt to embarrass or corner someone"

      How horrible it would be if some group should stand up and signal that virtue is good and should be supported, or that evil is bad and should not be supported. China isn't going to care that your organization doesn't like its treatment of Tibet or Uighurs. But if enough people speak out about an injustice, you're more likely get get some justice than if everyone just acts like it's someone else's problem.

      1. There are a couple responses, but the main one is that you and I probably have very different ideas about the purpose of a city government. I think they ought to focused exclusively on providing a very limited number of governmental functions, as applied exclusively to the area they govern. You perhaps think the purpose is to advance global justice. You'll say why not both, but time, attention, and even emotional energy are limited resources.

        The second thing is that you attempted a strawman-shift maneuver "some group". I didn't say no group should should advocate on these issues, I said local government and public universities (which does not mean the students or faculty acting in their own name).

        Third, although I would indeed apply my hypothetical ban to pro-Uighur resolutions, it's worth noting that you picked an example where there isn't really sharply divided opinion. You know perfectly well that on something like Israel-vs-Palestine or Armenia-vs-Azerbaijan there is divided opinion and roughly half of any given city's population disagrees with the city officials claiming to speak on behalf of the whole city.

        And to anticipate your response to the third point: you'll say they were elected and therefore entitled to represent the city. But that is the whole point: I want to vote on city council candidates based on their policy about policing or zoning. Making the campaign about Israel or who cares more about Uighurs directly reduces our ability to hold the city accountable for police misconduct or housing availability.

        1. " But that is the whole point: I want to vote on city council candidates based on their policy about policing or zoning."

          So vote on city council candidates based on their policy or zoning, or even their policy ON zoning. Some other people might want to vote for city council candidates based on whether or not they support a limit on police authority to execute citizens, even the darkly-colored ones, or on policies of taxation, or straight party line.
          A university press has an editorial function, and the shape of their editorial function should be made public.

  12. I have a more basic issue. The UC Press appears to be taking the side of Hamas, a judeocidal terrorist group. That is a problem.

    That is separate and distinct from 'the palestinian issue'.

    1. "I have a more basic issue."

      Indeed you do. You have some kind of partisan lens which is obscuring your vision.

      1. Also basic reading comprehension appears to be an issue.

        1. That's what a heavy partisan lens does. It blocks comprehension and rational analysis.

  13. "If the UC Press believes it has an ideological mission as described above, there is no reason for it to be getting a dime from California taxpayers."

    I agree 100%

    The area is one more seething hot spot. Would that the humans of the earth develop and practice brotherly love, and for the soon-acknowledged ETs here on earth too.

    Let us not forget to entertain strangers, for we may thereby show hospitality to angels unawares.

    While UFOs hovered over the gates to the missile silos, ETs shut down ten nukes, one by one, at Malmstrom AFB. I wish they'd shut down those Hamas rockets. Those Iron Dome rockets are costing us $100k a pop.

    Have a good week and a wonderful Memorial Day, everyone!

    1. "Have a good week and a wonderful Memorial Day, everyone!"

      Nobody should have a wonderful Memorial Day. That's kind of not the point of the holiday. It's a holiday about people who have died, which is not wonderful.

      1. I have several war dead in my family, and my dad came home from WWII and the Gulf of Leyte with shrapnel in his legs. But I do celebrate Memorial Day in the sense that it represents our victories abroad, though costly, bloody, and mortal. We can't weep and mourn forever. We must praise those who fought and died and were wounded for us, and go on and be free and happy -- and hope to hell it never happens again. So I see Memorial Day as hope, joy, victory, and remembering with gratitude those who gave their lives to us in the fields of battle.

      2. It's also a great long weekend in which to lie back in a hammock and fly the flag with the Star of David on it. Like my neighbor does.

  14. Ideally, everybody would take a position in favor of freedom. This might have the effect of reducing the number of cases where it is attempted to take away freedom.
    Israel takes the position that attacking Palestinians is justified because Hamas keeps using Palestinian neighborhoods to launch rockets into Israel. Now, imagine if the US government leveled U-Haul businesses because McVeigh used a U-Haul to blow up a daycare in OK City. Making new enemies while fighting the old ones is no way to run out of enemies.

    1. Israel doesn't "attack Palestinians" as such, it attacks military targets. 11 days of bombardment by one of the world's most powerful air forces, 223 dead, mostly Hamas military operatives. That's not random destruction at all. It also has nothing to do with the Press' statement.

      1. Don't waste your time, Professor Bernstein. Pollock and Teefah picked their side: Hamas terrorists.

        1. Your logical analysis skills appear to be quite poor.
          I said literally "I don't have a side", and went on to describe why picking a side is stupid, from which you determined which side I would have picked if I was going to pick a side.

        2. Lmao yes, if someone doesn’t support your favored wars, or even your favorite apartheid ethnostate, it can only because they actually *support the terrorists*. The neocon’s credo. A throwback to the Bush era. We love to see it.

      2. "It also has nothing to do with the Press’ statement."

        OH, NO! You're right, Israel's decision to attack Palestinians has nothing to do with the UC Press' statement.
        Now I'm sorry I made the mistake of saying it did.
        Except I didn't.

      3. "Israel doesn’t “attack Palestinians” as such, it attacks military targets."

        Interesting theory, in that they aren't opposing a military force.

        1. Hamas has an army with thousands of men and thousands of missiles, mortars, even anti-tank weapons and is allied with Hezbollah and Iran. Your idea that this doesn't constitute a military force is either cute or crazy.

          1. Third option: blatantly dishonest.

            1. Fourth option, correct, but with a truth that the Professor (and apparently, you) would prefer not to admit.

          2. It's acutely crazy.

            1. Don't call me a Republican again. Them's fightin' words.

          3. "Your idea that this doesn’t constitute a military force is either cute or crazy."

            They're not a military. Military forces are bound by international law.

          4. Professor Bernstein, I told you.....you're wasting your time with those two (and other anti-semites like them). Their moral compass is completely reversed by 180 degrees.

            1. So, because you can't make rational analysis, anyone who can is somehow antisemite?

              1. The fact is, both sides in this argument are Semitic peoples, so anybody who picks a side is technically anti-Semite.

                1. In other words, nuh-uh, YOU are.

          5. "Hamas has an army with thousands of men and thousands of missiles, mortars, even anti-tank weapons and is allied with Hezbollah and Iran."

            Hamas has a mob with thousands of men and thousands of missiles, mortars, even anti-tank weapons and is allied with Hezbollah and Iran.

            The LAPD has thousands of men and several tanks and helicopters. Also not a military force.

    2. Are you a brain dead person, or do you just play one on TV?
      Do you seriously think your analogy to U-haul is apt?
      Let’s see if we can make it more analogous.
      The board of U-haul declares that the United States is an illegitimate government, and needs to be overthrown violently. They write that into their corporate charter.
      They then actively recruit bombers like McVeigh, and aid them in bombing federal buildings like he did. They do that on a repeated basis, and there have been numerous bombings throughout the country, with many innocent civilian deaths, just like for McVeigh’s. They also encourage the bombers to expand the scope of the bombings to target private, civilian sites, such as residential neighborhoods, schools and hospitals. They give these bombers free U-haul rentals, and give them money to buy fertilizer and other materials to make bombs.
      Do you think there would be a U-haul left after the U.S. government got through with it? Do you think that the board members of U-haul would not be executed like McVeigh was?
      And your distinction between the Palestinians and Hamas is specious. Hamas is the government of the Gazan Palestinians. Which they elected. (Foolishly, one may argue.) That government has declared war on Israel, and has committed acts of war, like launching rockets, repeatedly, at civilian targets. The Palestinians are welcome to get rid of Hamas and install a peaceful government.
      (The notion bandied about here that it is only the “right wing” in Israel that supports the present policies is more foolishness. The current arrangement in Gaza was effected by no less than Ariel Sharon, with great pressure from the United States. Most Israelis consider it to be a failed experiment, one they have no wish to repeat on the West Bank. )

      1. I'm not interested in reading your terror porn, so I stopped reading when you launched that particular tangent. If you actually had anything to say, try again.

        1. Thank you for proving my point. The mute button will now come in handy.

          1. I'll sure miss you. Somehow.

          2. "Thank you for proving my point."

            Your point was that you wanted to write terror porn?

    3. " Now, imagine if the US government leveled U-Haul businesses because McVeigh used a U-Haul to blow up a daycare in OK City."

      The US was never at war with McVeigh. OK City in part of the US and civilian governments were in control. But in wartime it's perfectly OK to level U-Haul businesses if they're transporting military cargo.

      1. McVeigh was a criminal, and it was proper for the government to prosecute him for crimes. It would not be proper for the government to prosecute anybody who was not McVeigh for McVeigh's crimes.

  15. I'm neither Palestinian nor Israeli, so I don't have a dog in that particular fight. I would expect any rational analysis of that particular regional conflict to identify that there have been wrongs committed by lots of different actors, and to correctly identify which wrongs belong to which actors. If you start by assuming that "your" side never commits any wrongs, your analysis is very likely worthless and useless. On the other hand, correctly identifying wrongs and taking the position that those wrongs need to be addressed is not the same kind of bias as "I picked a side, and their side must always be righteous."

    1. I came across an article recently (though the article is from 2018) that made me think. It discusses the observation that many, if not most, folk tales and stories did not have a clear "good guy" vs. "bad guy" narrative in the way that the vast majority of pop culture fiction does now. Conflicts that did involve "sides" (like the Trojans vs. the Greeks) were not battles over opposing values. The protagonists and antagonists were mainly just out for themselves, and moral lessons were not consistent good vs. evil propositions.

      The article has a thesis that the shift to nationalism is at least partly behind this change as oral traditions started to become written fiction. Opposing nations are obviously supposed to be the "bad guys", or else they wouldn't oppose us! Steeping people in stories with clear distinctions between the "good" and the "bad" prepares them to accept a righteous view of national identity, it argues argues.

      The one thing the good guys teach us is that people on the other team aren’t like us. In fact, they’re so bad, and the stakes are so high, that we have to forgive every transgression by our own team in order to win.

      When we read, watch and tell stories of good guys warring against bad guys, we are essentially persuading ourselves that our opponents would not be fighting us, indeed they would not be on the other team at all, if they had any loyalty or valued human life. In short, we are rehearsing the idea that moral qualities belong to categories of people rather than individuals.

      That's a lot of food for thought.

      1. I don't think I buy this theory. There's plenty of written stories that have "good guys" and "bad guys" that aren't based on nationalism.

        1. The theory isn't that stories of "good guys" versus "bad guys" are always about nationalism, but that the rise of such storytelling coincided with increasing nationalism in a symbiotic way. The idea is that stories where the protagonist (or the protagonist's side) is clearly "good" and other clearly "bad" help condition people to see the enemies of the nation as inherently corrupt, even evil. And that the danger of this is how viewing the moral transgressions of the protagonists and/or their allies as forgivable because they are fighting evil then transfers to the real world.

          1. The thing is, plenty of stories with "good guys" and "bad guys" that don't coincide with nationalism is still true. The brothers Grimm had obvious "good guys" and obvious "bad guys" long before uncle Walt started making them into movies.

  16. Why would CA Press make their statement? It's impossible to be too woke in California. They are advertising their openness and desire to be the publisher of choice for woke vitriol and intolerance. When there is a race to see how more woke and virtue signaling, the extremes get further and further away from being able to find a rational reason for the actions.

Please to post comments