Bias in the Academy

AT THE FIRST ANNUAL conference of the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa this past weekend, even the least discerning listeners had no trouble interpreting the words of founding chairman Bernard Lewis: "A combination of political correctness and multi-culturalism have combined to establish . . . a degree of thought control--of limitations on freedom of expression--without parallel in the Western world since the 18th century."

The keynote was far from the first time that Lewis has brought up the issues of bias in Middle East academia. But the fierce wording of his most recent polemic can only be interpreted in one way: the mud of pro-Islamist and anti-American Middle East scholarship is turning into quicksand.

It's a logical conclusion, considering, among other factors, the U.S. Higher Education Act's Title VI funding, about which Martin Kramer and Stanley Kurtz have written extensively. Title VI transfers over $100 million a year from the U.S. Treasury into a group of area and language study programs in the United States and abroad. Just how much of that is funneled into Middle East and Islamic studies, and how much of that goes to radicalized Islamist purposes, is hard to tell. One of the programs dedicated approximately $7 million this past year to a variety of purposes at 23 African and the Middle East studies programs across the United States. Another gave $245,724 to the University of Michigan to further develop advanced Arabic language programs. There are 14 programs in total.

Most importantly, money not specifically designated for Title VI flows to Title VI programs as well via tangentially related or possibly even unrelated legislation in Congress. This money is even more difficult to track down: one example is a rumored $20 million a year going towards an as yet unspecified African area studies initiative, through legislation that Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) will introduce at the May 6 hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health. Neither Congress nor any outside watchdog keeps track of the total sum dedicated towards Title VI or money dedicated towards Middle East scholarship in general.

Dr. J. Peter Pham, vice president of ASMEA, and others have hypothesized that the ambiguity might be intentional--a tactic that Islamists have utilized deliberately to further their own agenda within U.S. academia, along with funneling tens of millions of dollars in private money such as the most recent donation by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to Harvard and Georgetown University programs. But whether or not that conspiracy theory holds water does not affect the underlying issue: U.S. government money is going to lots of people who don't support the stated objectives of the U.S. government.

Its easy to argue that, if federal government funding of education is a given, then the awarding of such funds should not be contingent on the designee agreeing with government policy. Critics tried to reform Title VI in 2003 through the institution of a review board that would have ensured that any funding given out by the U.S. government wasn't awarded to those who vocally oppose federal policies. The reforms were vehemently contested by groups such as the Task Force on Middle East Anthropology, which claimed that "Tying government funding to particular political perspectives poses a threat to freedom of academic inquiry, thereby endangering the larger principles of freedom that the U.S. professes to uphold."

But certainly the U.S. government shouldn't give preference to people who oppose U.S. policies when handing out government aid, and nor should it sponsor people that actively discourage students from developing pro-American views. That is the position that Kurtz and others have maintained, pointing to the vast number of Title VI recipients who either explicitly prohibit or actively dissuade students of Middle East studies from pursuing programs such as the National Security Education Program, which gives grants to students studying critical languages in exchange for government service. The program was created after the First Gulf War and is considered a vital resource for getting Americans language and cultural experience "in areas of the world critical to the future security of our nation." In other words, our national security depends on the success of these programs.

"As an academic, I would defend the freedom of expression of any of my colleagues, however, as a taxpayer I would demand accountability," said Pham, who calls for more scrutiny for Title VI recipients who hold views in opposition to national security interests.

The current method of selecting Title VI award recipients is Byzantine. Potential grantees apply through the Department of Education. These applications are evaluated by "readers" who are selected by the department's Office of Postsecondary Education Field Reader System. That system is overseen by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary Education--a political appointee. It is unclear how oversight could be applied, if it ever has been. And after the money is handed out, there is zero accountability.

All of this could change with the institution of a review board, to monitor the distribution and use of government money--which was proposed previously but shot down by academics claiming it would violate their academic freedom. Change could also occur with the elimination of Title VI funding all together. Unsurprisingly, if and when these reforms might take place is unclear given that the reauthorization and potential restructuring of the Higher Education Act is currently being held up in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--not a surprise during this do-nothing Congress.

According to Lewis, one of the nation's most respected scholar in Middle East studies, the bias in Middle East academia "has now made any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam, to say the least, dangerous." At least with regards to Title VI, that situation won't change anytime soon.

Jillian Bandes is a staff writer at Roll Call.