Engage Manchester Public Meeting, 9 September

August 26, 2007 at 9:31 am (anti-semitism, israel, palestine, voltairespriest)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketAs promised at the Trots, here’s a little plug for the Engage anti-boycott of Israel campaign’s next public meeting. I’m told that it’ll be an open affair where boycott supporters will also be welcome. If you’re in the area, you should go: it’s an important issue and one which always excites passionate debate.

THE BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL CAMPAIGN AND CONTEMPORARY ANTISEMITISM

Engage’s Manchester public meeting: 7.00 PM, Sunday 9 September, Manchester Maccabi, Bury Old Road, Prestwich. Denis MacShane, Philip Spencer, Jane Ashworth, Richard Gold, David Hirsh.

Denis MacShane MP (Chair 2005 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Anti-Semitism)
David Hirsh (Editor, Engage)
Jane Ashworth (Campaigns Director, Engage)
Richard Gold (North West Organiser, Engage)
Philip Spencer (Advisory Editor, Engage)
Panel Discussion

Meeting ends 10.00 PM
ADMISSION BY TICKET ONLY £5 (students free)payable on the night, light refreshments will be provided.

To reserve your ticket please email engagemanchester@gmail.com IN ADVANCE letting us know how many tickets you require and in what names.

17 Comments

  1. johng said,

    perhaps someone might like to raise this. I understand there was a debate on the engage blog about what position to take.

    http://www.academicfreedomchicago.org/

  2. Jules said,

    Much as I’d love to see the likes of Dennis McShane in the flesh unfortunately I’m already committed to doing fuck all on Sunday the 9th.

    Shame.

  3. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/ said,

    JohnG,

    Stop being so obtuse

    if you mean that people should be concerned about Norman Finkelstein’s inability to gain tenure at DePaul University, then say so, directly

  4. johng said,

    Why?

  5. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/ said,

    why not?

    JohnG, here’s the point

    if you have a strong political view, then at least have the honesty to state it clearly and without innuendo

    if you feel that Norman Finkelstein was deserving a tenured Professorship at DePaul, tell us why?

  6. johng said,

    Modernity I think I’m falling in love with you.

  7. modernityblog said,

    I have many hidden admirers, but that was not the question, back to Norman Finkelstein

    JohnG,

    I appreciate your reluctance to discuss this issue because if any objective criteria for professorship is applied, then Norman Finkelstein doesn’t fit, and you know it, you are raising this issue as bit of a red herring

  8. johng said,

    Well I find it a bit odd that you say that given that he was approved for tenure by his academic peers and that what has taken place has been external inteference in the tenure process. As the links I posted made absolutely clear. Perhaps you have some better method of judging academic merit then that of the judgements of other academics, but I’ve not heard of one.

  9. Jules said,

    John,

    Perhaps a better question is why you’re rallying to the defence of someone whom your own party has described as coming “dangerously close to giving comfort to those who dream of new holocausts”:

    http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2000w30/msg00001.htm

  10. modernityblog said,

    JohnG,

    Jules makes an excellent point

    and returning to the subject of academia and Professorhood,

    do you believe:

    1. that there should be objective criteria for the appointment of Professors?

    2. or should it be down to some subjective notions of “he’s a fine fella, we agree with his politics, let’s give him the job”

    which is it?

    because if it is number one then you have to present evidence which shows that a candidate for a Professorhood has fulfilled those objective criteria

    or you simply give of jobs to people that agree with you

    please tell us, which is which, and remember the key words here are OBJECTIVE criteria

  11. johng said,

    Modernity. Stop trying to change the subject. Tenure is granted on the basis of a proceedure governed by academic standards. In this case this process was intefered with for non-academic reasons. It is a politically motivated attack on academic freedoms. You either support it or you oppose it. There is no middle ground.

  12. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/ said,

    JohnG,

    please stop trying to confuse the issue, the appointment of a Professorship has to be based on objective criteria and Finkelstein does not fulfil the criteria.

    If, because you agree with him, you wish that criteria to be changed or done away with completely then the least be honest and admit it

    Finkelstein does not fulfil the objective criteria for a Professorship, but you know that yourself, which is why you don’t want to argue on academic standards.

    these are a few links, which details similar criteria:

    http://www.hms.harvard.edu/fa/handbook/purplebook/popup3.html

    http://www.hrd.qut.edu.au/recruitment/forapplicant/careersatqut/27355.jsp

    http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LXErrvkl_wUJ:www.bishopg.ac.uk/docs/Research/HR00067%2520Professor%2520scheme%2520criteria%2520and%2520process.rtf+criteria+professor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

    for those unfamiliar with academic procedure, some of the basic requirement for an appointment to a professorship would be:

    original research in that field
    participation in conferences
    submission to peer reviewed journals
    research papers in that field

    now even Norman Finkelstein’s most vociferous supporters freely acknowledge that he has never written a peer reviewed research paper

    So unless De Paul wish to lower the standards for Professorships then it is hard to see how they could have appointed him on the basis of his academic research record, which is non-existent

  13. http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/ said,

    Volty,

    please can you release my previous comment from moderation? it contained a few links and was stopped by the wordpress anti-spam filter

    thanks

  14. Jules said,

    Anyway… Dennis MacShane – fucking hell.

    In my opinion the worst Labour MP of my life time. An utter utter scumbag.

  15. resistor said,

    I see you have Dennis McShane, the neo-con supporter of a fascist coup in Venezuela as your lead speaker. Says it all comrade.

  16. modernityblog said,

    incidentally here is De Paul’s letter to Norman Finkelstein, see http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/pdf/tenuredenial/Finkelstein,Norman06.08.2007.pdf

    the key part is:

    “The UBPT has determined that your scholarship does not meet DePaul’s tenure standards. Moreover, on the record before me, I cannot in good faith conclude that you honor the obligations to ‘respect and defend the free inquiry of associates’, ‘show due respect for the opinions of others’, and ‘strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues’. Nor can I conclude that your scholarship honors our University’s commitment to creating an environment in which all persons engaged in research and learning exercise academic freedom and respect it in others.”

    I hope that explains the issue

  17. voltaires_priest said,

    Jules;

    MacShane does suck, although he has some competition to be worst Labour MP of our generation, no?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 470 other followers

%d bloggers like this: