Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

Washington Post's article on Middle East studies
Reader comment on item: [Michael Barkun on] Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs

Submitted by Steve (Canada), Jan 13, 2004 at 11:51

Subscribing to Dr. Pipe's newletter, and having read the article in the Washington Post he pointed out, it struck me that either he didn't defend his position well enough, or the writer chose poor quotes.

The issue for Campus Watch and other watchdog groups is not, as the Post's headline says, left wing bias on the part of Middle East Studies. Rather, it is anti-Americanism (and anti-westernism) bordering on sedition, and that it is they, not Campus Watch, who act as "thought police," coercing students, and even professors, into supressing dissent.

The article failed to express the concern that Middle East Studies departments are under undue Arab and Muslim influence and, consequently, aim to convince students that, one, US imperialism is to blame for the Islamists' hate of the US and motivates their terrorist attacks against her; and, two, terrorists are comprised of rogue groups largely acting on their own, whose threat to the US is greatly exaggerated. That Middle East professors and their departments are, generally, apologists for terrorists and propagandists on their behalf and that of Arab states that fund and support them did not come across in the article.

So, while it is good to see that the media no longer takes at face value that Campus Watch is an intellectual stalker, there is still much room for better appreciation of its raison d'etre and stand.




Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (24) on this item

Title By Date
SHORT CIRCUITS [16 words]MARK SIMPSONMay 24, 2008 20:03
Mildly interesting, but not explanatory [315 words]morpheusFeb 5, 2004 13:37
Fusion Paranoia [145 words]Arlinda DeAngelisFeb 4, 2004 20:36
about old Conspiracies, new beliefs [144 words]FabienneJan 20, 2004 20:58
The Politically Disaffected In America [26 words]Michael ZeldisJan 19, 2004 01:34
Stereotyping Conspiracy Theorists [259 words]Guy w. KleinertJan 18, 2004 07:09
skeptic [40 words]stuart leeJan 18, 2004 01:12
Crazies and Danger [209 words]Fay VoshellJan 16, 2004 14:40
what do you believe? [17 words]jeremy morrisonJan 14, 2004 20:03
Conspiracies [155 words]R. Lynn KelleyJan 14, 2004 11:48
You left a group out, Mr. Pipes. [274 words]Tom BryantJan 14, 2004 10:27
Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs [129 words]Scott SimonsJan 14, 2004 06:11
my (non-conspiracy) theory [99 words]relapsedcatholicJan 13, 2004 19:28
conspiracy theories/assassins/etc. [138 words]Peter J. HerzJan 13, 2004 19:04
Left-sided conspiracy theories [48 words]David C. StolinskyJan 13, 2004 18:53
Nail on the head! [138 words]Donovan HudsonJan 13, 2004 18:43
worry about Illuminati, etc. [300 words]FCJan 13, 2004 13:38
MYTH AND CONSPIRACY [96 words]DONVANJan 13, 2004 12:29
Conspiracy Theories [164 words]Stephen BermanJan 13, 2004 12:28
Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs [112 words]Bob MilliganJan 13, 2004 12:03
⇒ Washington Post's article on Middle East studies [227 words]SteveJan 13, 2004 11:51
Conspiracies in our time [216 words]Paul M. WeyrichJan 13, 2004 11:49
Remember what the U in UFO stands for [71 words]Charles R.L. PowerJan 13, 2004 11:31
Conspiracy Facts vs. Conspiracy Theories [301 words]Jose M. PaulinoFeb 5, 2009 05:04

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page