Thank God

I've been known to complain about the judgment of The Washington Post opinion pages before, but major kudos are due to Fred Hiatt for publishing this brave piece in which we learn the disturbing fact that some American college students are not only learning the Arabic language, they're simultaneously being exposed to an Arab point of view on political issues. Given that in the United States there are virtually no outlets aside from major newspaper and magazines, broadcast and cable television networks, and hugely popular books in which pro-western or pro-Israel interpretations of Middle Eastern politics are available, it's absolutely vital that we eliminate this scourge of Arabism from our campuses.

But beyond the brilliance of the piece and its insights, the bold gutsy guttiness of the editorial call is what really comes to mind here. Way to speak truth to weakness and stand up for the view that as narrow a range of opinions as possible should be expressed in America.

Comments

Together, we will lead a great positive change in our lives and our op-ed pages. In the end, that will be the true measure of our blog.

Posted by Tom Wilson, Chairman of Allstate | July 5, 2008 1:37 AM

Life is bitter. Vitriol is truth. All language is political. Matthew, Matthew.

Posted by DS | July 5, 2008 1:47 AM

whats perhaps most ridiculous about this piece is that there is in fact very bad propaganda in Arab departments, but he singles out an innocuous book like Al-Kitaab for punishment. Yes the Maha dialogues are weird and they are sort of depressing and my Arabic class of long ago made fun of them. But propaganda? Hardly. And there is only one map in Al-Kitaab and it doesn't label countries at all.

And no Nasser was not a totalitarian by any stretch of the imagination, although brutal and repressive. And the reading he bravely refused to read informs us that Nasser was born as the son of a post office worker, led the revolution in 1952, become president in 1954, and died in 1970. This guy must have been such an unbelievable whiny pain in the ass in class for refusing to read something like this.

Posted by skyler | July 5, 2008 1:49 AM

The US Military used al-Kitaab to teach Arabic linguists at the Defense Language Institute. I know this because I went there. Why does the military hate Israel and hate America?

Harvard and the Army. Joined at the hip in their liberal, hippie ways.

Posted by guachi | July 5, 2008 1:53 AM

Fred Hiatt is lower than a maggot's taint. Even if a maggot doesn't have a taint.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | July 5, 2008 1:59 AM

Oh, snap.

If Joel B. Pollak, former speechwriter for the opposition in South Africa, wanted to grumble about Al-Kitaab, he could have just written a review at Amazon.com, where it falls into the 'love it or hate it' category as a teaching tool.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 2:00 AM

Hilzoy put up this Abraham Lincoln:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Seems, to me, an appropriate sentiment for these strange times.

Posted by southpaw | July 5, 2008 2:01 AM

The part I wonder about is the "Arab point of view". Given the utterly rotten nature of most of the Arab states (including the ones that are supposedly allies), why should we give that point of view any respect?

There are points of view - and cultures - that are worth ignoring.

Posted by James Robertson | July 5, 2008 2:01 AM

Mr. Pollak is obsessed with Israel, as you can imagine. See his other articles.

Posted by nbt | July 5, 2008 2:07 AM

And, if these Arabic students ever do what's necessary to take their skills to the next level, they will be forced to spend considerable time in Cairo or Damascus or Sana'a, thus rendering them unable to get a security clearance.

Posted by Mike | July 5, 2008 2:15 AM

Jim-Bob likes his culture-sensitive sunglasses, I see.

And Joel Pollak is awfully sensitive about the 'Israel/apartheid' comparison, no?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 2:19 AM

Clearly the subject of Arabic-language practice / learning dialogue should be an Arabic language version of Exodus. Or perhaps of the adventures of Zorro, though there, unfortunately too, there are bits with happy people, and unhappy people, and colonial stuff. Hmm. Maybe an Arabic language Oklahoma, though there is also a woman character somewhat ambivalent about her intentions in her world.

Posted by El Cid | July 5, 2008 2:26 AM

"There are points of view - and cultures - that are worth ignoring.

Posted by James Robertson | July 5, 2008 2:01 AM"

Yeah, let's just assume Arabs like it when bombs are dropped on their families. Your a good example of the very hatefulness you rail against. Why not just ignore you, you anti-Arab racist?

Posted by Reality Man | July 5, 2008 2:27 AM

The liberal media sickens me. Learning Arabic is surely anti-American. A wise man once said, "The more knowledge you have, the more reactionary you are." Elitists and their book learnin' will do us all in.

Doesn't The Post have better things to print? You know, like articles about Obama's blood purity?

Posted by Mao Zedong | July 5, 2008 2:28 AM

By contrast, Gubo and Palanka seem a barrel of laughs

Posted by MikeN | July 5, 2008 3:26 AM

You can't fool me. I know the original title of this post was Insh'Allah you Arab and Moslem loving 5th columnist.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | July 5, 2008 3:29 AM

Matt has often asked why the US Government is not funding a massive expansion of arabic (etc) language training post 9/11? Here precisely is the answer, that the best organised lobby group in the US on Middle East policy does not like politics of the people who would teach such classes, and so does not back giving them a few $billion to teach the relevant languages.

Posted by otto | July 5, 2008 3:52 AM

Some years ago I was thinking of taking a college course to get some formal background to the Chinese I'd taught myself in Taiwan, so I bought a copy of "Chinese Reader II," which was the textbook used at both the local university and the city college. I found it was chock full of commie propaganda. One of the stories ended with the moral "The People's Liberation Army is the friend of the people."

It was also pretty crappy textbook.

Posted by godoggo | July 5, 2008 4:11 AM

In the next episode of Fred Hiatt Exposes™ we learn E.B. White was Tory propagandist!

From 'The Elements of Style': Some years ago, when the heir to the throne of England was a child, I noticed a headline in the Times about Bonnie Prince Charlie: "CHARLES' TONSILS OUT." Immediately Rule 1 leapt to mind.

1. Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend

Burns's poems

the witch's malice

Clearly, Will Strunk had foreseen, as far back as 1918, the dangerous tonsillectomy of a prince, in which the surgeon removes the tonsils and the Times copy desk removes the final s. He started his book with it. I commend Rule 1 to the Times, and I trust that Charles's throat, not Charles' throat, is in fine shape today.

When we coverd this in high school English composition I refused to recite the Charles's friend part of the lesson. I won't be intimidated by the royalist agenda. I've even stopped touching myself* while imagining Helen Mirren as the Queen. You know...for America!

* - mostly

Posted by joejoejoe | July 5, 2008 4:12 AM

From a review of Al-Kitaab from Linguistlist.org:

The overall organizing theme of Al-Kitaab Part One is a narrative story of two main characters: Khalid, a college student in Egypt, and his cousin Maha, a college student in the United States. The story thread, which permeates through every lesson in this book, is about them, their extended families, and their friends. The choice of this organizing theme gives context and motivation for a large number - by no means all - of the vocabulary and grammatical structures chosen for treatment and for the exercises and activities that develop and reinforce those vocabulary and structures.

It sounds like Dick and Jane for college kids studying Arabic. The horror!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 5, 2008 4:27 AM

I learned Arabic at Columbia using that same curriculum. From what I recall, they didn't "eliminate" Israel from the map in the book, but wrote "Israel and Palestine" over Israel and the Occupied Territories. I am pro-Israel, and think that Israel should exist alongside Palestine, and I think that the book was being reasonable just putting both on the map, without delineating the borders of each, which are tough to determine until a treaty is reached. It's impossible to sanitize Arabic from politics, but I also don't think that politics should be deliberately overloaded in a foreign language class. In my case, different professors addressed this balance in varying ways. Some barely mentioned politics, some had us translate various Arabic newspapers, and one used explicity anti-Israel statements as sample sentences to translate. While I believe in academic freedom, I found the latter somewhat unprofessional. Usually, it was more the students, rather than the teachers, who were always announcing anti-Israel and pro-LaRouche gatherings and trying to state their pro-Palestinian opinions in class. I enjoy hearing a range of views on the issue, but the bottom line is, that professors should still be mindful that it is a language class, and shouldn't use it as their long-awaited opportunity to editorialize and should try to discuss issues beyond politics. By and large, my professors were excellent, and succeeded in sticking to teaching us the beauty of Arabic cultures and language, without overemphasizing politics.

Posted by student | July 5, 2008 4:38 AM

.

Posted by sex shop | July 5, 2008 4:51 AM

And, if these Arabic students ever do what's necessary to take their skills to the next level, they will be forced to spend considerable time in Cairo or Damascus or Sana'a, thus rendering them unable to get a security clearance.

My Arabic instructor at Fort Meade was a native born Anglo-American who got his Masters in Arabic Lit at Yarmuk University in Amman, Jordan.

Given that he was teaching at Fort Meade, I dont think he had problems with his security clearance. But that was 15 years ago, before we Americans figured out that furriners were scary and that to study, live and travel overseas was worthy of contempt and suspicion.

Posted by calipygian | July 5, 2008 9:21 AM

I dunno if Hiatt's taken a look at the Old Testament lately, but it too exposes the reader to the morally corrosive Weltanschauang of an oppressed, Semitic-speaking Middle Eastern people, and is full of "abandonment, longing, and regret."

Isaiah is particularly poisonous in that regard.

The prophet Isaiah, not Isaiah Thomas.

*****

If it's not one form of anti-Semitism, it's another.

Posted by lampwick | July 5, 2008 9:39 AM

First, why is this douchebag in a language class if he's a student at the law school?

Secondly, shouldn't law school have taught this tool how to make a persuasive argument? A textbook with depressing characters, a video with footage of a Nasser rally and video which didn't mention the ethnicity of the translators of a philosophical text equates to political propaganda and anti-semitism. One suspects the douchebag took the class just to manufacture scare stories about the unholy influence of the nasty Arabs at Harvard. He failed miserably.

What a fucking retard.

Posted by Joel Pollak Sucks Arab Donkey Balls | July 5, 2008 9:54 AM

One suspects the douchebag took the class just to manufacture scare stories about the unholy influence of the nasty Arabs at Harvard. He failed miserably.

Yup.

And Nasser was anti-Islamic fundamentalist, too. And, from an Arab perspective, the 1973 War WAS a great victory and it gave Nasser's successors the cover they needed to sign a peace treaty with Israel, which only idiots like Joel Pollak would say is a bad thing.

It is mystifying to me how the Egyptians spun the encirclement of two whole Armies on the wrong side of the Suez into a victory, but somehow they did.

In Pollak's eyes, the Arabs just can't win.

Posted by calipygian | July 5, 2008 10:03 AM

Perhaps the arabic curriculum could be changed. After enough rote memorization, the students could translate AIPAC press releases into Arabic--also articles from the Forward and FLAME advertisements could be translated by the instructor INTO arabic for reading material for the students.

Posted by Fred Hiatt must go | July 5, 2008 10:36 AM

To Donkey Balls 9:54am : Grad students at harvard can enroll in language classes (or other classes) in the College.

Posted by nbt | July 5, 2008 10:48 AM

In fairness, Maha's constant whining got really damned annoying, and could drive anyone over the edge.

He should take Persian, in which our book had some sort of pro-monarchist slant that talked endlessly about Nawruz and Zoroastrianism while almost totally ignoring Islam. Then there are the Hebrew texts which have sample sentences like, "We only want to live in peace."

Posted by Brian Ulrich | July 5, 2008 11:47 AM

Pollack reminds us of what is important here, which is not whether the textbook does a good job at teaching the language, but what political viewpoint it does or does not express. As somebody who used this textbook for three years as a student and will soon be teaching it, clearly whether I actually learned something from it doesn't matter.

Also, it's truly shocking that the book expresses such a negative energy. Especially since it is discussing the Arab world, which is such a pleasant place to live, and where there are no problems at all. Really, it's all peaches and champagne in the Middle East, with no violence whatsoever. How dare they not tell us that when we're studying the language?

Besides, when we send our poor, malleable Arabic students to the Middle East, why would we want them to have an understanding of how the Arabs view Middle Eastern issues? Don't we want them to be unstoppable Zionist propaganda machines who will go to the Arab world and convince these stupid, wayward people that they are wrong? Surely that's the best way to really get to know Arab culture.

Finally, having taken Hebrew as well, I think the Arabic textbooks should take their cue from the Hebrew book I used. There was no propaganda at all! I mean, yes, they did have maps of Israel that didn't acknowledge the existence of the West Bank or Gaza, and the book made no mention of the Palestinians, but that's OK. It agrees with America's unwavering support for anything that Israel does, so it's not propaganda. God forbid anyone disagree with that!

Posted by UT student | July 5, 2008 11:54 AM

Perhaps the arabic curriculum could be changed. After enough rote memorization, the students could translate AIPAC press releases into Arabic--also articles from the Forward and FLAME advertisements could be translated by the instructor INTO arabic for reading material for the students.

Posted by Fred Hiatt must go

Still, wouldn't it simply corrupt all these nobly intentioned writings to make them be spoken in Arabic, the ancient language of the Evil Ones? Surely it would be safer to simply ban the use of Arabic worldwide, and then no one would have to study or learn it, and we'd all be safe because the terrorists would be gone!

Posted by El Cid | July 5, 2008 11:55 AM

"We come in peace! Shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill!"

Posted by James T. Kirk | July 5, 2008 11:57 AM

While the sarcasm was well-intentioned, Thank God really translates better to Alhamdulillah, not Insha'Allah.

Posted by Sid | July 5, 2008 12:04 PM

Whippie ding. My French classes were all about the romantic adventures of Pierre and Mireille. Pierre wore a scarf and liked to ice skate.

Posted by Aatos | July 5, 2008 12:42 PM

We may laugh, but there is something fundamentally wrong with this indoctrination into misery. Most introductory language classes avoid controversial political subjects. In fact, they often highlight the brighter side of different cultures. Particularly with the growing importance of Arabic, can't we do better?

Which is actually a pretty good point. Language classes should give students an idea of culture and history in the process, without attempting to transform students from objectivity via political and cultural indoctrination that:

1. Islamic lands are pure victims suffering centuries of oppression and any learning Arabic should become Arabists that favor the Muslim side and the Arab side over others in conflict with them.

2. Reform Jews I know have had big concerns encountering Hebrew schools that were one big indoctrination that Israel and Zionism should be central in their lives.

3. At Boulder, U of California, Columbia there have been controversies about Left-wing activists attempting to transform Spanish language classes into critical studies classes emphasizing only revolutionary and liberation movement poets and writers, the imperative to be anti-Western.

America badly needs for it's government, policy making, diplomatic corps, and international business - a larger body of foreign country/culture experts for hiring . An objective, neutral to "what's best for our country, America..." thinking cadre of college grads that are grounded in language and cultural expertise and not already biased by their education.

America badly needs to send scholars, foreign experts abroad more and needs to lower obstacles to such placement of Americans in other countries.

America needs to also utilize those Americans with native language skills more fully, while doing everything possible not to hold up assimilation of such people and their 2nd, 3rd Gen descendents. And needs to be very careful of efforts by Saudi madrassahs or Chinese government "cultural exchange" promotions not to orient such people towards favoring foreign interests.

Posted by Chris Ford | July 5, 2008 1:06 PM

A compilation of poll data is available from the Haim Center of the Brookings Institution, showing that the conflict over Zionism is the primary lens through which large majorities of the Arab world sees the US, the West and US and Western policies.

http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/06_middle_east_telhami/06_middle_east_telhami.pdf

The conflict over Zionism maintains its position of primary importance withstanding the effects of any Shiite/Sunni differences, Arab/Non-Arab differences and Muslim/non-Muslim differences. The conflict also colors Arab perceptions of, among everything else, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 5, 2008 1:38 PM

Re Arnold Evans

So Mr. Evans response to the fact that the Arabs don't like Israel is that the US should participate in the dissolution of that state. Sounds like the attitude of Britain and France in 1938 when Mr. Hitler informed them that he didn't like Czechoslovakia so Britain and France participated in the dissolution of that state. This is, of course, known as appeasement and we see how that worked out.

Posted by SLC | July 5, 2008 5:00 PM

Chris Ford, did you drink the bongwater before writing that post? I felt like I was reading Finnegan's Wake.

Posted by StJoe | July 5, 2008 5:38 PM

At first I figured Pollak was the president of the Harvard Salient or something, but there aren't enough irrelevant allusions to Seneca and Livy in there. Must be a Kristolite/Harvard Republican Club type.

Posted by b | July 5, 2008 5:51 PM

Pollak is also wrong about Averroes. Maybe he should have paid more attention in class.

Posted by William Burns | July 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Robertson: "There are points of view - and cultures - that are worth ignoring."

Yours is one of them.

Ford: "America needs to also utilize those Americans with native language skills more fully,"

Like Sibel Edmonds? The Iranian-born FBI translator who discovered other translators working for organized crime were concealing intelligence from FBI Special Agents - intelligence that revealed that "senior elected officials" were committing treason against the US - and when she blew the whistle, she was fired. When she went to the Congress, she as gagged under the Official Secrets Act.

Still waiting for Matt and Josh Marshall to take notice of this case. Josh in particular is "All Republican Corruption All the Time" on the TPM site, but he apparently couldn't care less that senior Republicans like Dennis Hastert and Republican appointees like Marc Grossman are directly engaged in treason.

Why would Matt and Josh not care? Well, Sibel points to places like Turkey and ISRAEL as being part of the problem.

Hmmmmm...

Why would Jewish guys like Matt and Josh not want to investigate treason for Israel? Scare of AIPAC, perhaps? Worried their cushy jobs might be threatened if they actually followed things like the AIPAC spy trials? Worried their blog ad revenue might be damaged?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 5, 2008 9:30 PM

nbt,

Thank you.

Posted by Joel Pollak Sucks Arab Donkey Balls | July 6, 2008 10:21 AM

As far as I know, few maps of the Middle East published anywhere in the Western World indicate in any way that there is still a country called Palestine, established in 1947 at the same time as Israel. That country still exists, although it was conquered in pieces during the 1948 and 1967 wars by Israel, because Israel has ALWAYS refused to annex what is commonly called the "occupied territories". The is the case even tough Israel and its Arab neighbours have signed agreements literally wiping Palestine off the map. Not only did the 1949 Agreements erasing Palestine have no standing, since none of the signers had any legal right to the territory they were signing away, but those agreements have been broken so many times since that they are truly null and void.

But whatever the legal status of Palestine, one thing is clear: Israel does NOT own the West Bank and Gaza, NOT EVEN ACCORDING TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ITSELF. It would be simple for them to clarify that: they would only have to officially annex the territories. But they refuse to do so, because it would give Arabs in Palestinian lands the same rights as Israeli Arabs, which is something the Israeli government cannot accept.

So all those maps showing Israel, but not Palestine, are nothing but pro-Likud, pro-American Neoconservative propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by DR | July 6, 2008 5:20 PM

Pollak is basically trying to cow Middle East studies departments by calling for more governmental oversight. This threat is based on a total disregard for facts:

1. Al-Kitaab's 3 maps either DO show Israel or come from the WWI period -- before Israel even existed.

2. The passage on Nasser that Pollak refused to recite because it was "propaganda" translates as follows (p. 338):

"Gamal Abdel Nasser was born in Egypt in 1918 and spent his childhood in Alexandria where his father worked in the post office. When his mother died, his father sent him to his uncle in Cairo. After his graduation from high school, he joined the Egyptian army and became an officer. He and a group of young officers called the 'Free Officers' ejected King Faruq from Egypt on 23 July 1952 and thus Egypt became a republic. In 1954 Abdel Nasser became the first president of Egypt, and remained president until his death in 1970. Afterwards, Anwar al-Sadat assumed the presidency of Egypt. Nasser's most noted achievements included the nationalization of the Suez Canal, the United Arabic Republic, and the High Dam in Aswan."

Not sure how that's supposed to turn loyal Americans into west-hated fanatics.

Posted by reader | July 8, 2008 8:40 AM

Turns out this Joel Pollak guy, unsurprisingly, works for Alan Dershowitz:
http://www.kabobfest.com/2008/07/joel-pollak-takes-on-arabic-textbook.html

Also, the Post ran a great letter debunking the oped:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/07/the-washington-post-is-running-an-op-ed-by-a-harvard-law-student-named-joel-b-pollak-complaining-about-the-arabic-instructio.html

Posted by check this | July 17, 2008 12:35 PM