George Beres’ guest commentary on the talk by David Zev Harris states very clearly the propagandistic intent of the speaker and the misleading character of the publicity promoting the talk (“Middle East discussion in need of solid University curriculum,” ODE, May 22). The promotional literature made me, too, expect a talk that would explain how Palestinians and Israelis have come to their grim impasse. I was not impressed by Harris’ defense of state policy. But as Beres proceeded to criticize Judaic Studies and lament the absence of a Middle East Studies program, I found his views condescending and disingenuous.
Judaic Studies exists on this campus not because the University administration gives funding, which presumably could be shifted to some broader program. It exists because Jewish philanthropy has provided the funds, as other philanthropies have provided the funds for other University programs like the Center for the Study of Women in Society.
At a meeting I attended in the early 1980s, then University President Paul Olum stated he was not interested in having the University commit any funds to Judaic Studies, and the University contributes very little even now. After years of talk by interested faculty with the Schnitzer Family Fund, it finally agreed to provide sufficient money to launch a small program here. Last week it announced it would be doing the same for Portland State University.
Universities, even public universities, should provide an academic setting for students who want to understand more about who they are. This issue was fully aired in African American Studies, Women’s Studies and similar programs 30 years ago. But Judaic Studies does not serve a “small minority of students, most of them familiar with the Jewish Temple.” Some of my history students have experience with “the Jewish Temple,” others have experiences with synagogues and many have no experiences with either. Classes in Judaic Studies are designed by academic professionals for all students and happily, the number of students enrolling in Judaic Studies classes has grown beyond the “small minority.”
The sad fact that a program in Middle East Studies does not exist here has nothing to do with the fact that a fledgling program in Judaic Studies does. Middle East Studies does not exist here because neither the administration nor the established departments — except Religious Studies — has any professional commitment to this subject area. In the late 1970s, in a conversation with a former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, I was told that the Oregon University System has a division of labor for “peripheral areas,” and that Portland State had the Middle East Studies Program. The provincial views of that former dean — an American historian — astonished me, as do the current priorities of the University’s social science departments.
Fifteen years ago, the University’s various departments showed only limited interest in East Asia. But a commitment by the administration to strengthening “Pacific Rim” studies has dramatically expanded the faculty — and the student body — in this area. Without the commitment of funding by provosts and deans, the departments will not alter their priorities. Unless, of course, they find philanthropists with an interest in the Middle East to encourage them.