Harvard Invites Pro-Hamas Speaker

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/02/harvard-invites-pro-hamas-speaker; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Former Harvard president Claudine Gay was recently pressured to resign after she failed to clearly state before a congressional committee that calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the school’s code of conduct, stating that it would “depend on the context.” Even more devastating to her continued tenure, she was found to be a serial plagiarist, with dozens of examples of unattributed quotes, beginning with lifted paragraphs in her doctoral dissertation and continuing in most of the ten thin papers — no books — that constitute her entirely scholarly output.

Now a congressional committee is looking into whether Harvard has done enough to protect Jewish students on campus. And several Jewish students have sued Harvard, claiming that it has not provided a “safe environment” for them and other Jewish students.

As if that were not enough, now a professor of Middle Eastern studies has invited an extreme anti-Zionist and open supporter of Hamas and its October 7 attack to speak at the Kennedy School. Robert Spencer wrote about this briefly here, and more on this unwise and offensive decision can be found here: “Harvard University Faces New Antisemitism Controversy with Invitation of Pro-Hamas Speaker,” by Dion J. Pierre, Algemeiner, February 7, 2024:

Harvard University is enmeshed in another antisemitism controversy following reports that a Middle Eastern studies professor has invited Dalal Saeb Iriqat, an extreme anti-Zionist and alleged advocate of terrorism, to the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS).

Ms. Iriqat is not an “alleged advocate of terrorism.” She has openly declared her support for Hamas, which many countries, including the United States, have designated as a terror group. There is no “alleged” about it.

According to The Harvard Crimson, Tarek E. Masoud, director of Harvard’s Middle East Initiative (MEI), invited Dalal Saeb Iriqat as a speaker for MEI’s “Middle East Dialogue Series,” a slate of interviews that will also include former government officials such as presidential adviser Jared Kushner and former Palestinian Authority (PA) prime minister Salam Fayyad.

There will be invited speakers from both sides — such as Jared Kushner, advocating for Israel, and Salam Fayyad, the former PA prime minister, speaking for the Palestinians. That was never the problem. The gravament of the charge against inviting Iriqat is this: some speakers are beyond the pale, and should not be given a forum to spread their extreme views. In the case of Dalal Saab Iriqat, she is not merely an “advocate for the Palestinians,” but someone who praises Hamas’ atrocities on October 7 — that is, she does not find fault with, does not deplore but proudly lauds, those who beheaded babies, burned children alive, sliced off the breasts of women, gouged out the eyes and cut off the genitalia of men, murdered children in front of their parents and parents in front of their children.

Iriqat, a Palestinian instructor employed by the Arab American University, located in the West Bank city of Jenin, is best known for defending Hamas’ murdering and raping of civilians during its massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, an act she described on social media as “just a normal human struggle.”

In other posts, she said, “We will never forgive the Israeli right wing extreme government for making us take their children and elderly as hostages” and “The Israeli public needs to realize that their own government had caused all this bloodshed and they remain the ones responsible for this [escalation] and losses of civilian lives.”

No, the Israelis did not “make” the Palestinians seize 240 hostages — at least 50 of whom have so far died in Hamas captivity, almost certainly murdered by their captors. Nor did the Israelis cause “all this bloodshed” on October 7; it was the Hamas operatives who swooped down like wolves on the fold, to rape, torture, mutilate, and murder the helpless men, women, and children at the Re’im dance party and in the kibbutzim.

Masoud told The Harvard Crimson that he disagrees with Iriqat’s opinions but that nothing about him bringing her to campus was inappropriate.

“If you are going to engage with Palestinians, you’re going to have to engage with these ideas,” he told the paper. “My view is that we have to subject these ideas — and all the ideas that we encounter — to polite but rigorous inquiry.”

What exactly is the “idea” for which this invited speaker stands? Is the approval of genocide worthy of being called an “idea”? What kind of “polite inquiry” can there be with someone who approves of the atrocities on October 7, and claims that they are an understandable reaction to Israel’s longstanding “aggression”? What is Iriqat’s “idea” other than the desire for the complete destruction of the Jewish state, and the expulsion, or killing, of all of its Jewish inhabitants? Would Masoud be willing to invite an Israeli speaker who called for all of the Palestinians in Gaza to be pushed permanently into Egypt, and those in Judea and Samaria (a/k/a the West Bank) similarly to be moved to Jordan? Would that be a speaker he would consider inviting? No, I didn’t think so.

Hamas patron Qatar has given over $5,600,000,000 to US universities since 2007

Harvard to feature speaker who blamed Israel for Hamas’ Oct. 7 jihad massacre

Israel's Reported 'Resettlement' Plan for Gaza Amounts to a Holocaust: Prof Dalal Iriqat, Ramallah

What it’s like to be a Palestinian in Israel—Prof Dalal Iriqat, Arab American University, Ramallah


SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/02/harvard-to-feature-speaker-who-blamed-israel-for-hamas-oct-7-jihad-massacre; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

ALSO SEE: https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-to-host-palestinian-prof-who-blamed-israel-for-oct-7-called-attacks-normal-human-struggle

First, Harvard’s former president refused to say that calls for a new genocide of the Jews would violate campus rules. And now this. Clearly, Jew-hatred has become the norm at Harvard, and among the leftist intelligentsia in general.

“Harvard to host Palestinian prof who blamed Israel for Oct. 7, called attacks ‘normal human struggle,'” by Chris Pandolfo, Fox News, February 3, 2024:

Harvard University has invited a controversial Palestinian professor to speak who justified the October 7 Hamas terror attacks on Israel as a “normal human struggle for freedom.”

Dr. Dalal Saeb Iriqat, a columnist and associate professor at the Arab American University Palestine, is scheduled to speak at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs on March 7 for a seminar series called “Middle East Dialogues.”

The Belfer Center website describes the “Middle East Dialogues” seminars as “a series of frank, open, and probing encounters with vital and varied perspectives on the current conflict, its causes, and the prospects for peace and progress in the region.”

Iriqat is a controversial figure who has made statements downplaying the Hamas attack on Israel and blaming the Israeli government for the bloodshed on October 7, when 1,200 people were killed after Hamas terrorists infiltrated the country.

“Today is just a normal struggle 4 #Freedom,” Iriqat posted on X on Oct. 7, as Israelis near the border with Gaza cowered in their homes while terrorists went door-to-door butchering people.

In the face of criticism for her post, Iriqat doubled down and blamed Israel for the attacks the next day.

“We will never forgive the Israeli right wing extreme government for making us take their children and elderly as hostages,” she posted on "X."

“The Israeli public need to realize that their own government had caused all this bloodshed and they remain the ones responsible for this escalation and losses of civilian lives.”…

Sherri Ann Charleston, Diversity and Inclusion Head at Harvard, and Plagiarist

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/02/sherri-ann-charleston-diversity-and-inclusion-head-at-harvard-and-plagiarist#; republished below in full, unedited, for informational, educational, & research purposes:

Did Sherri Ann Charleston really think she would get away with it? After the plagiarism scandal brought down her friend and protector Claudine Gay, she must have wondered if anyone would start to look into her own “scholarship.” And now the Washington Free Beacon, that samaritan organization, has done exactly that. Sherri Ann Charleston turns out to be even more of a plagiarist than Claudine Gay. Will Harvard do the right thing, and fire her for her violation of the most basic of academic norms, or brazen it out, and hope that eventually people will lose interest? What the academic world most needs now is a a dozen Journals of Plagiarism Research, that will investigate complaints made by those who claim their work has been plagiarized, and publish its findings, a sure way to terrify into silence would-be plagiarists incapable of doing their own work.

More on Sherri Ann Charleston, the Head of Diversity and Inclusion at Harvard, can be found here: “Not Just Claudine Gay. Harvard’s Chief Diversity Officer Plagiarized and Claimed Credit for Husband’s Work, Complaint Alleges,” by Aaron Sibarium, Washington Free Beacon, January 30, 2024:

It’s not just Claudine Gay. Harvard University’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, Sherri Ann Charleston, appears to have plagiarized extensively in her academic work, lifting large portions of text without quotation marks and even taking credit for a study done by another scholar—her own husband—according to a complaint filed with the university on Monday and a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

The complaint makes 40 allegations of plagiarism that span the entirety of Charleston’s thin publication record. In her 2009 dissertation, submitted to the University of Michigan, Charleston quotes or paraphrases nearly a dozen scholars without proper attribution, the complaint alleges. And in her sole peer-reviewed journal article—coauthored with her husband, LaVar Charleston, in 2014—the couple recycle much of a 2012 study published by LaVar Charleston, the deputy vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, framing the old material as new research.

Through that sleight of hand, Sherri Ann Charleston effectively took credit for her husband’s work. The 2014 paper, which was also coauthored with Jerlando Jackson, now the dean of Michigan State University’s College of Education, and appeared in the Journal of Negro Education, has the same methods, findings, and description of survey subjects as the 2012 study, which involved interviews with black computer science students and was first published by the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education….

The school is also facing an ongoing congressional probe over its handling of antisemitism and its response to the plagiarism allegations against Gay, which Harvard initially sought to suppress with legal saber-rattling. Half of Gay’s published work contained plagiarized material, ranging from single sentences to entire paragraphs, with some of the most severe lifts coming in her dissertation. Though Gay stepped down as president on January 2, she remains a tenured faculty member drawing a $900,000 annual salary….

It is enraging that Gay continues to receive that huge presidential salary. No one has offered an explanation as to why that was done. Was it a bribe, to keep Gay from claiming some kind of “racism” was involved in her forced resignation? And how long will she continue to be paid such a grotesque and unmerited sum?

Charleston also lifted language from Louis Pérez, an historian at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; Alejandro de la Fuente, an historian at Harvard; and Ada Ferrer, an historian at New York University, among other scholars.

Charleston cites each source in a footnote but omits quotation marks around language copied verbatim. The omissions violate Harvard’s Guide to Using Sources, a document produced for incoming students, which states that quotation marks are required when “you copy language word for word.”…

The main difference between the papers is a long section in the 2014 article about “culturally responsive pedagogy theory,” which the authors say their findings support. Both articles are littered with the tropes of progressive scholarship, including a disclaimer about “positionality”—the authors assure readers that they reflected on their own “racial, gender, and socioeconomic status”—and a lament that computer science is a “White male-dominated field.”

Both also criticize the idea that “computing sciences is for nerds, only for White people, [and] only for geniuses.”

Such language is typical of the diversity initiatives Charleston oversees. Since 2020, her office has pumped out a stream of materials that bemoan the “weaponization of whiteness,” discuss the ins and outs of “white fragility,” and urge students to “call out” their peers for “harmful words.” One message, signed by Charleston herself, was titled “A Call to Dismantle Intersecting Oppressions.”

We must continue to work against systematic oppression in all its forms—racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, and more,” she wrote….

How appropriately diverse and inclusive this Head of Diversity and Inclusivity turns out to be, save for whites, of course, whose mere being creates “systematic oppression in all its forms.”

But let’s not lose sight of the main problem: will Sherri Ann Charleston get away with her many examples of plagiarism? Will her recycling of her husband’s paper of 2012, presenting it as new research — which goes beyond plagiarism but, as Peter Wood says, constitutes academic fraud — be enough to sink her career at Harvard, or will Harvard itself insist on keeping her on, and becoming, even more than it has already, the laughingstock of the academic world?

All-Girls Catholic College Reverses Trans Decision After Well-Earned Backlash

AP Photo/Armando Franca
An all-female Catholic college backed down on a new and very un-Catholic policy to allow biologically male “transgenders” in after taking a lot of heat for the decision.

The Daily Signal obtained an email from President Katie Conboy of St. Mary’s College in Indiana. While the report in November was that the college was going to allow men who pretend to be women to enroll in fall 2024, the understandable anger the policy change garnered made the administration rethink its woke strategy. Unsurprisingly, women were a little concerned about having to share dorms, bathrooms, etc., with dudes in dresses.

“This has weighed heavily on our minds and in our hearts,” Conboy said in the Thursday email. “There have been many voices responding to us from many places and perspectives. We have listened closely, and we have heard each of you.” Despite the fact that the Catholic Church doctrinally condemns transgenderism as gravely evil, the college president made the puzzling claim that the proposed policy change was a “reflection of our College’s commitment to live our Catholic values as a loving and just community.” I guess she missed the part of Genesis where God created humans as male and female—from the moment of their existence, based on biology. Conboy did admit that “the position we took is not shared by all members of our community.”

In fact, she added, “Some worried that this was much more than a policy decision: they felt it was a dilution of our mission or even a threat to our Catholic identity.” No kidding. “Moreover, we clearly underestimated our community’s genuine desire to be engaged in the process of shaping a policy of such significance. As this last month unfolded, we lost people’s trust and unintentionally created division where we had hoped for unity. For this, we are deeply sorry,” she continued.

“Taking all these factors into consideration, the Board has decided that we will return to our previous admission policy,” she said. “Although this has been a challenging time for our community, we believe that the College should continually grapple with the complexity of living our Catholic values in a changing world.”

Alumnae and students were excited about the victory against wokeness, as were several Catholic leaders. As Bishop Kevin Rhoades, in whose diocese the college is located, previously said, “The desire of Saint Mary’s College to show hospitality to people who identify as transgender is not the problem. The problem is a Catholic woman’s college embracing a definition of woman that is not Catholic.”

President Johnson of Wellesley College Stands Her Ground Against Antisemitism

REPUBLISHED, SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/12/president-johnson-of-wellesley-college-stands-her-ground-against-antisemitism

While some university presidents have been unable to answer “Yes”” to the question “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your institution’s code of conduct?,” President Paula Johnson of Wellesley is made of sterner stuff. And she has just stood up to — denounced, in fact — the faculty bullies who want to make sure that the Wellesley campus remains safe for expressions of antisemitism. The story of this Daniel come to judgment can be found here: “Wellesley College President Denounces Extreme Anti-Zionist Rhetoric, Rebuffing School Faculty,” by Dion J. Pierre, Algemeiner, December 18, 2023:

Wellesley College President Paula Johnson has pushed back on faculty pressuring her to condone certain anti-Israel rhetoric on campus, stating in an open letter that the Massachusetts school interprets “some” anti-Zionist speech as harmful to Jewish students.”

Johnson, who has served as college president since July 2016, made the declaration on Saturday in response to a faculty letter demanding that she go on record saying that no criticism of Israel or Zionism should be described as antisemitic.

The faculty “demands”? It sounds like the Soviet purge trials of the 1930s. Andrey Vyshinsky, Chief Prosecutor, “demanding” that the Old Bolsheviks such as Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev admit to their crimes before their inevitable execution.Paula Johnson, we the faculty of Wellesley College, DEMAND that you declare that ‘no criticism of Israel or Zionism should be described as antisemitic.'” Really? What about those who chant “from the river to the sea/Palestine will be free,” which everyone understands to be a call for the destruction of the Jewish state, and its replacement by a twenty-third Arab state? Is denying the Jewish people, uniquely, the right to have a state of their own not antisemitic? What about the call for “Jews to the gas,” which has been heard at pro-Palestinian rallies in Europe? Gosh, sounds antisemitic to me. What about those who after October 7 have been telling us at rallies that they “stand with Hamas” and, keffiyeh-scarved, wave the flag of Palestine? Remember, they are expressing solidarity with, and support for, the terror group that sent 3,000 of its operatives surging into Israel on October 7, where they proceeded to behead babies, burned children alive, gang-raped, tortured, and murdered young girls, sliced off the breasts of women, gouged out the eyes and cut off the genitalia of men, murdered children in front of their parents and parents in front of their children? Surely praise of Hamas, after what it did on October 7, must count as antisemitism. What do you say to that, faculty members of Wellesley, by Zoom or in solemn conclave assembled?

“I want to be clear that Wellesley will not make such a statement,” Johnson said. “Some anti-Israel and anti-Zionist speech can, in fact, create a hostile environment for many of our students.”

Thank god for the no-nonsense reply coming from President Paula Johnson, a Daniel come to judgment by the shores of Lake Waban. She said what all sensible people know: of course anti-Israel speech can be so hideous in its endorsement of Hamas killers, or in its call for the destruction of the tiny Jewish state, as to create a “hostile environment” for Jewish students and, come to think of it, for all students who have retained their moral sense.

Johnson added that the faculty members’ own statements in their letter, which accused Israel of committing a “genocidal assault on Gaza,” are part of the problem….

When those faculty members accuse Israel of a “genocidal assault,” they are doing two intolerable things. First, they are saying something that is idiotic. It was Hamas that committed the “genocidal assault,” wanting to murder Jews, any Jews of any age or condition, whom they came across in their rampage on October 7. Although the faculty members won’t admit it, the IDF goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualties by warning those in or near buildings that are soon to be hit to get out, get away. The IDF does this through leafletting, messaging, telephoning, and the “knock on the roof” technique. When it wanted to warn Gazans to leave the north of the Strip because it would soon become a battlefield, the IDF dropped 1.5 million leaflets telling them to move south. It’s no wonder that Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded the British forces in Afghanistan, has described the IDF as “the most moral army in the world.” Furthermore, the UN has said that since World War II, the average civilian-to-combatant ratio has been 9 to 1. The American and British armies have recently done better: in Iraq the ratio was 3 to 1, in Afghanistan between 3 and 5 to 1. But in Gaza, Israel has managed to keep the ratio down to an unheard-of civilian to combatant ratio of 10 to 7. This testifies to Israel’s success in minimizing civilian while Hamas tries always to maximize them. And as for the charge that Israel supports “genocide,” let’s remind the Wellesley faculty that in 1967, when Israel won Gaza by force of arms in the Six-Day war, the Strip’s population was 410,000. In 2005, when every last Israeli was removed from Gaza, the population of the Strip was 1.3 million. Does that sound like “genocide” to you?

The Wellesley faculty — that is, that portion of it that, filled with anti-Israel animus, that demanded that President Johnson declare that “no criticism of Israel is antisemitic” — has met a immovable and immutable object: Paula Johnson’s moral sense. They have been foiled by her clear-eyed answerand In their ranks, confusion worse confounded reigns.  That’s the consummation that was devoutly to be wished. May other university presidents go and do likewise.

At MIT, More Than 800 Alumni, Faculty, and Staff Take Issue with President Kornbluth

REPUBLISHED, SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/12/at-mit-more-than-800-alumni-faculty-and-staff-take-issue-with-president-kornbluth

President Sally Kornbluth of MIT, just like President Liz Magill of UPenn and President Claudine Gay of Harvard, fudged in her Congressional testimony, not clearly stating that calls for genocide were unacceptable on the MIT campus. All three claimed that “it would depend on the context,” whether such calls could be considered “bullying or harassment” and as such, punishable under their institution’s code of conduct. Both Gay and Magill later tried to mollify their critics by modifying their remarks. It did not work for Magill; she felt compelled to resign; Gay, despite a second, even deeper scandal, involving her newly-revealed extensive record of plagiarism, has been supported by the Harvard Corporation; no one wanted to fire “the first black president of Harvard.” Whether her quite visible protective shield will prevent her scandalous plagiarizing from sinking her in the end will be instructive to watch.

Meanwhile, President Kornbluth of MIT, the only one of the three who did not attempt subsequently to “clarify” her remarks before Congress in an attempt to mollify critics, has been similarly supported by the MIT Corporation. And judging by the alumni letter just made public, she has apparently done little on the MIT campus to deal with the rise in antisemitic rhetoric and harassment of Jewish students.

More than 800 people — most of them alumni, but also including faculty, staff, and parents of students — have signed the following letter, showing that many people — Jews and non-Jews — are most unhappy with how Kornbluth has dealt with antisemitism on the campus, and believe the MIT Corporation, in its vote of confidence, has chosen to overlook that record, treating her with kid gloves. More on this open letter, to which new signatories are being added every hour, can be found here: “An Open Letter From MIT Jewish Alumni and Allies on Campus Antisemitism,” MIT Jewish Alumni and MIT Allies, December 12, 2023:

Dear President Kornbluth, Provost Barnhart, Chancellor Nobles, and members of the MIT Corporation:

We are a growing group of MIT Jewish alumni and MIT allies writing to express our alarm over the Congressional testimony of President Kornbluth of December 5, 2023; the subsequent public relations fallout; and the continued failure of the MIT administration to address the growing antisemitism on MIT’s campus.

Calls for genocide of any group of people, including Jews, constitute bullying and harassment. Such calls originating from MIT’s campus should never be tolerated by the MIT administration and should instead be met with swift disciplinary consequences.

Yet, during the Congressional testimony of December 5, 2023, President Kornbluth implied that calls for genocide of Jews may not constitute bullying and harassment under MIT’s code of conduct, depending on context. Protecting violent antisemitic rhetoric on MIT’s campus, rather than Jewish victims of such rhetoric, sends a strong signal to the rest of the world that violent words of hate are acceptable, at least as they relate to the Jewish people. Understandably, President Kornbluth’s testimony was met with a public uproar….

A full list of signatories can be found here.

Will Kornbluth listen to this most modest and reasonable request of so many alumni? Or will she, buoyed by the Corporation’s vote of confidence in her, see no need to change her ways? Let us hope for the first, and fear for the second.

Congress Tightens Up Reporting Requirements on Foreign Funding of Universities

REPUBLISHED, SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2023/12/congress-tightens-up-reporting-requirements-on-foreign-funding-of-universities

The scandal of certain foreign governments funding programs at American universities that further the interests of their often unsavory regimes is at long last being addressed by Congress. The House has just passed a bill — which will soon be voted on in the Senate — to tighten the reporting requirements for major foreign gifts (above $250,000) and to require greater oversight by universities of the programs being funded. More on this legislation, which is sure to become law, can be found here: “U.S. House Approves Reporting on Foreign Funds to Universities; Includes Key MEF Priorities,” Middle East Forum, December 8, 2023:

American universities will no longer be able to count on a complacent federal bureaucracy and weak legislation to avoid disclosing foreign gifts and contracts, if a House vote two days ago becomes law.

The Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act – the DETERRENT Act (H.R. 5933) – passed the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday in a bipartisan vote of 246 to 170. Introduced by Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA) and co-sponsored by Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and 25 other members, the bill significantly strengthens key provision of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act.

For decades, many universities have ignored requirements to report foreign gifts or contracts of over $250,000. Legislation lacked the teeth to hold academe accountable, allowing parts of the education bureaucracy to ignore violations of the law. Even if universities complied, they did not need to disclose the purposes for which the funds would be used – a loophole that allowed foreign states such as Qatar and China quietly to fund potentially disreputable projects or individuals….

Particularly worrisome are the large sums provided by rich Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to fund a vast expansion of Middle Eastern Studies, and Islamic Studies Departments, providing for greater numbers of faculty with endowed chairs; these faculty members not surprisingly turn out to share the world views of the states that fund them, including their anti-Israel animus and deep sympathy for the “Palestinians.” Saudi Arabia, and individual Saudis, provide large sums not just to endow individual chairs, but also to set up entire centers for Islamic studies, whose members are not unbiased scholars, but promoters and defenders of Islam. One example is the infamous apologist for Islam, John Esposito, who was the founding director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, which got its start with a $20 million gift from Prince Alwaleed himself. Qatar, which has supported Hamas for decades, including providing refuge for the leaders of its political wing, has funded chairs in Islamic law, as has Saudi Arabia. The amounts provided by Arab states to American universities has been staggering. Qatar has given American universities $4.3 billion over 35 years, between 1986 and 2021, according to a 2021 report by the Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Dr. Mitchell Bard. By December 2023, that amount has risen above $4.5 billion. That buys a lot of goodwill in American universities, and a desire on the part of both faculty members and administrators to please such a funder, in the hope that such sums will continue to roll in from deep-pocketed Doha.

Overall, between 1986 and 2021, American colleges and universities received nearly $8.5 billion from all Arab sources.” That buys the Arabs many friends on campuses, which may help explain why universities have been so lax in policing the antisemitic and anti-Israel student groups that have convulsed so many schools in the last year, and especially after October 7, when the IDF entered Gaza to ensure that Hamas never again poses a military threat to Israel.

The public, the media, and the political class will now see just where all that Arab money is going to in our universities, and for what purposes. How much influence have the Arab states bought, in supporting programs on Middle Eastern Studies and on Islam, that furthers pro-Arab and anti-Israel views? How have faculty members been chosen for these programs? Is there a politically correct test that is being quietly imposed so that, for example, no one sympathetic to Israel will be hired by a Middle East Studies department? Are students taking courses in departments subsidized by Arab money being instructed, or indoctrinated? Thanks to the new requirements for universities to report all foreign money received, and how it will be spent, it will be much harder to hide from the government, and the public, what these vast sums from Arab governments and individuals are meant, and largely have managed until now, to accomplish.