http://indymedia.org.il
Israeli Academic NazisMonday 03 Mar 2003
author: Bernice
ASSISTED SUICIDE, ISRAELI ACADEMIC STYLE
posted by Bernice Lipkin
January 20, 2003
Late in 2000, soon after the start of the Second Intifada, some Israeli
academics became very excited -- they had at last found peace partners among
the Palestinians. They claimed these Palestinians were a "secular, civic,
sane Palestinian peace movement". Danny Rabinowitz, a professor of
anthropology at Tel Aviv University, described it this way:
" Last Friday, a group of 110 Palestinian academics and public figures from
the territories published a petition that was, in effect, an urgent appeal
to the Israeli public (Ha'aretz, Nov. 10, 2000). A settlement capable of
bringing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to an end once and for all, they
argue, must be based on four principles: an Israeli withdrawal to the June
4, 1967 lines; the establishment of East Jerusalem as the capital of
Palestine alongside West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; Israel's
recognition of its responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian
refugee problem in 1948 as a precondition for the formulation of a just
solution to the plight of those refugees; and mutual recognition that each
side has a connection to the holy sites that are under its jurisdiction."
The Israeli Leftists thought this was great. They conceded that Arafat's
rejection of Barak's concessions was popular among the Palestinians and
could lead to war, but they felt that subscribing to the Palestinian Peace
Group's demands would work towards a peaceful solution:
" .... a broad-based Israeli response to this direct appeal is vital because
it could promote an important component in Palestinian society that aspires
to a peace that will not force the Palestinians to concede fundamental
national principles. Furthermore, such an Israeli response could also
eventually create a wide foundation for dialogue between two solid secular,
sane, leftist blocs."
In other words, peace meant the Palestinians could take whatever they
regarded as theirs. Israel -- apparently not having any fundamental national
principles -- would give up Yesha and East Jerusalem and, abiding by a
one-sided interpretation of various UN resolutions, would let the 1948 Arab
refugees flood into Israel. I don't understand the fourth principle of
peace; but I suspect that these sane secularists didn't much care about the
religious aspects anyways.
Actually, Israel's agreement would not make for immediate peace. Israel
would also have to make unstated concessions to the Palestinian Arabs who
were Israeli citizens.
"We [the Palestinian Peace Group] contend that peace between the two peoples
is also contingent on achieving full equality between Palestinian-Arab and
Jewish citizens in a democratic Israeli state."
Oren Yiftachel, Head of the Department of Geography at Ben Gurion University
was one of the Israeli organizers who solicited support from the Israeli
public. Nothing happened. The Palestinian version of a peace-seeking group
faded into the background. Yiftachel blamed the Americans and Israelis when
the Arabs intensified doing what they do best: bombing, shooting, maiming.
Yiftachel's subsequent history is unremarkable -- he did what those on the
Israeli Academic Left do. He signed a letter encouraging Israeli academics
to refuse to "serve as soldiers in the occupied territories." He and Asad
Ghanem, an Arab political scientist, wrote "an op-ed piece in Haaretz
proposing that Jews join Palestinians in celebrating 'Land Day', a day at
the end of March when Israeli Arabs march against Israel and denounce
Zionism" (Solomon Socrates, Israel's Academic Extremists,
soc.culture.israel, December 26, 2001). He denounced a proposal that Jews
move to the Galilee as racist, even though the Galilee is an undisputed part
of Israel. With his Siamese twin, Professor of Women's Studies Rema Hammami
of Birzeit University, he lectured on Israel and Palestine at the University
of California Berkeley, Tufts, Boston College, Stanford University, the
University of Southern California and the University of Chicago. He
continued to insist that "[t]he past few months of violent
Israeli-Palestinian clashes were triggered by a poorly timed visit by
hard-line Lukid party member Ariel Sharon to a contested Jerusalem site"
(www.csls.org.za). He urged that an international force come into Israel,
specifically to protect the Palestinian people. (Nothing was said about
protecting Israelis from Arab suicide bombers and shooters.) Clearly, his
credentials as a worthy member of the pro-Palestinian Academic Left can not
be denied.
Meantimes, Marxists and Arab sympathizers in Europe, but especially in
England, were busy, busy, busy helping the hapless Palestinians. As I
described in The Unenviable Fate of Israeli Leftists in the July-August 2002
Think-Israel: Steven Rose sparked a campaign to deny Israeli academics
travel funds and access to their European colleagues. One academic who
declared herself inspired by this crusade was Mona Baker of the University
of Manchester, who promptly fired two Israelis who served on the editorial
boards of journals she controlled. In a move that outsiders who don't
understand the dedication of the Israeli academic leftists to the Arab cause
might think was stupid, some Israeli academics signed the petition to
isolate Israeli academics. I speculated that the selfless efforts of these
Israelis might work to their own detriment.
This has happened to that tireless worker for the Arabs, Oren Yiftachel.
The two interlinked groups -- Israeli leftists and their British buddies --
collided when Yiftachel and Ghanem coauthored an article and submitted it to
David Slater, editor of an appropriate British journal. As Steven E. Plaut
of the University of Haifa describes it:
" .. Yifatchel himself got hoisted on his own petard. You see, he was trying
to place one of his Israel-bashing `academic' articles in a periodical named
`Political Geography', a piece devoted to proving that Israel was a worse
country than South Africa under white apartheid. But the article got
rejected by the British journal, despite its favorable position on Israel's
destruction, because the journal is boycotting Israeli academics in total."
Edward Alexander of the University of Washington in Seattle ("The Academic
Rejection of Israel", J. Post, 3 jan 2003) explains what makes the rejection
so ludicrous:
"Here was a case to test the mettle of a boycotter - a mischling article,
half-Jewish, half-Arab, wholly the product of people carrying Israeli
passports and working for Israeli institutions, yet expressing opinions on
Israel as the devil's own experiment station indistinguishable from
Slater's. Poor Slater, apparently unable to amputate the Jewish part of the
article from the Arab part and (to quote him) `not sure to what extent [the
authors] had been critical of Israel,' rejected the submission in its
entirety. Or so it seemed - for after half a year of wrangling, it emerged
that Slater might accept the paper if only its authors would insert some
more paragraphs likening Israel to apartheid South Africa. In other words,
the Englishman might relax his boycotting principles if his ideological
prejudices could be satisfied.
Exactly what happened at this point is not easy to discover. Since Yiftachel
is one of those academics who adheres to the motto `the other country, right
or wrong,' it is hard to believe he would balk at describing Israel as an
apartheid state. He had in the past denounced Israeli governments as racist
or dictatorial and had co-authored with Ghanem a piece in Ha'aretz urging
Jews to participate in `Land Day.' But now he had become the classic
instance of somebody `hoist with his own petard,' caught in his own trap. At
one point he complained to Slater `that rejecting a person because of his
[national] origin, from an academic point of view, is very problematic.' Not
only did it interfere with the progress of Yiftachel's career, it hurt the
anti-Israel cause.
`From a political and practical point of view, the boycott actually weakens
the sources of opposition to the Israeli occupation in universities,' he
admitted."
In an article in the Jerusalem Post, 16 December 2002, Amnon Lord labeled
those academic Leftists around the world -- and their collaborators in
Israeli universities -- who libel Israel spiritually and intellectually as
"spiritual marauders". "These people are responsible for the spread of the
terrorism war against the Jews to every city in the world ..." He used
Yiftachel's story to illustrate how Israeli academics were toadying up to
British academic institutions.
"I admit there was something ironic about the story that caused a lot of
gloating, because Yiftachel is a researcher who has advanced his career
through slanted anti-Zionist research.
But the main question here is how Israeli-born intellectuals -- sabras --
have become so morally spineless that they are willing to turn their backs
on their society and their people.
If this were a unique story, we could not generalize from it. But knowing
Israeli intellectuals, this story tells us about both British academe and
its Israeli clients."
Too true.
THE UNENVIABLE FATE OF ISRAELI LEFTISTS
posted by Bernice Lipkin.
July 20, 2002
Peace Now, B'Tselem and a host of other Jewish organizations that see the
Palestinians as victims of Israeli brutality have long drawn on the
commitment and efforts of a group of Israeli academics, who for the most
part view themselves as secularists and globalists. They are willing to give
the extra dunam of land for peaceful relations with their neighbors. They
retain a optimism, last seen in America during the Vietnam War that, with
just another concession, Israel will see peace at the end of the tunnel.
Since the Second Intifada began, their ranks have thinned, but the hard-core
of Israeli leftists have remained true to their principles.
Arabs and Arab-sympathizers who are fighting Israel find these folk useful
in many ways. There is, for example, a downside to boycotting Israeli goods:
someone might think you are anti-Jewish. What to do? Simple. Just point to
the dozen or so Jewish organizations that act as if Israel is always in the
wrong. So your boycott isn't anti-Jewish; it's anti-Israel.
The Jews that support Arab activities say they don't hate Israel. If fact,
often they claim they are doing this for her own good, to stop her from
continuing in her evil ways. The urgency of the task is such that, in
comparison, what the Arabs are doing is small potatoes.
These Jews often serve as mouthpieces for views others want expressed. When
Dan Ephron of Newsweek a few weeks ago did a number on the settlements in
the Territories, who did he quote as Mr. Average Israeli? Professor Arie
Arnon of Ben Gurion University. He didn't mention that Professor Arnon is a
leading member of Peace Now and has signed a letter urging IDF reservists
not to serve on the West Bank.
Sometimes they go in for street theatre demonstrating for peace or they
monitor what other Jews were doing. Peace Now members are always on the
alert for illegal building on the West Bank. Illegal Jewish settlements,
that is. Illegal Arab settlements don't matter. They take pictures. They
report new building activity. They send this information to interested
parties, who condemn the new growth. Rumor has it that photos showing weak
spots in settlement defenses have found their way into the hands of
terrorists, who infiltrate the town a short time later. Certainty has it
that the condemnation is always because UN Resolution this and Oslo
Agreement that have been violated. There usually isn't a violation, but
repetition of the charges has convinced many people that the Jews are in the
wrong.
In recent months, these academics have found themselves the targets of
attack by the very people they regard as their partners for peace:
like-minded colleagues around the world and Arabs who are pro-Arab (Is there
an Arab group that's pro-Israel?). It has caused many on the Left to
actually look at what's going on. But there are some who cling even more
firmly to the rightness of their beliefs.
On April 6, 2002, a letter in the English newspaper, the Guardian, announced
an action, already in progress, to deny Israeli academics travel funds and
access to their European colleagues. The letter pointed out that:
"...many national and European cultural and research institutions, including
especially those funded from the EU and the European Science Foundation,
regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and
contracts."
The letter mentioned in passing that no other Middle Eastern country was so
favored -- but they clearly didn't want to get into a comparison of science
in Israel vis a vis its neighbors. "Would it not," the letter continued,
"therefore be timely if at both national and European level a moratorium was
called upon any further such support unless and until Israel abide by UN
resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians, along
the lines proposed in many peace plans including most recently that
sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League."
Steven Rose, who helped instigate the petition, modestly designated himself
as "Coordinator" (There's a sketch about him in Two Academics and A Rabbi
in this issue.)
The appended list of some 120 signers included a large number from the UK,
as well as signers from Eire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,
Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
What was incredible was that the list of signers included academics from
Israel, the very people who would be adversely affected. This is the list of
Israelis who signed the English petition:
Amit, Professor Daniel, Hebrew University
Bar, Iris, Haifa University
Giora, Professor Rachel, Tel-Aviv University
Katriel, Dr Haggai, Haifa University
Lavie, Professor Smadar, Tel-Aviv
Pappe, Dr Ilan, Haifa University
Razi, Professor Zvi, Tel-Aviv University
Reinhart, Professor Tanya, Tel-Aviv University
Shlonsky, Dr Tuvia, Hebrew University, Jerusalem
By May 22nd, the petition was answered by a counter petition, initiated by a
group of mathematicians at the University of Chicago. The group, Scientists
and Scholars in Support of Israel, called the boycott "immoral, misguided
and dangerous." Their petition, also published in the Guardian, was soon
signed by some 2500 academics.
Like brush fires in a dry forest, boycott petitions have flared up around
the world, followed by anti-boycott petitions. International groups,
institutes and universities have become involved. It's hard to be accurate
about the chronology, because often a petition has been signed by the time
it is announced.
The Isolate Israeli Scientists theme of the petitions is, of course, roughly
the same, and, were the boycotts successful, the results would be highly
damaging, not just to Israelis, but to their many collaborative efforts
around the globe.
There are surface differences. Some of the petitions, like the one in
England, sound as if they were merely trying to get Israeli academics to do
the right thing. Others, like the Australian one, initiated by Ghassan Hage,
an Arab-Australian professor from Sydney University's Anthropology
Department, and John Docker, a visiting fellow at the Australian National
University's Humanities Research Center, are intemperate. The Australian one
had this to say (italics added):
"Our moratorium is based on the position that the majority of Israeli
academics and academic institutions, by their silence or active support for
their government, have been complicit with the destruction of the
Palestinian people."
Mark Schulman, writing about the petition in the Jerusalem Post, 23 May
2002, pointed out that only some 90 teachers and researchers out of some
40,000 nationwide signed the petition. More to the point, there was strong
reaction against it.
It's hard to know where a boycott petition is a local affair and spontaneous
and where it has been centrally choreographed. In the United States,
Associate Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh of Yale University appears to have a
major role in coordinating boycott petitions. (It is a wonder the man has
time to teach: he is also running a boycott of Israeli goods and services.
And a boycott of businesses that do business with Israel. He heads the
Palestine Right To Return Coalition's Media Committee. And he writes letters
blasting articles he doesn't like.)
The French petition, on the other hand, may be self-generated. Few of the
names are on the English petition. The French petition illustrates another
problem in comparing the boycott petitions: figuring out what they are
objecting to. Sometimes it's the IDF entry into a West Bank city. Sometimes
it's their killing a terrorist. Sometimes it's Israel winning the 1967 War.
Sometimes, it's Israel winning the 1948 War.
Drawn up by a group calling itself Coordination des Scientifiques pour une
Paix Juste au Proche-Orient, the French petition called for a boycott of
Israeli scientific institutions. In the English translation, the petition
reads: "Because the campaign against the Palestinian people and the
Palestinian Authority launched at the end of March 2002. . ." A signer
pledges that
"Under these circumstances, I can no longer in good conscience continue to
cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities. I will
attend no scientific conferences in Israel, and I will not participate as
referee in hiring or promotion decisions by Israeli universities, or in the
decisions of Israeli funding agencies. I will continue to collaborate with,
and host, Israeli scientific colleagues on an individual basis."
The last sentence is interesting -- you can show your indignation but
continue a collaboration that benefits you. There are some French Jewish
signers but no Israeli signers. In the USA contingent, Richard Lewontin's
name stands out among the predominantly Arab names. Lewontin wrote a book
with Steven Rose of the English petition (See: Two Academics and a Rabbi .)
The boys from Australia, Docker and Hage, signed on for this one, too.
While statements by some groups, such as the one by a Polish group against
the boycott, were strongly supportive of Israel, it says something about the
dominant mindset in the academic communities that many of the rebuttals are
hand-wringers and defensive -- complaining that the precipitating boycott is
one-sided in assigning blame. But in general, the response of scientists and
academicians has been overwhelmingly against boycotting Israelis. The
EuroIsrael website has some 13,000 signers to date.
Activist academics promoting the boycott are often linked to noisier groups
seeking to have universities divest themselves of their Israeli holdings. In
June there was a flurry of publicity at Harvard when a faculty member,
Richard Hunt, actively encouraged Zayed Yasin, a senior, to apply to give
one of the undergraduate commencement speeches, and then, in his role as
Chairman of the selection committee, helped select him. Yasin had raised
funds for the Holy Land Foundation, a group tied to Hamas. And several trade
journals -- Nature and Lancet come to mind -- have made gratuitous
anti-Israel statements. But the continuing campaigns for and against
boycott, had been waged largely by petition and persuasion in the academic
community.
All in all, it pretty much stayed out of the eye of the general public.
Until Mona -- Mona Baker -- an Egyptian academic at the University of
Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), who did not restrict
her activities to signing the French and English petitions. Thanks to her,
the campaign to humiliate Israeli scholars became direct, nasty and
attracted the attention of the general public.
She is the editor and owner (!) of two journals: The Translator and
Translation Studies Abstracts. They are published by St. Jerome Press, which
is run by her husband, Ken. She announced she would no longer accept papers
from Israelis. And she fired the two Israeli scholars who served on the
Editorial/Advisory Boards of these journals because they were Israeli. This
provoked an indignant response from the Israeli government and academics
mostly outside of England.
English academics reacted after Baker pleaded nobility and bravery in an
interview she gave to the Telegraph, a London newspaper. David Tell of the
Weekly Standard describes her interview this way in an article entitled
Boycotting the Juden:
"There is a large intimidation machine out there," organized by
international bankers one supposes. And this machine means to silence all
critical commentary on Israeli government policy. And "the Americans are the
worst offenders." But "I'm damned if I'm going to be intimidated." And as if
to prove it, Baker went on to liken Israel to Nazi Germany: "Israel has gone
beyond just war crimes. It is horrific what is going on there. Many of us
would like to talk about it as some kind of Holocaust which the world will
eventually wake up to, much too late, of course, as they did with the last
one."
Her interview received world-wide attention and she received much unwelcome
email. A letter by Richard Cassel in the Jerusalem Post reported what he had
written her:
"The article in the Jerusalem Post quotes you as saying that 'Israel has
gone beyond just war crimes. It is horrific what is going on there.' I was
curious though. Just what horrific act do you find so appalling? Could it be
the Israeli suicide bombers who target any innocent Palestinian they can
find? Or perhaps it's all the Arab buses they've blown up. Of course it
could be all the Arab Pizza Parlors, Malls, and Restaurants that they
attacked. Or maybe the Israeli textbooks which claim that Arabs poison
wells, use Christian blood to bake pita, control world finance, and meet
secretly to plot the takeover of the world?"
The two Israelis got less attention.
Ironically, one of them, Miriam Shlesinger, a lecturer in translation
studies at Bar-Ilan University, is a former chairman of the Amnesty
International's Israeli chapter, a longtime member of Peace Now and a critic
of Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. She has been active
during the Second Intifada as part of an ethnically-mixed group that defies
Israeli army blockades to deliver supplies to Palestinian towns in the West
Bank. She signed a petition complaining about Israel's closing of
Palestinian universities. She participated in the peace rally in January,
2001 to make Jerusalem the capital of both Israel and a Palestinian state.
The rally also called for "a just solution for the Palestinian refugee
problem."
Dr. Shlesinger's son-in-law died last year, shot in the face by a Hamas
terrorist. Now this. She has condemned Baker's actions as
"counter-productive, discriminatory, and based on misinformation", but she
doesn't seem to take her dismissal personally.
Professor Eva Jablonka of the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy
of Science, Tel-Aviv University signed the English boycott petition. She has
been quoted as saying: "I received very emotional reactions [from my
colleagues], as though I am betraying them and personally working against
them." (Fancy that!)
She went on to say:
"None of the people who signed this manifesto are in favor of a sweeping
academic boycott, canceling all relations; all the people I know who signed
are people who care and want the State of Israel to survive, as an ethical
country, as a country of peace."
Judging from their published writings, she's wrong that all the signers want
Israel to survive. Unless she means that Israel has her blessings to survive
if and only if it is an ethical country -- as the signers define ethical.
Professor Tanya Reinhart, a linguist from Tel-Aviv University, is one of the
more interesting of this group. She did her Ph.D. at MIT in linguistics,
where she was Noam Chomsky's student. (See the sketch of Chomsky, this
issue.) They continue to see eye to eye. And though Chomsky drops theories
like a cat drops litters, this one has survived. Well, maybe others have
abandoned it, but Reinhart continues to talk about Binding and Anaphora, her
dissertation topic.
She has been a fervent fighter for Palestinian rights, and has often
published in Yediot Aharonot, a Hebrew daily. These articles, as do those
written by Chomsky, find their way to many an anti-Israel website. She
signed both the English petition and the MIT divestiture petition. She
continues to defend the boycott petition.
Surprisingly, Baruch Kimmerling, in the Department of Sociology at Hebrew
University, did not sign the petition, though he agreed with the reasons
given for having the boycott. He too felt Israel had "committed
unforgettable crimes against the Palestinian people." But "[i]n this
repressive climate, the Israeli academy remains the last bastion of free
thought and free speech." He called upon the "international academic
community to strengthen its connections with the Israeli and Palestinian
academic communities, in order to empower their autonomy and freedom."
Reinhart reacted strongly. A dedicated purist, she wants a full-scale
boycott. Israel should be shunned, because, in her view, it practices
apartheid.
Last November, she, together with Rachel Giora, another Israeli linguist,
started an action advocating that the city of Ann Arbor divest itself of
Israeli investments (palestine-pmc website, 18-11-2001). The Michigan group
also advocates economic sanctions against Israel because
After six months of relentless military oppression of Palestinians in the
Israeli-occupied territories, the government of Israel has made daily life
even more intolerable for the Palestinians by imposing a physical siege on
their villages and towns.
Actions by Jews against Israel have intensified. The campaigns on the campus
and the boycott against academics continue. But the language has changed. It
is becoming clear that the objective is no longer to purify Israel, to
maintain her ethics; it's not even to punish her for doing wrong. Now it is
unabashedly to show Solidarity with Palestine. What started years ago as an
intellectual argument between nationalism versus universalism -- with most
of the Israeli academics dedicated to universalism -- has become a simpler
issue: are you for Israeli nationalism or for Palestinian Arab nationalism?
It is as if Superman has stripped off the coverings of his mild-mannered
alter ego and emerged for all to see.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) was started in 1982 in England; they
organize protests, lobby and raise consciousness. A new campaign started on
July 4th, again in England, and concurrently, campaigns have blossomed in
several countries. They are frankly committed to the Arab cause, acting to
nullify the last 50 years since Israel became a state. And Jews are a big
part of the campaign.
In England, they call it the BIG Campaign, a new campaign to boycott Israeli
products and tourism, perhaps modelled after the Michigan effort. Lots of
Arabs signed. Steven Rose signed. Tanya Reinhart signed. They also want to
embargo arms to Israel. The Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign has
joined forces. "Jews who want to disassociate themselves from Israel's war
crimes against the Palestinians and to campaign for a solution to the crisis
based on human rights for all" were invited to contact Donnie Gluckstein of
Edinburgh, who helps run the campaign. In this country, the Palestine
Solidarity Committee of the University of Texas at Austin "affirmed that
every Palestinian has a legitimate, individual right to return to his or her
original home and to absolute restitution of his or her property." Most of
the signatures were Arab. Noam Chomsky signed. And so did Norman Finklestein
and Ilan Pappe.
Pappe, a professor of political science at Haifa University and a member of
the Jewish-Arab Democratic Front for Peace and Equality, is facing a hearing
at his University to decide whether or not to expel him. Pappe claims the
University wants to punish him for political reasons, for defending Teddy
Katz, a Master's candidate and peace activist. When the Alexandroni Brigade,
who had fought in Tantura, sued him for libel, Katz admitted to falsifying
evidence to make it appear as if a massacre was committed by Israeli forces
in the coastal village of Tantura during the 1948 War. Later, an internal
Committee of Inquiry at the University found Katz had systematically
misquoted the Arab witnesses he interviewed and taped. But damage has been
done. Many pro-Arab websites are now convinced there was a massacre.
The Israeli academics probably accept the present harm they do Israeli
because it will bring about a future of peace and justice. But what of their
own future?
If the Arabs were to succeed in destroying Israel, would they let their
Jewish helpers live a minute longer than any other Jew? Unlikely. Even now,
the terrorists are notorious for their indiscriminate attacks; they don't
seem to be trying very hard to avoid injuring any particular group. So
wearing some kind of ID badge won't help these Jewish Arab-aiders.
Their European and American colleagues may appreciate the selfless efforts
of this group of Israeli academics and may even be inspired to work harder
for the Palestinian cause. But the more their buddies emulate them, the
worse off these Israelis will be -- they will be without intellectual
communications and will have less money to do research.
They can't turn to the majority of the Israelis. They may see their freedom
of expression as the central concern. They may see it as their right to
muzzle Israeli scientists and scholars. They may feel good keeping Israeli
products off the market. Less ideological Israelis know they do Israel
damage. They jeopardize jobs. They are not worthy of respect.
So what is the future for these universalists? What will become of these
benighted academics? Does anyone really care?