<![CDATA[
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
"I am ready to give H.R. 3077 a chance. But should the board not come
<br>into existence or fail to make a difference, I'll advocate the better
<br>solution - defunding - and work to spread these ideas among the public
<br>and in Congress. My opponents will then learn what happens when truly I
<br>am "actively pushing" for Congress to adopt a measure.." DANIEL PIPES
<br>
<br>The New York Sun
<br>February 24, 2004 Tuesday
<br>
<br>SECTION: FOREIGN; Pg. 7
<br>HEADLINE: Defund Middle East Studies
<br>BYLINE: DANIEL PIPES
<br>
<br>Here's a prime example, one that involves me personally, of how the
<br>radical Left and the Islamists, those new best friends, readily deceive.
<br>
<br>It has to do with a proposed piece of U.S. legislation passed by the
<br>House, the "International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003,"
<br>known familiarly as H.R. 3077, and awaiting action by the Senate. H.R.
<br>3077 calls for the creation of an advisory board to review the way in
<br>which roughly $100 million in
<br>taxpayer money is spent annually on area studies, including Middle East
<br>studies, at the university level.
<br>
<br>This board is needed for two reasons: Middle East studies are a failed
<br>field and the academics who consume these funds also happen to allocate
<br>them - a classic case of unaccountability. The purpose of this subsidy,
<br>which Congress increased by 26% after 9/11, is to help the American
<br>government with exotic
<br>language and cultural skills. Yet many universities reject this role,
<br>dismissing it as training "spies."
<br>
<br>Martin Kramer pointed to the need for Congressional intervention in his
<br>2001 book, "Ivory Towers on Sand." Stanley Kurtz picked up the idea and
<br>made it happen in Washington, testifying at a key House hearing in June
<br>2003.
<br>
<br>My role in promoting this advisory board? Writing one favorable sentence
<br>on it eight months ago, based on an expectation that the board creates
<br>some accountability and helps Congress carry out its own intent. While
<br>hoping the Senate passes H.R. 3077, I have otherwise done nothing to
<br>praise or lobby for
<br>this bill.
<br>
<br>Well, that's the record. But why should mere facts get in the way?
<br>Seemingly convinced that turning H.R. 3077 into my personal initiative
<br>will help defeat it in the Senate, leftist and Islamist organizations
<br>have imaginatively puffed up my role.
<br>
<br>* The American Civil Liberties Union accuses me of "enlisting the aid of
<br>the government" to impose my views on academia.
<br>
<br>* The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee titles its alert
<br>"Academic Freedom Under Attack by
<br>Pipes and Big Brother."
<br>
<br>* The Council on American-Islamic Relations states that I am "actively
<br>pushing" for the advisory board.
<br>
<br>This deception prompted campus newspapers - for example, at Columbia,
<br>CUNY, Swarthmore, and Yale - to link me to the bill, as have city
<br>newspapers such as the Berkshire Eagle and the Oregonian, Web sites, and
<br>listservs.
<br>
<br>What these folks missed is my skepticism about the advisory board's
<br>potential to make a major difference. It is important symbolically and
<br>it can throw light on problems. But odds are it won't be able thoroughly
<br>to solve them.
<br>
<br>I say this because unlike comparable federal boards, this one has only
<br>advisory, not supervisory, powers. It also has limited authority, being
<br>specifically prohibited from considering curricula. Professors can teach
<br>politically one-sided courses, for example, without funding
<br>consequences. More broadly, such
<br>federal boards generally do too little. I have sat on two other ones and
<br>find them cumbersome bureaucratic mechanisms with limited impact.
<br>
<br>Will a new board improve things? Sure. But Congress should consider more
<br>drastic solutions. One would be to revoke post-9/11's $20 million annual
<br>supplement for area studies at universities, using this money instead to
<br>establish national resource centers to focus on the global war on
<br>terror. They would usefully combine area expertise with a focus on
<br>militant Islam.
<br>
<br>A second solution would zero-out all government allocations for area
<br>studies. This step would barely affect the study of foreign cultures at
<br>universities, as the $100 million in federal money amounts to just 10%
<br>of the budget at most major centers, funds those centers could
<br>undoubtedly raise from private sources. But doing this would send the
<br>salutary message that the American taxpayer no longer wishes to pay for
<br>substandard work.
<br>
<br>Either step would encourage younger scholars to retool in an effort to
<br>regain public trust and reopen the public purse.
<br>
<br>If the advisory board is not the ideal solution, it is the best to be
<br>hoped for at the moment, given the power of the higher-education lobby.
<br>I am ready to give H.R. 3077 a chance. But should the board not come
<br>into existence or fail to make a difference, I'll advocate the better
<br>solution - defunding - and work to spread these ideas among the public
<br>and in Congress. My opponents will then learn what happens when truly I
<br>am "actively pushing" for Congress to adopt a measure.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> <b on></b><!-- 1943 -->
</body>
]]>