A clarification by five signatories of the open letter: Why we as linguists support the Block the Ban at MIT petition

 A clarification by five signatories of the open letter 

Why we as linguists support the Block the Ban at MIT petition

We represent our own views, which the other 35 signatories of the letter, circulated originally on 23 December 2024, may or may not share.

In the days that have passed since the open letter was circulated, there have been various questions about the information it contains that we wish to comment on:

• Everything in the open letter is based on correspondence between Michel DeGraff and members of the Linguistics Department between 5 December 2023, when DeGraff first submitted his Special Topics course for approval, and 19 July 2024, when the Department finally rejected it.  That correspondence is in the public domain, through links in DeGraff's article published in The Tech on Aug 22, 2024 and can be accessed by all (here and here).

• The open letter takes under consideration only statements that were confirmed by the Linguistics faculty. For example, we do not refer to the content of the 'heated disagreement' between Fox and DeGraff, on which we have only one perspective.  That there was a disagreement, however, is mentioned by both sides.

• We urge anyone interested to please look at the entire correspondence [see the two links above]. You will see that the Linguistics Department dragged Michel DeGraff through the course approval process for 7 months, initially expressing reservations about its content based on the title alone, and that their reasons for rejecting it seem to have emerged impromptu over time. You will learn that some months into this process (on 6 March 2024), the Department voted to adopt a new course approval procedure, and followed that by appointing (on 8 May 2024) an ad hoc review committee which rejected DeGraff's proposal. Apparently never before has MIT Linguistics used an ad hoc course review committee nor rejected a Special Topics course proposal.

• No pre-existing course approval criteria are available in the correspondence record. The justifications for refusing DeGraff's course seem, to say the least, unprecedented; some include challenges to DeGraff's knowledge of his own research topics and even of basic linguistics. 

• One member of the ad hoc committee explained the unprecedented review as a need to exercise caution in the current political climate. While we understand the concern, it is neither an academic nor a scholarly reason for course approval. The Palestine Exception is repression, whether enacted by a hostile authority or by colleagues seeking to defend themselves from one.  

After the course was finally rejected on 19 July 2024, there was an appeal and negotiations with both the Department and the Dean which led to additional punitive actions against DeGraff. Since these are separate from the course approval process, the open letter did not address them. 

We stand by the conclusion in the open letter that the rejection of DeGraff's course is an example of the Palestine Exception. We once again urge our colleagues to sign and share the Block the Ban Petition and to oppose the Palestine Exception wherever they encounter it. 

Hagit Borer, Queen Mary University of London

David Heap, University of Western Ontario

Máire Noonan, Université de Montréal

Janet Randall, Northeastern University 

Ur Shlonsky, Université de Genève

Why we as linguists support the Block the Ban at MIT petition

 December 23, 2024

Why we as linguists support the Block the Ban at MIT petition

The petition linked here is in support of Prahlad Iyengar, a 2nd year Ph.D. student at MIT, and Professor Michel DeGraff of the MIT Linguistics department. 

We take support for Prahlad Iyengar to be straightforward, his rights of freedom of speech having been blatantly violated (see here).

Support for Professor DeGraff has become less straightforward, however, due to massive back and forth correspondence made public, extensive published material, and personalized accusations, which have shifted the focus away from the core of the matter to issues of procedure, questions of appropriate and inappropriate speech, and others. In considering whether to support DeGraff and sign the Block the Ban at MIT petition, we made every effort to abstract away from all this, and determine, based on the evidence available to us, whether denying DeGraff’s request to teach a Linguistics Department Special Topics seminar entitled Decolonization & Liberation Struggles in Haiti, Palestine & Israel, is a case of the Palestine Exception.

We have come to believe that it is, since we can otherwise make no sense of why MIT Linguistics would decide to reject this course. We also believe that this decision provides another example of the systematic suppression of free speech on matters of Palestinian rights and the ongoing genocide in Gaza, suppression that would be unthinkable in other cases of oppression, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in the US and abroad.

DeGraff’s competence to teach this seminar has been questioned, as he supposedly lacks expertise on the “weaponization of language”. This is false: 

• he has taught similar classes at the interface of linguistics and the politics of privilege, e.g. here and here,

• he has published extensively on “the weaponization of language”: how language is used for societal oppression and racialization in places where Creole languages are spoken and in movements elsewhere, including in #BlackLivesMatter. Some representative examples of this published scholarly and outreach work are here, here, here, here and here.

DeGraff’s course content has also come under extraordinary scrutiny:

• An Ad Hoc Review Committee was brought in to review his seminar, a first in the Linguistics Department, as far as we know.

• His course format has been challenged based on (1) the number of invited speakers, (2) a syllabus with some details still to be filled in, (3) his content area falling outside the department's regular curriculum. However, if (1) and (2) were compelling reasons to reject a course, then other Linguistics Department courses should also have been rejected, but were not (see here and here.) And (3) is also not a valid reason to reject the course, since BY DEFINITION Special Topics seminars fall outside a department’s regular curriculum.

We find the questioning of DeGraff’s expertise in the face of his accomplishments demeaning and condescending; the exaggerated scrutiny that the Department has given his course is disingenuous. And these actions have a particular irony given the praise he has received by the department, not only for his scholarship but also for his activism:

In 2022, DeGraff was elected as a fellow of the Linguistics Society of America (LSA), which Professor Fox celebrated, “It is good to see a professional organization like the LSA promoting scientists not just for their research, but also for the kind of activism that might accompany it: battling prevalent misconceptions about the nature of the world, identifying their detrimental consequences, and fighting for change. Michel has been involved in all these activities,” (see here). 

DeGraff’s course exactly answers the call to linguists by John Rickford in his 2016 LSA keynote address: “more of us need to get out of our offices, labs, or libraries and make a difference in the world.” (Rickford and King, 2016). 

Finally, we also fail to understand why Professor Fox, Chair of Linguistics, did not recuse himself from the Ad Hoc Review Committee after heated disagreements between him and Professor DeGraff on matters relating to the politics of the Middle East (reported by DeGraff, not denied by Fox).

In conclusion, we believe that preventing DeGraff from teaching this course was indeed a case of a Palestine Exception. It is for this reason that we have signed Block the Ban petition and we call on more members of the linguistics community (as well as academia in general) to step forward in support of Michel DeGraff’s academic rights and dignity.

Signed by 40 linguists from 28 universities in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, France, Greece, Haiti, Italy, India, Netherlands, Switzerland, USA and UK. 

Re: Not too late (...to build a better world -- or is it?): An open letter to the federal NDP

 An open letter to the federal NDP...

NDP Headquarters <info@ndp.ca>,  Anne.McGrath@ndp.ca,  Dave.Hare@ndp.caPaul Dewar <paul.dewar.p9@parl.gc.ca>, thomas.mulcair.p9@parl.gc.ca

Dear Dave, Ann, Paul, Tom,

Your fundraising messages have been coming thick & fast recently, but in case you haven’t noticed, many people aren’t donating so much to the NDP of late, for a variety of reasons. For many of us, it is hard to hear your persistent call for cash these days over the weeping of mothers and fathers of the Jabaliya camp in Gaza whose children were killed in the recent Israeli shelling of the UNWRA school where they had been told to go for safe refuge. 

I am among the growing number of Canadian voters who would like to support a party in parliament that stands clearly for human rights and international law, but can’t find one. For a bunch of reasons, both personal and political, it would be great if that party were the NDP. But right now the NDP is not rising to the occasion, and frankly, time is running out for your party to take a principled stand. Your latest fundraising message says “the clock is ticking”, and I agree: the time to take a stand for international law is now!

We all know that many of your MPs have strong, principled positions but are not able to speak their consciences fully on the subject of Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians, especially in Gaza. At times like these, that imposed collective silence seems a lot like complicity with war crimes. This eerie caucus uniformity is all the more troubling when MPs from the UK Labour Party (together with members from the Conservative-Liberal-Democratic government coalition) are able to speak their conscience freely and name Israeli aggression for what we all know it is. Similarly in Australia, Labour MPs have spoken out along with Green Party and independent MPs, and many social-democratic parties in Europe and elsewhere allow elected representatives to speak out against Israeli attacks on civilians. So by enforcing a single narrow “Israel first-and-only” line on all public statements, you are increasingly isolating the NDP among sister parties. Even some Democratic Party congress reps in the U.S. have gone farther than your party’s MPs are allowed to, at least naming the aggressor the world knows is responsible for the soaring death toll among Palestinians in Gaza.

Your statements about the “conflict” are so detached from reality that you don’t even name who is responsible for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. With the Harper government cheerleading for Israeli war crimes and Trudeau’s Liberals singing back-up, it would be very refreshing to offer concerned Canadian voters a real alternative. Just to be clear: your current silence about war crimes is not an alternative, and false “neutrality“ is not an alternative.  And your repetitive mantra of “Israel’s right to defend itself” is most definitely not an alternative, especially when you never mention the legal responsibilities that go along with that right (i.e. the principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality). Bombing children in a UN school cannot ever be self-defense, under any understanding of international law. And yet you remain silent.

When your caucus labour critic cannot stand with the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux in naming who is the aggressor responsible for so many civilian deaths, the NDP falls out of step with traditional labour allies and working Canadians generally. When your health critic cannot concur publicly with the diagnosis expressed by MDs in the Lancet and by Médecins sans Frontières about attacks on Palestine, then health professionals (among many others) observe seriously worrisome symptoms within the NDP. And when your Human Rights critic cannot take a public position in line with what the International Committee of the Red Cross or Human Rights’ Watch are saying about violations of international law by Israel, then your party loses any remaining shreds of moral credibility at home and abroad.

Canadians need to see real leadership on this issue that names violations of international law for what they are, and calls for the application of the International Criminal Court to Israel. Until then we see such leadership, I will be standing with Canadians of conscience like Voters4Gaza – or sitting in with them, or perhaps even lying down and going limp (as my parents taught me) if necessary.  But right now your failure to call for the application of international law in Israel and Palestine means I cannot support the party I was born into, and the only party I’ve ever voted for, federally or provincially.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said recently that “No individual or state can be considered exempt, if they violate the law.” Will you speak out today in support of the UN Human Rights Commission’s call for an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate the conflict in the occupied Palestinian territories? Will you publicly support her call for accountability, “ensuring that the cycle of human rights violations and impunity is brought to an end.”?

Time is indeed running out.

Sincerely and persistently,

David Heap

London, Ontario

On 31 July 2014 19:19, NDP Headquarters <info@ndp.ca> wrote:

http://www.ndp.ca/not-too-late

please reconsider that CFHU invitation, Jian Ghomeshi

q@cbc.ca,
 jian.ghomeshi@cbc.ca

Dear Jian,
It's been a long time, but I remember marching with you (and many others) in Toronto, against the Gulf War -- the first one, in the early 1990s. Back then we all went to Moxy Früvous gigs around campus, and listened your recordings. When I recently found a way to go back and play old songs we only have on cassette (remember cassettes?) I had an opportunity to explain to my kids that there was a Gulf War before the Gulf War that they knew about marching against.

Last time we heard you perform, it was again your haunting "Gulf War Song" which you sang at the Pete Seeger tribute concert at Massy Hall in Toronto (later in the 1990s). You seemed pretty excited to be on stage with Pete, and we were vicariously proud to see you there too. In 2011 Pete joined the growing number of artists who publicly support the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, which includes the cultural boycott of events that support the Israeli occupation. Like many of your former fans (we listen to your radio show too when we can, but in part because of the music from past decades), I am calling on you to do the same now. We'd be very proud and happy again if you would join Pete and the others in standing up for justice for Palestinians.

This would of course mean turning down the invitation from Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University to appear at their event this week, an event which legitimates many aspects of that occupation.  Awkward to turn down an invitation on such short notice, perhaps -- but nowhere near as "awkward" as the situation of Palestinian students at the Hebrew University. Those students and their federations (remember student federations Jian? unlike cassettes, they are still around) have already written to you in great detail about their conditions, so I will just point out that they (like so many other Palestinians, young and old) do not enjoy the freedoms you and I did as students. Freedoms to march, to perform their music and engage other cultural activities, freedom to their own cultural and political identities, even the freedom to study as they wish.

Those Palestinian students will not win their rights this week or even this year, but as Pete sings in the "Maple Syrup Song" you covered for his 2001 tribute album, anything worthwhile takes a little time. The question is, will you stand with them now?

You have a chance today to side publicly with justice and against oppression, cultural and political. A lot of your fans are hoping you will turn down this invitation, and I am among them.

Sincerely and peacefully,

David Heap
London, Ontario

Palestinians are not "mute" (except in CBC and other Western "news" reporting)

Some ongoing correspondence today about "(im)balance" in CBC "news" reporting.

		CBC Ombudsman <Ombudsman@cbc.ca>
		Jennifer McGuire <Jennifer.McGuire@cbc.ca>

Dear Jennifer McGuire,

Thanks for following up with your second message: I have no record of receiving the first one you mention.

Regarding your contention that the CBC news coverage was balanced, I cannot agree. In fact, the description you provide of The National's coverage proves exactly the point I was making. By your own description, that coverage included:

- words from an Israeli soldier

- words from an Israeli politician

- no words from any Palestinian in Gaza. Zero.

This does not even come close to meeting any objective person's definition of "balance". If all Palestinians were in fact mute or unable to speak English, and there were no interpreters available anywhere to translate for them, this might "explain" the omission of their voices. But we all know that is not the case, so the omission can only be the result of editorial or journalistic decisions.

In addition, the images you describe include:

- scenes of death and destruction in Gaza (with voice from a CBC journalist)

- scenes of an attack in Israel (though we all know these resulted in very few deaths)

- a graphic supplied by the Israeli government (i.e. what most people would call military propaganda) 

- no graphic or other information provided by any Palestinian source.

Again, these clear imbalances in sourcing can only have been the result of deliberate choices at some level, and certainly don't even come close to your stated goal of reporting in "a fair, balanced and even-handed fashion." The attempt to portray damage as somehow "equivalent" on both sides is grotesque, given what is and was widely known about the real death tolls. 

If as you say "allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism," it is inexplicable that no Palestinian voices and no Palestinian-sourced information was included in this report when Palestinian civil society is overflowing with articulate and reliable spokespeople being systematically ignored in your "news". There are many respected and independent sources of information by and from Palestinians in Gaza that you could've used, but chose not to: whether this was a journalist's choice or editorial control is less apparent, but it was definitely the result of choices made. 

Of course, I didn't get to watch The National every night that week, so maybe I missed something. Maybe you did run interviews with spokespeople from the Palestinian Human Rights Centre or Al Mezan Human Rights Centre or the Red Crescent Society for the Gaza Strip or the Gaza Community Mental Health Centre, or with some of the brilliant young Palestinian citizen journalists whose voices from Gaza were heard around the world (eg on CNN), and I just missed those segments. Maybe the imbalance was only apparent: this is an empirical question that is in your power to resolve. Since you have access to the full dataset, perhaps you can correct any misconceptions I might be suffering from here. 

I would therefore respectfully request that you reply with documentation of CBC news for the week of November 14 through 22, 2102 detailing:

- how many segments directly quoted (filmed) Israelis talking about the attack on Gaza, for how long and on what dates.

- how many segments directly quoted (filmed) Palestinians talking about the attack on Gaza, for how long and on what dates.

- how many Israeli sourced images were used (with or without voice-over), for how long.

- how many Palestinian sourced images were used (with or without voice-over), for how long.

When you provide this information, we can have a rational and objective discussion of what "balance" or "imbalance" might look like. I look forward to hearing from you. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 

Sincerely and persistently,

David Heap, Ph.D.

London, Ontario

2013/4/9 Jennifer McGuire <jennifer.mcguire@cbc.ca>

Dear Mr. Heap:  

You wrote last November to Kirk LaPointe, CBC Ombudsman, about our Middle East coverage. (Since then Esther Enkin has replaced Mr. LaPointe as Ombudsman).  I replied to your concerns some 10 days later.  But looking through our records, it's now not clear if that reply was actually sent to you.  If it was, I'm sorry to bother you with this note.  If it wasn't, I offer my sincere apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience.

Sincerely, 

Jennifer McGuire

November 28, 2012

Mr. David Heap

London, Ontario

djheap@uwo.ca

Dear Mr. Heap:

Thank you for your e-mail of November 19 addressed to Kirk LaPointe, CBC Ombudsman, drawing our attention to our November 18^th coverage of the recent Middle East conflict and what you take to be a “shocking imbalance”.  CBC News carried “multiple interviews” with Israelis living with the threat of rockets, you wrote, but “none at all” with people in Gaza where the “real carnage is”.

While I sincerely regret you are disappointed in CBC, I must tell you, respectfully, that your view here is not one I share.

Regrettably, you only referred to a “news report”, so I hope I am correct in assuming you are referring to THE NATIONAL, CBC’s major television news program, widely seen on CBC Television and CBC News Network.  Just to be clear, the program that evening began with a report from Sasa Petricic, CBC News Middle East correspondent, who described events that day – the deadliest so far, he called it – in the escalating conflict between Gaza and Israel.

The report started in Gaza with video of what was a three story building flattened by Israeli missiles.  The video depicted casualties being rushed to the hospital.  Mr. Petricic said there were many, including children, some of whose inert forms were seen in the arms of an adult and on a hospital gurney.  In all some 70 Palestinians had died, he said.  The report included video of explosions and missiles hitting the top floors of a high-rise building in Gaza City, the offices of mostly Arab journalists, Mr. Petricic said.

Then he turned to Israel depicting military equipment moving toward the Gaza border.  An Israeli soldier was seen saying he wanted peace, while Mr. Petricic said a recent survey indicated most Israelis were not so sure, first they wanted an end to the rocket attacks.  He said a rocket had hit an Israeli hospital while the video showed damage in other areas.  He concluded with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talking about the possibility of further escalation.

A brief copy story followed with a graphic demonstrating how Israeli defenses had intercepted rockets heading toward Israeli cities.  In a second report on the program, CBC News Senior Correspondent Terry Milewski looked at the continuing efforts being made toward a ceasefire.   

CBC News has made every effort to tell Canadians about what’s happening in the Middle East in a fair, balanced and even-handed fashion.  As I believe these reports did.  Overall, I think it is fair to say that CBC has broadcast hours of thoughtful, thorough and innovative coverage of this conflict that has offered a wide range of perspectives, perhaps including those closer to yours.

It is CBC’s mandate, part of its obligation under the federal Broadcasting Act, to carry different points of view on controversial matters of public interest and concern like this one.  Indeed, allowing the expression of the widest possible range of views is at the heart of the notion of fairness and balance in journalism.  It is CBC’s obligation to present differing views fairly and accurately affording Canadians the opportunity and the information they need to make up their own minds about the nature or quality of the views expressed.  And I believe we are doing that.

Thank you again for your e-mail.  I hope my reply has reassured you of the continuing integrity of our news service.

It is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC Ombudsman.  The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies.  The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca.

Sincerely,

Jennifer McGuire

General Manager and Editor in Chief,

CBC News and Centres

205 Wellington Street West

Toronto, ON  M5V 3G7

c.c.:      CBC Ombudsman

   

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM, CBC Ombudsman <Ombudsman@cbc.ca> wrote:

Dear Mr. Heap:

I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail.  It is the customary practice of CBC’s Office of the Ombudsman to share complaints with the relevant programmers, who have the right to respond first to criticism of their work.  I have therefore shared your e-mail with Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News.  If you are not satisfied with the response you receive you may ask me to review the matter. 

Programmers are asked to try to respond within twenty working days.

Sincerely,

Kirk LaPointe

CBC Ombudsman

www.cbc.ca/ombudsman

>>> <djheap@uwo.ca> 19/11/12 3:13 AM >>>
yourSubject: shocking imbalance on Gaza
yourAddress: 85 Forward
yourProvince: Ontario
yourPhone: 519 859 3579
yourCity: London
yourComplaint: Your "news" reporting last night (and indeed all weekend and most of the week) was been shockingly imbalanced. You had multiple interviews with people living in Israel under the *threat* of *possible* death by rockets, and none at all with people living (and dying) in Gaza, where the real carnage is.
There are lots of Palestinians living (though many dying) in Gaza: many of them are extremely eloquent and well-spoken. Why no attempt even to contact them, for a semblance of balance at very least?
The indiscriminate terror bombing of Palestinian civilians and Israeli agression are well documented, internationally. Your complicit silence is extremely disturbing, from a Canadian perspective.
yourName: David Heap
yourPO: N6H 1B8
yourEmail: djheap@uwo.ca
yourProgramTV: on

-- 

Jennifer McGuire
General Manager and Editor in Chief,
CBC News and Centres
(416) 205 6654
jennifer.mcguire@cbc.ca

Amanda Pyle
Executive Assistant
(416) 205 6816
amanda.pyle@cbc.ca