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.
Signatures
Elsa Auerbach, Professor Emerita of English and Applied Linguistics, University of Massachusetts Boston
Hagit Borer, Professor of Linguistics, Queen Mary University of London, FLSA, FBA, MIT Alumna
Joyce Bruhn de Garavito, Emerita Professor of Hispanic Studies and Linguistics, University of Western Ontario
Anna Cardinaletti, Professore di Linguistica, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia
Eugenia Casielles, Associate Professor of Spanish & Linguistics, Wayne State University
Lisa Cheng, Professor of General Linguistics, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
Hamida Demirdache, Professor of Linguistics, Nantes Université/CNRS
Renauld Govain, Professeur de linguistique, Université d’État d’Haïti
Tania Granadillo, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Western Ontario
David Heap, Associate Professor, French & Linguistics, University of Western Ontario
Jeffrey Heinz, Professor of Linguistics, University of Stony Brook
Anders Holmberg, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Newcastle University
Uri Horesh, Linguist, Lecturer in Arabic, University of St. Andrews
Draško Kašćelan, Lecturer in Language and Communication Sciences, University of Essex
Stephanie Kelly, Assistant Professor (retired), Linguistics, University of Western Ontario
Asher (Robert) Kirchner, Associate Professor of Linguistics (retired), University of Alberta
Jo Anne Kleifgen, Professor Emerita, Linguistics and Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
Utpal Lahiri, Associate Professor of Linguistics & Contemporary English, the English and Foreign Languages University
Rita Manzini, Professor of Linguistics, University of Florence
Máire Noonan, Chargée de cours in Linguistics, Université de Montréal
Phoevos Panagiotidis, Professor of Theoretical Linguistics, University of Cyprus
Karen Pennesi, Associate Professor of Anthropology & Linguistics, University of Western Ontario
Pierre Pica, Associated Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte / CNRS
Glyne Piggott, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics, McGill University
Philippe Prévost, Professor of Linguistics, Université de Tours
Ljiljana Provogac, Professor of Linguistics, Wayne State University
Janet Randall, Professor Emerita, Linguistics & English, Northeastern University
John Rickford, Professor of Linguistics and the Humanities, Stanford University
Anna Roussou, Professor of Linguistics, University of Patras, Greece
Isabelle Roy, Professeure en Sciences du Langage, Université de Nantes
Ur Shlonsky, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Université de Genève
Rint Sybesma, Professor of Chinese Linguistics, Universiteit Leiden
Jeff Tennant, Associate Professor, French Studies & Linguistics, University of Western Ontario
Arhonto Terzi, Professor of Linguistics, University of Patras
Esther Torrego, Professor Emerita, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Laurie Tuller, Professor Emerita of Linguistics, Université de Tours
Guido Vanden Wyngaerd, Professor of Linguistics, KU Leuven
Georges Daniel Véronique, Professor Emeritus of French Linguistics and Creole Studies, Aix Marseille Université
Eric Wehrli, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Université de Genève
Walter Wolfram, Endowed Professor of Linguistics, Department of English, North Carolina State University
Dear colleagues,
ReplyDeleteI read the letter you have been circulating with great sadness. At dire times such as ours, likeminded people should get together, rather than contribute to division, disarray, chaos, and confusion. I trust that the intentions of each and every one of you are good. Nevertheless, the result is a letter that is, sadly, morally wrong. Perhaps less important to some is that it threatens to split an already weakened linguistic community.
As my national identity is obvious (Israeli), let me clear the air by displaying some of my credentials for those who do not know me: I have long been part of a struggle for Palestinian rights and liberation, against the Israeli occupation, and a free Palestine. By long I mean 5 decades. The tragic attack and violent crimes of October 7, 2023, and their terrible aftermath in both Gaza and the West Bank have not changed my position. Nor has my view on the importance of free speech, in and out of campus, changed.
With that in mind, I’d like to discuss your letter in conjunction with the petition which calls on MIT to reinstate Professor Michel DeGraff at the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Both the letter and the petition suggest that his removal is discriminatory, and is due to his support of Palestinian freedom. The petition, moreover, endorses DeGraff’s perspective on the events that led to the current situation. Both documents amount to a scathing critique of the conduct of MIT’s Linguistics Department and its members, and especially its head, Professor Danny Fox (an Israeli like me).
(comment split into two parts, as it was deemed to be too long)
Is your support of DeGraff’s claims, and subsequent critique of MIT, justified? At stake are the putative rights of a colleague, and the rights of faculty members of a leading linguistics department and especially its head, who is singled out and mentioned by name. As there are two opposing parties – all of whom are linguists – colleagues must weigh the evidence carefully.
ReplyDeleteAs scientists, we know that such weighting must be determined on evidence.
All of you are scientists. Indeed, your letter acknowledges the multitude of events, published materials, as well as email exchanges that have been publicized by Professor DeGraff. But surprisingly, you chose to “abstract away from all these,” where in truth, you ended up passing a judgment on cherry-picked pieces of the material you examined.
To me, the result is a conclusion that is unsupported by the available factual record, and hence wrong. Moreover, its consequences are divisive, anti-collegial, and dangerous.
I believe that like you, I have not been made privy to much of the information of what really happened at MIT, and can only rely on the available written record. But three critical points – which are at the heart of your letter – are beyond dispute, and they speak strongly against the view you have espoused:
1. While Professor DeGraff may be viewed as an expert on the “Weaponization of Language”, he is indisputably not an expert on the Middle East, Palestine, and/or Israel, nor does he have any record of publishing on the region or on any of its languages.
2. The available correspondence critically shows that Professor DeGraff had been reluctant to meet his colleagues to discuss his course, despite their multiple requests.
3. DeGraff repeatedly mentions a tense meeting he had with his Department Head, Professor Danny Fox. While his perspective (or rather, different versions thereof) has been echoed time and again, Fox never offered his own account of that event. One needn’t be a logician to realize that this asymmetry gives no ground to a conclusion, contrary to what your letter insinuates.
So what is left of the evidence you cite? Not much by way of facts, I’m afraid. I am sure that all of you meant well, but as I said, the letter you signed levels an unsupported attack at MIT, its Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, its faculty members, and especially the Department Head. In addition, and as noted, your move spells danger to the cohesion of our already fragmented field. The weakness of its empirical foundation, moreover, carries the risk of enhancing elements that seek to curb free speech on US campuses and elsewhere. I thus strongly urge you to withdraw this unjust letter.
All the best, Yosef Grodzinsky (Hebrew University, Forschungszentrum Jülich)
Dear colleagues,
ReplyDeleteI read the letter you have been circulating with great sadness. At dire times such as ours, likeminded people should get together, rather than contribute to division, disarray, chaos, and confusion. I trust that the intentions of each and every one of you are good. Nevertheless, the result is a letter that is, sadly, morally wrong. Perhaps less important to some is that it threatens to split an already weakened linguistic community.
As my national identity is obvious (Israeli), let me clear the air by displaying some of my credentials for those who do not know me: I have long been part of a struggle for Palestinian rights and liberation, against the Israeli occupation, and a free Palestine. By long I mean 5 decades. The tragic attack and violent crimes of October 7, 2023, and their terrible aftermath in both Gaza and the West Bank have not changed my position. Nor has my view on the importance of free speech, in and out of campus, changed.
With that in mind, I’d like to discuss your letter in conjunction with the petition which calls on MIT to reinstate Professor Michel DeGraff at the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Both the letter and the petition suggest that his removal is discriminatory, and is due to his support of Palestinian freedom. The petition, moreover, endorses DeGraff’s perspective on the events that led to the current situation. Both documents amount to a scathing critique of the conduct of MIT’s Linguistics Department and its members, and especially its head, Professor Danny Fox (an Israeli like me).
Is your support of DeGraff’s claims, and subsequent critique of MIT, justified? (NOTE: COMMENT SPLIT AS IT WAS DEEMED TO BE TOO LONG)
At stake are the putative rights of a colleague, and the rights of faculty members of a leading linguistics department and especially its head, who is singled out and mentioned by name. As there are two opposing parties – all of whom are linguists – colleagues must weigh the evidence carefully.
ReplyDeleteAs scientists, we know that such weighting must be determined on evidence.
All of you are scientists. Indeed, your letter acknowledges the multitude of events, published materials, as well as email exchanges that have been publicized by Professor DeGraff. But surprisingly, you chose to “abstract away from all these,” where in truth, you ended up passing a judgment on cherry-picked pieces of the material you examined.
To me, the result is a conclusion that is unsupported by the available factual record, and hence wrong. Moreover, its consequences are divisive, anti-collegial, and dangerous.
I believe that like you, I have not been made privy to much of the information of what really happened at MIT, and can only rely on the available written record. But three critical points – which are at the heart of your letter – are beyond dispute, and they speak strongly against the view you have espoused:
1. While Professor DeGraff may be viewed as an expert on the “Weaponization of Language”, he is indisputably not an expert on the Middle East, Palestine, and/or Israel, nor does he have any record of publishing on the region or on any of its languages.
2. The available correspondence critically shows that Professor DeGraff had been reluctant to meet his colleagues to discuss his course, despite their multiple requests.
3. DeGraff repeatedly mentions a tense meeting he had with his Department Head, Professor Danny Fox. While his perspective (or rather, different versions thereof) has been echoed time and again, Fox never offered his own account of that event. One needn’t be a logician to realize that this asymmetry gives no ground to a conclusion, contrary to what your letter insinuates.
So what is left of the evidence you cite? Not much by way of facts, I’m afraid. I am sure that all of you meant well, but as I said, the letter you signed levels an unsupported attack at MIT, its Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, its faculty members, and especially the Department Head. In addition, and as noted, your move spells danger to the cohesion of our already fragmented field. The weakness of its empirical foundation, moreover, carries the risk of enhancing elements that seek to curb free speech on US campuses and elsewhere. I thus strongly urge you to withdraw this unjust letter.
All the best, Yosef Grodzinsky (Hebrew University, Forschungszentrum Jülich)
Below is Yosef Grodzinsky's reply to the letter. Part 1:
ReplyDeleteDear colleagues,
I read the letter you have been circulating with great sadness. At dire times such as ours, likeminded people should get together, rather than contribute to division, disarray, chaos, and confusion. I trust that the intentions of each and every one of you are good. Nevertheless, the result is a letter that is, sadly, morally wrong. Perhaps less important to some is that it threatens to split an already weakened linguistic community.
As my Israeli national identity is obvious, let me clear the air by displaying some of my credentials for those who do not know me: I have long been part of a struggle for Palestinian rights and liberation, against the Israeli occupation, and a free Palestine. By long I mean 5 decades. The tragic attack and violent crimes of October 7, 2023, and their terrible aftermath in both Gaza and the West Bank have not changed my position. Nor has my views changed on the importance of free speech in and out of campus.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, I’d like to discuss your letter, in conjunction with the petition which calls on MIT to reinstate Professor Michel DeGraff at the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Both the letter and the petition suggest that his removal is discriminatory, and is due to his support of Palestinian freedom. The petition, moreover, endorses DeGraff’s perspective on the events that led to the current situation. Both documents amount to a scathing critique of the conduct of MIT’s Linguistics Department and its members, and especially its head, Professor Danny Fox (an Israeli like me).
Is your support of DeGraff’s claims, and subsequent critique of MIT, justified? At stake are the putative rights of a colleague, and the rights of faculty members of a leading linguistics department and especially its head, who is singled out and mentioned by name. As there are two opposing parties – all of whom are linguists – colleagues must weigh the evidence carefully. As scientists, we know that such weighting must be determined on evidence.
All of you are scientists. Indeed, your letter acknowledges the multitude of events, published materials, as well as email exchanges that have been publicized by Professor DeGraff. But surprisingly, you chose to “abstract away from all these,” where in truth, you ended up passing a judgment on cherry-picked pieces of the material you examined.
Part 3:
ReplyDeleteTo me, the result is a conclusion that is unsupported by the available factual record, and hence wrong. Moreover, its consequences are divisive, anti-collegial, and dangerous.
I believe that like you, I have not been made privy to much of the information of what really happened at MIT, and can only rely on the available written record. But three critical points – which are at the heart of your letter – are beyond dispute, and they speak strongly against the view you have espoused:
1. While Professor DeGraff may be viewed as an expert on the “Weaponization of Language”, he is indisputably not an expert on the Middle East, Palestine, and/or Israel, nor does he have any record of publishing on the region or on any of its languages.
2. The available correspondence critically shows that Professor DeGraff had been reluctant to meet his colleagues to discuss his course, despite their multiple requests.
3. DeGraff repeatedly mentions a tense meeting he had with his Department Head, Professor Danny Fox. While his perspective (or rather, different versions thereof) has been echoed time and again, Fox never offered his own account of that event. One needn’t be a logician to realize that this asymmetry gives no ground to a conclusion, contrary to what your letter insinuates.
So what is left of the evidence you cite? Not much by way of facts, I’m afraid. I am sure that all of you meant well, but as I said, the letter you signed levels an unsupported attack at MIT, its Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, its faculty members, and especially the Department Head. In addition, and as noted, your move spells danger to the cohesion of our already fragmented field. The weakness of its empirical foundation, moreover, carries the risk of enhancing elements that seek to curb free speech on US campuses and elsewhere. I thus strongly urge you to withdraw this unjust letter.
Best,
Yosef Grodzinsky
A few articles on the larger context:
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1ETSnOnabRuIek9aDxrgH038Ow6yKkSER/view?usp=sharing
https://thetech.com/2024/08/22/degraff-linguistics-for-domination
https://mondediplo.com/outside-in/mit-gaza
https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/06/13/duty-understand-weaponization-language-opinion
https://www.newsweek.com/i-born-raised-haiti-rhetoric-trump-vance-dark-places-1958995
https://sampan.org/2024/boston/palestine-is-the-new-vietnam-says-mit-linguistics-professor-degraff/
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/11/23/massachusetts-institute-of-technology-is-targeting-pro-palestine-student-and-faculty/
https://electronicintifada.net/content/how-research-mit-abets-israels-genocide-gaza/50250
https://youtu.be/O194r5IS3ms
(second comment deleted by request).
ReplyDelete