Professor Haley: Mistaken on Annapolis Part 2

By contrast, Hamas, which seeks the elimination of Israel and the emergence of an Islamic state, does not have any interest in stopping the violence. Iran, which seeks the elimination of Israel and the spread of Shia Islam, does not have any interest in stopping the violence. Therefore both extremist parties must be marginalized for the peace process to continue. Implicitly, everyone present recognizes that assumption.

We have interests and our interests were well-served by bringing together these disparate groups together. If the Saudis, who have been bankrolling international terrorism, can be present at a historic, high-level contact, there might be a chance for peace after all.

Let’s deconstruct Haley’s argument, though.

He writes that the Bush Administration’s effort to isolate Hezbollah and Hamas will ultimately fail because it ignores the growing ties between Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran. How he makes the claim that there is growing support for Iran in Palestine and Lebanon is not made clear. Perhaps that’s because in Lebanon, at least, there isn’t much support at all.

If it were true that Lebanon so loves Teheran, how can Haley explain the assassinations of Rafik Hariri at the hands of Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah? Hariri was popular and Professor Haley mistakes the national Stockholm syndrome in Lebanon as some type of support for Iran at his own peril.

While it’s true that many Lebanese demonstrated in support of Hezbollah in the War of 2006, many did so because they were threatened by the state-like Hezbollah, whose Iranian-funded tentacles, provide schools and hospitals only to those that attend the rallies. This is coercion, not support.

Hezbollah, which used human-shields during the war, prohibited the Lebanese from fleeing at the barrel of a gun. They also, with the help of Syria, assassinated four anti-Syrian politicians. The recent sham election of Michel Suleiman indicates the power of fear within the Lebanese parliament, not a resounding love of Iran.

Similarly, Iran’s denial of the Holocaust and funneling of money to Hamas and other terrorist groups through intermediaries is not necessarily a win for Iran over the Palestinian people. Indeed, as we’ve seen in the past, Hamas will take money from anyone that will provide it. That some Palestinians like Hezbollah and by proxy, Iran, for the War in 2006 is not indicative of some growing support for Hezbollah. The Palestinians in Gaza in particular have concluded that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. But this calculus will ebb when Iran provides little in the way of real services.

Annapolis was never about making Iran cooperate in the peace process. What it was about was bringing the Palestinians and the other Arab nations together to talk about Israel and the future Palestine. If the Palestinian Authority pledges to end terrorism and Israel can stop the Gaza strip from getting access to Iranian weapons, then whether or not Iran supports the peace developments are irrelevant. Iran can play the role of “wicked fairy” all it wants. It isn’t going to change anything on the ground.

As Ambassador Kurtzer mentioned, this effort to isolate Iran has been somewhat successful. Syria, weary of the growing Iranian influence, may be prepared to make peace with Israel over the Golan Heights and Lebanon. That peace will also serve to isolate Iran.

On a final point, Professor Haley suggests that the Israeli "politicians intend to seize large parts of the West Bank and call it peace" because Israel's "system of proportional representation paralyzes diplomacy by handing control over major initiatives to the most militant and narrow members of its perennial coalitions" . How he can make such an accusation is news to me. Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians 97% of the West Bank in exchange for peace.

This claim has no basis in fact. I challenge Professor Haley to provide any evidence for it. For starters, virtually every single Israeli government has supported a dismantling of the settlements with the reassurance that the Palestine Authority will end terrorism.

Professor Haley: Mistaken on Annapolis Part I

I have been following the recent developments in Annapolis with the utmost attention. On Wednesday, I attended the Ath lecture of Daniel Kurtzer, a former diplomat who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel (2001-2005) and as the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001). He spoke on the Annapolis-Peace Process.

On Thursday night, I saw my old boss, Alan Dershowitz, speak at UC Irvine - also on the Annapolis-Peace Process.

I am just about all peace processed out, but no matter. I still have it in me to take on Professor Haley’s latest diatribe, which ran in today’s San Francisco Chronicle. The piece is largely an outgrowth of Ambassador Kurtzer’s talk. For those familiar with the talk, there is nothing new under the sun.

For those of you who don’t know, the meeting of Ehud Olmert of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, and President Bush constitutes nothing short of a historic meeting between enemies. Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to a treaty by 2008. Assuming both sides keep their side of the deal, I see no reason why this isn’t a case for cautious optimism.

As The New York Times reported, over 49 countries were present. Some of the very people present were the Saudis, who clapped after hearing Olmert’s speech, and whose presence was ignored by Professor Haley.

The reason he ignores the Saudis and the dozens of other countries is that he needs this debate to be about the U.S. imperial influence or some such hogwash. That portrait just isn’t accurate. The reason so many nations are present is because each of those nations has a viable interest in the end of the violence. Parties which seek the continuation of violence should not be invited.

Professor Haley has insisted that this meeting is just a meeting of “friends.” I would hardly call the Saudis “our friends.” Indeed, I would dispute the notion that nations have “friends.” We aren’t friends with the Palestinian Authority, but we do recognize their role in stopping the violence. We have a legitimate interest in stopping the violence and so too does the Palestinian Authority. That is why they are at the table. Even the Syrians recognize they have something to gain.

Why The Ath Should Change Its Video Policy

I spoke with the head of the Athenaeum's speaker program about the policy vis a vis videos of speakers. Apparently a team of Claremont McKenna lawyers drafted the policy that allows speakers to edit videos or stop them from going up on the website. As I understand the policy, it is opt in, so if a speaker declines to make a decision, his video does not go up. This policy needs to change for the following reasons.

As I commented earlier, this policy allowed Bono to ban recording equipment from Bridges Auditorium. I think that's a shame. It certainly makes you wonder if speakers really believed in their message, wouldn't they want to shout it from the rooftops? Many of the speakers would be inclined to just let us put up the video on the website, but when we show up with a form, they grow skittish. Whenever I see a form, even when as innocuous as a release form, even I find myself asking whether or not I should consult with an attorney.

While we're on the subject, though, even speakers that have allowed Claremont McKenna to post their speeches haven't had them go up on the Athenaeum website. I have gone and looked on the website countless times to try and catch speakers that I have missed and it isn't uploaded!

If Claremont McKenna would allow us, the students, to put the videos up on YouTube.com, we could really do the school a tremendous service. Many of us own video camera and would do it for free. If quality were an issue, I'm sure the school could hire a media studies major relatively cheaply. (Poor Media Studies, that's probably one of the few paying jobs they'll ever get...)

For starters, very political students tend to love YouTubing their favorite politicians or law professors. In turn, when they see our name attached with those speakers, we can win prospective students through the use of our speaker programs.

A big reason I came to Claremont McKenna was due to the videos I found on the Athenaeum from John Yoo, Akhil Amar, and Claudia Rosett. I then went to look for other videos -- only to find that none of the ones from the previous semesters were available. We can use the speakers to attract interest in Claremont McKenna. We would no doubt increase our name-recognition if parents and prospective students saw the kinds of high profile speakers we've been bringing to Claremont.

Now I confess to have a selfish ulterior motive for the Athenaeum putting videos online.
I wouldn't have to buy a camera and do it myself! It sure would make blogging easier...

We all know that YouTube is the future. Indeed Pitzer College seems to have gotten the message. Though I'll no doubt be posting a reply critical of the way the class is constructed -- it doesn't use the dynamic media of video in the way that the course was initially billed-- I can't help but feel that Pitzer scored a significant P.R. point. They certainly made the news media and entered into the blogosphere. The class and the college was profiled in The Boston Globe in September and the influential blog, TechCrunch, gave its due (even if they mostly ripped into it!) Complete with a video press release, Pitzer certainly seems like it's entering the 21st century. (If only the students didn't smell as if they were from the 14th!)

In any event, it's time to reevaluate the policy.

Grade Inflation at Harvey Mudd? Say It Isn't So!

The Muddraker finally came out at Harvey Mudd College and the front page story above the fold is the unfortunate truth that Harvey Mudd College has been inflating the grades.

The chart indicates a rise of two-tenths of a percent. In 1990, the average GPA of graduating seniors was between a 3.1 and a 3.2. In 2007, Dean of Students Jeanne Noda reported that the new median GPA for graduating seniors is a 3.4.

(My apologies for no link, but it seems that Mudders, intoxicated no doubt by Everclear and quantum mechanics, have not made the transition to putting their issues online.)

Now to be fair, that media GPA of graduating seniors is still significantly lower than their counterparts at Harvard, M.I.T. and elsewhere. Kudos to Harvey Mudd College for tackling what once was a selling point by providing a realistic revision of the average GPA of graduating seniors.

Now what could account for that rising GPA?

While Ben Keller HMC '10 and author of the piece believes its due to pushing back the drop date for hard classes and to increased student hand-holding, I have my doubts. He cites Dean Noda, who believes as most observers of grade inflation do, that students are just smarter now than they were before. Keller may be right, but I'm skeptical.

I find it hard to believe that there was some sort of quantum leap (yes, Mudders, I too have an inner geek) in student performance since 1990.

My own theory is akin to another Harvey's -- Harvey Mansfield that is, who believes that the reason for Harvard's rising GPA is due to affirmative action. The way affirmative grading works is that professors give minority students, oftentimes unprepared for college work, higher grades than they deserve. To cover for that obviously misguided grading, they also inflate the grades of white and Asian students.

(At my old prep school, we had a similar problem. As one teacher confessed to me, any student who spoke English as a second language received no lower than a B for a writing assignment. Though I wanted to write it in the school newspaper, she wouldn't go on record and my Board overruled me. Alas.)

We know that the current HMC President Maria Klawe openly supports affirmative action for blacks, Latinos, and especially women. Might her predecessors have also supported those same increases and might affirmative action be behind that grade inflation?