More background on the Massad tenure decision(s)

Or, how I almost scooped the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

The following is the result of a pretty thorough investigation of the Massad tenure situation. It was written for Bwog about five months ago, and although they had journalistically legitimate reasons for never posting it (specifically the reliability of the anonymous source, who we now know to have been fundamentally correct, if self-importantly conspiratorial), I think it’s still the one of the most thorough assessments of the Massad controversy to appear anywhere. Of course the bit about Brinkley rigging the Ad Hoc committee can’t possibly be confirmed (although, crucially, it is here offered as a single source’s theory, rather than a conclusion on our part). But our suspicion that the tenure decision was Brinkley’s alone turned out to have been totally correct, as did our suspicion that a decision had already been made by November (to give this a bit of context, that bit in the last paragraph is in reference to the hunger strike).

Last week, Bwog made passing mention of one of the juicer conspiracy theories of late: that provost Alan Brinkley put out a mafia-style hit on MELAC firebrand Joseph Massad. An anonymous source explained it thusly: three years ago, Massad was denied tenure and “promoted” to Associate professor–although this was his signal to get out of Morningside, he stayed on until he was next up for tenure. This year, he was endorsed for tenure by his department, but rejected by an ad hoc committee convened by provost Brinkley–the membership of which is know only to Brinkley and the committee members themselves. According to our source, Brinkley rigged the committee specifically to prevent Massad from getting tenure, although this was a forgone conclusion given the school’s decision not to give Massad tenure three years ago.

The source claims that on the same day Nadia Abu al-Haj was officially given tenure, the ad hoc committee contacted Massad and MEALAC department head Sheldon Pollack, who sent an email to top MEALAC brass encouraging them to vehemently fight the decision. The email was leaked to about a half-dozen people, and eventually made its way to Martin Peretz of the New Republic.

Our source says that anti-Massad scholars fear that going public with this will earn them the ire of the rest of the academic community; pro-Massad faculty are remaining silent because they know that the University would never reverse a tenure decision once it’s been made public. So the only proof that ANY of this is true is the faculty statement of concern and Massad’s own cryptic suggestion that last week’s symposium on Desiring Arabs was some kind of “intervention” on his behalf.

Last week, Bwog suggested a few possible tie-ins between the “Statement of Concern” and the alleged Massad situation–why, for instance, would faculty put out a statement decrying outside influences on the tenure process when the decision to give tenure to Abu al-Haj all but proved that the school was capable of resisting them? What countervailing example could the statement have been referring to, other than Massad?

Bwog’s curiosity was piqued, and in the interest of responsible journalism we consulted some professors on the faculty of arts and sciences. Multiple professors confirmed that the Massad situation (whatever it was or is–we’re still not sure) was a motivating factor for some of the faculty who signed on to last week’s statement, which, interestingly, refutes the notion that the statement was a direct reaction to a final decision on Massad’s tenure bid. That it most certainly wasn’t: one professor characterized the statement as having “been in the works for a long time.”

Several professors suggested that an ad hoc committee had been convened for Massad, although one characterized it as “close to impossible” to rig one. This professor did suggest that it was theoretically possible if the provost already knew how members of faculty stood on a specific candidate. Massad’s controversial, but whether Brinkley was capable of finding enough guaranteed “no” votes–especially considering Massad’s stellar academic reputation–is, as of now, impossible to say. But it seems perverse and therefore highly unlikely for any provost to give a “Sopranos”-like whacking to a popular and well-regarded junior faculty member. There’s no reason to think that this wouldn’t be totally below provost Brinkley.

But the rumors persist. One professor gave Bwog a cryptic non-confirmation, non-denial to the Massad rumors–something about how whether or not a decision has been made and whether or not Massad has been given tenure, the crucial issue is how faculty will react when and if academic freedom is threatened. Another invoked Norman Finkelstein–who was, perhaps not coincidentally, another professor “whacked” by his provost after surviving a departmental tenure review. This professor had also heard a rumor similar to the one conveyed by our anonymous source, although he wouldn’t say from who.

Conclusion: the faculty is nervous about Massad, and we still haven’t the slightest clue as to whether or not he’s been denied tenure. But we have a hunch that the biggest drama of last week wasn’t going down on Butler Plaza.