Hitchens and Cole
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 9:03 pm

I recently defended Juan Cole (whom I have never met, btw) against an attack by John Fund of the WSJ regarding [...]

It is one thing to “publish” a blog post, and quite another to publish a peer-reviewed article or a book with a university press. Cole has done quite a lot of both of these latter activities, and if his field is anything like mine, there is a spirited debate within the academy about his work and its conclusions. As there should be. But the blog is, by definition, a privately owned public forum, and not an academic enterprise.

An academic blog is still a blog. In fact, the concept, academic blog, is something of an oxymoron.

The problem is that Cole makes unsupported inflammatory attacks over and over – that IS the overall work of his blog. When you look at the accumulated data, you don’t find a competent academic. Kramer and Badran focus on Cole’s lack of academic rigor.

Lots of links including links to Martin Kramer and Tony Badran, who fisk Cole’s Middle East expertise.

I figured as much, but thought I would further clarify.

Matthew,

Indeed.

But I am reasonably confident that the WSJ editorial board has no influence on Yale faculty hiring. So, I am not too concerned that the fuss created by the WSJ will chill the academic blogosphere. Only the academy itself could do that, and Cole’s short-listing at Yale is a data point for the “no chill effect” hypothesis.

The position is for the study of the modern middle east. Most educated people understand “modernity” as being the period of time roughly from the 15th century onward.

In fact the 19th century was probably the zenith of modernity.

I am wondering if the WSJ is going to ask Laura Englestein, Robert Harms, Gilbert Joseph, Mridu Rai, or Mimi Yiengpruksawan to quit?

All of those folks have 19th century research specialties and are faculty in the Center for International and Area Studies.

Once again, the WSJ editorial page shows its ignorance.