On May 7, professor Annabel Martín posted an essay on the Gender Research Institute at Dartmouth’s website regarding a May 6 article in The Dartmouth. Seeing as I am referenced by name in the piece, I would like to respectfully refute some of Martín’s points.
Martín claims that the article caused “profound hurt” to Dartmouth’s Jewish community. This profound hurt was in fact caused by GRID’s embrace of Jasbir Puar, whose speech and writings have repeatedly met many of the U.S. State Department’s criteria for anti-Semitism and fall far short of the academic standards that Dartmouth demands of its own students.
At Dartmouth, we are encouraged to critically engage with controversial material. Over the past few weeks, Martín has not done the same. Before the event, I met with Martín and presented evidence in asking that GRID release a statement condemning anti-Semitism. She declined and informed me that Puar’s claim, which I believe to be blood-libelous, that Israel harvests Palestinians’ organs, among others, was corroborated in a journal article by Puar.
I read Puar’s paper, its sources and the manifesto of the journal in which it was published. I found no corroboration of Puar’s claims. I drafted and sent to Martín a detailed rebuttal questioning the paper’s academic legitimacy.
Martín writes that the article in The Dartmouth was full of false affirmations and poor research, but these phrases better describe Puar’s paper. She relies on cherry-picked statements and opinions that presuppose her ideological validity. Puar, a queer theorist, has no educational background in Israeli or Palestinian issues, does not speak either Hebrew or Arabic fluently and makes no effort to introduce views that oppose her own. She cites Mondoweiss, whose founder has accused Jews of controlling government and the media, and Jadaliyya, whose founder has said that the magazine does “not pretend to be an open forum for all views.” She condemns Israel for shooting to injure rather than kill Palestinian attackers, effectively concluding that the only acceptable Israeli action is none at all. She praises the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as a method for “delegitimization” of Israel. She accuses Israel of employing “weaponized epigenetics” without citing one biological or scientific source. She omits any fact, number or source that would undermine any of her points. Her article, which comprised almost the entirety of her talk, is analogous to a paper on evolution whose sources are all creationists. This scholarship does not conform to the standards toward which we at Dartmouth are taught to strive.
Puar’s article is published in borderlands, a journal that seeks submissions that “blur the lines between fiction, journalism, and essayistic prose.” As stated on its manifesto, borderlands searches “knowledge for its effects rather than its truth.” Like borderlands, Puar’s paper displays a lack of regard for the truth. Martín contends that Puar’s remarks cannot have been anti-Semitic, as they only focused on Israeli policy. However, this is a common theme of today’s anti-Semitism. While of course not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, simply replacing “Jews” with “the Israeli government” in patently false and malicious claims does not automatically make them alright.
At the GRID symposium, Martín threatened that she would have me removed “with force if necessary.” In addition to denying this, Martín also questions my motivations. I have stood by my straightforward motivations throughout this ordeal: I want to ensure Puar’s accountability to the truth, especially given her requests for her speeches not to be recorded. Further, the fact that I am white, male and Jewish, and Puar is not, is an insufficient basis for Neel Ahuja and Martín to conclude that my actions represented support for colonialism or racism. Quite the opposite: I am concerned by Puar’s remarks because of an acute sensitivity and opposition to bigotry.
Martín states that nobody “challenged Puar on any matter of fact or interpretation,” just before describing a challenge on a matter of fact or interpretation. The moderator, however, took the microphone from professor Sergei Kan when she judged his question — the only verbal dissent in the room — unfit to be asked. Martín points out that Puar’s response was unrefuted, but does not mention the difficulty of refuting a point in a lecture hall when the benefit of a microphone has been taken away. GRID’s lack of dedication to “debating conflicting visions” is disheartening and directly conflicts with Dartmouth’s academic ideals.
Martín claims that if anything anti-Semitic had been said, GRID would have offered a condemnation. However, Puar’s presentation was anti-Semitic, crossing the line from false to malicious and employing opaque language to give an academic sheen to patently un-academic work. On multiple occasions, I brought concerns about this to GRID through Martín. Each time, I was rebuffed without any critical engagement from GRID or Martín.
My education is a constant reminder to question my surroundings. I welcome views different from my own, as confronting them is essential to intellectual growth. I encourage my own academic discomfort and hold the free dissemination of ideas sacred. I find academic honesty and accountability to the truth to be paramount in my growth as a contributor to global thought. I would hope to find those values in each member of this community.
I invite Martín to examine the views of those with whom she allies herself and to begin to espouse the ideals that she represents through her professorship. Nobody is exempt from critical analysis of dissenting ideas. The world is indeed full of uncomfortable truths, but it is the duty of our whole community — not just students with one particular view — to confront them.
