Punishing Divergence

Here are three questions a critic of Mearsheimer and Walt might ask. First, is there such a thing as the national self-interest of the United States? Second, is there such a thing as the national self-interest of Israel? Third, are these interests distinct, so that there may be points at which they diverge? If the answers to all these questions are yes, then a fourth question arises. Is it permissible to speak of such a divergence in public discussions? If not, why not? But, if so, what have Mearsheimer and Walt done to violate the canons of decency approved by Herf? What is their offense beyond asking that discussions be more frequent, candid, and permissible without incurring the charge that by recommending such discussions at all, the recommender proves his anti-Semitism?

———————————–

The cowardice of Brandeis University in threatening to cancel an invitation to a former president of the United States unless he would consent to a “counterpoint” response, is, as Wolfe properly says, entirely in keeping with the opinion-discipline enforced at other universities by advocates of creationism, feminism, race studies, and so on. We expect no better of institutions, perhaps; but individual scholars ought to hold themselves to a less pliable standard. In this respect, the accusation that is offered “more in sorrow” about a supposed former friend is far uglier than a head-on accusation. The purpose of the slander is to exact conformity without being seen to want to silence opposing views. The procedure is gutless, and its effects are stupefying. ~David Bromwich