October 27, 2003

Probably Columbia University. After all Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Middle Easten Studies. Willkie can join the Josef Megele Medical School.

I think he is now radioactive in the US, being in the bio-med sciences. In these, one lives and dies by very large quantities of grant money, and he has become too odious a person for far too many potential colleagues and grant reviewers.
OTOH, if he were a philosopher, literary
theorist, or general humanities quack, he would be already joining similar poseurs at Princeton or such-like places.

Herr Professor Willkie should join Herr Professor Said who now has a very tenured position.

Kudos for starting the ball.

Kudos if you really started it.

Kudos for not paying any attention to Hired.

“I am sure you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army.”

Wilkie was arrogant enough and foolish enough to say what he believed but don't think this doesn't happen and hasn't happened in the USA. Many years ago, 1978 to be exact a young ex-Marine in New York City sent out 100 resumes detailing his military experience. He also sent out 100 resumes, with a different address with exactly the same qualifications EXCEPT FOR LEAVING OUT his military experience.

The result? Exactly zero interviews for the 100 with the military experience.

More than two dozen interviews including a job offer for the resume without the military experience.

One thing more the ex-Marine was fired for "lying" on his resume for having left off his military experience. Es ist eine alte geshichte....prejudice is an old story and comes in many forms.

Wilkie probably would have said the same thing about a U.S. Marine or Royal Marine for that matter. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to be anti-male or an anti-patriot.

Draft Dodgers and shirkers are the worst haters. They think by dishonoring vets they demilitarize the world and make it safer. They mock the men (and women) who guard them while they sleep.

There is an old saying from the Higlands:
"Since you prefer sheep to men, then let sheep defend you!"

Calling Dolly, Clone #2.

Hamilton is turning in his grave as are my uncles Donald and Norman (both graduates of Columbia Universit) and Eisenhower former president of Columbia. Columbia, as I recall, witnessed the terrorist bombing of their ROTC building and, naturally they dropped the program (so much for diversity). Until recently they didn't even allow military recruiters on campus.

Edward Said Professor...my how liberal and diverse we are! What times what customs what craven wimps....

Logiccop, I'm sure no one wants to take more credit than they deserve. I have no idea if Horsefeathers was the first to report it (much less "get the ball rolling"), but if they did, again, kudos.

Just not sure if an item in the Telegraph (dated June 29) might not have gotten wider readership than Horsefeathers. And here's a blog entry dated July 2 that refers to "When I first received emailed notification from outraged Jews the world over."

This is all on the basis of all of 2 seconds on Google. Anyone know who really added to the momentum, much less "got the ball rolling"? If it was this blog, kudos.

Oh, by the way: you're an idiot for not doing any checking for yourself first.

This fait can be expected by any brave man of principles who chooses to reject someone serving in a murderous nazi organisation such as the IDF.

Hired
You made your case.
And of course then launched into your typical ad hominem, if you are correct than Kudos to you, but at the present I'll go with Stephen at least he doesn't call me an idiot. Have you considered anger management courses?

Ah, Logiccop, I think it odd: I make a mildly positive comment on this board, you take me to task, I defend myself and respond in kind, and you again take me to task for "anger management."

You sound like someone who whines about Bush-haters in obliviousness to all the Clinton hatred that went on for eight years. Look at the bright side, the country will move on soon. And you'll still be making pithy comments on this board like "Kudos for not paying any attention to Hired." Ignore intelligent posters at your own peril.

Hired
Didn't take you to "task", merely commented on Stephen's comments. Don't believe I mentioned Idiot, that would be responding in kind. Don't hate Clinton, he's properly neutered to be of no consequence. Don't hate "Bush Haters", just don't like idealogues, don't hate anyone, that would seem to be your turf. Always open to intelligent comments that are based in fact or a properly held belief. One places themselves in peril only when his rhetoric gets in the way of his reasoning. Have A Nice Day.

Hired Contrarian,

First, your comment:

"Just not sure if an item in the Telegraph (dated June 29) might not have gotten wider readership than Horsefeathers. And here's a blog entry dated July 2 that refers to "When I first received emailed notification from outraged Jews the world over."

This is all on the basis of all of 2 seconds on Google. Anyone know who really added to the momentum, much less "got the ball rolling"? If it was this blog, kudos."

Oh, by the way: you're an idiot for not doing any checking for yourself first.

Now to 20 sec fact/date checking:

1. Prof's letter - see the date
"From: "Andrew Wilkie" awilkie@worf.molbiol.ox.ac.uk
To: "Amit Duvshani"
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: PhD application"

2. Horsefeathers' post - see the date
"JUNE 26, 2003
BRITISH ANTI-SEMITISM: ALIVE AND FLOURISHING IN ACADEMIA
A young Israeli scientist has received the following reply to his application to work in an English laboratory"

3. LGF's post
"06/27/03 10:08 AM: Antisemitism at Oxford
When Israeli Amit Duvshani applied to Oxford for a doctoral position, he received the following reply from Andrew Wilkie, Nuffield Professor of Pathology at the ...
308 comments. Last comment: 7/4/2003 at 3:03 PM"

It's quite clear that Horsefeathers was first to give a publicity to this affair followed closely by LGF and then others.

Consequently Horsefeathers deserves the kudos for starting the ball, irrespectively of the readership.

As to the the rest of your comment - you're fired.

I'm sorry Andrew Wilkie has been forced to resign for offending the Jewish lobby. His remarks were naive, but had some truth. He also happens to be one of the UKs very best scientists. That doesn't give him the right to bully applicants from war-torn parts of the world, but he should be allowed to express his views. I've been in a similar situation and have decided to support Israeli scientists abroad because they are people first. But this does not mean I condone terrorist acts, state-sponsored or otherwise. The state of Israel, unfortunately, is guilty of terrorist acts against innocent civilians. I hope it stops soon.

Marek, Horsefeather was certainly before the Telegraph, but how much traffic does Horsefeathers get? A thousand visits per week? And how many do you think the Daily Telegraph's site gets? Perhaps a million. So I applaud Horsefeathers for being on top of this, but I think it's premature to assume they started it all. (PS, you can't fire me.)

Logiccop: I never said you were a bush hater or a clinton hater. What I wrote, was, that you sound like someone who whines about bush hatred, never having heard of clinton hatred. I was making an allusion to your lack of command of the facts.

Hate is not my turf. Pointing out inadequacy is something I like to do, though. And notice, I never said anything negative about Horsefeathers here. You turned a thread of happiness into attack, not me, in recommending that I be disregarded.

My point remains: kudos to horsefeathers for getting it started if that's the case.

F. Crick,

Wilkie offended Amit Duvshani and not the jewish lobby. Wilkie's nasty and hateful letter, not naive, caused the uproar and the subsequent fully deseved oprobrium. Oxford penalized Wilkie for his treatment of Amit and NOT for offending jewish lobby.
One might say that Wilkie was naive by putting his hate and scorn in writing and you would sound much more convincing if you could condemn Wilkie's letter without 'buts', otherwise I get the feeling that you are condoning it.
And this "jewish lobby" bit of yours stinks to heaven with plain old antisemitism.

F Crick, Wilkie is allowed to express his views. He can publish them, and even sell copies of what he publishes if he so chooses. It is altogether different, however, to expect his employer to continue employing him at the same time; this is not censorship; he has been censured, not censored. There is a difference.

Further, it was not just expressing his views, but he acted on them. He refused to hire the man, for the reasons given. It was not just an issue of public expression, but discriminatory hiring.

Got it?

Can the people who wrote rejoinders to Crick clarify two things for me please?

As a preliminary though reproducing Wilkie's email won't do harm.

"Thank you for contacting me, but I don't think this would work. I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they [the Palestinians] wish to live in their own country.

"I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I'm sure you will find another lab if you look around."

1) Marek described Wilkie's attitude as "nasty", "hateful", and spoke of the man's "hate and scorn". All the man said was he had a "huge problem with" hiring people who served in armies that, on his opinion, killed innocent civilians and, while doing so, took a high moral stance on it. Again, "I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level," - VERY indicative of open (or is it now concealed? barely suppressed?) personal hatred of the applicant.

2) Whence my second Qn. Whence antisemtisim? Suppose I've served in the Austrian army (which I have) and we've killed South-tyrolean civilians (which we haven't) who'd want to get an independent state Tyrol. If Wilkie responds to me on the basis that he doesn't want to hire a person who's killed civilians am I warranted to reply "that's a discrimination against my being Austrian" or, worse, "a Catholic"? I don't see why Wilkie's attitude is specific to Israeli soldiers. As someone said above, "Wilkie probably would have said the same thing about a U.S. Marine or Royal Marine for that matter. You don't have to be an anti-Semite to be anti-male or an anti-patriot". (Although, again, my wits fail me why "having a huge problem" with killing civilians is "anti male" or "anti-patriot".) Also, Wilkie doesn't discriminate the Israeli army for killing civilians per se - then he'd really be anti-militaristic across the board - but for doing so while taking what he calls a "moral high ground": JUSTIFYING their crimes to x by reference to a crime for which x was not responsible.
There's been a recent book by London philosopher Ted Honderich, "After the Terror", where he said likewise. Again, although the huge problem HE had was likewise based on the moral justification the Israeli state puts on its killing civilians, Honderich was predictably enough, accused of anti-semitism (interestingly, not in UK or US, but only a year later when the book was translated for German readers).
So how define anti-semitism? Replace the good old 'discriminate jews for being Jews' by 'making a discrimination and then apply it to those who happen to be Israeli'?

Lastly, I'd like to say that Wilkie was discriminative insofar he's assumed, without proper justification I suppose, that the applicant himself was guilty of killing civilians and justifying it on moral grounds simply in virtue of his having been drafted by an army that was (is) and did (does). Amit, like myself, might have taken on a purely administrative job and, having been drafted, was in no position to express or act on his moral problem, if any, with being part of that army.
This discrimination as stated is, on my view, free of national and/or religious discrimination; although it inevitably applies to individuals who have a nation and a religion.

I await, eagerly, of course, that my puzzlement "stinks to heaven with plain old antisemitism", and that by adding a few 'buts' I am, of course, "condoning" Wilkie's "hate- and scornful" letter. And oh, please don't forget to point out that I am part of Wilkie's former stinking university - AND Austrian. That should do.

SKoller, I fail to see why your comments are relevant to my reply to F Crick.

Hired Contrarian,
On rereading your rejoinder I can see that my remarks didn't target it - if only because we agree (do we?) that Wilkie's discrimination is not directly antisemitic. But if it isn't why IS Wilkie stigmatized (or does one say 'branded'?) with antisemitism? And, if Wilkie's discrimination is only of the type I have stated (anti-militaristic plus 'high moral stance') why was the man (in effect) forced to resign? I just can't see that Wilkie would have been fired if he had discriminated an Austrian, and in that regard Crick's remarks of the "jewish lobby" are not entirely mistargeted. If only because Austrians haven't got a lobby. And THEN I can't see why we shan't "expect his employer to continue employing him" as you say - why we should expect them to fire him as opposed to clear it up less drastically.