Book on Princeton course syllabus stirs antisemitism controversy

---

A book on Israel’s policies towards Palestinians sparked a contentious debate after it was included in the proposed syllabus of a Women’s and Gender Studies class at Princeton University.

Key Players

Satyel Larson is an assistant professor in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. She teaches the class, “The Healing Humanities: Decolonizing Trauma Studies from the Global South,” which deals with trauma studies and decolonization. Larson is a signatory of Palestine and Praxis, an open letter calling for university divestment from “complicity and partnership with military, academic, and legal institutions involved in entrenching Israel’s policies.”

Jasbir K. Puar is a Professor and Graduate Director of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University. She has regularly accused Israel of ethnically cleansing Palestinians and wrote a controversial book, The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability.

Further Details

Larson included Puar’s book in the sample reading list for the course at issue.

According to its summary, the book demonstrates how the state of Israel uses “debility”— which Puar defines as bodily injury and social exclusion brought on by economic and political factors — and disability as status markers to designate Palestinians as “available for injury” and thus worthy of oppression. 

Puar further alleges in the book that Israel is “supplementing its right to kill with the right to maim.”

Claims of antisemitism from inside and outside Princeton’s Jewish community

Amichai Chikli, a former conservative lawmaker and Minister of Diaspora Affairs of Israel, wrote a letter to the president of Princeton, Christopher Eisgruber, and Dean of Faculty Gene Jarrett, on Aug. 9, condemning the inclusion of the book and alleging Puar engages in “modern-day antisemitic blood-libel.” 

While criticism of the choice to include the book in Professor Larson’s syllabus originated in conservative media, claims that the book is antisemitic later spread throughout the larger Princeton community. 

On Aug. 14, Rabbi Gil Steinlauf, executive director of the Center for Jewish Life and a chaplain at Princeton, wrote in an email to the university’s Jewish community that he was concerned “about the negative impact of Jasbir Puar’s damaging and unproven views on the discourse on our campus, as well as the safety and wellbeing of our Jewish and Israeli students.”

Steinlauf wrote to Larson and Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, chair of the Near Eastern Studies department at Princeton, asking them to ​​“reconsider the impact of this text and to explore alternative ways to teach the course without including an author whose rhetoric and writing have deeply hurt many in the Jewish community, and could do real harm to Jewish students on our campus.”

Others who criticize the book have cited as a reason for concern the exclusion at some universities of Jewish students from student organizations for being Zionist.

Alyza Lewin, a Princeton alum and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, accused the book of “highly controversial, one-sided criticism” that “gives license to students on campus to shun and marginalize Jewish students.”

In response to criticism, Ghamari-Tabrizi acknowledged he received an influx of messages condemning the inclusion of the book, but claims “very, very, very few” are from Princeton students and faculty.

Relations about academic freedom

Some students and faculty pushed back against claims of antisemitism, arguing that removing the book from Larson’s syllabus, or, as some have suggested, firing Larson, would infringe upon academic freedom.

One group, The Alliance of Jewish Progressives, which identifies as a non-Zionist student organization, wrote in an open letter signed by over 300 students that “censoring” Larson would “limit intellectual inquiry, and silence faculty-student exchange within and beyond the classroom, particularly on issues of such political, moral, and philosophical significance.”

A representative of the free speech organization PEN America, Jonathan Friedman, said in a press release issued on August 22 that forcing Larson to remove the book from her syllabus would be a violation of academic freedom.

“If we scrubbed college campuses of any book that could cause any offense, we would be left with a fairly barren environment for academic inquiry.” Friedman wrote. “University education is meant to challenge minds and be a place for open exchange about global political issues, even when they are contested.”

Outcome

Book to remain in the syllabus

Inside Higher Ed reported that Ghamari-Tabrizi announced there would be no changes made to Larson’s syllabus.

“If we are busy trying to accommodate all these external pressures for what is taught at a university … we are going to be totally paralyzed,” he said.