ARABIC-L: GEN: AUC & Academic Freedom

[Dilworth B. Parkinson]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabic-L: Thu 18 Feb 1999
Moderator: Dilworth Parkinson <dilworth_parkinson at byu.edu>
[To post messages to the list, send them to arabic-l at byu.edu]
[To unsubscribe, send message to listserv at byu.edu with first line reading:
          unsubscribe arabic-l                                      ]

-------------------------Directory-------------------------------------

1) Subject: Plain bread

-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date: 18 Feb 1999
From: Abbas Al-Tonsi <tons at acs.auc.eun.eg>
Subject: Plain bread

The pendulum of opinions in the debate concerning teaching"plain Bread"
 in an undergraduate survey course of Arabic literature at the
American University in Cairo seems to swing wildly from one extreme to
another. Egyptian newspapers, regardless of their political orientation,
share one extreme position that such a book should be banned to guard
morals and prevent the defamation of Arabic literature; the mere inclusion
of the book in an academic course, they claim, can only be construed as a
deliberate attempt to corrupt students' morality. On the other
extreme, in the February 2nd issue of Al-Hayat, Mr. Hasan Dawud not only
endorses including "Plain Bread" in such an undergraduate
survey course, but also goes the extra mile to stigmatize its exclusion
from any such required course as an act of acquiescence and capitulation to
the long arm of "militant" groups. An act, he holds, which
reduces a university into a mere high school. Previously, I have written
arguing against the prevalent "conservative"position in the
Egyptian press (cf. my article "A Special Type of Liberals" in
Akhbaar Al-Adab on 1/24/99). Today, I find myself compelled to take issue
with the extremists on both extreme ends.

1. The two opposing groups unjustifiably ascribe to themselves the
role of guardian and shepherd. The students who complained about the
pornographic language of the text are labeled as tattletales by one group
and immature brats by the other. No attention is paid to the true nature of
liberal education nor to the importance of student input if such a process
is to be meaningful.

2. In advocating extremism, the two opposing groups are surprisingly
so narrow minded that they can only see things as either black or white. No
dialogue permitted. Agree with me or pay the dear price. One group sees the
attempt not to ban this third rate work as an invitation to promiscuity and
lewdness. The other regards any restraint as a sign of reactionarism and
backwardness or, at best, an attack on the freedom of speech: A view which
fits with the misinformed, albeit commonly held, stereotypical image of an
east that represses freedom, oppresses women, and persecutes minorities.
How so conveniently juicy and provocative a thought to two stooping Arab
professors at Columbia and Berkeley!

3. Both groups presume that AUC, faculty and administration, are of
one opinion and incapable of having individual thoughts. How arrogant and
ignorant indeed!

Conveniently, these stout, fierce defenders of the freedom of speech have
been too busy to express their thoughts about the continued American Rambo
adventurism against Iraq. Have I been so out of touch that I missed the
shouts of them protesting Zionist expansionism and the hundreds of articles
produced by these strugglers denouncing American Imperialism? Is it unfair
to perceive their position for what it is: an orientalist perspective that
caters to what orientalists wish to see in our literature or our culture.
Is it a coincidence that they choose not to teach Mahmud Darwish's
poem "Aberoun fi kalaam Abir"?! Or Habibi's
"Ikhtifaa Said "(even after he accepted an Israeli
award)?! Is it a random event that "al-lajna" or
&"Beirut..Beirut" by S. Ibrahim?! Were they worried about being
labeled as anti zionist or anti imperialist?! Or have they simply towed the
line of defining liberalism only in terms of sexual freedom?! Dare they
discuss Holocaust ? Dare they discuss even the Israeli
Violations whether in south Lebanon or in West bank?



How I wish to support these "liberals"! But, alas! their case
is hopeless this time. Convince me, if you can, that introducing a novel
which was not written in Arabic but written by a "khawaga"
based on the story told in poor Spanish and then translated into Arabic
falls in the realm of Arabic novel! How can one possibly separate the story
from the discourse and consider language as a mere vehicle?

Let them teach, if they dare, Y.T. Abdullah"Al-Touq
wal-Iswera" which they either implicitly or explicitly advocated not
publishing its English translation simply because it portrays the folkloric
stereotype of a Jew in the Middle East. Neither the novel's talented
narrative movement (not mentioned by Genette) nor its other folkloric
feature, typically of great appeal to the west, could save it from being
banned by these "liberals"

Why do you consider respecting the students' culture and code of
ethics and morality an infringement on the Academic freedom ?
Finally The question here is, simply put, why include the novel or the
autobiography "Plain Bread" in an Arabic Literature curriculum when it was
not written in Arabic in the first place? can any professor consider a novel
written originally in French then translated into English as English
literature ?! And why use a secondary source like Rodinson's Mohammed when
not jointly balanced with a primary source, a violation of the ABC of
scientific thinking? In any University in USA can a professor teach a book
about Jesus writen by an Arab Muslim who has a critical point of view as the
only source ?!)

Abbas Al-Tonsi



Arabic Language Institute

American University in Cairo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Arabic-L: 18 Feb 1999