IsraCampus.Org.il

Furthermore, committee member Prof. Galia Golan refused to sign the report, claiming it was politically-motivated. Instead, Golan wrote a Minority Opinion (can be read at the end of the report below), in which she wrote that the demand “for a balance (of views) in the classroom… runs directly counter to the principle of academic freedom.”

http://972mag.com/exclusive-full-report-on-department-of-politics-and-government-at-ben-gurion-university/28608/

Noam Sheizaf
Wednesday, November 30 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Report on politics department at Ben Gurion University

Last week, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth broke a story about a draft report by an evaluation committee commissioned by Israel’s Council for Higher Education (CHE), recommending closing the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University if changes are not made, including to the perceived political leaning of the department. The department has been the target of a campaign by the radical rightwing movement Im Tirzu for its “lefty” political leaning.

Despite pleas from dozens of academics that protested this attempt to supervise the political opinions raised in classrooms, the Council for Higher Education voted to adopt the report yesterday.

Haaretz has revealed that before the committee was formed, one of its members was replaced with a rightwing professor. Furthermore, committee member Prof. Galia Golan refused to sign the report, claiming it was politically-motivated. Instead, Golan wrote a Minority Opinion (can be read at the end of the report below), in which she wrote that the demand “for a balance (of views) in the classroom… runs directly counter to the principle of academic freedom.”

Here is the full report, made public for the first time:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74235533/BGU-Report

[excerpt from the report]

Minority Opinion by Prof. Galia Golan

I agree with most everything in the Report with the exception of the section of the report on the Mission plus the two Recommendations emanating from this. I do not see how, as stated in the Mission section of the Report, “the study of politics as a scientific discipline may be impeded by such a strong emphasis on political activism.” I fail to see the connection, which actually is repeated in the statement that the “strong emphasis on community activism raises two questions.” I agree with the content of the first question listed, namely, “are students receiving a sufficiently rigorous foundation in the discipline of politics and government to equip them with a necessary grounding in the important ideas and understandings common to the subject and the discipline?” but, again, I do not see this as connected with an emphasis on community activism, but, rather, it is connected with the absence of sufficient core Political Science courses. Further, as this section continues, there is also a reference to “balance [of views]…in the classroom.” I am not certain who or how a “balance" might be determined, but I believe that such a demand runs directly counter to the principle of academic freedom, a basic principle of university education. From this, it is clear that I cannot agree with the recommendations that refer to “broad exposure to perspectives and alternatives” and “an effort that the program is perceived as balanced by the community concerned.”