Academic Malfeasance: The Case of Christopher Bail
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
 Christopher Bail,
a rising academic star, boasts a Ph.D. from Harvard and holds the Douglas
and Ellen Lowey Assistant Professorship of Sociology at Duke University.
In 2015, Princeton University Press published his Terrified: How
Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, which won the
American Sociological Association's 2016 Distinguished Book Award for the
sociology of religion.
The blurb for Terrified summarizes what Princeton UP calls
Bail's "pioneering theoretical argument" in which he
traces how the anti-Muslim narrative of the political fringe has
captivated large segments of the American media, government, and general
public, validating the views of extremists who argue that the United
States is at war with Islam and marginalizing mainstream Muslim-Americans
who are uniquely positioned to discredit such claims.
Bail, the press continues, did not haphazardly stumble upon this
insight but discovered it by wielding his powerful theoretical chops,
drawing on ideas, no less, from "cultural sociology, social network
theory, and social psychology." Further, our up-to-date scholar did
a big-data analysis of more than one hundred organizations struggling
to shape public discourse about Islam, tracing their impact on hundreds
of thousands of newspaper articles, television transcripts, legislative
debates, and social media messages produced since the September 11
attacks.
No wonder he won those impressive prizes and has a brilliant career
ahead of him! And good for him, too, protecting mainstream Muslims from
the crazed anti-Muslim fringe.
But, with regret, now, I must report that on leaving the dust-cover
encomia and immersing myself in the actual contents of Terrified,
Bail's grand theory collapses, crumbles, and crumples. Notwithstanding
all that training, the youthful professor makes an elementary and
monumental error: He mixes up the fringe and the mainstream, thinking the
one is the other, and the other, the one.
Thus, his "anti-Muslim fringe organizations" are not, as the
blurb leads one to suppose, neo-Nazis, the KKK, the alt-right, or other
nasties; they are, in fact, mainstream conservative organizations whose
personnel write for major publications, testify before Congress, and
staff Republican administrations. Bail focuses on four: the Center for
Security Policy (headed by Frank Gaffney), the Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies (Cliff May), the Investigative Project on Terrorism
(Steven Emerson), and the Middle East Forum (Yours Truly).
|
Index entries for the
"Middle East Forum" and "Daniel Pipes."
|
Bail's confusion may arise from the fact that while conservatives are almost
as rare as unicorns on the Duke University faculty, nationally 37
percent of Americans describe themselves as conservative, making them
a plurality (moderates make up 35 percent and liberals just 24 percent).
Some fringe. Some sociologist.
|
Not many
conservatives in the hallowed halls of Duke University.
|
Conversely, what Bail calls "mainstream Muslim-Americans"
are decidedly not mainstream but Islamist, seeking to create a worldwide
caliphate, replace the U.S. Constitution with the Koran, and impose a
medieval law on Americans. Utilizing various degrees of subterfuge, the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North
America, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council the share goals with
Hezbullah, Hamas, and Boko Haram. The FBI
broke ties with CAIR in 2009. The UAE
government listed CAIR as a terrorist group in 2014, along with the
Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Some mainstream.
Meanwhile, Bail ignores the actual mainstream Muslim groups, such as
the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and the Center for Islamic
Pluralism.
Our bemedaled but benighted sociologist has inverted reality. Worse,
even after reading this corrective, he surely will not mend his ways –
maybe out of fear of losing all those academic laurels?
Bail can reasonably expect to teach elite undergraduates for many
decades, stamping left-wing orthodoxies onto impressionable minds. In
addition, he might do a stint in government, provide expert testimony in
court cases, and engage in popular writing (he's already graced the pages
of the Washington Post).
I can offer just one consolation for this depressing prospect: Bail's
inversion project will not prevail because it conflicts with reality. He
and likeminded analysts can argue that all would be well with American
Muslims but for we
critics of Islamism; that the National
Rifle Association bears responsibility for the San Bernardino and
Orlando jihadi attacks; and that Frank
Gaffney "laid the groundwork for Trump's rise" – but these
tattered explanations eventually will fail to convince most Americans.
Rather, as Islamist cultural aggressions and murderous rampages
continue, we on the alleged fringe are finding increasing support while
academics bleating for those darling Islamists while apologizing for
their totalitarian ideology will find a diminishing audience for their
shoddy goods.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle
East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
The
above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is
presented as an integral whole with complete information about its
author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment