Leaders of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University (WCFIA) have condemned and then defended statements by Martin Kramer, one of the center’s fellows, which endorsed a cut off of UN food and other humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugee children besieged in the Gaza Strip as a means to reduce the Palestinian birthrate and thus the Palestinian population.

In a 22 February article about Kramer’s comments made in Israel earlier this month, The Electronic Intifada (EI) observed that “The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, created in the wake of the Nazi holocaust, defines genocide to include measures ‘intended to prevent births within’ a specific ‘national, ethnic, racial or religious group’ ” (“Harvard Fellow calls for genocidal measure to curb Palestinian births”).

In an initial response to an email from EI’s Ali Abunimah, Professor Beth Simmons, the director of WCFIA, wrote, “I agree with your assessment of the appalling nature of these [Kramer’s] statements,” but added, “the WCFIA does not have a policy of censoring or censuring our affiliates on the basis of their opinions.” Simmons also stated, “I very much hope you bring these [Kramer’s] words to the attention of others affiliated with the WCFIA, Harvard and the broader community, where I hope they will garner their just reaction.” She encouraged individuals to make their concerns known to Professor Stephen Rosen, who is in charge of the National Security Studies Program of which Kramer is a fellow.

A short time later, however, a statement jointly signed by Simmons and Professors Jeffry Frieden and James Robinson (who are acting directors while Simmons is on sabbatical) appeared to reverse course.

The statement read: “Over the past several days, we have heard from several members of the public, and of the Harvard community, who object to the statements of Martin Kramer at a recent conference.”

The statement continues, “Accusations have been made that Martin Kramer’s statements are genocidal. These accusations are baseless. Kramer’s statements, available at http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/02/superfluous-young-men/ express dismay with the policy of agencies that provide aid to Palestinian refugees, and that tie aid entitlements to the size of refugee families. Kramer argues that this policy encourages population growth among refugee communities. While these views may be controversial, there is no way they can be regarded as genocidal.”

The statement then goes on to implicitly criticize those who have criticized Kramer: “Those who have called upon the Weatherhead Center to dissociate itself from Kramer’s views, or to end Kramer’s affiliation with the Center, appear not to understand the role of controversy in an academic setting. It would be inappropriate for the Weatherhead Center to pass judgement on the personal political views of any of its affiliates, or to make affiliation contingent upon some political criterion. Exception may be made for statements that go beyond the boundaries of protected speech, but there is no sense in which Kramer’s remarks could be considered to fall into this category.”

For his part, in a response to EI’s initial article, Kramer superficially denied the allegation of supporting measures to prevent births among Palestinians, but went on to reaffirm and amplify the views expressed in his speech in Israel that food and schooling from UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees, was a “pro-natal subsidy” encouraging the production of “superfluous” Palestinian children whom he shockingly characterized (quoting a German scholar) as an “extreme demographic armament” against Israel. Kramer wrote, “UNWRA [sic] assures that every child with ‘refugee’ status will be fed and schooled regardless of the parents’ own resources, and mandates that this ‘refugee’ status be passed from generation to generation in perpetuity. Anywhere in the world, that would be called a deliberate pro-natal policy” (“Smear Intifada,” 22 February 2010).

In his letter to WCFIA director Simmons, Abunimah had asked, “I wonder how long Mr. Kramer’s views would be tolerated if — all other things being equal — he were an Arab scholar who had called for Jews to be placed in a giant, sealed enclosure which virtually no one is allowed to leave and enter, and deprived of food and schooling for their children in order to reduce their birthrate?”

If calls for the deliberate starvation of a blockaded refugee population, in front of an audience made up substantially of Israeli military and political officials responsible for the siege of Gaza, does not cross any line, the Weatherhead Center has yet to provide any indication of what forms of extremism and racism it would not consider to be appropriate academic “controversy.”

Full text of statement from WCFIA

Over the past several days, we have heard from several members of the public, and of the Harvard community, who object to the statements of Martin Kramer at a recent conference. Kramer is a Visiting Scholar at the National Security Studies Program, which is a program of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (WCFIA). (Kramer is not, contrary to the understanding of some of our correspondents, an employee of the Center or of Harvard University.) Many of those who have written us have called upon the Center to dissociate itself from Kramer’s remarks, or to end his affiliation with the Center.

The WCFIA has many hundreds of affiliates: faculty members, graduate students, undergraduates, post-docs, visiting scholars and others. They represent the widest possible range of opinion on almost every subject. The Center takes no position on any issue of scholarship or public policy, nor does it attempt to monitor or control the activities of its affiliates.

Accusations have been made that Martin Kramer’s statements are genocidal. These accusations are baseless. Kramer’s statements, available at http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2010/02/superfluous-young-men/, express dismay with the policy of agencies that provide aid to Palestinian refugees, and that tie aid entitlements to the size of refugee families. Kramer argues that this policy encourages population growth among refugee communities. While these views may be controversial, there is no way they can be regarded as genocidal.

Those who have called upon the Weatherhead Center to dissociate itself from Kramer’s views, or to end Kramer’s affiliation with the Center, appear not to understand the role of controversy in an academic setting. It would be inappropriate for the Weatherhead Center to pass judgement on the personal political views of any of its affiliates, or to make affiliation contingent upon some political criterion. Exception may be made for statements that go beyond the boundaries of protected speech, but there is no sense in which Kramer’s remarks could be considered to fall into this category. The Weatherhead Center’s activities are based upon a firm belief that scholars must be free to state their views, and rejects any attempts to restrict this fundamental academic freedom.

Beth Simmons, Director, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (on leave 2009-2010)

Jeffry Frieden, Acting Director, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (Fall 2009)

James Robinson, Acting Director, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (Spring 2010)

• Facebook
• Twitter