Giving Alan Dershowitz yet another place to spew hatred will not further sober, intellectually engaged, critical discussion of the many factual and normative issues raised by the Walt-Mearsheimer paper, which could be subjected to many balanced and telling criticisms if the space existed for true discussion. That is what the Kennedy School should really be trying to do -- change the tone and range and content of the intellectual exchanges on these matters. Democracy in the US and Israel, not to mention a healthy relationship between the two countries, requires that people of good will act outspokenly together to create space for sane discussion, where all participants feel free to explore and offer complex reactions without fear of being smeared. We need less Dershowitz, not more. As matters stand, Walt and Mearsheimer have successfully established one of their central points: that censorship prevails on these issues in the US media and in US academia. It is terrible for Israel and its supporters to be identified with the suppression of free speech and open, civil debate in the United States. In the end, that will backfire against Israel.
 

Is Dershowitz's rebuttal posted yet?
 

Crystal ball was sometimes cloudy...Following up on another posters suggestion that you reprint some of the commentary about what was happening around Harvard a few months ago, I looked back at this comment you made about Warsh's column. as it turns out, Warsh's predictions proved, at least in this case, substantially more accurate than yours! Here is what you wrote (in January):

On his blog, economicprincipals.com, David Warsh weighs in on David McClintick's article, "How Harvard Lost Russia."

Like me, Warsh finds McClintick's story an impressive piece of reporting. Unlike me, he thinks it will have a significant impact around the 02138 zip code.

Here is one of Warsh's conclusions: "When Summers returns to Cambridge from Davos, it will be to a university more determined than ever to understand the history of its failed Russia project. McClintick's article will circulate hand to hand. The frustration among the faculty that McClintick details will only grow. Some fellow economist may yet come forward to defend Shleifer publicly (instead of grousing anonymously that he has been treated unfairly), but that hasn't happened yet."

As much as I'd like to agree with Warsh, this is wishful thinking. In the past five years, the Harvard faculty has shown a remarkable talent to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that what's happening on campus—the moral emasculation of their university—isn't really happening at all. By the time they lift their heads into the air, the change will have been effected, and they can pretend that they never had a choice.

After all, how many faculty members have had the guts to say something publicly about the fact that Andre Shleifer—whose illegal behavior has cost the university between $30 and $40 million—is still a member of the Harvard faculty in good standing?

A grand total of two: Harry Lewis and Richard Thomas.

Meanwhile, FAS dean Bill Kirby refuses to take action on the Shleifer matter and sells Mass Hall to the president because, the Crimson says, he had "little choice."

Sometimes, I can understand why Larry Summers doesn't respect the professors who work for him.
 

Ouch—I'm tempted to excercise my editorial power and delete that last post, but in the interests of fair play, I won't. In my defense, I will say that I recall writing that post, and I was feeling particularly pessimistic at the time.

In any case, it's hardly the first time I've been wrong, and good for Warsh for being right.