The politics of silence: Palestinian faculty and the struggle for voice in Israeli academia in times of war*

Thinking Problems

Teaching (Cooperative) Business: The “Bluefield Experiment” and the Future of Black Business Schools

Reviewed by: Critical Theory and Performance, Revised and Enlarged Edition Jane Barnette Critical Theory and Performance, Revised and Enlarged Edition. Edited by Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach. Theater: Theory/Text/Performance series. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007; pp. xii + 596. $85.00 cloth, $32.50 paper. The publication of Critical Theory and Performance in 1992 triggered a seismic shift in North American performance scholarship, the full effects of which can be felt today in the growing number of departments that embrace the methodologies and content of both theatre and performance studies. A new generation of academics was trained under the assumption that the domain of performance facilitates the exploration and application of critical theory, taking for granted the fertile soil that Janelle Reinelt and Joseph Roach cultivated fifteen years ago. This revised and enlarged edition honors that transformation in both organization and scope with nineteen new essays, ten of which were commissioned from authors who did not appear in the first edition. The section divisions are also updated to reflect the nature of academic pursuits in the US today—although some groupings remain intact ("After Marx," "Theater History and Historiography," and "Psychoanalysis"), others are slightly revised. For instance, "Performance Analysis" becomes an umbrella for both "Semiotics and Deconstruction" and "Hermeneutics and Phenomenology," "Gender and Sexualities" replaces "Feminism(s)," and "Postcolonial Studies" and "Performance Studies" divide the territory originally classified as "Cultural Studies." On the other hand, two sections ("Mediatized Cultures" and "Critical Race Theory") are entirely new to this edition. As before, the editors understand the mercurial qualities of dividing a book of this nature, stating that "we are as convinced as ever of the provisionality of these categories" (xi). Yet, while they recognize categorical vicissitudes, Reinelt and Roach remain steadfast in their commitment to the value of theory to our field. "If there was a 'theory explosion' at the time we were assembling the first edition of this book," they relate, "there are now those who think the 'age of theory' is over. We do not" (xi). Given the fact that the majority of contributors to this volume are full professors, many of whom hold endowed chairs or other administrative posts, it seems evident that the influence of critical theory on theatre and performance studies will continue to grow for at least as long as these influential scholars retain positions of power. While a review of this size precludes the feasibility of evaluating each of the twenty-nine essays individually, there are larger patterns and contributor highlights that can be examined here. The index to this volume has expanded significantly from the first edition—from five to twenty-seven pages—enabling cross-referencing as well as a birds-eye view of the scope of topics addressed therein. Of these, four outweigh the rest in number of references: audience, body, race, and representation. The quality of contributions underscores this quantitative snapshot, revealing one of the possible through-lines of the book. Whereas explorations of audience and representation seem obligatory to any study of performance, questions about the body and race, while just as crucial, have been all-too-often overlooked or undertheorized within theatre and performance studies. One of the two new sections explicitly addresses all four of these keywords without succumbing to the self-defeating binaries (us/them, body/mind, black/white, real/virtual) that characterized earlier "identity politics" manifestations. In "Critical Race Theory," which features essays by the only two assistant professors in the new edition (the first included contributions from four assistant professors), the category and concept of race are theorized as performance, defined by Roach as "the phenomenon of copies without originals" (458). While Jill Lane investigates the role of performance in "the constitution of Cuban black and blackface publics in the critical years leading up to the final war of Cuban independence" (142), Daphne Lei argues that Bay-area performances of [End Page 315] Cantonese opera enable a hybrid racial identity, "a racial split, between the new Chinese ethnicity and the virtual Chinatown residents, between performers and audiences, between trans-Pacific horizontal connections and vertical Chinese American memories" (156). Harry Elam, the final contributor to this section, queries the generative power...

Abstract: Misinterpretations and caricatures of Critical Race Theory (CRT) abound in popular media and in higher education scholarship. Given the confusion surrounding what CRT is and is not, I write this conceptual essay as an invitation to engage seriously with CRT’s legal foundations. I offer four guideposts to aid scholars in engaging the legal roots of CRT on a deeper level: thinking with and beyond tenets, leveraging the scope of CRT work by legal scholars, understanding the CRT critique of Critical Legal Studies, and appreciating CRT’s theoretical depth and complexity. Further, I highlight characteristics of CRT legal scholarship that are not always explicit in higher education research. Specifically, I describe CRT as an anti-subordination project, a materialist project, a critical intellectual project, and an activist project. Through engaging with CRT’s legal scholarship, I demonstrate how higher education scholars’ understanding and employment of CRT will be enriched.

Abstract: Misinterpretations and caricatures of Critical Race Theory (CRT) abound in popular media and in higher education scholarship. Given the confusion surrounding what CRT is and is not, I write this conceptual essay as an invitation to engage seriously with CRT's legal foundations. I offer four guideposts to aid scholars in engaging the legal roots of CRT on a deeper level: thinking with and beyond tenets, leveraging the scope of CRT work by legal scholars, understanding the CRT critique of Critical Legal Studies, and appreciating CRT's theoretical depth and complexity. Further, I highlight characteristics of CRT legal scholarship that are not always explicit in higher education research. Specifically, I describe CRT as an anti-subordination project, a materialist project, a critical intellectual project, and an activist project. Through engaging with CRT's legal scholarship, I demonstrate how higher education scholars' understanding and employment of CRT will be enriched.

This paper analyzes the unmarked forms of discipline and punishment employed against Palestinian researchers in Israeli academia, attempting to decolonize it through critical knowledge production. Based on interviews with 15 researchers from a cross-section of academic institutions in Israel, the paper identifies subtle mechanisms of discipline and punishment, directed toward normalizing the epistemology of the colonized. The findings suggest that the gatekeepers of Israeli academia not only seek to maintain the existing racial hierarchy between Israeli and Palestinian researchers but also seek to "eliminate" the indigenous epistemology of the latter through mechanisms of hidden surveillance, used to control them as colonized subjects unable to challenge the Zionist ideology that is an essential aspect of Israeli academia. The current paper aims to unpack these invisible mechanisms of surveillance, which are part of a broader colonial apparatus aiming to maintain not only territorial sovereignty but also epistemologic sovereignty.

Midwestern Studies Meets Critical Race TheoryNotes on Imagining the Heartland Jon K. Lauck Britt E. Halvorson and Joshua O. Reno, Imagining the Heartland: White Supremacy and the American Midwest. Oakland: University of California Press, 2022. 218 pp. $85.00 (hardcover), $29.95 (paper). As readers of this journal know better than anyone, the last decade has witnessed a concerted effort to promote and revive Midwestern studies. As consumers of the news in recent years know, the ideas underpinning Critical Race Theory have increasingly been debated in the public square after years of mostly percolating underground in the academy and adjacent institutions. Now comes a direct meeting of the worlds of Midwestern studies and Critical Race Theory in the form of a book published by the University of California Press, which is based in Oakland, California. It is titled Imagining the Heartland: White Supremacy and the American Midwest and was authored by two anthropologists, one at Colby College in Maine and the other at Binghamton University in New York. In a bit of stage-setting, the University of California Press announces in the book that it "publishes bold progressive books … with a focus on social justice issues—that inspire thought and action among readers worldwide."1 Imagining the Heartland affords an opportunity to consider whether Critical Theory generally, and Critical Race Theory (CRT) in particular, can help us understand the Midwest more completely and accurately or if the reverse is true. At this stage of the discussion, the CRT approach to the study of the Midwest, if this book is a reliable guide, suffers from weaknesses that will cloud our ability to see the region in its fullness and complexity. It serves as a broader warning about the problems associated with Critical Theory more generally and should be a reminder of the importance of relying on more [End Page 126] fruitful ways of examining the history of the Midwest. These include, most importantly, a dedication to collecting and examining the particular facts on the ground when interpreting the Midwestern past and placing them in historical and comparative context with limited use of theories which can predetermine conclusions. At a minimum, before it is widely adopted, CRT and its application in Midwestern studies should be the subject of a robust discussion which can begin in this journal. This discussion will continue in future issues. It should be explained up front that Imagining the Heartland does not rely on original research nor the kind of ethnographic study once-common to anthropology. The book relies on secondary publications, from academic studies to media reports to aspects of popular culture, and analyzes them through the lens of Critical Theory and seeks to explain and critique how other writers and artists have imagined or talked about the Midwest. Critical Theory is not the same as thinking critically about evidence when interpreting the past, an exercise we should all embrace.2 Critical Theory, for the uninitiated, was primarily developed by the Marxists who organized the Frankfurt School of social analysis in Germany in the early twentieth-century and who later, to escape the Nazis, moved its operations to the United States.3 During the last third of the twentieth century, Critical Theory in its various forms became highly influential in humanities and social science departments at American universities. From the general debates and ideas within Critical Theory emerged the more focused CRT, which was made prominent by Derrick Bell at Harvard Law School, in addition to other law professors. Bell and his allies promoted activism and, for them, CRT recognized that "revolutionizing a culture begins with a radical assessment of it" and predicted that "scholarly resistance will lay the groundwork for wide-scale resistance."4 A deep background in the adoption and development of Critical Theory in the academy and an understanding of these goals are helpful when reading this book because that is the source of its ideas and language. This grounding in Critical Theory is important to understand when delving into Imagining the Heartland because the book is quite distinct from some of the research that takes place in Midwestern studies. A good deal of the work in Midwestern history is grounded in studying...

Since former President Trump’s 2020 Executive Order banning critical race theory, the scholarship has been at the center of an international moral panic. Right-wing American, British, and French commentators invented a conspiracy theory version of critical race scholarship (Marxism! Black supremacy!). Once constructed, conspiracists blamed critical race theory for several alleged social ills, including making white kids uncomfortable and destroying nationalist sentiment. Although the acute stage of this moral panic may be receding, critical race theory’s reputation as a body of scholarship aimed at diagnosing and curing racial inequality is tarnished. Scholars concerned about racial inequality—for intellectual and ethical reasons—should be worried, as it will likely take time to reverse the damage. Answering objections from academic and lay opponents of critical race theory, Ali Meghji’s The Racialized Social System: Critical Race Theory as Social Theory shows what recovering from this moral panic will look like. Contra academic detractors who claim that critical race theory does not provide a coherent analytical framework, Meghji contextualizes the development of critical race theory in legal studies in relation to the broader set of critical theories of race and racism that were bubbling up in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The theoretical imprimatur of these currents runs deep, as these intellectual movements were part of a long lineage of radical thought from racially marginalized scholars such as Oliver Cromwell Cox, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Joyce Ladner. For lay readers (and I’m sure this book will draw interested non-specialists), Meghji provides an accessible overview showing critical race theory’s explanatory power across the social sciences.

Steven Rose makes his case for an academic boycott of Israel in response to the situation of Palestinian scientists.

This chapter focuses on critical race theory (CRT) counterstorytelling within higher education scholarship. The authors begin by highlighting the historical fiction Mansart Builds a School from W.E.B Dubois’s Black Flame trilogy, which they argue provides an overlooked exemplar of CRT methodologies within higher education scholarship. Second, the authors connect their brief analysis of Mansart Builds a School to current CRT methodologies engaged by higher education scholars. This link seeks to establish this trilogy as a potential foundation that can facilitate an understanding of how of race, racism, and white supremacy permeate and affect higher education campuses and the people of color (POC) who attend them. Because racism is a permanent feature of the United States higher education campuses are rife with racist issues as well. Thus, to address racist issues in higher education, the authors call for more higher education scholars to use CRT methodologies in research on the impact of racism—a complex system that is vital to understand in part because it significantly impacts POC at two- and four-year colleges. Despite higher education scholars’ use of CRT counterstories, scholars provide critique counterstories in higher education due to the lack of equitable policy changes to improve the experiences and achievement of students of color. Though CRT counterstorytelling was not created for policy change, this chapter will function as a starting point in connecting CRT counterstories to policy changes that can radically improve higher education for POC.

Issue: As medical education continues to grapple with issues of systemic racism and oppression within its institutions, educational researchers will undoubtedly turn to critical theory to help illuminate these issues. Critical theory refers both to a “school of thought” and a process of critique that reveals the dynamic forces impacting minoritized groups and individuals. Critical theory can be helpful when researchers want to examine or expose social structures for their asymmetrical power differentials, and subsequently act upon them to create change. Evidence: However, despite the repeated calls for more critical work in medical education, merely describing critical theory’s school of thought has not forwarded researchers’ engagement with these theories. Presently, critical analyses remain rare in medical education. One potential reason for the lack of critical analyses is that there is little guidance for how researchers might engage with their data and approach their findings. Implications: In this paper, we go beyond merely describing critical theory and demonstrate how critical theory can be used as an analytic approach to interrogate the experiences of minoritized individuals in medical education. Using three critical theories: critical race theory, feminist theory, and postcolonial theory, we provide an illustration of how researchers might approach their data using one of three critical theories. In doing so, we hope to assist researchers in better understanding the utility of critical analyses to illuminate sociohistorical forces at work within medical education.

WhitherFeminismin Higher Education in the CurrentCrisis? Laura Briggs I want to argue, against all common sense and a great deal of experience, that feminist scholars and administrators can have what they want and that the important question for how we conceptual ize the relationship of queer and sexuality studies to women's stud ies should not be one of resources. I say this having been chair of a department at the University of Arizona that survived an effort to eliminate it,and I take very seriously the neoliberal discourse that has shrunk education budgets across the board—more sharply in K-12, but still quite acutely in higher education, especially public higher education. Even so, I want to argue that women's studies, ethnic stud ies, LGBTQ. studies, and, to the extent it has been institutionalized in the US academy, postcolonial studies, are well equipped and well positioned to survive, and that the provocative and interesting intel lectual questions about where sexuality and queer studies belong in relationship to women's studies, and what this all has to do with the politics of feminism, should be divorced from the resource questions. They don't belong together. Myself, I am agnostic; I have seen sexuality studies productively separated from and nested within women's studies. At the Univer sity of Arizona, where I was for fifteen years, scholarship and activism thrive at the lively Institute for LGBT Studies, which is distinct from both the Gender and Women's Studies teaching unit, with its BA, FeministStudies39, no. 2. © 2013 by Feminist Studies, Inc. 502 Forum:W/G/SStudies 503 MA/JD, and PhD degrees, and the attached Southwest Institute for Research on Women. For reasons of history and personnel, these are configurations that made sense and captured our hopes and imag ination. Neither name fixed limits on the horizon of our work; the University of Arizona's Women's Studies Department, as it was called until 2007, had as its mission statement "the feminist study of every thing" and LGBT studies hosted the Sex, Race, and Globalization proj ect. At the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where I am now, the recently renamed and departmentalized Women, Gender, Sexual ity Studies has been growing, adding new people and courses in ways made possible by linking the two fields. Neither seems intrinsically better, nor was either move necessary for survival; they simply made sense, given the tools, resources, and opportunities at hand. 1 would argue that the most radical thing we can do is be pragmatic and even a little bored about the name-game; it is a strategy for garnering resources and even growing, nothing more—it doesn't describe our alliances, our politics, or the crucial issues that we will take up (some of which are just around the next corner, not yet visible from where we sit now). We are in universities, but not entirely ofthem — our hopes and aspirations for world-transforming knowledge, work, and activ ism extend well beyond them, and we lose when we think we are or ought to be described or confined by these spaces. These are related to the questions that animate much of what is lively and provocative, still, about the exchange between Wendy Brown in "The Impossibility of Women's Studies" and Robyn Wiegman in her response, "The Possibility of Women's Studies."1 Brown argues, and Wiegman agrees, that much of the source of excitement, renewal, and new knowledge in women's studies is coming from critical race theory, postcolonial studies, and queer theory, and I would concur with that. They arrive at different conclusions from there about the institutionalization of women's studies, with Brown arguing (wrongly, in my view) that we should refrain from further institutionalization and turn the project of feminist scholarship back to the disciplines, while Wiegman argues that this is precisely the kind of interdisciplin ary knowledge production that women's studies exists for. Certainly, women's studies cannot continue productively without sexuality studies, and, certainly, sexuality studies is derived and derives from feminist scholarship. What that means about institutionalization, I 504 Forum:W/G/SStudies think, is essentially a local question, belonging to the particular con figurations...

This article explores theoretical concepts that reveal the power structures within Israeli academia. Rather than employing the conventional framework that emphasizes practices of discrimination and underrepresentation to explain the ongoing preference for the dominant Western, white Jewish group and its cultural capital over Jewish and Arab Palestinian minorities, we propose a new theoretical perspective. By integrating whiteness theory, critical race theory, intersectionality and settler colonial paradigms, the article illustrates how this framework can effectively analyse academic epistemology and social dynamics. We then introduce the subsequent articles in this issue as examples of the successful application of these concepts, highlighting how they expose the concealed and sophisticated exercise of organizational power that aligns with the norms of the dominant culture, to the detriment of minority students and faculty.

Foreword: The Evolving Role of Critical Race Theory in Educational Scholarship Gloria Ladson-Billings Introduction: All God's Children Got a Song Section I: Critical Race Theory and Education in Context 1. Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education Gloria Ladson-Billings and William F. Tate, IV 2. And We Are Still Not Saved: Critical Race Theory in Education Ten Years Later Adrienne Dixson and Celia Rousseau Section II: Critical Race Theory Constructs 3. The First Day of School: A CRT Story Celia Rousseau and Adrienne Dixson 4. Peddling Cackwards: Reflections of Plessy and Brown in the Rockford Public Schools De Jure Desegregation Efforts Thandeka Chapman 5. 'Proving Your Skin is White, You Can Have Everything': Race, Racial Identity and the Property Rights in Whiteness in the Supreme Court Case of Josephine DeCuir Jessica DeCuir-Gunby 6. Keeping it Real: Race and Education in Memphis Celia Rousseau 7. Critical Race Perspectives on Desegregation: The Forgotten Voices of Black Educators Jerome Morris 8. Parent(s): The Biggest Influences in the Education of African American Football Student-Athletes Jamel Donnor Section III: The Interdisciplinary Nature of Critical Race Theory 9. Whose Culture has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth Tara J. Yosso 10. Critical Race Ethnography in Education: Narrative, Inequality, and the Problem of Epistemology Garret Duncan 11. The Fire This Time: Jazz, Research and Critical Race Theory Adrienne Dixson Section IV: Critical Race Theory in US Classrooms and Internationally 12. Where the Rubber Hits the Road: CRT Goes to High School David Stovall 13. Critical Race Theory Beyond North America: Towards a Trans-Atlantic Dialogue on Racism and Antiracism in Educational Theory and Praxis David Gillborn Conclusion 14. Ethics, Engineering, and the Challenge of Racial Reform in Education William F. Tate, IV

Reviewed by: Critical Religious Pluralism in Higher Education: A Social Justice Framework to Support Religious Diversity by Jenny L. Small Saran Donahoo Critical Religious Pluralism in Higher Education: A Social Justice Framework to Support Religious Diversity Jenny L. Small New York, NY: Routledge, 2020, 104 pages, $59.95 (hardcover), $20.95 (ebook) Building on her research on faith, religion, and spirituality among college students and in student affairs, Jenny L. Small concludes that higher education remains a site of Christian privilege. Elements of Christianity continue to influence campus holiday and academic schedules; decorations and menu items; and events and celebrations. Even though institutions frequently use nonreligious terms such as winter break, the schedules continue to revolve around Christmas with little consideration to holidays such as Hanukkah and those of other religions. To that end, Small outlines the critical religious pluralism theory (CRPT) as an instrument colleges and universities can use to examine and improve their approaches to and support for religious pluralism. As a Black woman, I am accustomed to being an outsider to most forms of privilege; however, Small's discussion of Christian privilege reminds me that this is not always the case. Unlike my race, sex, and other characteristics, my identity as a Christian allows me to benefit from religious privilege, which becomes evident every time someone says "Merry Christmas." There are a wide array of greetings cards for every occasion that connect with my religion. It is with ease that I can find a place to practice my faith each time I move to a new community. Knowing how it feels to experience other forms of marginalization, I concur with Small's effort to challenge inequality instead of "allowing it to continue to reproduce" (p. 12). In Critical Religious Pluralism in Higher Education, Small details the pervasiveness of Christian privilege and its connection to higher education. This work challenges the exclusionary foundation of our institutions that are built on Christianity and pushes the individual beneficiaries of this privilege to recognize and reduce its role in oppression. The book contains five chapters, each written as individual essays. Chapter 1 helps to explain the need for a new theoretical model for examining and supporting religious pluralism by identifying the existence of Christonormativity (Christian privilege) in the US and how higher education maintains this privilege. Historically, many US colleges and universities began as religious institutions or were affiliated with a church to establish legitimacy and obtain financial support (Geiger, 2014; Turpin, 2020). While public and several private institutions no longer have designated religious affiliations, Small asserts that these institutions continue to privilege Christianity (and to a lesser degree, Judaism) in academic planning, calendars, and organizational spaces on or near campus properties. Such privilege exposes the weaknesses of religious tolerance as Christianity continues to dominate academic and social spaces. Recognizing the failure of religious tolerance, Small proposes CRPT to help those affiliated with higher education institutions to dismantle this privilege and thereby create environments that embrace those who practice any faith, as well as those who lack any religious association. Chapters 2 and 3 further establish the foundation for CRPT. With a review of literature of religion, spirituality, and faith practice and [End Page 383] their decline among college students, chapter 2 covers religion as a socially constructed identity. Providing a theoretical foundation in chapter 3, Small examines critical race theory (CRT) and Latinx critical theory (LatCrit) as challenges to the status quo that help pave the way for critical thought about religion. Both CRT and LatCrit are helpful in analyzing the ways that structures and social arrangements promote and maintain racial oppression. Small also highlights that these theories give limited attention to religion, thus creating the need for an additional mechanism in this area. Small devotes the last two chapters of her book to defining and suggesting applications for her theory. In chapter 4, Small describes the seven tenets of CRPT (p. 62): • US society has institutionalized Christianity in various aspects of society including higher education, which subordinates other religions and anyone who does not have a Christian affiliation. • CRPT provides a way to examine religion, its connection to and influence on culture, and its intersections with all other forms...