2,000 Sociologists Discredit Their Profession
Over 2,000 sociologists (and climbing), from some of the world’s most prestigious universities, have proudly signed a letter of support for Gaza after the October 7 attack on Israel. They accuse Israel, not the Palestinians nor their Hamas gunmen, of genocide. Their letter states:
We are witnessing internationally supported genocide. This latest siege comes as a continuation and escalation of the daily violence Palestinians faced for decades from Israeli colonization; an apartheid regime whose occupation is in clear violation of international law, but persists with the support of powerful governments globally.
Perhaps these students of other societies should read up a bit on apartheid in South Africa before making such statements. They may be missing a few points on context.
The letter’s signatories assert that Israelis are committing wanton murder. Their letter continues:
As of writing, over 9,000 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 3,600 children, and over 22,000 injured.
No mention was made that the Palestinian casualties resulted from a war they started or that many of those innocent deaths were caused by their own government, which was using them as human shields. Nor, did they refer to the Palestinians as “casualties of war,” but as victims of murder. Is the bias of these “people of science” contaminating their objective analysis?
In response to world outrage about the attack, these scholars cautioned against a rush to judgement. They write:
As educators, it is our duty to stand by the principles of critical inquiry and learning, to hold the university as a space for conversation that foregrounds historical truths, and that contextualizes this past week’s violence in the context of 75 years of settler colonial occupation and European empire.
Did you get that? The events of October 7 must be “contextualized” -- considering 75 years of Palestinian suffering since the establishment of Israel. Why did they limit their “context” to the most recent 75 years, and not the entire 3,800 years of Jewish history in the region? Perhaps that would have undermined their argument. Is it just a coincidence that the Holocaust ended three years before their selected period of “context”? Does that explain why the Palestinian pledge to succeed where Hitler failed isn’t included in their contextual analysis?
When the sociologists talk of “context,” they’re saying that any assessment as it pertains to right or wrong, depends on circumstances. Things that appear evil to the uncredentialed are often found to be righteous after close sociological examination. For example: If a man shoots an unarmed woman in the head, most would consider that a criminal act. But if the woman happens to be trespassing while protesting an election, her execution becomes a justified application of law enforcement. The context matters, you see.
Okay. I’ll play along. I don’t have a degree in sociology, so perhaps some tenured university professor could enlighten me.
Under what context would the cooking of a baby alive in an oven not be considered an act of indefensible evil -- so bad that no sane person would even attempt to rationalize it? If the man who committed that act listens to the dying baby scream in agony and celebrates, is there any context under which he would be considered anything other than a soulless monster?
Under what context would the raping of women in the street and then setting them ablaze not be considered an atrocity? Does proudly posting video of such an event on social media somehow absolve the rapists – under the light of objective sociological analysis?
I understand the argument that bad things happen in war and that the Palestinians have decided to be at war with Israel since it declared statehood. Given that, did the actions of Hamas advance the cause of Palestinian statehood (which the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected) or was it just senseless violence? Were their actions in pursuit of an objective consistent with the precepts of righteous warfare, or would those actions more reasonably be considered “war crimes”? Under what sociological context would Hamas’ actions be considered the former rather than the latter?
Was Hamas tone deaf or simply bloodthirsty? Did Hamas believe that publishing pictures of a beheaded baby in its crib would rally world support for their “river to the sea” objective? Or was the infant’s execution done for the sheer satisfaction of it? If it was the latter rather than the former, under what context is deriving glee from the suffering of others not judged evil by the science of sociology? Or is the notion of “evil” outside the purview of their studies? If it’s outside their purview, on what scientific basis do they judge Israel’s morality?
I have a hypothetical question for our masters of moral superiority. How would they judge Israel if it were to nuke Berlin -- given the context of the Holocaust and all? Would they rationalize it the same way that they’ve contextualized the Palestinian attack on Israel? If not, could they please explain why the hypothetical Jewish slaughter of innocents would be somehow different than the actual Palestinian actions? Or is the only “context” that applies, that Israel was established as a sanctuary for Jews -- who are unworthy of safety anywhere in the world?
Any human being who is unable to see the evil in the senseless infliction of suffering on the innocent is unqualified to make moral judgements about anyone else. Period. In doing so, the 2,000 have discredited their argument, exposed themselves as fools (or worse), and discredited their entire profession.
And yet, these are the scholars teaching our children, at institutions which no longer allow the open debate of ideas. Have you noticed that there hasn’t been a massive sociologist signing of a rebuttal letter? Is that because all sociologists agree with the 2,000? Or could it be because academic disagreement is no longer allowed -- that doing so would be career suicide? Regardless of which it is, our academic institutions have become a dangerous place for impressionable minds.
The radicals promised that they would make a long march through our institutions. They even told us that the march would include a liberal dose of moral relativism. However, they never explained what that meant. They have marched our children into an alternate reality in which the definition of “evil” depends on the context of the approved narrative. It is a place where the victims become the monsters, and the monsters are celebrated as heroes.
Image: Wafa (Q2915969)