New York Times Takes Notice
I linked yesterday to a Powerline post that detailed the resignation of Kenneth Stein fro his position as a fellow of the Carter Center. Professor Stein tendered the resignation specifically because of the latest book published by Jimmy Carter. The letter of resignation called the book, “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” Unfortunately for Jimmy Carter, the New York Times has picked up the story.
The adviser, Kenneth W. Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and political science at Emory University, resigned his position as a fellow with the Carter Center on Tuesday, ending a 23-year association with the institution.
In a two-page letter explaining his action, Mr. Stein called the book “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein said he had used similar language in a private letter he sent to Mr. Carter, but received no reply.
“In the letter to him, I told him, ‘It’s your prerogative to write anything you want when you want,’ ” Mr. Stein said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “That’s not why I’m resigning.”
Mr. Stein said that he admired the former president’s accomplishments but that felt he had to distance himself from the Carter Center and the book, which was published by Simon & Schuster.
“It’s an issue of how history should be written,” Mr. Stein said. “I had to distance myself from something that was coming close to me professionally.”
Deanna Congelio, spokeswoman for Mr. Carter, released a statement with his response: “Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow.” It did not address Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book.
That criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book, including Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, who called the book “ahistorical,” and David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“I was just very saddened by it,” Mr. Makovsky said. “I just found so many errors.”
Mr. Carter’s use of “apartheid” in the title has attracted much of the controversy. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles released a statement on Monday saying the former president harbors bias against Israel. “There is no Israeli apartheid policy, and President Carter knows it,” the statement read.
But Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book has been perhaps the sharpest cut.
Stein was the first director of the Carter Center. His resignation - and the public airing of it - is meant to be a slap in the face for Carter. The fact that Stein refuses to have his professional reputation damaged by the fraudulent "history" that Carter tries to peddle should be telling people just how badly Carter mangled the truth in his latest screed. It should also, one hopes, cause Jimmy's execrable views to be featured less and less in the media.
UPDATE: Jake Tapper hammers Tulane historian Douglas Brinkley for attempting to paint this incident as "more ideological than ethical".
"They've never been on the same page in the Middle East. They've been in an almost constant state of disagreement. Carter has used him as a sounding board but apparently Carter went too far and the sparring partner decided to bloody him up," Brinkley said. "Ken Stein … doesn't trust the Palestinians as much as Carter."
As a college student, I interned for Dr. Stein at the Carter Center in 1988. He's a stand-up guy, one committed to trying to find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and one certainly open to the Palestinian point of view.
My work for Stein revolved around research about THE BENELUX STATES — the economic union that allows Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemboug to function together while existing separately. I also researched ways in which Israel and the Palestinians were intertwined infrastructurally — water supplies, for instance. This is not the work of a man turning a deaf ear to the needs of the Palestinians — it's the work of a man researching ways to achieve peace.
Stein is not going after ideology, Brinkley must understand that as an academic. This is all about Carter's complete fabrications. That is not an ideological argument, it is a straight-up ethical problem for Carter. Brinkley's attempt to provide cover for Carter calls his judgment and ideology into question. Carter is suddenly getting rather a lot of negative press.
