Two weeks ago, the students in Foreign Cultures 17, “Thought and Change in the Contemporary Middle East” watched a movie depicting the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The movie was introduced to the class as an objective account of the conflict, produced by the United Nations—the same organization that equated Zionism with racism.

Last week, two guest lecturers addressed the class. The first delivered a balanced account of the conflict: She identified the mistakes and virtues of both sides and called upon Israel and Palestine to make various concessions to one another.

The second guest spit venom at the state of Israel. He denounced the country and accused its citizens of perpetuating the longest colony of the modern era. Whereas the first speaker made recommendations to both sides for eventual peace, the second warned that only when the colonizers “pull back” would the violence come to an end. (Two notes of relative importance about him: First, he unfortunately neglected to specify to where, exactly, the Israelis were meant to retreat. And second, before beginning he made sure that the tape of the lecture would not fall into the hands of the FBI.)

Last Friday, the class watched “Gaza Strip,” a documentary about elementary-school boys who wish to die as martyrs for Palestine. In disturbing detail, the film portrayed young children being massacred by exploding bombs.

These are but a few examples of the ostensibly open-minded dialogue that Foreign Cultures 17 provides its students. A guise of objectivity veils a most dangerous species of academia: The curriculum that hides its motivations, making students think they have come to their own conclusions based on incontrovertible facts.

Although “Thought and Change in the Contemporary Middle East” does not admit to endorsing an agenda, it clearly subscribes to one. The ruminations of the United Nations, on their own, is hardly a balanced account of events. Neither is juxtaposing a moderate line-tugger with a vehement pro-Palestinian, or showing a gory documentary of life in Gaza without an accompanying video depicting the savage terrorism committed against Israelis.

Earlier this week, I met with Professor of Middle Eastern Studies Nur O. Yalman and asked him about the content of his curriculum. He sees no bias in his presentation and says, besides, a completely objective presentation of the information is virtually impossible.

To be fair, when it comes to the Middle Eastern quagmire, absolute objectivity may be too much to ask. But some semblance of balance in a professor’s presentation is not. Bland-centrists do not offset the rants of anti-Israel activists so zealous (and paranoid?) they fear the interference of the FBI.

Considerable damage is done when a class––especially one that has tripled in size this year––is fed one point of view disguised as historical truth. And, responsibility for this damage extends to the University’s highest levels, especially when that class is part of the Core program, sanctioned by the College as fundamental knowledge.

The material from Foreign Cultures 17 is not quite propaganda, but it comes close. And one thing is clear: The course has not delivered what it promised at the beginning of the term.

If professors, for whatever reason, find themselves unable to offer a balanced account of their subject, they should acknowledge their bias and explain what informs their understanding of the issue at hand. If they don’t, then the College should take action––in such a class, students are being indoctrinated, not educated.

Jordana R. Lewis ’02 is a history and literature concentrator in Eliot House. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.