To the editors:

The column by Jordana R. Lewis ’02 entitled “Indoctrinating, Not Educating” (Opinion, Nov. 15) accuses me of conducting “indoctrination” and almost “propaganda” in Foreign Cultures 17: “Thought and Change in the Contemporary Middle East.” Allow me to respond to these serious and misleading charges.

Foreign Cultures courses are about “other” people. How are we going to understand them if we do not listen to them? The world is up in arms. Some are convinced that the world of Islam—the major subject of Foreign Cultures 17—consists of religious fanatics and that Arabs are basically “terrorists.” Many do fear that we are involved in a “War of Civilizations” almost like “Star Wars.” Ethnic profiling has become the order of the day. The rhetoric has become heated. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is drawn into all of this. The killings are continuing every day.

How does one handle a reasonable account of what has been going on in this part of the world in the midst of such intense tension and the tragedy of Sept. 11?

Foreign Cultures 17 is concerned with many other matters than the troubles around Israel. It describes the recent experiences of countries before and after the break up of the Ottoman Empire. The course goes on to include the Khomeini revolution in Iran, as well as the position of women in Islam. I have spent 10 minutes each lecture in open discussion on Afghanistan. Events in Central Asia have a bearing on the Middle East.

Lewis accuses me of coming close to “propaganda” essentially for organizing a session on the Oslo accords and for showing two films in a separate series. On Oslo, I did invite Associate Professor of Government Eva Bellin and Rami Khouri to speak to our students for 20 minutes each to open up a discussion. Khouri is a Nieman Fellow at Harvard from Jordan. He is a Christian Palestinian, respected as a journalist who is generally considered to be a “dove.” He made what seemed rather a mild statement since he seemed to hold out the hopeful possibility of an agreement between the parties. Lewis thinks that “he spit venom” and “accused (Israel’s citizens) of perpetuating the longest colony of the modern era.” His talk is in the public record since it was recorded and made available on the Harvard web site as a video. Those of your readers interested in the matter can check it out. Thanks to our new technology, they can also review all my lectures as well. They are available in video to the Harvard community.

Films? We showed many short films. Among these two are singled out for objection. One is a 34 minute United Nations film on the conflict. I had not previewed this film but was told that it could be used as a background to the events from 1890 to 1990. This seemed acceptable. I have no reason to think otherwise. Your columnist who is so hostile to the U.N. might be reminded of the most recent Nobel Prize it received.

The second, more controversial film was made by a young filmmaker who had won an Academy Award for a film on orphans in Russia. I was told that he had a film on the children in Gaza which was to be shown on PBS. We could see it before that airing. This again seemed interesting in order to bring an important social and political problem to the attention of our students. Gaza is a dangerous place. It is critical in the peace process. The film was grim. Indeed, it reflected the miserable situation in Gaza which is worsening by the day. It was painful to watch. Such violence is in the background of what we read in the papers. I do not believe that it is wrong to bring such matters to the attention of our students who certainly have the critical faculties to assess what they are watching. The pretense that all this amounts to almost “propaganda” and “indoctrination” is an insult to the intelligence of our students. It is also a slur on the dedicated work being carried out by 10 gifted teaching fellows.

In “Thought and Change in the Contemporary Middle East,” I am concerned with bringing the turmoil of a region critical for our future to the attention of our students. The account of the ideas and events that have moved these vast populations in their struggles is of immense relevance to the present. We need better public knowledge. We must not be afraid to listen to their views, their hopes and aspirations. This is one of the purposes of courses in Foreign Cultures.

If Lewis is looking for principles that animate my thoughts she will find them in my opening lecture. I am for “open societies.” I am also for that “most irreplaceable of beings” as Gide said, the particular human being and his or her rights. And I would add “Equality between nations, equality within nations and the perfection of Man (and Women).” If this is indoctrination, so be it.

Nur O. Yalman

Nov. 23, 2001

The writer is Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and teaches Foreign Cultures 17: “Thought and Change in the Contemporary Middle East.”