Additional reasons Pipes is right about defunding ME studies

Submitted by Will Smythe (United States), Mar 8, 2004 at 00:24

The federal largesse is easily misused and abused, resulting in unintended consequences. When is it time to pull the plug? When the unintended consequences are too great. Here are two analogies of pulling the plug that might help:

1) Throwing money at welfare recipients seemed like the right thing to do in the 1960's "War on Poverty." However, this created generation welfare where whole families never got out of welfare, similar to how some families never detach from the criminal justice system. Then welfare was reformed starting with Rep. Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, and

2) The Republicans billed themselves as being fiscally conservative through the 1980's and 1990's. However, the Democrats cynically used this against the Republicans. They forced through social spending programs, etc., and then got reluctant Republicans to raise taxes so as to balance the budget. After Prez. Bush I raised the taxes to record heights for any peacetime president, the voters decided to elect Bill Clinton. The Republican voters stayed home in droves because they realized the Republicans had become nothing more than the taxmen for the Democrats.

So what happens when donors of money do not hold organizations responsible for how the money is spent? Unintended consequences. One might say the organization is unaccountable, but this is not true exactly. There will always be donors that do demand accountability. However, the donors who are sticklers get more bang for the buck, because the money from unaccountable donors is pressed into service to meet the demands and conditions of certain donors.

So, what has happened with Mideast studies? Say, eighty percent of the money comes from sources who have no say in how the money is spent. These sources would be from endowments, tax monies, and such. The people who donate money only if certain conditions are met actually steer the entire organization and not just the department or chair they fund. Conditional donors become the rudder for the boat, and they hijack and co-opt the entire organization.

So, the Saudis and other Muslims giving money conditionally to certain Mideast Studies projects actually disproportionally control the organizations and resources. That is why a sheik donating a few million dollars here and there can make entire Mideast Studies departments walk and talk like Edward Said. These sheiks become the minority controlling interest in huge organizations mostly funded by non-Muslims and the US taxpayer. This is why the US government must defend Mideast Studies, so the money of US citizens and taxpayer is not pressed into the service of those who would like to see the downfall of the United States.

The sheiks know that just one dollar conditionally given can

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".