sa,
so irem and i were debating. do u think one must choose? if not, why then are the two groups so distinctly separate? Although there are individuals who consider themselves both, at the organizational level is where i see the divide.
(speaking particularly about muslim academics vs muslim activists in america but all views can surely contribute to this discussion)
:halo:
what sort of activist do you mean?
Look at Naom Chomsky - hes an academic and an activist.
Ralph Nadar as well to a certain extent.
The two groups are distinct and need to be that way. Academics more often than not study in detail the issue at hand gathering various objective data and present a case.
Activists do not necessarily have to follow that path. Noam Chomsky is is an exception to the rule. Ralph Nader is another one.
Advocacy and academia are two very distinct concept and have no rellationship what so ever.
In that case advocacy is best done by the academics who know. Otherwise you get the politicians such as Bush who are all advocates and no academics.
If you are just asking who in general does what then ofcourse politicians do most of the advocacy. But if you are asking who does it best - then its someone with the know how.
3arabeeya
as i was tellin ya earlier dude i think one can be an academic n activist at the same time...
and a thorough academic must be an activist as well...
i dont like the idea of these 'secular academics'...i think they stop themselves somewhere in the middle for the sake of 'credibility'....
but i would give more credibility to an activist academic...
coz dude even if u r an academic, u still r an individual, have ur own point of view, so why not stand for it?
i dont think being an academic sterilises u from having a strong point of view abt an issue, if anything it shud make it stronger. imho knowledge does not breed impartiality but in fact the opposite...it gives rise to partiality and stronger opinions as it makes things clearer...
imho academics need to be more vocal in issues they are cognizant of coz there is a right n wrong in most of these matters like the iraq war for example n they shud stand for what they believe is right. them being academics will add more weight to their opinions.
such learned individuals owe it to society to propagate what's right. silence in certain matters might be wise, but silence in certain matters amounts to acquiescence.
being silent and impartial for the sake of keeping their credibility is not worth it dude and almost selfish IMHO.
Allah knows best.
Academics and activits need to be two separate entities for the sake of objectivity. Activists leverae academic findings to support their causes. But Academics cannot use activists because of their subjectivity.
Any omneky with a bone to pick can be an activist. But it takes years of study to become an academic.
Academics who do advocacy work are neither here nor there.
i have never met an objective academic, not ever in my life. Every one of them has their own opinions and it is impossible for them to completely separate their opinions from their work. Hiding behind hte cloak of objectivity isn’t even bought within the academic community. If even “facts” are disagreed on how then is it possible for two academics to be “objective” and disagree? Anyway, this is beside my question.
hmcq - the two examples you give of academic activists are great but i suppose i’m asking why they havent been organized. Someone like Chomsky who is looked up to in many academic circles could revolutionize academia by encouraging activism. Why hasn’t/can’t/won’t this been done?
:halo:
Well..you should get out more 3arab. the world is full of them. The fact that one is an academic does not mean they do not have opinions but they are more likely to have opinions based on objective study.
Chomsky and like are pot smokin monkeys who like the sound of their own voice. I would to go chomsky if I needed to hear communist rantings in contemporary poetry...not for an essay on geopolitical realities based on objective thought.
Matusi..In addition to what you have stated, professorial and scholarly work by definition is objective and free from editorial commentary. Their job is to tell it as it is, and not what they may think what it is. Only cheap self-absorbed egotistical maniacs from the academia will turn activists. They should leave one or the other. You can't be a Mullah and Rabbi rolled into one. Of course Rabbi being the brighter of the two.
Where were you when the importance of diplomacy was explained?
:halo:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Well..you should get out more 3arab.
[/QUOTE]
lol
ummm if only you knew 3arabeeya personally this is the last thing you would say....i don't mean to brag about my friend but just to address your personal comment about her, she is the last person who doesn't have enough exposure in this regard...she is the president of one of the largest campus based political activist student groups on the west coast, and knows some of the academics who r at the top in their field...i can't even remember all the names right now but she has been around some big non Muslim names like Nelson Mandela, Condeleezza Rice, Hans Von Sponek, Edward Said, Tom Campbell, Denis Halliday, Ehud Barak and i'm forgetting names now...she's organised events with some of these ppl....and not to mention all the top Muslim leaders in the US...
sorry 3arabeeya dude but i just had to say that!!
^ That is great 3arab. No as I said..you need to get out more. Kids waving flags are just kds waving flags. Means nothing…policy and academic insight doesn’t come from getting a 3.2 gpa at UCal Irvine. You seem to have a good foundation. I would recommend a doctorate in near eastern studies from a good school or front line experience in sitting on policy boards of orgs that matter, like 10 yrs or so.
then you can decide whether activists are better or academics. Until then 