A few days after Egypt’s constitutional referendum, many activists in the Egyptian blogosphere who had supported a “No” vote began a curious conversation regarding literacy rates in the country. The referendum asked whether Egyptians supported constitutional amendments; those who did not support the reforms and, instead, opted for voting “No” argued that the changes were not sufficient and more substantial changes were necessary.

What they were interested in was not the problem of illiteracy and its resolution but, rather, a possible correlation- and even causality- between high illiteracy in certain parts of Egypt and a trend for a “Yes” vote. Many in the Egyptian blogosphere started claiming that there was a visible correlation between illiteracy and “Yes” votes. The data was crude: some governorates that had higher illiteracy rate also had a higher rate of “Yes” vote, while some others that had lower illiteracy rate also had a lower rate of “Yes” votes.

Another rather crude piece of data used for such claims was about a possible correlation and even causality between participation in the referendum and illiteracy: some governorates with higher illiteracy showed lower participation in referendum, while some with lower illiteracy showed higher participation. Most of the activists who had actively participated in Egyptian uprising and later supported a “No” vote, started talking about the importance of education, and how it must be illiteracy that is behind the “Yes” result as well as the low participation. Now many things can be said, and indeed will be said in this very post, about the fallacies and ironic aspects of this stand, but what is more important to ask first is this: Where is this data coming from?

While most of the related data is calculated independently by different sources, many cited an academic who seems to be one of the leading sources: Tarek Masoud, an assistant professor of public policy at Harvard University, who published a chart showcasing the percentage of voting ‘Yes’ versus the percentage of illiteracy, showing a correlation between two values. Dr. Masoud then apparently “explained” the referendum’s results, based on his data as: “The people who voted yes want the revolution behind them. Their concern is moving from this new period of uncertainty to a better form of the status quo ante” while, “the people who voted no want no vestige of Mubarak’s regime to remain.”

Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Masoud didn’t make rest of his work public that is if there was a “rest” of the work: it seems, from the countless bloggers and Twitter users and Facebook fans all over the internet who copy-pasted, blogged, re-blogged, tweeted, re-tweeted, “liked” this particular “explanation” and assumptions that came with it that they were only based on the data I mentioned above. Nobody in the blogosphere or in the respected publications which covered this “explanation” and “data” seems to talk about other factors: level of public trust in referendum to be free and fair, level of media-coverage and in-depth information circulated about the amendments voted in the referendum, socio-political constituents of different political factions that supported different votes in the referendum, several economic trends that can have direct or indirect relations with the amendments being voted… and the list goes on; what does not go on is the fact that everybody, including apparently a respected Professor of Public Policy, was so ready to jump to a very specific and limiting conclusion about a very complex event taking place in a very complex point in time in a country which simply just had a revolution. Obviously from an academic and scientific point of view it is simply and factually wrong and invalid to come up to a conclusion as the aforementioned one with such crude and specific data that does not take into account a multitude of other factors. But, beyond the “other factors” that were not taken into account another question remains: Why? Why were people so ready to jump to these conclusions? Why were they especially so ready to jump to those conclusions with that specific factor in mind? Why didn’t people choose any other factor to see if there is any correlation? Why was it “illiteracy” that was the first choice? Why did people readily ignore the ages-old rule that “correlation does not imply causation”?

I think neither the question nor the answer is very surprising to many of us: we still have some deterministic, positivist attitude towards both the education and social sciences in our genes that we inherited from great Euro-centric philosopher of the last few centuries. The positivist mind is always in search of a causal link, a deterministic look, a formula to explain it all in social sciences. Such a rigid perspective to a social reality that is anything but rigid has often caused a certain elitist attitude on the parts of some White-liberals: “the masses do not understand, especially if they are not educated, of the importance or the meanings of great ideas like democracy, human rights.” The deterministic relationship they assume between understanding, supporting concepts such as democracy with education simply has no real evidence or basis; but may be some data like those Mr. Masoud provided. Nevertheless, they are the best excuse to use when masses, who are “ordinary” and often less educated, reach for a political option that does not align with the preferences of the elites. Countless examples of this can be seen all over the world, including Middle East.

What is especially intriguing, however, about the ease with which many active participants in the revolution and blogosphere, accepted this classic White-liberal rhetoric, was the very fact that they had just participated in a revolution. Revolutions, unlike some other forms of government overthrow, are events in which masses take a critical role: it is the mass that makes the revolution a reality; the large number of ordinary citizens, who actively participate in the revolution or support the revolution passively… Without the masses you do not and cannot have a revolution. The fact that most self-claimed “revolutionaries” were so ready to dismiss the bulk of their comrades as illiterates who lack an understanding of the consequences of voting “Yes” or not voting at all is very ironic. The irony goes even beyond that: if one looks at the bigger picture, it is clear that most of these activists who are complaining about the “Yes” vote and how illiteracy was the reason behind it are actually questioning legitimacy of the very core of democracy, which they had revolted to bring about.

Democracy is not meritocracy: its legitimacy and sovereignty does not lie at nor is gained from the merits of the individuals or their education or their intelligence, rather it gains the sovereignty and legitimacy from demos, i.e. the “people”. Popular sovereignty is often described as the very foundation of democracy; as you can find several different definitions of democracy but popular sovereignty is probably one aspect that you will always find in all.

Many argued for a “Yes” vote and many others argued for a “No” vote. I think pretty much everybody agrees that low participation is a problem but it sure is not simply and only because of high illiteracy rates. Illiteracy is of course an important issue that will need to be tackled by the new Egyptian authority, however it is not an obstacle for democracy and it has never been one, because the basic principles of democracy or of freedom are not things that are tokens of knowledge that once given, they are understood and applied well.

It is very crucial for the democratic future of Egypt and also to keep the revolution alive – even more crucial than any “Yes” or “No” vote – to believe in the masses that brought the revolution and a chance for democracy in Egypt with it. All should stand against the notion that somehow education makes people “better”, “freedom-loving”, “more democratic” or “enlightened”; after all even Saif al-Islam Gaddafi has a PhD from London School of Economics.

Yet another reason for academic boycott.

[Tarboush Tip: al-falasteenyia]

Over the last few years there was a hope that the sporadic attempts at reform would gain a greater degree of continuity by large investments in academic and research institutions, which would continue even when gas prices were high. While petro-dollars in the past had been spent on infrastructure, lost to graft or wasted a new emphasis, more recently oil revenues had built impressive glitzy campuses of American and European Universities. While the concept, if not the execution, was admirable the funding models of these schools was based on large endowments and predicated on healthy revenues from the stock market. As you can imagine that ain’t workin’ out too well these days. It looks like the George Mason University campus in Ras al Khaymah is the first casualty and GMU will be pulling out of the venture before graduating a single student. I hope this encourages American and European provosts with Gulf dinars in their eyes to tap the brakes on their rush to hastily establish new campuses in the region. Seems to me that there needs to be some evidence of proof-of-concept and that many of these universities would do better working together rather than reinventing the wheel (although even that has not been enough for Education City). I would rather have a few viable and healthy schools than a string of failures. Stay tuned…

Excerpts:

The first day back at school is always a rush for children and parents. Even if you’re organised there’s always an exercise book, or bag, or a pair of swimming goggles that has disappeared during the break.

Normally you can sort it out in a few minutes of frantic activity, and then the children get off to school, and peace descends again – for a few hours anyway.

So imagine what it was like to be a 10-year-old girl called Mona in Gaza. Her school reopened Saturday morning, after the break for the war.

She doesn’t have parents to get her off to school, as they were killed by Israeli soldiers. Her brother took her back to their family house this morning, to find her school things.

Mona is a bright little girl, and she knows what has happened to her. She carries a pad of paper, and draws constantly. So do my children, but they draw pictures that show them playing in the garden, and having fun at parties, or on holiday.

Mona did two versions of the drawing that is most on her mind at the moment. It shows an aircraft firing missiles, soldiers, tanks, bulldozers knocking down buildings, and in the middle of it all is a house full of tiny stick figures. They are Mona and her family. Another picture shows her trying to help her mother and her father.

At the school Mona’s best friend was very pleased to see her, because she had heard that she was dead. She held her hand and played with her fingers while Mona was talking to the teacher, whose eyes filled with tears when she saw her, because she also thought she had been killed.

She hurried away to the staff room afterwards. I suppose she thought it would not be good for her class to see her break down.

Read the rest of the entry here.

On July 31st, his administrative detention was extended for another three months. There is no limit to the number of times a prisoner’s administrative detention can be extended. Apart from being silly, his charge is vague so there is no way to defend himself against it.

On a related note, Israel today completed its last obligation under the Hezbollah prisoner exchange, releasing five Palestinian prisoners. The number and identity of prisoners was left up to the Israeli government. They chose five minors whose terms were close to finishing, who had been imprisoned for throwing rocks and glass bottles at the Occupation Forces.

Administrative detention is a system of incarceration without charge, where secret evidence from the Israeli General Security Services (GSS) is shown to the military judge and used to justify incarceration for a period up to six months, on a renewable basis. The information provided by the GSS is not communicated to the detainee or to his/her lawyer. The mental suffering caused by not knowing the grounds for detention can amount to torture as defined under the UN Convention Against Torture and such lengthy detentions without charge or trial also constitute “arbitrary detention” which are a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9[1]) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 9).

For the Zionuts about to trip over their panties in the rush to justify this practice, note the part where the detainees are held without charge. As in, they have not been charged with any crime. As in, many of these prisoners serve many years at a time under administrative detention without ever being accused of anything.

10 students from Birzeit University currently languish under administrative detention in Israel, among them the former head of the student council, Fadi Hamad, and his deputy, Abdallah Oweis.Also amongst them is Omar Qassis. Omar has been detained since March 17, 2008. He was taken from his home in the mostly Christian village of Birzeit where he lived with his mother and older brother Hanna, and has spent his time in incarceration between the Mascobia Detention Center in West Jerusalem, notorious in Palestinian society for its harsh interrogation methods that frequently include torture, the Naqab Prison in the middle of the Naqab desert, notorious for its inhumane detention conditions (prisoners are kept in tents in the desert), and Ofer military court near Ramallah. Throughout his detention, the Israeli occupation and its intelligence services failed to charge Omar with any crime. On May 1st, a month and a half after his arrest, he was placed under administrative detention for three months. He was also charged with throwing stones sometime between 2001 and 2002. He pled not guilty.

The ridiculousness of the charge is breathtaking, but within the maze of Israeli oppression, hardly unique. Note also the fact that Omar is being accused of throwing stones when he was 16 years old, a minor, yet is being tried in a military court as an adult. Several months after his detention, his family have yet to receive permission from the occupying forces to visit him.

I know Omar and Hanna personally. We all worked together at a local newspaper a couple of years ago, and Omar was due to graduate with me last week. He will now have to wait until he is freed. Omar is an unbelievably hyperactive dude, always ready with a quip or a quote one of the many varied thinkers he has read. I missed seeing his lanky body bouncing up and down at campus handing out flyers around student union election time, or volunteering his time to guide foreign delegations around the school. But it doesn’t matter what kind of person he is-what matters is that he is being held without charge (or a pathetic, trumped up charge if you choose to count throwing stones 7 years ago) , under deplorable conditions, with no idea of when he will be let free.

A detailed account of Omar’s ongoing ordeal.

Chaim Sugerman learned that he actually is not studying for exams, rather, reading manuals on installing tools and gadgets to his limbs in his quest to become Gaza’s first Inspector Gadget, and he is very grateful to the Israeli occupation forces for the opportunity.

The first time I realized that I’d be having a pretty different college experience than that of my friends in the US or the Arab world is when, a couple of months into my first semester at Birzeit University, I noticed a new student in my Arab Society class. Naturally, the professor asked him what he was doing showing up two months late. It turns out the student had just spent two years in the notorious Naqab (Katziot) desert prison for political activism, and had just gotten out.

The current head of the Student Union at Birzeit, Fadi Hamad, has been in an Israeli prison for the last 4 months without charge. His deputy, Abdallah Oweis, was arrested barely a month after taking over. He too is being held without charge. The Israeli occupation can ‘legally’ imprison Palestinians for up to six months at a time without charge, placing them in ‘administrative detention’. This can and usually is renewed every six months without any legal process. Some prisoners languish in administrative detention for years on end.

Of course, Israel doesn’t reserve its punishment to activists only. In 1987, it closed down every Palestinian educational institution, from kindergartens all the way to universities, for an entire year. For a whole year, students and children were not allowed to receive their education, a clear violation of international law. Palestinian society responded by setting up local educational committees that organized classes in ordinary homes. These had to take place in secret-if the Israeli army found out the time and place of these classes, all those taking part were arrested.

Although the 1987 closure was the most comprehensive, the universities, particularly Birzeit, Alnajah and Bethlehem, all faced independent closures for varying periods of time. Student dorms are frequently invaded by the army in the middle of the night, and road blocks are set up arbitrarily to impede the ability of students to reach their classes. From 2001 until 2004, the Israeli army set up a permanent checkpoint in Surda, between Ramallah and Birzeit. The route is used mostly by Birzeit students, and the checkpoint made a 15 minute trip an hour long nightmare. Students were turned back randomly, and many had to trek through the muddy hills in winter to get to school. Those that tried to go by road faced humiliation; at times, the soldiers would let students of a certain religion pass through, turning back the rest. Other times, the soldiers would line up the female students in two groups-those they deemed attractive, and those whose looks didn’t quite do it for the occupiers.

Birzeit University was set up in the 70’s as a liberal university, and it has played a leading role in developing social and political activism in support of the Palestinian cause. As such, it is known here as Jam’at al-Shuhada’, the University of Martyrs, in honor of the many alumni that have been killed by Israel since the university’s inception. I’ve been at Birzeit for three and a half years – in that time, two students have joined that list.

Last year, Omar al-Thafer was killed by an undercover Israeli force in the heart of Ramallah in a botched assassination attempt that targeted a man eating at the same restaurant as he. Yesterday, Abdellatif Huroob, 20, from the village of Kharas near Hebron, was killed by an Israeli settler on a road near the illegal Israeli settlement of Gilo north of Ramallah. The Israeli army says Huroob was killed in self-defense when he tried to attack the settler. The autopsy revealed that he had been shot in the head at close range, execution style. Today, the Israeli army attacked his family home and ransacked it.

Omar and Abdellatif won’t be the last Palestinian students killed in cold blood by their occupiers, just like Fadi and Abdallah won’t be the last to be imprisoned for months at a time without charge. The truly tragic fact in all this is that such things have become an accepted part of the college experience in Palestine. I wonder if all those squealing in indignation about how Palestinian textbooks do not instruct Palestinian students to recognize the legitimacy of their occupier and oppressor (because plenty of American and Israeli studies have found that there is a shocking absence of anti-Semitism in these books) will ever be willing to raise their voices at the constant abuse of Palestinian students and educational institutions.

Lawmakers voted early Thursday to approve a constitutional amendment to allow women to enter universities wearing Islamic head scarves, a move that many secular Turks view as an attempt to impose religion on their daily lives.

Lawmakers voted 401 to 110 in a preliminary vote in favor of the government’s proposed amendment to the Constitution. The government has defended its plan as a reform needed to give its citizens religious liberty and bring Turkey in line with European Union human rights guidelines.

A second, final round of voting was scheduled for Saturday. (AP)

Well, I should think so!! Forcing women to choose between their religious beliefs and their education is completely and utterly unacceptable, first off. As it stands in Turkey, you can’t study at university, or teach for that matter, if you are a religious Muslim woman who wears the headscarf. You either have to violate your religious beliefs, give up your educational career altogether in anything outside Islamic Law, or opt for a third choice: learning an entirely new language in order to study in another country.

I studied Arabic with a young Turkish woman in Jordan, who was studying to master the Arabic language in order to obtain a bachelor’s level degree from the University of Jordan in Psychology. The route to higher education in her own country was closed to her, as she chose to wear hijab.

I view any policy that excludes women for wearing hijab as just as offensive and unacceptable as a policy that excludes women who do not. But fundamental personal religious freedoms aside, it can’t possibly be in Turkey’s best interest as a nation to encourage bright and ideological young people to leave and put down roots elsewhere for the sake of their education.

Aha! Here’s a BBC article on the same topic.

According to it, two-thirds of women in Turkey cover their hair… that’s a lot of people not allowed to attend college classes.

The government’s plan to change the law has sparked large protest rallies by secular Turks, who want to defend the legacy of the modern state’s founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

They fear it may be a first step to eroding the secular system.

Yes! It’s a slippery slippery slope, my friends. A SLIPPERY SLOPE! First your religious neighbor’s daughter will attend classes with yours, and then there will be NO ALCOHOL SOLD ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!! ANYWHERE!!!!!

Beth Fertig from WNYC reports on the recent announcement:

“A-BOOO DUHHBEEE* will serve 2000 students when it opens in three years. It’s being built by the government of Abu Dhabi, and NYU hopes it will attract students from throughout the Middle East, Europe and South and Central Asia.”

In a less than 30 second story, Beth Fertig strangely enough closes the piece with a note on campus security:

“NYU will control campus security”

What the hell is that suppose to mean? Is the implicit message, “Don’t worry, we won’t leave the delicate matter of a student’s sense of safety in the inept emirate’s hands”?????

I have heard of more bombings and psycho mall and school massacres and rampages in the US, than I have ever heard of such a thing coming out of that emirate (I’m only making a campus security comparsion, so before you get all your panties twisted and bark off in tangentals about the UAE’s atrocious treatment of foreign workers, just be aware of the subject matter).

*I know, it’s better than “Apple Dubai,” but still, what’s so hard about saying “Abu Dhabi”????