Bernard Lewis Was Right: MESA’s Academic Freedom Mirage

When Bernard Lewis co-founded the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) in 2007 with Fouad Ajami, the gesture was met with predictable sneers (Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa [ASMEA], n.d.-a). His colleagues treated it as an act of rebellion against the academic establishment, a nostalgic return to a fading Orientalist past. But Lewis was neither nostalgic nor naïve. He understood that the field was losing its balance—that the study of the Middle East was being absorbed into a moral and political crusade. ASMEA was not a protest; it was a lifeboat. He was trying to rescue a discipline from drowning in its own rhetoric (ASMEA, n.d.-b).

Lewis worried that scholarship was being replaced by performance, that the conference panel was turning into a pulpit. His concern was never that politics entered the classroom—he knew that was inevitable—but that politics had devoured the classroom entirely. MESA, once a professional association for historians and linguists, had evolved into a forum for moral theater. The point was no longer to understand the Middle East but to be seen as virtuous about it. What Lewis foresaw has now arrived in full. MESA’s own statements—its letters, press releases, and policy declarations—stand as evidence that his diagnosis was painfully correct.

The New Dogma: Activism as Orthodoxy

Over the past two years, MESA has stopped pretending to be a scholarly association.It is no longer simply an academic association; it has become a political movement that happens to reside in the academy. The tone of its statements is not analytical but moralizing, even punitive. Rather than trying to understand events, MESA now seems intent on declaring verdicts about them. In the name of academic freedom, it wields “freedom” itself as a partisan weapon.

Once, academic freedom meant the courage to follow an argument wherever it led, without fear of reprisal. Under MESA’s new moral order, it has come to mean loyalty to a cause. The organization speaks as if moral certainty were proof enough, as if the purity of one’s motives could replace the discipline of argument. Lewis warned that this would happen — that conviction, untempered by doubt, would hollow out the very idea of inquiry. knew that when moral enthusiasm becomes a method, scholarship turns into scripture (Lewis, 2008).

Case One: The Berkeley Letter and the Politics of Impunity

On September 19, 2025, MESA’s Committee on Academic Freedom sent a letter to the University of California, Berkeley, objecting to the university’s decision to cooperate with a federal investigation into antisemitism (MESA, 2025a). In their view, by handing over the names of 160 individuals connected to the reported incidents, Berkeley had crossed a line—undermining the very principles of academic freedom and due process it claimed to uphold. They were actually making the case that disclosing potential evidence to federal authorities amounted to an attack on liberty. In this formulation, transparency itself became a form of repression.

What MESA missed—or perhaps refused to see—is that academic freedom protects inquiry, not impunity. Universities have obligations not only to their faculty and students but to the public. When harassment masquerades as speech, institutions have a duty to respond. By condemning oversight as persecution, MESA twisted accountability into oppression. It was not defending liberty; it was defending license.

Case Two: The Travel Ban Statement and the Death of Nuance

Only days later, on September 22, 2025, MESA issued another declaration, this one denouncing U.S. travel restrictions on Palestinian Authority passport holders and Gaza residents (MESA, 2025b). The association portrayed the policy as collective punishment and an assault on academic exchange. The rhetoric was impassioned—but the analysis was absent.

Nowhere did MESA acknowledge the complexities of security screening, the regional politics of documentation, or the administrative chaos of Hamas-controlled travel routes. There was no recognition that the issue might involve competing responsibilities or conflicting imperatives. The statement treated the matter as self-evident: injustice on one side, righteousness on the other. It was moral theater masquerading as scholarship.

Case Three: Non-Citizen Students and the Myth of Total Immunity

On April 11, 2025, MESA’s Board and its Task Force on Civil and Human Rights accused U.S. authorities of targeting non-citizen students and researchers for their advocacy on behalf of Palestinian rights (MESA, 2025c). The organization suggested that these actions represented state harassment and a violation of academic freedom. What it ignored was the legal framework that distinguishes protected expression from visa compliance.

Non-citizens in the United States enjoy broad rights, but those rights exist within specific legal boundaries. Enforcement of immigration conditions is not inherently political—unless one’s politics demand immunity from the law. MESA’s framing erased that nuance entirely. It presented all enforcement as persecution, all oversight as censorship. Once again, moral conviction replaced legal precision.

Case Four: The Phantom “Assault” on Higher Education

On March 13, 2025, MESA released a sweeping statement alleging that American universities faced a coordinated “multi-agency assault” on academic freedom (MESA, 2025d). The picture painted was one of siege: federal authorities conspiring to crush dissent on Palestine-related issues. It was melodrama at the scale of bureaucracy.

The truth, of course, is that universities are constantly subject to review—by regulators, auditors, and civil rights offices. Oversight is not oppression; it is governance. To treat every investigation as a political attack is to cheapen the concept of repression itself. Genuine academic persecution exists—in Iran, in Egypt, in China—but MESA’s hyperbole flattens the moral landscape. When everything is an “assault,” nothing is.

Case Five: The Boycott of Dialogue at Ariel University

Finally, on June 26, 2025, MESA and its Committee on Academic Freedom sent a letter to the University of Utah demanding that it cancel its partnership with Ariel University in the West Bank (MESA, 2025e). The association argued that collaboration with Israeli institutions in occupied territory “legitimizes occupation” and betrays moral principle. The logic is painfully circular: dialogue is bad because it suggests dialogue.

This is the inversion of academic freedom. Scholarship depends on engagement across borders and political lines. Boycotts do not defend academic integrity; they erase it. Lewis understood that real intellectual courage lies in exchange, not withdrawal. MESA’s boycott mentality is not a defense of justice but a retreat from the difficult work of understanding. It is the moral vanity of refusing to speak with those one disapproves of—and calling it conscience.

2024 Statements: Deepening the Pattern

The transformation did not begin in 2025. It was well underway the previous year. On April 24, 2024, MESA and its Committee on Academic Freedom issued a joint statement warning that campus authorities were suppressing protests over Gaza and that such actions represented a systemic threat to freedom of expression (MESA, 2024a). The association called on universities to recommit themselves to the broadest possible protection for political activism.

Two weeks later, on May 6, 2024, it condemned the use of police to clear student encampments, describing such enforcement as an escalation of repression (MESA, 2024b). In September, it released yet another joint statement with the Committee on Academic Freedom, this time declaring that Israel’s campaign in Gaza had “devastated the education sector,” destroyed universities, and killed educators (MESA, 2024c).

In each case, the association spoke not as a community of scholars but as a political campaign. The language of evidence was replaced by the language of outrage. Its documents did not read like academic analyses but like NGO briefings. There was no curiosity—only conviction.

By the end of 2024, it had become clear that MESA’s understanding of academic freedom was indistinguishable from its political ideology. Protest was freedom; accountability was repression; complexity was betrayal. The organization’s leaders had redefined intellectual liberty as the right to believe what they already believed.

Conclusion

What do we conclude from this evidence? The evidence should be clear. Bernard Lewis was right. His critique is being proven true by each passing day. The only question that still needs to be answered is whether scholars will hold MESA accountable, or continue to take a blind eye to its intellectual and moral corruption. Is the same level of corruption present in the scholars too. The jury is still waiting for a verdict.

—

References

Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. (n.d.-a). Welcome to ASMEA.https://www.asmeascholars.org/welcome-to-asmea

Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. (n.d.-b). Professor Bernard Lewis, founding chairman.https://www.asmeascholars.org/professor-bernard-lewis-chairman

Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. (n.d.-c). Inaugural ASMEA conference (Keynote: “Studying the Other: Different Ways of Looking at the Middle East and Africa,” April 25, 2008). https://www.asmeascholars.org/inaugural-asmea-conference

Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. (n.d.-d). Journal of the Middle East and Africa.https://www.asmeascholars.org/journal-of-the-middle-east-and-africa

Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa. (n.d.-e). Statement on the BDS resolution.https://www.asmeascholars.org/statement-on-the-bds-resolution

Human Rights Watch. (2023). World report 2023: Events of 2022. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.

Lewis, B. (2002). What went wrong? Western impact and Middle Eastern response. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, B. (2004). The crisis of Islam: Holy war and unholy terror. New York, NY: Modern Library.

Lewis, B. (2008, April 25). Studying the Other: Different Ways of Looking at the Middle East and Africa [Conference keynote video]. ASMEA Inaugural Conference. https://vimeo.com/19565744

Lewis, B. (2010). Faith and power: Religion and politics in the Middle East. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2024a, April 24). Joint statement with the Committee on Academic Freedom concerning escalating repression of protest on campuses. https://mesana.org/advocacy/letters-from-the-board/2024/04/24/mesa-board-joint-statement-with-caf-concerning-escalating-repression-of-protest-on-campuses

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2024b, May 6). Joint statement with the Committee on Academic Freedom: Update on campus repression. https://mesana.org/advocacy/letters-from-the-board/2024/05/06/mesa-board-joint-statement-with-caf-update-on-campus-repression

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2024c, September 12). Joint letter with the Committee on Academic Freedom condemning the decimation of the education sector in Gaza. https://aurdip.org/en/mesa-board-joint-letter-with-caf-condemning-the-decimation-of-the-education-sector-in-gaza

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2025a, September 19). Letter to the University of California, Berkeley regarding the university’s submission to the Department of Education of 160 names of persons associated with allegations of antisemitism. Retrieved from https://mesana.org/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2025b, September 22). Joint statement on U.S. travel bans affecting Palestinian Authority passport holders and Gaza applicants. https://mesana.org/advocacy

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2025c, April 11). Statement on targeting of non-citizen students and researchers. https://mesana.org/advocacy

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2025d, March 13). Statement on repression of academic freedom in the United States. https://mesana.org/advocacy

Middle East Studies Association (MESA). (2025e, June 26). Joint letter to the University of Utah regarding Ariel University. https://mesana.org/advocacy