Yesterday I testified before the House Subcommittee on Select Education about Title VI and problems of bias in our academic area-studies programs. I announced the hearings in “Studying Title VI.” It was quite a scene. My oral statement came on full bore. During the question period, I clashed repeatedly with the two witnesses who defended Title VI against my charges. The chairman started making jokes about having to keep the witnesses apart, and about the hearing being like Crossfire.

I think I scored a lot of points. The other side did their best to minimize and wiggle out of my accusations of bias, but with only very mixed success. Still, this is going to be a serious dogfight. I think Congress is inclined to do something about the problems with Title VI. But the Higher Education lobby is going to do its level best to come up with a cosmetic “solution” that in effect accomplishes nothing. That tactic will be tough to fight, but not impossible.

There’s a front page story in today’s New York Sun about the Title VI hearings. It’s a good story. There is one small error in it, however. At one point I answered a defender of Title VI who claimed that Edward Said only had influence within Middle East studies. I said that Said’s influence goes far beyond Middle East studies, and gave the example of South Asian studies, where Said’s views also dominate. (I am a South Asianist.) The Sun story mistakenly puts my point in the mouth of my opponent. Other than that small misprint, the Sun story is a very nice account of the hearing. I’m very grateful to the New York Sun for doing this, and only wish other papers would cover this issue at all–let alone as well as the Sun has. I’ll have a lot more to say about all this next week.