The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article highlight a Columbia University professor’s polemical criticism of Azar Nafisi’s best-selling Reading Lolita in Tehran. What’s particularly interesting is this passage:

“The conundrum, say these scholars, is how to voice opposition to the actions of the Islamic Republic without being co-opted by those who seek external regime change in Iran through a military attack.”

The job of professors should be to study, explore, and explain. They should base their work on rigorous scholarly standards, not politics. That so many Middle Eastern studies professors skew findings out of fear that reality might contribute to the policy debate is dishonest. What makes such panegyrics even more ridiculous is often they misconstrue the actual policy debate out of a fondness for straw man arguments and conspiracy theories. But, when Middle East studies professors on one hand say that no one listens to them, and on the other admit that, frankly, they treat evidence and findings dishonestly, where does this leave the field?