I will delve deeper into why ASMEA offers a more credible platform for my research, particularly in light of MESA’s politicization and its endorsement of the academic boycott of Israel.
By Dr. Tim Orr
In an academic landscape increasingly dominated by political agendas, where to present one's research is as much a statement of values as a professional choice. This was especially true when deciding between the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). My decision to align with ASMEA over MESA is rooted in my commitment to academic freedom, intellectual rigor, and the broader principle that scholarship should remain untainted by political activism. Below, I will delve deeper into why ASMEA offers a more credible platform for my research, particularly in light of MESA’s politicization and its endorsement of the academic boycott of Israel.
Once a respected scholarly association dedicated to objective study, the Middle East Studies Association has undergone a significant transformation. MESA has shifted away from its original mission in recent years, allowing political activism to overtake scholarly integrity. This became clear in 2022 when MESA members passed a resolution calling for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions, aligning with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
MESA’s shift towards endorsing the academic boycott of Israel and adopting a more political stance is part of a broader trend in academia where scholarship and activism increasingly intersect. Influenced by postcolonial, Marxist, and critical theory frameworks, many academics now view their role as interpreting the world and actively engaging in social justice efforts. This ideological shift, particularly within Middle Eastern studies, has positioned Israel as a colonial oppressor and the Palestinian cause as a moral imperative. As a result, MESA’s transformation from a non-political scholarly association to one actively supporting movements like BDS was seen as inevitable by many within the field.
This shift is also driven by the changing demographics and political homogeneity of MESA's membership. Over time, the association has become more aligned with pro-Palestinian activism, and dissenting voices have either been marginalized or left the organization. Additionally, the influence of global social justice movements, like Black Lives Matter and decolonization efforts, has reinforced MESA’s alignment with anti-imperialist causes, making support for Palestinian activism reflect broader political commitments. These trends and pressure from organized pro-Palestinian advocacy networks have pushed MESA further into political activism.
For many scholars, including myself, this resolution represented a troubling departure from academic freedom and open inquiry principles. By their very nature, academic boycotts seek to suppress the free exchange of ideas and undermine the collaborative spirit that should characterize higher education. Universities are meant to be places where scholars, regardless of nationality or political orientation, can engage in dialogue, debate, and intellectual collaboration. By supporting a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, MESA has effectively closed the door to such collaboration, not only with Israeli academics but with anyone who refuses to toe the political line that the boycott represents.
This politicization has had tangible consequences. Prominent institutions such as Indiana University, Brandeis University, Florida State University, and Princeton’s Institute for the Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East have severed their ties with MESA. These universities, along with others like Ohio State, Notre Dame, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, have publicly rejected MESA’s endorsement of the academic boycott, stating that it directly contradicts the values of academic freedom. Their withdrawal from MESA reflects a broader dissatisfaction within the academic community with MESA’s increasing focus on activism over scholarship.
Against this backdrop, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) has emerged as a credible alternative for scholars like myself committed to rigorous, unbiased research. Founded by the late Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, two towering figures in the field of Middle Eastern studies, ASMEA was created as a response to the growing politicization of MESA. These scholars foresaw the dangers of allowing political agendas to dominate academic discourse. They sought to establish an organization that would remain focused on the scholarly study of the region, free from political pressure.
ASMEA’s guiding principles emphasize academic freedom, rigorous inquiry, and the open exchange of ideas. In contrast to MESA, ASMEA has resisted the lure of politicization and remains a forum for objective scholarship. This is not to say that ASMEA avoids political topics altogether—far from it. However, ASMEA ensures that political issues are approached from a scholarly perspective rather than driven by activism. For example, in presenting my research on Islamic antisemitism at ASMEA, I am confident that it will be evaluated on its intellectual merit, rather than judged through the lens of a political agenda.
One of ASMEA’s strengths is its commitment to fostering diverse perspectives. While MESA has become increasingly monolithic in its political orientation, ASMEA remains open to scholars of all viewpoints. This intellectual diversity is crucial for the health of any academic discipline. In my field of research—Islamic antisemitism—the ability to engage with a wide range of perspectives is especially important, as the topic itself is fraught with political and ideological tensions. ASMEA provides a space for navigating these tensions through rigorous scholarship rather than ideological conformity.
MESA’s politicization has not gone unnoticed. As Dr. Martin Kramer pointed out in his article, "The Incredible Shrinking MESA," the association has lost nearly half of its institutional members over the past decade, a decline accelerated by its endorsement of the academic boycott of Israel. Universities such as Brigham Young, the University of Virginia, and Washington University in St. Louis have all severed ties with MESA, citing concerns over the organization’s politicization. Many of these institutions have stated that the boycott resolution violates the core principles of academic freedom that they hold dear.
The fact that so many universities have chosen to dissociate from MESA speaks volumes about the organization’s credibility. In the academic world, institutional membership in a scholarly association is often seen as a mark of prestige. By withdrawing from MESA, these universities are sending a clear message: they will not support an organization that compromises academic freedom for political activism. This mass exodus from MESA is not just a reflection of dissatisfaction with the boycott resolution; it is a broader indictment of MESA’s failure to uphold the standards of objective scholarship.
While MESA’s influence continues to wane, ASMEA is experiencing steady growth. This growth is a testament to ASMEA’s credibility as a scholarly organization prioritizing academic integrity over political activism. ASMEA’s annual conference attracts scholars worldwide and has become a premier venue for serious Middle Eastern and African studies. The organization’s journal, The Journal of the Middle East and Africa provides a platform for scholars to publish rigorous research without fear of political retribution.
Moreover, ASMEA’s founders, Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, were both scholars who understood the importance of separating politics from scholarship. Their vision for ASMEA was one in which scholars could pursue truth and knowledge without being constrained by ideological agendas. This vision remains at the heart of ASMEA’s mission today. By presenting my research at ASMEA’s annual conference, I am aligning myself with an organization that values intellectual diversity, scholarly rigor, and academic freedom.
In an era where academic freedom is under attack, it is more important than ever for scholars to make ethical choices about where they present their work. By endorsing an academic boycott of Israeli institutions, MESA has compromised its credibility as a scholarly organization. In contrast, ASMEA remains committed to free inquiry and open debate, making it the ethical choice for scholars who value academic integrity.
For my research on Islamic antisemitism, it was crucial to choose a platform that would allow for open and honest discussion without the constraints of political correctness or ideological bias. ASMEA offers that platform. Its commitment to fostering diverse perspectives and maintaining scholarly rigor makes it the ideal venue for my work.
In the end, the choice between ASMEA and MESA is a choice between scholarship and activism. By choosing ASMEA, I am standing with an organization that prioritizes the pursuit of truth and knowledge above political agendas, and that is the kind of academic environment where my research can truly flourish.
Kramer, M. (2022, April 1). The incredible shrinking MESA. Martin Kramer on the Middle East. https://martinkramer.org/2022/04/01/the-incredible-shrinking-mesa-2/
Tim Orr is a scholar, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, the University of Tehran, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.