We have carefully read Jennifer Peto’s controversial master’s thesis, The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education.
After considerable thought and discussion, we have concluded the thesis is a profoundly problematic and flawed document.
The issue is not one of free speech – Peto is quite entitled to her opinions. The issue is the academic legitimacy granted by the University of Toronto, Canada’s largest publicly supported university, to what is, at best, an extended opinion piece, not an academic thesis. It is the responsibility of the academy to know the difference.
Peto’s position may be summarized as follows: “Jews, at least in Canada, are successful and face no significant prejudice. Accordingly, Jews ought not to see themselves as being oppressed but rather as being part of the oppressive structure of society. The Holocaust is merely history, and its remembrance is generally propaganda designed to allow Jews to pretend to be oppressed rather than oppressive.”
In our view that is a fair summary of the thesis; however the document is quite lengthy, having been padded by much discussion of Peto’s family background, personal life experience and views on Israel. Neither her personal story nor discussion of Israel changes the basic premise of the thesis. This type of opinionated prose – often referred to as unfounded speculation – without appropriate citation of credible literature and sources, is completely unacceptable in a scientific document such as a thesis. The problem with the thesis is more subtle than might first appear. The conceptual locating of Jews as oppressors, thereby unable to consider the Holocaust from the viewpoint of victims, fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents the nature of bigotry and racism. The Holocaust teaches that everyone is a potential victim; and all humanity, no matter their current status, can suffer oppression from people who abuse power.
There are two related points here.
First, the Holocaust is recent. It is far from ancient history – and its remembrance acknowledges that which was done by and to our parents and grandparents, including most remarkably, Peto’s. By remembering the Holocaust, one of the most horrific acts of attempted, and nearly successful, genocide in the history of mankind, we are reminded that no one is safe from bigotry and that we must all strive to treat one another with respect and dignity. As we learn from Deuteronomy 15:15, “and thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt.” People who remember being slaves will remember what it is like to be treated unjustly.
Second, and perhaps more important, the Jews and others who died in the Holocaust were, in many cases, living under similar circumstances as Canadian Jews today – successful citizens who had faced no significantly overt discrimination before the rise of Hitler. It is true that antisemitism was more common in Europe 100 years ago than it is today in North America; nevertheless, French Jews, German Jews and Dutch Jews (for example) were doctors, lawyers, judges and successful politicians before the war and could never have imagined the horrors that were to befall them. In contrast, modern Jews and society, having experienced the Holocaust, know all too well how “mere” hatred can turn to acts of state-supported murder. One of the lessons of the Holocaust is that racial, ethnic and religious differences can move rapidly from being interesting, attributes of fellow citizens to making them marks worthy of annihilation. The Holocaust raises the question of the imminent dangers of stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry, problems that still pervade our globe today.
In analyzing this thesis further, one becomes aware of the fact that the document has few to none of the features necessary to be called a thesis at U of T. To call the March of the Living, sponsored by a number of federations and organizations in Canada, and the March of Remembrance and Hope, of the Canadian Centre for Diversity, “racist” is unfounded and patently false, not to mention simply absurd. Such rhetoric and shoddy research have no place at U of T. Had she interviewed some of the educators or participants from these programs, or read the readily available and relevant literature, the evidence would not have corroborated her hypothesis and probably explains why this information has not been included in Peto’s editorial. She did not use empirical data, but simply recorded her personal opinion to support her ideology. And some of the secondary sources cited in the thesis are of extraordinarily dubious quality. Further, in a misapplication of her own theoretical framework, she failed to understand that antisemitism is anti-Jewish oppression, choosing instead to deny the lived experience of many Jewish people in Canada.
Focusing on Peto’s thesis from a more academic perspective, it lacks much of the basic scholarly rigour expected of a master’s thesis. Peto’s paper cites none of the relevant literature on Holocaust education in the context of anti-racist education in Canada. Indeed, Holocaust education programs today are specifically designed to help students and teachers of all races and backgrounds to recognize the signs of totalitarian thinking wherever they occur, and to speak out against human rights violations, prejudice and discrimination against all people. The fact that Peto did not speak to anyone who had designed or participated in either of the programs in her case studies, citing only their websites, certainly does not meet the academic standard usually required for a successful thesis. Indeed, it was striking to note how few references were contained in this thesis and how little hard data there were; something that would not be considered as acceptable in any other thesis that was being put forth for examination at U of T; at least in the experience of one of the authors who regularly supervises and examines graduate students from many different disciplines within the university.
It is these gaps and shortcomings in Peto’s thesis that lead to a larger question. Why was a thesis with such weaknesses accepted by U of T’s Ontario Institute for the Study of Education (OISE), and subsequently, the School of Graduate Studies? Each of us has completed graduate training and knows the arduous process of conducting quality research worthy of a graduate degree. This involves the gathering of data for analysis, followed by interpretation of the data and analyses in an unbiased fashion and then developing conclusions that are based on the analysis of the data. The purpose of a master’s thesis and related study is to teach a student those research skills. These studies prepare a student for future research studies at the PhD level. It is simply anathema to these precepts to produce a research thesis that is based on preconceived notions or merely on opinion, and discussion of one’s personal experiences none of which are supported by the unbiased collection and analysis of data. In fact, this is so important that when a student is working on a thesis, it is required that the student work closely with an academic supervisor who is skilled in research methodology to guarantee that scientifically valid research is done and a well-supported thesis is produced. Indeed, a student and supervisor often work much more closely together than most realize. Yet, the system failed in this case by accepting Peto’s writings as a thesis that fulfils the requirements of the School of Graduate Studies at U of T, while in reality it is nothing more than an editorial at best.
Again, this is not an academic freedom or free speech issue. We agree that Peto has every right to publish her opinions. But a thesis is not an opinion piece. Insofar as it is merely her opinion, while she is undoubtedly entitled to it, the imprimatur of Canada’s largest university ought not to go with it. To quote one of the graduate units at U of T: “A thesis demonstrates a wide and critical knowledge of the field, an ability to ask appropriate questions and set the research in its proper context, a mastery of the appropriate research techniques and an ability to communicate ideas and results effectively to a group of peers. The thesis is about making an original contribution to a particular research field within a framework of research training.” These attributes are glaringly absent in Peto’s thesis. With academic freedom must come academic responsibility.
Karen Mock is an educational psychologist and graduate of OISE, U of T.
James Morton is a lawyer and adjunct faculty, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.
Howard Tenenbaum is a professor, faculties of dentistry and medicine, U of T.
