Wednesday, February 24, 2010
More Video of the UC-Irvine Incident of February 8th
Video courtesy of Stand With Us
I have previously posted a video of the disruption of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's speech at UC-Irvine by Muslim students on February 8th. Above is a further video of the aftermath of the disruptions, which shows the MSU students gathering outside the hall and the closing remarks by Chancellor Michael Drake.
Keep in mind that the MSU is claiming that the disruptions were not planned, that they were spontaneous outbursts by individual students, and that they did not involve the MSU as an organization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Do you know if the entire speech is on youtube or anywhere else?
I have found your page to be interesting reading.
It is available from multiple sources. I have not tried to find the whole speech (I guess since I was there.)
I have looked on youtube and I just see the same 10 minute clips and one longer one but it shows students yelling more than the actual lecture.
What Michael Oren actually say? Anything interesting? It was disappointing that the New University did not have any articles covering what was actually said at the lecture that caused so much press coverage.
Oren's speech was very upbeat and positve. The theme was the relationship between the US andf Israel. I have to admit that his words were somewhat lost because everybody's attention was diverted to the actions of the disruptors. Even after they left, everyone was thinking about the disruption.
Nonetheless, the MSU made a huge error. They showed everyone that there is a problem at UCI. Now it can't be denied except by the truly blind.
Have you discussed any of your thoughts with UC Irvine Professor Mark Levine?
He seems to think these students disrupted the lecture are victims without a voice. He thinks the MSU doesn't have the same amount of power and money to bring top speakers to represent their side. Did you see his article in the LA Times and on hnn.com?
I don't agree with him but was curious on your take on his letter to Chancellor Drake
http://standwiththeeleven.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/uci-professors-defend-the-eleven/#comments
Anonymous,
Please see my response to LeVine dated 2-23-10.
Interesting take. I would be against Levine's form of free speech too. People should not be allowed to do die-ins inside an auditorium while a lecture is being presented.
Creative protests outside the lecture are great. An enviroment condusive to learning where ideas can be fully expressed is needed in an at a university auditorium when a speaker is presenting a lecture.
I goofed in that other post. I meant to say what do you think of
Rei Terada, Professor of Comparative Literature, letter to Chancellor Drake.
http://standwiththeeleven.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/uci-professors-defend-the-eleven/#comments
Anonymous,
I have now read Professor Terada's letter.
As I understand the charges, it is not an issue of free speech. Rather the charge is a California state law regarding disruption of a public event-a misdomeanor.
Professor Terada's defense of the students is a bit tortureed, but I would like to adress two points.
1 Terada implies that the MSU does not have access to speakers who present the Palestinian side. On the contrary, they have brought in a long line of speakers who present the Palestinian side. I have listened to them.
Amir Abdel Malik Ali at least twice a year)
Mohammed al-Asi
George Galloway
The parents of Rachel Corrie
Anna Balzer
James Lafferty
Chuck O'Connell
The list goes on and on. We will see more in the next "Israel Apartheid Week" in March or May.
Who pays for those speakers? I am not sure. The MSU receives money from student tuition funds, but the speakers I believe are paid from other sources. Those sources are the subject of a lot of speculation. I will leave it at that.
Terada mentions Saree Makdisi, who participated on the panel of January 2009, Whither the Levant. I attended that event. I was virtually the only member of the audience who spoke up in Israel's defense. Nobody on the panel was pro-Israel. "Panels" like that are being conducted in universities all over the country. The bottom line is that the MSU indeed has a voice.
I also note Terada's opposition to the appointment of Mr Hilburg as "crisis counselor" based on the fact that he has represented the Love Canal and Exxon Valdez. To me, that is the same old leftist position that those who are identified with "the other side", whatever it is in these cases, do not deserve a voice. I don't know anything about Mr Hilburg and I have made my own sarcastic comment as to his hiring ("If there is no problem at UCI, why hire a crisis counselor?"). However, I am not going to object to him just because of who he has represented in the past.
That seems to me similar to the disruption of speakers one does not agree with.
What do you think?
My rambling thoughts...
His couple of first paragraphs: Okay, there has to be some discretion by the university to fill the gap between what is protected and what is allowable. It appears he doesn’t seem to accept there should be time and place restrictions on free speech since no clear line can be drawn but I could be misreading it. In this case, the students clearly passed the line of what should be acceptable at a university while a guest speaker is presenting a lecture. If one student heckled Oren once and then they walked out, that maybe would fit his ideas. Repeated interruptions were designed to do more than that, especially after being warned of the consequences.
I am not sure what to make of his thoughts that a Palestinian official has not been on the campus since 2008. I do not know enough how the procedure works on who speaks on the campus.
One thing I believe though is that if students continue to think they can repeatedly interrupt speakers with impunity as often as they like, serious academics will not want to speak on the campus. Only ramble rouser types will be interested in speaking on the campus to drum up support and controversy so they get their own name out to the public.
He questions if UC Irvine is doing enough to reach out to the students who differ. I’d imagine it is hard to reach the group that attends lectures with no interest in listening to the lecture which might force them to question their ideology or at least hear a different perspective. Instead these students come to lectures with speakers they disagree with they disagree with the intention to yell and scream and disrupt and then march out and make a spectacle of themselves. How do you reach these students?
As you pointed out they seem to be able to invite a number of speakers on the campus who share their perspective. They do have a voice.
The last paragraph: Okay, great the students did not physically assault anyone. They left without a fight. That is great. Should we give them a cookie for being principled?
Drake was correct with his statement that some ”at UCI have the goal of “closing channels of communication.”
When MSU members lead marches around campus with chants of “Zionism no, the State of Israel has to go”, it stifles meaningful dialogue on the campus. When the discussion always reverts back to questioning the legitimacy of the State of Israel, the dialogue has no where to go.
If the MSU merely was critical of Israel and offered what they thought was constructive criticism, many people would take them more seriously. IMO, there are legitimate grievances the Palestinians have with regards to Israel that are not being heard because vocal members of groups like MSU focus too hard to delegitimize Israel instead of looking for solutions and compromise.
Anonymous,
I think you pretty much get it. If you are a student at UCI, you know that the pro-Israel students do not engage in this kind of protesting. I know of no incident in which Jewish students have done anything to violate the university standards when it comes to demonstrating or counter-demonstrating.
The OC Register published these letters in the paper on March 2, 2010.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/speech-236919-free-legislature.html
Post a Comment