"Ollie, look what happened at this university in the colonies."
"Why we should write a letter of protest, Stanley."
(I know. I know. Hardy was from Georgia.)
Now it seems we have academics from the University of London sending letters to UCI with their own "expert opinions" on the disruption of the Israeli ambassador to the US's speech at UC-Irvine on February 8. Here is their letter to the UCI campus paper, New University (with my comments of course).
http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/03/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/
By Sherifa Zuhur and Nadje al-Ali on Mar. 29, 2010
Full letter available at newuniversity.org.
"We represent the Committee for Human Rights and Academic Freedom of the Association of Middle Eastern Women’s Studies, an affiliate of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, and the largest scholarly group of its kind. Most of us are career academics.
Fousesquawk comment: Well, whoop dee doo. Judging by your titles, I'd say you have your hands full without getting involved at UCI-or anywhere else in the US.
We are writing to you with concerns about the civil rights of eight UC Irvine students and three UC Riverside students.
These students were detained, handcuffed, and cited with pending criminal charges due to their brief vocal protests during a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren on February 8, 2010 at UCI. The students did not attempt to “drown out” the speech of Ambassador Oren as was alleged, and voluntarily exited the auditorium.
They are being threatened over the Internet. We were troubled to learn that the Muslim Student Union at UCI is also being threatened with disciplinary actions and to hear that Assemblyman Chuck Devore and the Zionist Organization of America have called for its exclusion from campus for some time.
Perhaps you are aware that a movement to dispute the actions of the government of Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory has been taking this particular form of protest at other college campuses and public forums, and is likely to continue. We would like you to admit that powerful academic and community groups and lobbies have prevented speeches, and indeed have protested the presence of any who might speak, as the Israeli Ambassador did, in support of Palestinian rights.
Fousesquawk comment: Yeah, we're aware alright, but as far as preventing MSU speakers from coming to UCI and making the Palestinian case, that's news to me. I have been witnessing pro-Palestinian events and speakers at UCI for years. The fact is that the Palestinian side pretty much owns the debate on university campuses. The "learned academics" don't know what they are talking about.
In addition, at previous events at UCI, speakers invited by Muslim students have been drowned out by organized campus protesters who were not cited or threatened for their actions. We therefore wonder if a double standard is being utilized.
Fousesquawk comment: I am only aware of one such incident when Amir Abdel Malik Ali was disrupted by protesters in 2001. Aside from that incident nearly a decade ago, the only protests the MSU has encountered were people with posters and US/Israeli flags who listened, allowed the speakers to speak and then lodged questions and challenges. There have been no disruptions that I know of since the one just mentioned. I have witnessed no disruption like what the MSU students did on February 8th. If there is a double standard at UCI, it has worked in favor of the MSU.
These students have broken no law, but have expressed their views, exercising their freedom of speech. It appears that UCI is punishing them (and UCR seeks to punish them) in a disproportionate and public manner because they are Muslim and support Palestinian rights.
Fousesquawk comment: Nonsense. No one is trying to punish them for being Muslims and defending the Palestinian cause. That is a ridiculous charge. Whether the students broke any laws (they are charged with disrupting a public event) will be determined by our courts here in this US. What moves these characters to decide a point of law in the US is beyond me. Must be their academic arrogance.
Civil protest against governmental policies is a longstanding activity on college campuses.
Fousesquawk comment: Yes, but there are certain rules in protests. These rules and limitations may be different here in the US than in the UK.
We hope you do not regret the ending of apartheid and the fostering of civil rights which such protests firmly supported and helped win. We support and defend the rights to free speech by these UCI and UCR students and their intent to protest serious violations of human rights by Mr. Oren’s government."
Sincerely,
Dr. Sherifa Zuhur, Chair, Committee for Human Rights and Academic Freedom, Association of Middle East Women’s Studies
Dr. Nadje al-Ali, President, Association of Middle East Women’s Studies (SOAS, University of London)
Fousesquawk comment: The issues of South African apartheid and the US civil rights struggle are not related to Israel in spite of all the propaganda that you are spouting. For you to relate apartheid to Israel is your opinion as are your statements about human rights violations by Israel. Finally, if your area of work is Middle Eastern women's studies, I think you should direct your concerns to that area of the world-where they are sorely needed.
Finally, we get a little bit sick and tired of having so many people in Britain and Europe give us advice on how to handle our problems. I note that you have plenty of problems going on in Great Britain. People like Anjem Choudary openly proclaim that they want to get rid of democracy in Britain. So why the hell are you lecturing us?
Which reminds me, how is old George Galloway doing?
"Perhaps you are aware that a movement to dispute the actions of the government of Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory has been taking this particular form of protest at other college campuses and public forums, and is likely to continue."
ReplyDeleteSo that makes it proper or right? The tactics these students took was wrong on many levels.
As Professor Mark Levine wrote in the LA Times, the tactics of these students "deflected attention away from their cause and played into deeply ingrained stereotypes of irrational and unreasonably angry Muslim men."
The Dean of the UC Irvine Law School wrote in the LA Times, "The government, including public universities, always can impose time, place and manner restrictions on speech. A person who comes into my classroom and shouts so that I cannot teach surely can be punished without offending the 1st Amendment. Likewise, those who yelled to keep the ambassador from being heard were not engaged in constitutionally protected behavior."
This letter to the editor continues with, "We would like you to admit that powerful academic and community groups and lobbies have prevented speeches, and indeed have protested the presence of any who might speak, as the Israeli Ambassador did, in support of Palestinian rights."
I am calling baloney on this one. The MSU has invited a number of speakers on the campus to present their perspective. Has UC Irvine ever prevented a speaker the MSU invited to speak on the campus?
The authors of this letter continues, "In addition, at previous events at UCI, speakers invited by Muslim students have been drowned out by organized campus protesters who were not cited or threatened for their actions."
If there has been a case where students repeatedly interrupted a speaker while the speaker was giving a speech in an auditorium and the university did not take actions to create an environment where the speaker was given an opportunity to express his/her views, the university made a mistake in the past. There has to be a first time the university has to take actions to create an environment where ideas can be freely exchanged. This may be the first time it does what maybe it should have done in the past.
"These students have broken no law, but have expressed their views, exercising their freedom of speech. It appears that UCI is punishing them (and UCR seeks to punish them) in a disproportionate and public manner because they are Muslim and support Palestinian rights."
This is a complete joke. Does even the writers sincerely buy this? 1. This was not an example of protected free speech. 2. It does not matter what religion or cause they were supporting. Their tactics were boorish. They trampled over the rights of those who came to hear a lecture at a university. 3. As far as I know, no criminal charges have been filed and UC Irvine is still investigating the incident so we do not know if there will be any academic implications. How do we know the punishment is disproportionate if we do not know what the punishment even is?
Michael Oren visited the UC Irvine campus in 2005 to give a presentation. The New University reported that Oren ended his presentation with, "Israel has a well-understood and fundamental interest in seeing stability and the creation of a viable Palestinian state that can live side-by-side with us."
Is this the type of message the students who screamed and shouted object to and do not think is worthy of being said on the campus?
Jeff Klives
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteVery well stated. The only time I am aware of when an MSU-sponsored speaker was disrupted was in 2001 when (I believe) the College Republicans disrupted Malik Ali's speech as he was beginning. I have seen the first part of the tape and I don't know if he was able to finish. I disagree with that tactic.
Aside from that one event, 9 years ago, the MSU has to ask itself, why they should be able to do what they did at Oren's speech when time and time again their speakers at UCI have been allowed to give their speeches, often hate-filled, without disruption. Who are the aggressors here? Who are the bullies?