"Yeah, we got it covered, boys. The Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion."
"That's right."
Cross-posted from the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is a letter from the ZOA to University of California President Mark Yudof protesting the appointment of two individuals to the UC Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion, a fancy name for a group set up to deal with issues of racism or ethnic conflict on UC campuses. First the letter-then my comment.
http://www.zoa.org/media/user/images/letter-to-Yudof-7-26-10.pdf
First of all, I don't know who these two individuals are named by the ZOA. If the ZOA letter is accurate, I have no idea what they are doing on such a council.
The heart of the matter, however is this; if the University of California system has a problem in this area that it feels it must address, the most serious of the issues on UC campuses is the growing anti-Semitism that is fueled by the Middle East conflict and is being stoked by the enemies of Israel. In my view, other incidents of hate directed toward other groups don't even come close to the anti-Semitic expressions which have occurred on UC campuses. With all due respect to the disturbing (anti-black) incidents at UC San Diego, those incidents are still swathed in mystery. There is nothing mysterious about what is going on in the UC system when it comes to anti-Semitism.
So now, UC sets up this politically-correct council that lumps everything into one big pot and puts two individuals on the council who are (according to ZOA)part of the anti-Israel drive that is leading to anti-Semitism-whether they intend that as a by-product or not. I don't get it. No, on second thought, I do get it. This is another typical politically-correct university Potemkin Village to make it look like something is being done. It ignores the most serious problem in the UC system-anti-Semitism.
To be sure, UC President Yudof is a practicing Jew, who, by most accounts, cares about the subject of anti-Semitism. Yet, he continually stonewalls against those who dare to speak out and complain about the anti-Semitic atmosphere on UC campuses. The only conclusion I can draw is that Yudof is a prisoner to political correctness.
Whatever happened to S.I. Hayakawa?
8 comments:
The only valid conclusion you can draw from the data you have presented is that you don't know enough to comment in any meaningful way. Neither do I, so for now, I will say no more.
I think Mr. Fouse is a renown expert on the subject. He has been documenting the incidents, the hate speech and the climate of fear at UCI.
His reports of these incidents have garnered him respect through out the Jewish world. He has been cited as a source by The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva (INN), and Haaretz to name a few.
Mr. Fouse is widely respected by many in the government of Israel.
Yes Gary is knowledgeable in this area to comment fully.
After reading the well crafted ZOA letter to Dr. Yudof, I find that the choices for reperesenatives for the "Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion" to be a biased, which could allow anti-Semitic activity on UC campuses. I forsee the continuation of hate speakers such as Malik Ali continuing to present at UC campuses. Perhaps promoting Jihad.
As far as the decision to include the ACCC members who have anti-Israel and anti-Semitic backgrounds, Yudof did not do his homework. Your grade is a "D-"
Squid
Siarlys,
While Findalis's description of me is way too kind (Thanks anyway), you can't say I don't know what I am talking about. I have been involved in this mess at UCI for 4 years or so. I acknowledged that I don't know the two men in question, but the ZOA info is disturbing. I plan to find our more about them.
I seriously doubt that the ZOA made up those quotes attributed to the two appointees. It is likely that they will not to see any anti-Semitism at UCI.
It is like the journalists who write for the LA Times and the Daily Pilot. They all have middle eastern sounding names and are predisposed to see the Muslim world view. I have written scores of letters to the editor of both papers over the years pointing out the bias and taking the other side than the paper. Not one of the articles or letters have ever been published.
I'm a little off point here but my point is that if you put Muslims on boards they won't see any anti-Semitism on campus just as when you put on the same records you will get the same music. It happens every time. Anything the MSU does will be justified.
I don't know what is wrong with Yudoff. He has a permanent suspension of his critical faculties.
What Gary and Findalis both miss is that Gary's own text makes clear that he does not know the fact of this specific situation. Therefore, no matter how much expertise he has, he should have refrained from commenting until he had more data.
Incidentally, the number of times a person has opened his mouth to spout an opinion, or posted a commentary, does not measure either expertise or insight, nor does the fact that people who like what he says have quoted him.
Gary is, as far as I can tell from this limited acquaintance, and intelligent and well-read man with significant life experience to speak from. But he spoke too soon this time.
Siarlys,
On which issues did I speak too soon? My comments about Yudof are based on following his actiuon or non-action in the issue for several years. As for the people on the board, I stated that I did not know about them. You will see in my follow up post that I have been looking into these folks, particular Mariscal.
Thus far, I have withheld comment about Mr Turk because from what I can gather, he is heavily involved in interfaith activities (of which I have some degree of suspicion). Of more concern is the history of his organization, but I am still not prtepared to comment on that so I have not. All I can see thus far is that some critics have challenged several of his interpretations of the Koran (its more controversial points).
My first post was to post the ZOA letter and their concerns about two people (Mariscal and Turk).So where have I jumped the gun?
I think I answered that question in my original comment. You answered it in your original post. You openly stated that you don't know much about the people you are discussing. Now you ask why you shouldn't talk about them.
I have been restrained in my responses to your post about Judge Bolton's decision because I have not read the decision in full as yet. When everyone was discussing the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts (gay marriage), I downloaded and read a pdf copy before commenting. I found some darn good reasoning in the dissents that wasn't making it into the headlines.
In this instance, you highlighted what little you knew, expressed some tenative opinions, then admitted you didn't really know what this was all about. Perhaps your later post rectifies this error.
Post a Comment