Tammi Benjamin is a Jewish adjunct teacher at UC Santa Cruz, and is one of the few sane voices at "America's Wackiest University".
In the interest of full disclosure, she is also a friend. She has put out this e-mail to all her associates and has allowed me to cross post it here. It is her reaction to the Mark Yudof (President of the University of California) appearance last Thursday at Temple Bat Yahm in Newport Beach. (See my previous postings.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Last week UC President Mark Yudof gave a talk at Temple Bat Yahm in
Newport Beach, sponsored by the Orange County Federation. A few of my
friends were among the 400 or so people who attended the talk, and
they reported that it was very upsetting for a few reasons: first,
President Yudof said nothing of substance and did not directly address
the issue of anti-Semitism at UCI, which was undoubtedly uppermost in
everyone's mind. In addition, the event organizers, who carefully
controlled the audience's interaction with President Yudof, did not
allow any questions to be asked which would force the UC president to
address this burning issue. Even worse, the Federation leaders went
out of their way to whitewash the problems at UCI, screening a video
produced by the UCI Hillel, which suggested that Jewish students are
not affected by the anti-Semitic behavior of the MSU students, and
that Jewish life on campus couldn't be better.
But that's certainly not what the Jewish students at UCI expressed
last May, when over 100 of them --including the student presidents of
Anteaters for Israel, Hillel, Chabad, and the Jewish fraternity at
UCI signed the following statement:
“We are Jewish students at the University of California and we are
outraged and deeply offended by the behavior of some student groups
on campus who sponsor speakers, films and exhibits that use hateful
anti- Jewish rhetoric and imagery and openly support terrorism against
Israel and the Jewish people. As Jewish students, we are also deeply
disturbed by student initiated boycott and divestment campaigns which
falsely accuse the Jewish state of crimes against humanity. Please
understand that these speakers, exhibits, events and campaigns are as
offensive and hurtful to Jewish students as a “Compton cookout” or
noose are to African-American students. We demand that the UC
administrators recognize and address the concerns of Jewish students
in the same way as they respond to those of all other minority
groups.”
Fousesquawk comment: The petition Tammi is referring to is contained in the below-linked letter to Mr Yudof from a dozen Jewish orgaanizations.
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=8499673
( Fousesquawk comment: Read the list of organizations who signed the letter-and note those who did not sign the letter.)
(Benjamin continued) "Here is a report of President Yudof's talk from Natalie Katz, a young
woman who just graduated from UCSD:"
http://nataliekatz.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-question-for-mark-yudof.html
(Benjamin continued) "Here is a report of the talk from Gary Fouse, an adjunct faculty member at UCI:"
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/uc-president-mark-yudof-speaks-in.html
(Benjamin continued) "It's tragic that the Jewish communal leaders in Orange County, who should be the first ones demanding that President Yudof ensure the safety of Jewish students on one of the most hostile, anti-Semitic campuses in the country, are instead unwilling to even admit that there is a problem. Who will keep our Jewish kids safe?"
Tammi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it's all very confusing indeed. How do we reconcile the years-long complaints about anti-Semitism coming out of UCI-and other UC campuses with the Hillel-produced film that was shown at Bat Yahm last week? How does one reconcile that film with the above statements? How does one reconcile all that with the charge heard at Bat Yahm that portrayals of the situation at UCI by outside groups were "outright lies".
And who are the groups who are spreading all the outright lies about UCI? It couldn't possibly be the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism. They got a shout-out from one of the moderators during the Yudof event. More conflicting messages.
In addition, I recall one question asked by one of the moderators (whose name escapes me. He runs some foundation) asking Yudof how they could counter all the charges against UCI relating to anti-Semitism-I am paraphrasing.)
It is either one of the other. A few days ago, I tried to put it in proper perspective based on my 12 years teaching at UCI and attending the controversial events.
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/uc-president-mark-yudof-speaks-in.html
So why are we always getting conflicting statements-especially from within the Jewish community, students and organizations? Maybe some questions are in order.
Here's one that I have been pondering for some time:
Is it possible that certain Jewish students at UCI have been....
"What's the word?
Co-opted? by certain organizations, discouraged from going public about problems at UCI, and encouraged to put a happy face on the whole thing?
But how could that be done, Fousesquawk, you ask?
Excellent question. Let's see...............................................
Here's a wild guess:
I must agree that it is deplorable when students at UC Santa Cruz are so ignorant of biology that they would draw a banana slug with an arm and fingers, which that species does not possess.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the "anti-Semitism" that UCI students must endure consists of Jewish students being "outraged and deeply offended by the behavior of some student groups on campus who sponsor speakers, films and exhibits..." that the complaining students object to, I must say this is whining, not oppression on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin. The rights of the offended students consist of putting on their own speakers, films and exhibits which
a) the complaining students find more to their taste, and,
b) might be offensive to the perpetrators of the speakers, films and exhibits these students are outraged by.
I must again quote the rabbi whose views I am best acquainted with, a Talmudic scholar of distinctly orthodox views, a veteran of the 1967 war, an admirer of UTJ in Israeli politics, who affirms that if someone else's speech offends him, his recourse is not to muzzle the speaker, but to offend him right back.
"As Jewish students, we are also deeply
disturbed by student initiated boycott and divestment campaigns which
falsely accuse the Jewish state of crimes against humanity."
Well, they have every right to be disturbed, particularly if the accusations are false. Get up and refute the false accusations!
When you speak of anti-Semitism on campus, I would expect that Jewish students are being followed around, subjected to racial slurs on their way to class, threatened with physical assault, singled out for ridicule, which is not at all what this letter details. If it were happening, it would of course be wrong.
Many of the speakers, films and exhibits may well be scurrilous, inaccurate, grossly deceptive, ill advised, or advocate a course of action which is undesirable or reprehensible. I don't support divestment campaigns against Israel. But none of this is comparable to "Germans beware, don't buy from Jews."
(I am, however, glad to know that there is a dissident voice at UC Santa Cruz. Those kids need a good intellectual challenge.)
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteWould it be whining if a speaker said, "You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew?" (UCI)
Would it be whining if you had your camera shoved in your face while filming an MSU event? (UCI)
Would it be whining if after an MSU event a female photographer was followed back to her car on campus, by several males who blocked her car trying to take down her license number and did the same to another female who witnessed the event and tried to get the campus police to intervene-unsuccessfully and who refused to take a complaint-saying that the girl had provoked the incident? (UCI)
Would it be whining if you had a rock thrown past your head because you were wearing a pro-Israel t-shirt? (UCI)
Would it be whining if you saw swastikas drawn on bathroom stalls?
(UC Berkeley-UC Davis)
Would it be whining if, while holding a quiet protest on campus against those swastikas, that a professor was heckling you? (UC Berkeley)
Would it be whining if a student told David Horowitz that she agreed with the statement of the leader of Hizbollah that "Jews should all gather in Israel so it would be easier to hunt them all down"? (UCSD)
Would it be whining if a Jewish student complained about hate speech and was advised by a school official to get psychiatric counseling? (UCI)
Would it be whining to complain about a cartoon caricature of an Israeli leader drawn in the style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer newspaper of the Nazi era? Surely, you have seen the picture on this blog. (UCI)
Would it be whining if two pro-Israel students had a machete thrown past their heads while being chased by a group of anti-Israel students? (Carleton University in Canada)
Would it be whining if a group of Jewish students complained about being chased from holding a pro-Israel event to the campus Hillel house by pro-Palestinian students where they were blockaded until finally, police intervened and escorted them out? (York University, Toronto)
I could go on and on, and you could say that these were all isolated incidents that have occurred over several years.
Keep in mind that many Jewish students have chosen not to complain for a variety of reasons. Others have and I have chosen to complain as well, or if you prefer, whine.
Gary, for the first time you are offering the kind of specifics I have been requesting for the past few weeks. Thank you. These are empirical accusations one can respond to meaningfully.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder why the letters you post from outraged Jewish students don't focus on these incidents, if they occured, rather than expressing outrage than anyone would dare to show a film that is derogatory toward Israel.
As to the first, I'm glad to see someone is associating the word "ghetto" with its original meaning. I've been trying to explain to American kids of visible African descent that what they live in is NOT a "ghetto," and was never described as one until after World War II. Otherwise, the statement is reprehensible, but hardly actionable.
Anyone who had a camera shoved in their face should press assault and battery charges, immediately. If you really want to fight something like that, you deal with each occurrence, you don't make vague allusions in a letter months later.
Several males following a female to her car is questionable, writing down her license number is, as far as I know, a legal act, blocking her car is actionable, and I would want to see what the campus police offered by way of explanation for how the woman allegedly provoked the response.
I do know that when two groups are in confrontation, it is not uncommon that each will try to use the police to get the other, and that police are rightly wary of being so used. That does not automatically mean they were right in their evaluation this time.
Anyone throwing a rock at another person, whether occasioned by their t-shirt or not, should be arrested. Why no arrest occured is a valid question, and a much more specific one that anything I have seen in these vaguely worded letters you post. If there is a valid grievance, get down to brass tacks. There is nothing a bureaucrat can fend off more easily than broadly worded general accusations.
Swastikas drawn on bathroom stalls? If only the SA had limited itself to such juvenile antics.
A professor heckling a protest is most likely an exercise of free speech. If the professor is not tenured, a careful documentation of grounds not to grant tenure might be in order -- but it had better be about how he rants, not about what positions he happens to argue for. If the Jewish students position is "we re being subjected to anti-Semitism because a professor heckled our protest," I suggest they study Justice Scalia's observations that the exercise of political rights requires a minimum of backbone. Heckle him back!
Any student who bothered to say ANYTHING to a laughingstock like David Horowitz is a bit of a nut case. The statement you allege she made is absurd. That she made a damned fool of herself repeating such vapid nonsense is not actionable. It stands on the same level as NAMBLA advocating repeal of laws against child molestation: they have a right to advocate, but until the rest of us agree, they go to jail if they put their hands on a kid.
Yes, I've seen cartoons on this blog, and I've said before that they are not actionable, legally, as they are an expression of opinion -- not unlike drawing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed.
The examples from Canada are definitely not UCI, and further, are not subject to U.S. law. If I were responsible in any sense for Canadian law, I would say that the machete thrower should be prosecuted, as should those who chased the students holding a rally.
As I have argued in regard to almost any "hate crime," I oppose "hate crime" prosecution, because it gives the accused a sense of martyrdom, or at least, that they are special, unlike common criminals. Prosecution of such crimes should grind in the message, no, your motives are of no concern, your act was a crime, period, and is being prosecuted because such behavior is not tolerated here, NOT because of what your religion or color may be, nor because of what religion of color you may despise.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteFor Pete's sake, every incident I mentioned has been written about on this site for years. That UCB teacher heckling the students? I have it on YouTube. Yes, he was within his free speech rights. However, what I have done is put him up to public scrutiny. It is a blot on Berkeley.
What did the UCI police do in that incident? They told the female witness when she tried to make a complaint, "Let me tell you what you saw". They blamed the camera woman for provoking the boys (by filming Malik Ali's speech). The males were literally perched on the hood of her car writing down her VIN number and the cops did nothing. (I know both ladies and this is first-hand from them.) The campus police treated it as just another spat between Jewish and Muslim students. No action was taken even though the cops were there.
"Swastikas drawn on bathroom stalls? If only the SA had limited itself to such juvenile antics."
You are kidding me, right?
The UCSD incident with Horowitz? Compare the reaction of UCSD to perceived anti-black incidents to their almost complete ignoring of this incidenmt. (It's all right here on fousesquawk.)
The fact is that complaints have been made to the university over the years and brushed off.
"One person's hate speech is another person's education."
There is a reason I keep posting that comment.
Problem is, Siarlys, you are too busy pontificating to really read what I post.
The campus police have no real authority. They cannot arrest and are very limited in what they can do.
ReplyDeleteI tell parents that their sons and daughters should NEVER call the campus police (aka Keystone Cops) but dial 911 and get the real thing on the scene.
If a professor got up in class and announced "it would be good if all the black people in America moved back to Mississippi so we could kill them," it would be grounds to remove him. If a professor got up in class and stated agreement with the similar statement from Hezb-i-ul-Lah, it would also. Why? Because it is unprofessional, and not something any public university hires them to teach. If anyone made the same statement on a public sidewalk, it would be reprehensible, but it would hardly amount to an "atmosphere of anti-________________." Unless someone were acting on, or conspiring to act on, such sentiments, the statements would not be actionable.
ReplyDeleteFindalis: excellent point, although Marquette University, for one, has a campus police force so well integrated with the local police that you might got them showing up in response to a 911 call, if it is anywhere near the campus. They are armed, and do have powers of arrest.
If this is a known pattern of activity, perhaps a good strategy would be to have one photographer film the MSU speaker, another film the response to the first photographer, and a third photograph the police response. Many uses could be made of this material: formal legal action, press conferences, forums offering a different point of view... be creative. Filing broadly worded complaints with university administrators doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.
Gary, the incidences you referenced from Berkeley, UCSD and UC Davis all happened in the last school year.
ReplyDeleteHowever the items you mentioned from UCI, are years old---as much as 9 years ago!
While the MSU continues to bring anti-Israel speakers to campus, many of which still spew hate against Jews, why do only bring up things that happened years ago?
When you always bring up things that happened 9, 7 and even 3 years ago, it weakens your argument. If you have things to report from the last year 2009-10, please share with us.
As a former UCI student who had a lot of Jewish friends on campus, I know first-hand about many of the things you bring up. Here are the dates for the UCI items:
#1 ---2001 aka 9 years ago---
"You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew?" (UCI)
Source:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11339
#2 ---2007 or 2008 aka 2 or 3 years ago---
Would it be whining if you had your camera shoved in your face while filming an MSU event? (UCI)
******by the way, MSU members complained that this person filming did her own share of camera shoving*****
#3 ---2008 aka 2 years ago---
Would it be whining if after an MSU event a female photographer was followed back to her car on campus, by several males who blocked her car trying to take down her license number and did the same to another female who witnessed the event and tried to get the campus police to intervene-unsuccessfully and who refused to take a complaint-saying that the girl had provoked the incident? (UCI)
#4 ---2003 aka 7 years ago---
Would it be whining if you had a rock thrown past your head because you were wearing a pro-Israel t-shirt? (UCI)
#5 ---2008 aka 2 years ago---
Would it be whining to complain about a cartoon caricature of an Israeli leader drawn in the style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer newspaper of the Nazi era? Surely, you have seen the picture on this blog. (UCI)
BTW, I never called you an anti-Semite. I questioned why you made anti-Semitic comments. Comparing the Jewish students who made the UCI Jewish life film, which accurately represents the Jewish student clubs on campus to the Nazis in Theresenstadt is anti-Semitic.
I'll even give you an example. If a Jew (person A) calls his Jewish friend (person B) a "cheap Jew" it doesn't mean person A is an anti-Semite. However, person A is indeed making an anti-Semitic comment. Just because you are a Jew or someone who claims to love Jews (such as yourself), doesn't mean you are absolved from making anti-Semitic comments. Rabbi Dovid Weiss is a Jew and makes anti-Semitic statements all the time.
-Zug Gornisht
Gary, the incidences you referenced from Berkeley, UCSD and UC Davis all happened in the last school year.
ReplyDeleteHowever the items you mentioned from UCI, are years old---as much as 9 years ago!
While the MSU continues to bring anti-Israel speakers to campus, many of which still spew hate against Jews, why do only bring up things that happened years ago?
When you always bring up things that happened 9, 7 and even 3 years ago, it weakens your argument. If you have things to report from the last year 2009-10, please share with us.
As a former UCI student who had a lot of Jewish friends on campus, I know first-hand about many of the things you bring up. Here are the dates for the UCI items:
#1 ---2001 aka 9 years ago---
"You can take a Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew?" (UCI)
Source:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11339
#2 ---2007 or 2008 aka 2 or 3 years ago---
Would it be whining if you had your camera shoved in your face while filming an MSU event? (UCI)
******by the way, MSU members complained that this person filming did her own share of camera shoving*****
#3 ---2008 aka 2 years ago---
Would it be whining if after an MSU event a female photographer was followed back to her car on campus, by several males who blocked her car trying to take down her license number and did the same to another female who witnessed the event and tried to get the campus police to intervene-unsuccessfully and who refused to take a complaint-saying that the girl had provoked the incident? (UCI)
#4 ---2003 aka 7 years ago---
Would it be whining if you had a rock thrown past your head because you were wearing a pro-Israel t-shirt? (UCI)
#5 ---2008 aka 2 years ago---
Would it be whining to complain about a cartoon caricature of an Israeli leader drawn in the style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer newspaper of the Nazi era? Surely, you have seen the picture on this blog. (UCI)
BTW, I never called you an anti-Semite. I questioned why you made anti-Semitic comments. Comparing the Jewish students who made the UCI Jewish life film, which accurately represents the Jewish student clubs on campus to the Nazis in Theresenstadt is anti-Semitic.
I'll even give you an example. If a Jew (person A) calls his Jewish friend (person B) a "cheap Jew" it doesn't mean person A is an anti-Semite. However, person A is indeed making an anti-Semitic comment. Just because you are a Jew or someone who claims to love Jews (such as yourself), doesn't mean you are absolved from making anti-Semitic comments. Rabbi Dovid Weiss is a Jew and makes anti-Semitic statements all the time.
-Zug Gornisht
Zug Gornisht, ("Don't say anything at all")
ReplyDeleteNow I feel like I am debating someone from CAIR.
More recent examples at UCI, eh?
How about the Oren event in 2010?
Why did a group of Jewish students at UCI go to the student govt and complain about anti-Semitism after that body made a statement in support of the MSU?
Why didn't the head of the UCI Cross Cultural Center (the de facto clubhouse of the MSU-where they went for their "debriefing" after disrupting the Oren event) say a word about anti-Semitism at UCI after his written statement about the incidents at UCSD? I wrote him a letter about that-to which he never responded. Maybe I am the only one who asked him- but I don't think so.
Why did some 60 Jewish professors write a letter about anti-Semitism on the UCI campus in May 2010?
Jan 31, 2009. Whither the Levant event at UCI. When I sent up a written question to the "distinguished panel", it read something like this.
"Recently we have seen demonstrations in Ft Lauderdale, LA and SF, where crowd members yelled out, "Jews go back to the ovens", "Long Live Hitler", "Hitler rest in peace", "Jews as fossil fuel" etc. Will you condemn them and Don't you think that this hurts your cause?" The question was given to Norman Finklestein, who said, "First of all, I am not aware of this, I think it is exaggerated or these things were said by Zionists masquerading as Muslims." He then went on another monologue before suggesting that the questioner pull his head out of his navel"-as an audience of about 500 erupted in cheers.
May 21, 2009. I posed the same question to George Galloway, who called me a liar-as an audience of about 800 erupted in cheers.
Day 4 of Israel Apartheid Week May 2010- Malik Ali- "You Jews are the new Nazis!"
Here's a couple of more questions:
During Israel Apartheid Week May 2010- Who angrily berated a Jewish woman for bringing 2-300 community people on campus? Who tried unsuccessfully) to tell those people to move to another place about 100 yards away from the speakers? (here's a clue: It wasn't the MSU.) Or who was mocking that same Jewish woman on Wednesday of that week because not so many people from the community showed up on that day? (It wasn't the MSU) If you don't know the answers to those questios, I suggest you do some homework.
Are you sure you want to continue this debate?
"Zug Gornisht ("Don't say anything at all." I can think of a few Jewish organizations that should adopt that as their motto.
So, Zug points out that the most serious incidents you recounted are several years old, and you recount a few incidents from the last year or two which are definitely NOT actionable, not rock throwing, not assault, not even intimidation, just raucous, reprehensible, exercise of free speech, in very poor taste.
ReplyDeleteYou're back to square one Gary, by your own hand.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteAu contraire mon ami. Look at Zug's own statement:
"While the MSU continues to bring anti-Israel speakers to campus, many of which still spew hate against Jews, why do only bring up things that happened years ago?"
Partly because its a problem that goes back almost a decade but continues up to the present day-not just at UCI and not just on UC campuses but others as well including one near you (UW-Milwaukee about a year ago)
As to bringing up things that happened years ago, those are things I learned of after the fact. However, I have been chronichling what happens at UCI since the spring of 2007. And I am right up-to-date.
So if you want to parse what was assault or insult or poor use of free speech and when it happened, go ahead. I am not back to square one. Either are you. You are where Jack Nicholson ended up in The Shining.
I didn't see The Shining, nor did I watch any of the Batman flicks, but I do remember where Nicholson, in Five Easy Pieces, told the waitress to put the chicken. I would like to think that we are all talking at a more rational and respectful level of discourse here, although I did sympathize with Nicholson's character's frustration at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between physical assault and offensive statements is an important one. People can be arrested for assault and battery. The only antidote to bad speech is better speech, offered in a more persuasive manner. (That's what I keep trying to tell the wimpy Democrats concerning Republican attack ads, but I don't have the right connections to get this across).