New University, the campus newspaper of the University of California at Irvine, has posted an op-ed by student-writer Cathy Shutaya regarding the appearance last week of three Jewish anti-Israel activists, of which I have already reported. It is not often you can read a conservative, pro-Israel op-ed in a campus paper, so I have chosen to cross-post this article.
http://www.newuniversity.org/2011/03/opinion/we-are-number-twelve/
I must say, Ms Shutays, in commenting on the fact that these speakers don't support the right of pro-Israel voices to be heard, is much more diplomatic than I was with these characters during the Q and A. No matter. The important point is that student readers understand that these three speakers made it clear that (in their eyes) free speech is only for them-not for their opponents. That should tell you volumes about them and their organizations. It should also tell you that they are on the wrong side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Another article in the New U that is worthwhile to read this week.
http://tinyurl.com/6fmwz2d
Aaron Ellias is correct.
It is always tempting to consider that perhaps freedom of speech should be reserved to those who have something to say that is worth listening to, some legitimate statement, something thoughtful, coherent, and not too terribly psychopathic.
The eternal question is, quies custodiet ipses custodes, a question closely related to "Who will bell the cat?" In short, there is not objective authority to whom the power can be entrusted to dispassionately weigh which speech is worth hearing. Anyone who tries always ends up, by some odd coincidence, favoring speech they agree with, and condemning to silence those who hold different views.
Therefore, Jews have to put up with avowed Nazis speaking in public (but may picket), and anarchists have to put up with the Israeli ambassador speaking in public (again, they may picket, but not interrupt).
I begin to see the logic of these self-styled "progressives" and "leftists" who find some proletarian virtue in the legacy of Yassir Arafat: would-be anti-imperialists in search of a big bad oppressor, preferably one not too large or popular. Lazy bums!
The
The New University website won't allow me to post a response in response to Katy who commented on the article by Ellias so I'll post it here.
Katy missed the entire point of the article. Her attempt to distort the article to fulfill her persecution complex fail.
No where does he say he supports maintaining the status quo in the Israel/Palestine conflict. No where does he say that it is wrong to be critical of Israel. His article is about a specific incident that has been in the news for over a year now and has been played out.
As the statement that was signed by 100 UC Professors said:
“The students were wrong to prevent a speaker invited to the campus from speaking and being heard. And the Muslim Student Union acted inappropriately in coordinating this and in misrepresenting its involvement to University officials.
There is no need for criminal prosecution and criminal sanctions.”
Now lets move on.
My goodness...I just read Katy's comment to the article you linked.
If she is a student at UC Irvine, I hope she takes a course that covers the Bill of Rights.
The disrupters who were Jewish in New Orleans were wrong too. According to her logic if someone does something wrong and gets away with it somewhere else, someone should be able to get away without any ramifications here too.
The incident in New Orleans occurred in a different jurisdiction and with a different DA. It is not all that relevant.
I agree with Ellias the charges should be dropped for the disruptive students.
The charges keep their story in the news and it gives nimwits like Katy a platform to share their ignorance of the principles of free speech.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/134414417/Irvine-11-Face-Charges-For-Disrupting-Ambassadors-Speech?ft=1&f=1003#commentBlock
The students who disrupted Oren have made it to NPR.
Does Hamza Siddiqui believe the only way to show dissent is to shout down a speaker? How about proesting outside?
I get a kick out of how the MSU pretends they were being prosecuted because of their message. It was their TACTICS, not the message. And Oren was not able to finish his presentation. As I understand it the Q & A section was cancelled.
The people who behaved like adults were deprived the opportunity to ask Oren questions and some of those people may have been sympatric to the MSU's perspective.
The students who disrupted Oren have made it to NPR.
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/134414417/Irvine-11-Face-Charges-For-Disrupting-Ambassadors-Speech?ft=1&f=1003
Does Hamza Siddiqui sincerely believe the only way to show dissent is to shout down a speaker?
How about proesting outside?
I get a kick out of how the MSU pretends they were being prosecuted because of their message. It was their TACTICS and intentions to show that Oren couldn't come on the campus and say whatever he wanted to say that most people are upset about.
Oren was not able to finish his presentation. As I understand it the Q & A section was cancelled.
The people who behaved like adults were deprived the opportunity to ask Oren questions and some of those people may have been sympatric to the MSU's perspective.
Anonymous,
I was there. The Q and A was indeed cancelled. In addition, at one point, Oren left the room for several minutes and it was not clear whether he would resume. He did, but the only reason he was able to finish his speech was finally, the MSU marched out en masse.
Post a Comment