Clark University just disinvited Norm Finkelstein from a speaking engagement later this month. Michigan State University was under pressure from the ADL to rescind its invitation to Israel-critic Desmond Tutu to give its commencement address. MSU is sticking to its guns. Here's a letter from the president's office to Jeff Blankfort, who wrote to tell MSU not to fold. Notice that the school will be providing plenty-um context to make Tutu acceptable for American ears:
Dear Mr. Blankfort:
On behalf of President Simon, we would like to thank you for expressing your support of her decision to keep Archbishop Tutu as the speaker for Spring Convocation 2009.
While MSU rejects an intellectual and academic boycott of Israel, as previously stated in 2007, for the very same reasons we welcome Archbishop Tutu’s acceptance of the invitation to speak on our campus. Some have expressed concerns that by inviting Archbishop Tutu to speak, MSU is violating its long-standing tradition and commitment to academic freedom; however, we feel that to rescind our invitation to the Archbishop, unless he publically repudiates a position he has taken, would be the actual violation of our support of free speech, which is at the heart of academic freedom.
MSU believes a university may best bring about positive change in the world not by building walls and holding itself apart but by engaging. As we teach our students to tolerate and appreciate a diversity of intellectual approaches and viewpoints, even those with which they disagree, we reaffirm our commitment to being a place in which difficult conversations lead to growth and greater understanding.
As has been our practice with any controversial speaker, we will provide opportunities for our campus community to hear alternative points of view. In this case, we will work with our Jewish Studies Program, MSU Hillel, and the broader Michigan Jewish community to develop these opportunities.
Again, thank you for your support of MSU’s persistent goal to be a university where advancing knowledge and transforming lives is rooted in a firm commitment to intellectual and academic freedom, and thank you for the additional information you have provided regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Brianne Walsh
Office of the President
Michigan State University
It just seems random at this point. Don't "condemn" (whatever that means) the American who compares Israel to South Africa. Do go after Tutu, though (like that's going anywhere). Take out Finkelstein. What's okay, what's not? They're thrashing about. I guess the hope is that people will just steer clear.
Have we forgotten that Israel strongly supported South African apartheid? Many Americans, especially blacks, were alienated from Israel on this issue. Zionists would have us forget and Tutu will remind and educate the rest who somehow "missed" the news.
a quote from wikipedia:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>"Israel–South Africa relations refer to the interstate relations between the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel. In the 1950s and 1960s Israel was an outspoken critic of the apartheid regime in South Africa.[citation needed] After most African countries broke relations with Israel in 1973, Israel developed close ties with South Africa throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The relationship changed so profoundly that, in 1976, Israel invited the South African prime minister, John Vorster – a former Nazi sympathiser and a commander of the fascist Ossewabrandwag that sided with Hitler – for a state visit.[1]
Leaving unmentioned Vorster's wartime internment for supporting Germany, Israel's prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, hailed the South African premier as a force for freedom and made no mention of Vorster's past as he toured the Jerusalem memorial to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. At a state banquet, Rabin toasted "the ideals shared by Israel and South Africa: the hopes for justice and peaceful coexistence". Both countries, he said, faced "foreign-inspired instability and recklessness". Vorster, whose army was then overrunning Angola, told his hosts that South Africa and Israel were victims of the enemies of western civilisation.
Tutu deserves criticism. His depictions that Israel/Palestine is parallel in context and in action to South Africa is flawed.
He should be rebutted in debate, so that his moral stand would be an expression of morality, rather than of some misrepresentation.
I love nature. The thing I love about it is that at ANY scale that you look at nature, it is precise, balanced, elegant, complex.
Statements of truth should be the same. For moral statements to be AUTHENTIC, and not just temporary propaganda, they have to make sense at multiple scales of inquiry, and from multiple perspectives.
A reporter, a journalist, a moralist, a dissenter, that presents "fact" that is true from only a limited perspective, has violated that elegance.
I find it interesting that the magazine that is now "Yes" (published by friends of David Korten), originated in the magazine "In Context" (before David Korten had his "revelation").
Witty, Which statement of Desmond Tutu are you referring to. I thought I had read most of his useasiness with the Israeli situation. I think you are off base here. He was discussing the same subjects that are addressed in Phil and Adam's blog.
Here is a quote:
"Almost instinctively, the Jewish people have always been on the side of the voiceless. In their history, there is painful memory of massive roundups, house demolitions and collective punishment. In their scripture, there is acute empathy for the disfranchised. The occupation represents a dangerous and selective amnesia of the persecution from which these traditions were born." Desmond Tutu
It looks like Richard feels that criticisms of zionism must be near-perfect to be valid (but expressions of support for zionism apparently need not be.)
From Phil's link to the Lansing Journal article above I see that:
If you want to thank the President of MSU for not backing down here is the contact info:
E-mail: presmail@msu.edu
Phone: 517/355-6560
Fax: 517/355-4670
http://president.msu.edu/contact.php
And BTW, Tutu was awarded the Raoul Wallenburg Medal at the University of Michigan last October.
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/2008-10-30/archbishop-desmond-tutu-receives-wallenberg-medal-speaks-about-hope
The president of the University presented the medal herself and had nothing but praise:
http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/081029wallenberg.html
Tutu said not a word about Israel-Palestine so it's really quite chilling that ADL wants to anathematize him just for BEING a critic of Israel–not for fear that he will use the occasion to make a critical statement.
…here's someone who felt the award was inappropriate:
@ Witty
"A reporter, a journalist, a moralist, a dissenter, that presents "fact" that is true from only a limited perspective, has violated that elegance."
How elegant is a reporter, journalist, moralist, pro-status quo supporter that presents "fact" that is true from only a limited perspective?
How balanced, symmetrical, refined, is the USA congressional take on the I-P issues? AIPAC's?
Darwin Award to armchair Witty?