The wheels really are coming off the cart. The era of apartheid-struggle for justification in the eyes of the world has begun. Here are several voices from University of Chicago on Olmert’s appearance there, explaining why they disrupted his speech. First, alum Ali Abunimah:
In their October 20 e-mail to the University community, President Robert Zimmer and Provost Thomas Rosenbaum condemned the “disruptions” during Olmert’s speech. “Any stifling of debate,” they wrote, “runs counter to the primary values of the University of Chicago and to our long-standing position as an exemplar of academic freedom.”
Was it in order to promote debate that the University insisted on pre-screening questions and imposed a recording ban for students and media? In the name of promoting debate, will the University now invite Hamas leader Khaled Meshal—perhaps by video link—to lecture on leadership to its students, and offer him a large honorarium? Can we soon expect Sudan’s President Omar Bashir to make an appearance at Mandel Hall?
Here’s Zimmer and Rosenbaum’s statement. (Yes; it would seem that both men are Jewish; Zimmer went to Brandeis. Rosenbaum, give me a minute…) Here is the student paper’s editorial opposition to the protest. Here is sophomore M. Ali Al-Arian in the student paper:
We have a duty as intellectuals and members of this university to respect free speech, but not war crimes. As members of the international community, we should be ashamed that this man was allowed to kill so many innocent people and not be held accountable to the same laws to which we hold others accountable, be it Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, or anyone else. Moreover, as students of the University of Chicago, we should all be outraged that our university would dare invite such an individual to speak here, if only to lecture us on “leadership,” when he should be giving his speech at the international courts in The Hague.
Here is student Frank Pucci:
I was among the audience at Ehud Olmert’s speech and, as many reports detail, Olmert was constantly interrupted. However, contrary to what has been stated in some media reports, I did not see a disorganized rabble, or a mock town hall mob. Yes, I heard some of the more provocative things quoted in the Maroon (“Jeers Stifle Olmert’s Speech,” 10/16/09). However, you wouldn’t have simply heard “war criminal,” “murderer,” “you have an ugly face,” and so forth. I heard things such as, “I’m here to give voice to Mohammed Samouni, who never had one because he was six months old when you killed him.” I saw one woman stand up and wave a list of more than 1,400 people killed in Gaza. A large number of students read lists of names of those killed in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank. I heard pro-Israel students laugh as one person threw a book at a pro-Palestinian student.
Here’s a smart sophomore, Chase Mechanick:
For a former prime minister confronting such grave human rights accusations to be invited by the University under the aegis of a “Leadership Lecture”: Now that’s “extreme” and “absurd.”
While one can disagree with the actual method of protest—I certainly do—the Maroon is misleading its readers by appearing to characterize the viewpoints underlying it as “extreme” or “absurd.” It is not as if the protestors are a jeering mob of angry, delusional hysterics; that is, however, the conclusion one might surmise from reading the article.
How the quintessential American University founded by the Rockefellers got into the hands of a Zimmer and a Rosenbaum would make for an interesting book.
And what is our very own dime-store Mencken implying here? Please explain it to us, you fast-food Father Coughing!
But you just keep it up, America Fust-Cless! Any day now the citizenry, well, at least more than one Citizen, will rise up and say: ‘Here is the man with the power to see through the Jewish facade which those Jews have cast over our minds! This is the man who can save us!’
Oh, and BTW, ol’ Fusty, you don’t consider Jews “quintessentially American”?
Please tell us why.
Mooser, you’re asking the wrong question. Why dont so many American Jews consider themselves “quintessentially American” first, then religion-defined second?
Yeah, yeah, I know it’s a loaded question, and sure to stir the pot, but it does get at something that it at the heart of all we discuss here: the exceptionalism; the constant though irrational fear that Jews in America are going to be plucked from their beds in the middle of the night and rounded up into camps (hyperbolic, yeah, but Witty skirts that all the time as a ‘fear’); and how Zionism is permitted it’s own special bubble to exist and foment, like the Mickey Mouse head inside a clear ballon, it’s own mercury-like status to operate like a nation within a nation to mold US foreign policy to Israel’s end, not ours.
Looks like you put ol’ Mooser into rut with that one, AF.
If you’re wearing any of those Alces alces pheromones, you might want to high tail it out of here.
Note to all moose-cows: better stay off bull Mooser’s sacred patch of sod.
Pingback: UC students justify their rage at Olmert for killing civilians | JewPI
I find this a very thorny question. I share the view that Olmert is a war criminal, and certainly, using similar reasoning, that Bush is a war criminal. What about Obama? Aren’t there deadly attacks on civilians being committed because he is continuing to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Moreover, if such jeers are appropriate to silence Olmert, what about Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky? Sure, there is an obvious distinction, in that Olmert’s actions have resulted in the deaths of thousands while, NF and NC haven’t killed anybody. But then, what about Dershowitz? He’s a thinker, not a doer, yet I would find it hard to distinguish between him and Olmert. His long-standing defenses of Israeli actions, which range from morally repulsive to blatantly dishonest, perpetuate the atmosphere in which Israeli killings of civilians is possible. The pro-Israel crowd could make a claim that people like Chomsky and Finkelstein facilitate terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. I honestly believe my accusations against Dershowitz are meritorious, while my hypotheticals about Chomsky and Finkelstein are not, but I see no reason why my beliefs should prevail. Do we really want to create a climate where none of these people can give a speech uninterrupted?
On the other hand, Abuminah’s complaints about pre-screened questions, and that Meshal would never be invited to speak at UC, are excellent ones. Perhaps UC should not be inviting outside speakers who insist on the protection of pre-screened questions (easy to do), and the university should be committed to inviting opposing viewpoints (not so easy to enforce). Certainly controversial figures who agree to such speeches should submit to tough questioning. There is no reason why Olmert was treated with kid gloves.
I really don’t know what the answer is, but do feel uncomfortable with the jeering of Olmert, however loathesome I consider him to be. I would have no problem seeing him sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor, and forced to look at photographs of the babies he’s killed. But this kind of jeering, which makes it impossible for someone to express opinions, is a sort of Pandora’s box.
Actually, Chomsky’s career has largely been spent shielding Israel from blame. His “Israel is a U.S. client-state” meme has steered large portions of the antiwar left in the wrong direction for years. Jeffrey Blankfort elabortates:
link to ifamericansknew.org
But this kind of jeering, which makes it impossible for someone to express opinions, is a sort of Pandora’s box.
I understand what you’re saying here. But, the decisions about which people to honor and empower as invited speakers are important. Plainly, not “just anyone” gets invited, and they shouldn’t be. There must be (and there usually is enforced) some minimum level of valuable insight and personal integrity with such people. Otherwise the event wastes our time or degrades us. There are some people who we would all agree should not be given a podium.
There is nothing inherently invalid in objecting to a speaker’s appropriateness. To do so does not oppose the principles of free expression and open dialogue, but rather the decision (in this case by university elites, not a community) to honor and bestow authority on a particular individual. Whether or not such an objection is well-founded depends on the facts about that person, and how they relate to our values.
So yes, it can be a slippery slope. People are entitled to object to Chomsky and Finkelstein as much as Olmert. But people discredit themselves with unfounded protests and disruptions. And if we feel that such objections are indeed unfounded and rude, then we can and should defend the speaker based on his/her record, not deny the protester’s right to voice dissent.
In not doing the former, the President and Provost essentially chose to do the latter. They should have told us why we should respect Olmert enough to listen to him. Certainly there are plenty of people worth listening to, on some level. Olmert is not among them.
Any stifling of debate,” they wrote, “runs counter to the primary values of the University of Chicago
————————————————–
That wasn’t a debate, that was an indoctrination session.
Its a stupid precedent.
Does Ali Abunimeh intend to ever speak? Do you Phil?
Abunimah does. We hosted him at my school about 2 years ago, and he was outstanding.
I may have misunderstood your point originally, but my response to it is above.
It’s not about simply disagreeing. It’s about “who is and isn’t appropriate?” Being (a) reasonable and (b) not mass murderers, Phil and Ali are not objectionable.