News

Open letter to Harvard President: Charges that one-state conference is anti-semitic are ‘defamatory’ and serve ‘to prevent rational discussion of ideas’

A friend sends the following letter along. It has been released as pressure is mounting on the university to withdraw all financial support from the conference and prevent it from using a university venue.

27 February 2012

Dear President Faust and Dean Ellwood,

We, the undersigned, are academics participating in the student-organized One State Conference to be held at the Kennedy School on 3-4 March.

We understand that you have received a number of letters strongly decrying the conference, labeling it “one-sided” and defaming the speakers as “extremists.” We strongly denounce these characterizations and the clear attempt to intimidate students and speakers from freely expressing their ideas. We believe that it is the duty of the university as an educational institution to unequivocally defend the students’ right to freedom of speech and their right to freely organize forums without fear of intimidation, harassment or defamation.

The issues discussed in this conference are not new. They have been discussed previously in other respected academic institutions including at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, York University in Canada and in Tel Aviv University to mention a few examples. Last year Harvard Law School hosted a faculty debate between two professors teaching at Harvard Law School on the question of one state/two state.

The charge that the conference is “one-sided” is completely and entirely baseless. Some speakers in the conference are not supporters of one-state while others have not expressed an opinion about the matter. The charge of “one-sidedness” is not invoked by these same critics in relation to conferences that discuss the “two-state” solution nor in relation to other academic conferences. For example, there has never been a claim of “one-sidedness” against conferences discussing the effects of global warming when global warming deniers are not invited.

The aim of this conference is to explore the possibility of different solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Invoking inflammatory language like “anti-semitism” and “destruction of Israel” to describe the ideas and speakers of the conference is not only incorrect and defamatory but serves to prevent rational discussion of ideas and preempt the effective exercise of speech.

While it is not the position of the university to endorse any of the ideas expressed in the conference, it is wholly unacceptable for the university to distance itself from the ideas expressed. Doing so implies that the conference is condemnable on some grounds. Such a position would not only violate the university’s impartiality towards its students and events but would also implicate the university in the attempt to mis-describe the conference and engage in defamation by portraying us as extremists who hold repugnant ideas.

We believe that the university must unequivocally support the students and speakers against such bullying for the implications of failing to do so will be to chill free speech at the Harvard Kennedy School and throughout Harvard University.

Sincerely,

Signatories who are speakers:*

Duncan Kennedy, Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence, Harvard Law School

Nadim Rouhana, Professor of International Negotiation and Conflict Studies, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

Sarah Schulman, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, City University of New York, College of Staten Island

Ilan Pappe, Professor of History, Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies, and Co-Director for the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies at Exeter University, UK

Leila Farsakh, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Boston

Marc H. Ellis, University Professor of Jewish Studies and Professor of History; Director, Center for Jewish Studies, Baylor University

Eve Spangler, Associate Professor of Sociology, Boston College

C. Heike Schotten, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston
Susan M. Akram, Clinical Professor, Boston University School of Law

Amahl Bishara, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Tufts University

Elaine C. Hagopian, Professor Emerita of Sociology, Simmons College, Boston

Naor Ben-Yehoyada, Visiting Lecturer, Department of Anthropology, Visiting Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University

Rabbi Brant Rosen, Co-Chair, Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council

Dalit Baum, Ph.D., American Friends Service Committee

Itamar Mann, JSD candidate, Yale Law School

Sa’ed Atshan, Joint PhD Candidate, Anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University; Lecturer, Peace and Justice Studies, Tufts University

Diana Buttu, Fellow, Middle East Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School and Eleanor Roosevelt Fellow, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School

Nimer Sultany, SJD candidate, Harvard Law School

Endorsers (signatories who are not speakers):*

Janet Halley, Royall Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Aeyal Gross, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, Israel

John Womack Jr., Professor of History, emeritus, Harvard University

Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies Department of History, Columbia University

George Bisharat, Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law

Bashir Bashir, Adjunct Lecturer, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Karam Dana, Associate, Center for American Political Studies, Harvard University

Laila Atshan, Mason Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School

————–
* Institutional affiliation of speakers and endorsers is listed for identification purposes only.

7 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

J Street is strongly opposed to a One Democratic State and works to suppress support for that possibility.

I would like to see a discussion of what “pro-semitic” means – seems to me, it means “pro-war” “pro-security state” “pro-occupation” “pro-racial discrimination” “pro-religious supremacy” “pro-censorship” “pro-intimidation” and “pro-empire”

Hmmm.

The U.S. Senate held its annual reading of George Washington’s Farewell Address. Its text is reproduced in today’s Congressional Record, pages S1031-34. The text includes the following memorable passage:

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

What a pity that the members of Congress did not consider Washington’s words when they gave Netanyahu those 29 standing ovations last year.

I wonder if Washington’s words would now be considered anti-Semitic.

Great letter. If Harvard takes ANY negative step on this, I’ll return my degree.

The phrase “one-state” is, when stated this simply, without meaning except as there is a suggestion about the geography involved. The phrase “two-states” is without even that meaning (except that the two states, together, would occupy all of Mandatory Palestine). Neither phrase deals with the sharing of resources (water). The “one-state” phrase says nothing about civil rights, electoral rights, rights of return, rights to retain or to recover property.

The present conference might present some models to put flesh on the otherwise naked bones of the phrase “one-state”.

What is it about mere discussion that J-street or AIPAC (its parent organization, it would seem) dislike? Or is it merely the manifestation of freedom of the serfs (the Palestinians and their friends) that they seek to suppress?

What is it about mere discussion that J-street or AIPAC (its parent organization, it would seem) dislike? Or is it merely the manifestation of freedom of the serfs (the Palestinians and their friends) that they seek to suppress?

yes. to both. they don’t like the content of the conversation or who is conducting it.