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.
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:
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.