The Yale Alumni Magazine reports on the Bruce Shipman controversy at Yale, in which the Episcopal priest who served as a chaplain resigned his position last week after a controversy exploded over a short letter he sent to the New York Times stating that the Gaza carnage was a factor in the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe.
The alumni magazine has two revelations: Shipman was forced out by the Episcopal board over his letter (which you can read here). And, a Yale Jewish center will be holding an “intellectual” panel on the “storm” involving Shipman’s remarks– but Shipman isn’t invited!
First, the priest says he was pushed to resign because his letter had caused offense on campus.
Shipman told the Yale Alumni Magazine that he was pushed by his board and, indirectly, by University Chaplain Sharon Kugler.
“At a meeting of the Board of Governors of the Episcopal Church at Yale [ECY] that took place on Tuesday, September 2, the Executive Committee asked me to resign,” Shipman said by e-mail.
“They alluded to pressure from a number of people on campus, including the university chaplain, Sharon Kugler. Without their support I could not imagine functioning effectively as chaplain, and the following morning I tendered my resignation.”…
Of the objections on campus to Shipman’s letter, some arise from the content of his views, while others focus on his invoking the Yale name—a criticism he says he received from the ECY board and the university chaplain.
Shipman defends his use of the Yale name. But in hindsight, he writes in his e-mail to the Yale Alumni Magazine, “I would phrase the letter differently.” He met with Professor Maurice Samuels, director of the Yale Program for the Study of Antisemitism, who “was helpful to me in showing how the letter could be read in ways that I did not intend.” (In Samuels’s words, the letter “seemed to imply that attacks against Jews are justified because Jews abroad don’t criticize Israel,” a view that is “is offensive in that it blames the victim.”)…
In an e-mail, Samuels emphasizes that “Shipman was not criticized (or forced to resign) for his anti-Israel views. He was criticized for making ignorant and offensive remarks about antisemitism.”
He deems Shipman “a nice man [who] was honestly sorry that he had offended people. But I also think he shouldn’t have intervened in such a public way in a debate about the causes of antisemitism without having a better understanding [of] the issues involved.”
Now here’s the news about that panel:
Shipman wrote his original New York Times letter in response to an op-ed by Professor Deborah Lipstadt, a Holocaust scholar at Emory University, about the rise of anti-Semitic violence in Europe this summer, during the Israel-Hamas war. Samuels notes that on September 17, Lipstadt will join Yale scholars for a panel discussion on “the actual causes of recent antisemitism.”
Here’s that panel at the Center for Jewish Life at Yale. “Antisemitism Today. What’s causing it? And what — if anything –can we do about it?” Lipstadt’s piece
“unleashed a storm of response. Come be part of an intellectual conversation to explore this timely subject with leading scholars in the field.”
And who is talking about the “actual” causes of recent anti-Semitism? Lipstadt herself. Rabbi Leah Cohen will moderate. Jeffrey Alexander, a sociology professor, Maurice Samuels who regards Shipman as ignorant and offensive, and Jay Winter, a history professor, will participate.
Here is Lipstadt’s piece in the Times to which Shipman responded. It says that “Jews are worried,” because of demonstrations in Europe that remind us of 1939. She mentions Gaza but says nothing about the actual atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza, and deplores the slippage from “anger at Israeli military action to hatred of Jews.”
The telegram has arrived. Jews are worrying…. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.
Will the panel mention the Obama ambassador to Belgium who described a new form of anti-Semitism being fostered by Israel’s actions? “There is significant anger and resentment and, yes, perhaps sometimes hatred and indeed sometimes an all too growing intimidation and violence directed at Jews generally as a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories and other Arab neighbors in the Middle East.”
Is this truly an intellectual conversation when the chief author of the “storm” is not invited to explain his views? I’m reminded of the excommunication of John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt. Their paper on the Israel lobby was roundly attacked at Harvard in 2006 and a year later Yivo organized a panel on their book as an anti-semitic tract without inviting the scholars to talk about it. They became non-persons, like Bruce Shipman, who has been instructed that he doesn’t know enough about these matters to comment. A real conversation was suppressed. And financial pressure on establishment institutions is one of the tools used by the Israel lobby.
Corey Robin calls these muzzlings the Palestinian exception to the First Amendment. “Every time it’s the same goddam story: supporters of Israel, increasingly anxious over the way the conversation about Israel is going in this country, flexing their muscles to muzzle a voice, to stop a debate.”
I wonder for how much longer the bots will be able to shut down debate over the Zionist car crash in the Levant.
Perhaps it would help if every victim of theirs could point out the systemic nature of what is happening to the media.
Zionism is paranoid .
Of course Israel and actions against Palestine increase anti semitism or resentment of Jews.
Any fool can see the connection.
Just to be clear, the Yale equivalent of Hillel (the Center for Jewish Life) will hold a panel on anti-Semitism with Lipstadt as guest. This is not a University or Chaplain’s office sponsored event any more than the Episcopal chaplain’s statements were. If Hillel only wants to invite Jewish speakers to their events, that’s their business. Let’s hope some other groups on campus, religious or otherwise, tackle the topic of the Gaza massacre and rising Islamophobia in Europe.
Fortunately a follow up opinion speaks out in Reverend shipman’s defense….
’ll never forget seeing former Boston Bishop Thomas Shaw in his flowing clerical robes join protesters at the Israeli Embassy calling for an end to oppression of Palestinians. Excitement swept through the crowd, and the Bishop’s presence lent credibility to the gathering that could not be ignored. Bishop Shaw had been to the Holy Land and seen the situation there. He refused to be silent.
Rev. Bruce Shipman, former priest-in-charge at Yale Episcopal Church, has also been to the Holy Land and witnessed the demolished homes, segregated roads and uprooted orchards. He met with Jews who are working to end the occupation, and with Christians who have called on churches to oppose the injustice. Recently, he penned a three-sentence letter to the New York Times suggesting that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians may be one cause of rising anti-Semitism, which we all condemn. Days later, he resigned his position at Yale.
Rev. Shipman has broken no law except the unwritten law that forbids questioning Israel. There is a big difference between criticizing a country’s policies and maligning its people. Denying this stifles debate. This courageous priest has upheld Episcopal tradition in standing for the oppressed. His suggestion was simply that we take a close look at ourselves, the “patrons of Israel,” in evaluating the causes of violence and anti-Semitism.
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/09/10/hoder-why-shipmans-activism-is-right/
“It says that “Jews are worried,” because of demonstrations in Europe that remind us of 1939′.
How do ordinary people who are sickened by Israel hold Zionism to account? Every other avenue is cut off so BDS it is. It’s not 1939redux. It’s upholding a racist social order.