Sat 27 Feb 2016
Williams Welcomes Anti-Semitic Speakers
Posted by Naomi Friedman under 1 at 3:36 pm
Professor Vijay Prashad is a virulent anti-Semite.
Prashad recently joined the Geobbels-esque choir chanting their latest popular “Palestinian children were killed in cold blood” refrain.
Typically, these catchy tunes list names of Palestinians killed in the act of stabbing, shooting, or running over Jews.
Prashad’s own list, published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette, named six individuals—one who is decidedly NOT dead, four who were killed-while-killing or trying to kill, and one who child who was an adult caught in the crossfire between a terrorist and police.
One does not have to be a news junky to know that the Palestinians that have died in the recent terrorist wave are not being “killed in cold blood.” The US media has reported clearly on the causality of these events.
Hence, when Prashad blatantly lies about his own list and later about “over 150” Palestinians, he is demonizing the Jewish state and thus fanning the flames of anti-Semitism among Gazette readers—and likely on Trinity College campus where he is employed and on any campus he visits as a speaker.
And one of these campuses was Williams College.
Granted, that was back in 2010. However, Williams has invited other speakers more recently that are part of the tidal wave of anti-Semitism that is crashing across college campuses.
Just last semester, for example, the college hosted Remi Kanazi who denies Jewish right to self-determination. Kanazi poeticizes about segregated bus (no such thing), hundreds of Israeli checkpoints (there are 13), and other fabrications in order to falsely associate Jewish society with apartheid. And Kanazi dreams of day when “Zionists” will cower.
This dreck arrived on campus and was not banned.
President Falk appears not to even have bothered to identify Kanazi’s fabrications as hate speech or condemn it as anti-Semitism.
So President Falk’s decision to ban Derbyshire from campus, of course, begs the question:
Should Williams deny a racist’s right to free speech (Derbyshire) but support that of an anti-Semite (Kanazi/Prashad)?
Is there one standard for African Americans and other groups and another for Jews?
And if the president desires to “protect” students, should he not protect ALL students?
Or none.
Certainly, to protect some groups and not others IS bigotry.
And so, should we not be objecting to this double-standard?
And if we do not object, are we not ourselves accomplices to bigotry?
Print
• Email
| « Join EphBlog! | From August, 2008 … Even more timely. » |
36 Responses to “Williams Welcomes Anti-Semitic Speakers”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
simplicio says:
These are very important questions, questions that President Falk has indeed opened himself to take seriously. That is, if he takes his most recent action seriously, he must follow through with consistency. If not, he must be taken to task. The brave students of the Williams College Record editorial staff have done so, and should be applauded. I will humbly submit a few more questions.
He has justified his act by the danger posed to the community (from the WaPo):
“There are some things that are destructive of our community, destructive of our ability to have those kinds of complicated, nuanced conversations.”
How does cancelling a speaker based on a vague combination of calls to “hate speech” and a new no “platform” policy, subsequently replaced by placing the values of community over “free-speech absolutism”, lead to any “nuanced conversations”?
It should be clear that, as much as UL may be criticized for their invitation, President Falk has made a poorly justified case for his cancellation. If he ranks himself as one of the educators at Williams, shouldn’t he display the same academic rigor as are expected of Williams students?
Do his public comments regarding free speech, political correctness, and hate speech provide a good model for Williams students— all Williams students?
Finally, has his cancellation provided any positive contribution to “our ability to have those kinds of complicated, nuanced conversations”?
February 27th, 2016 at 4:30 pmDick Swart says:
Wow, if I have ever read a semantic problem with fitting a word to a situation, it is ‘nuance’ to the free speech and ‘uncomfortable learning’ discussions.
ˈn(y)o͞oˌäns
noun
1.
a subtle difference in or shade of meaning, expression, or sound.
“the nuances of facial expression and body language”
synonyms: fine distinction, subtle difference;
verb
1.
give nuances to.
“the effect of the music is nuanced by the social situation of listeners”
Given the topics, it is hard to imagine ‘nuanced’ as a modifier.
I am afraid the president has dug himself into a semantic hole.
Unless of course, he takes advantage of the offerings for nuanced communications of this company:
http://www.nuance.com/for-individuals/index.htm
February 27th, 2016 at 5:06 pmDiane Gordon says:
My father-in-law, Kermit Gordon, taught at Williams. He would roll in his grave at your characterizing the virulent anti-Semitism sweeping even the most elite institutions right now as “free speech.” Shame on you.
February 27th, 2016 at 5:15 pmsimplicio says:
That is a point I had failed to consider. Perhaps “nuance” is a code word, or actual computer code! If the latter, I missed the appropriate trademark. Perhaps there was a bug in the dictation software?
February 27th, 2016 at 6:00 pmNaomi Friedman says:
simplicio, good points! The only way I see his cancellation contributing to “our ability to have those kinds of complicated, nuanced conversations” is if Williams College were to hold a discussion about “top-down” and other methods of controlling hate speech on campuses (and perhaps in American society generally) and consider what types of hate speech are tolerated and what types aren’t. This would be a terrific topic for a seminar!
The General Social Survey (GSS) has historical statistical information for what types of hate speech Americans are willing to tolerate. It’s fascinating.
I’m not sure what studies are available about how “hate speech” or even “unpopular speech” is accommodated and controlled within campus (and American) communities.
But given this recent event, I would love to see Williams take up the issue!
February 27th, 2016 at 6:02 pmsimplicio says:
@Naomi Friedman
February 27th, 2016 at 6:34 pmYou have identified another important and remarkable point: people can learn things, even profound things, by considering flawed, even offensive, arguments. I hope this type of learning occurs at Williams, but it seems to be occurring elsewhere (a very academically legitimate blog!).
Naomi Friedman says:
simplicio, that is an excellent article! This statement speaks volumes: “the check President Falk writes is one I know I’m not entitled to cash.”
What is interesting about the GSS survey is that it examines American public opinion regarding hate speech against several different demographic groups. What groups is not included? The one that leads the pack as victims of religious-based hate crime: Jews.
I would really love to see Williams host a seminar on a seminar on mechanisms of tolerating, handling, and controlling the variety of hate (or unpopular) speech on college campuses.
As a young person, I was SO against the Nazis marching in Skokie, but — am I wrong — did it not force open the door for survivors to begin telling their stories en masse? I may be remembering incorrectly, but wasn’t that a turning point?
Before then, we had Anne Frank and a couple of other stories. After the march, I remember my friends’ parents all of sudden begin to share their stories.
February 27th, 2016 at 6:56 pmsimplicio says:
Your recommendations are very interesting and worth considering! If I may, I will submit a simpler suggestion.
While not academically rigorous, a consistent application of a “No platform policy” would entail at least a Google search to see if the invited individual has ever engaged in hate speech, or is actively associated with others who have engaged in hate speech, as determined by the appropriate watchdog organizations. For example, the ADL seems to agree with your assessment of the speakers in question:
http://blog.adl.org/international/university-departments-sponsor-key-bds-advocates
Would it be possible to perform such a search on every potentially problematic speaker who has come to Williams during the President’s tenure, and ask his opinion on each such speaker? If this will not be done by the President’s Office, I am sure Williams students have this ability. This may indeed lead to some “nuanced discussions” about hate speech on campus.
February 27th, 2016 at 8:43 pmNaomi Friedman says:
simplicio, if we were to do so, we might need to make a request not just for speakers, but also for potential and current faculty members.
Williams College is home to two faculty members who have voted in favor of BDS, and the movement to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel is a clear application of an anti-Semitic double standard as there are in fact countries that do murder their citizens in cold blood — and Israel is not one of them. (So, why aren’t they targeting Israel?)
When free speech is restricted from top-down, the demand to restrict can spiral and get out of control….
President Falk could turn into a Robspierre or Mao during the Cultural Revolution.
However, having a students, faculty, alum, and President Falk discuss, analyze, identify, and condemn hate speech on campus–based on standards such as the State Department definition of anti-Semitism — could be a valuable project that could contribute not just to Williams but to other university campuses and American communities as a whole.
What do you think?
February 27th, 2016 at 9:44 pmsimplicio says:
Should Williams decide that identifying and suppressing hate speech is an appropriate goal, it seems like it should be done consistently and out in the open, and your suggestion—A Committee on Public Safety?—seems to be the appropriate means to that end.
As for my own opinion, the experience of my pseudonym’s originator prevents me from recommending any “top-down” suppression of ideas, no matter how dangerous those ideas may appear at the time. I have had the more recent joy to discover the Woodward Report and recommended that Williams read it as well.
February 27th, 2016 at 10:24 pmNaomi Friedman says:
simplicio, I would not advocate for the suppression hate speech, unless it poses an immediate threat (such as incitement to violence).
Rather, discussing, identifying, and condemning hate speech is what we desperately need (and indeed what banning Derbyshire may have prevented). Such a discourse preserves our First Amendment rights and deepens our understanding.
Look for example at this remarkable statement the vice-chancellor of McGill University recently issued.
Here McGill University has shown that it respects student voices while solidly condemning an anti-Semitic force on campus.
Dear members of the McGill community,
The General Assembly of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) recently passed a motion to support the Boycott, Divest and Sanction campaign against Israel. That decision has been defeated in a subsequent online ratification process.
The University as an institution has not commented publicly until now out of respect for the student governance process. Students respect our governance processes; we do not interfere with theirs, or their right to put such motions within the context of their affairs.
Now that the online vote is complete, I wish to explain why the University’s administration continues to steadfastly oppose the BDS movement, of which this motion is a part.
The BDS movement, which among other things, calls for universities to cut ties with Israeli universities, flies in the face of the tolerance and respect we cherish as values fundamental to a university. It proposes actions that are contrary to the principles of academic freedom, equity, inclusiveness and the exchange of views and ideas in responsible, open discourse. These are the core principles of McGill University, as affirmed by its Senate and Board, which should always guide the McGill community.
Our mission is to advance learning and create and disseminate knowledge by offering the best possible education, by carrying out research and scholarly activities judged to be excellent by the highest international standards, and by providing service to society.
For these reasons, while we respect the freedom of expression of all members of our community, the administration of the University will have no part of the BDS movement.
Sincerely,
February 27th, 2016 at 10:58 pmSuzanne Fortier
Principal and Vice-Chancellor
simplicio says:
Aha—I see your point. Yes, speaking out against certain types of offensive speech, and doing so consistently, may indeed be a good policy for the administration to consider. I believe the model letter you give is also consistent with the Woodward Report, so long as there is no suppression of the speech (unless, as you say, there is some immediate threat).
This policy could also be enacted retroactively to speak out against previous controversial speakers. In addition, the administration could declare, in public, how much money was given to each speaker and offer to donate a similar amount to appropriate charities.
Have we just had a “nuanced discussion”? If so, it looks like one of my questions has been answered positively.
February 27th, 2016 at 11:24 pmJohn C. Drew, Ph.D. says:
If you understand that Williams College is dominated by the hard left, then it is easy to understand why it will go out of its way to nurture the anti-Semitism of Remi Kanazi and then censor the race realism of John Derbyshire. Remi Kanazi is useful because he articulates the hard left’s hostility to imperialism, racism and Israel. John Derbyshire must be outright censored because his well-reasoned arguments undermine the hard left’s perspective on all three issues.
Hard left politics, by the way, explains why Derbyshire’s critics need “safe spaces,” but Remi Kanazi’s do not.
What is most frightening about Williams College’s censorship of John Derbyshire is the idea that if it is right to censor him at Williams College, isn’t it also right to censor him completely at the national or international level too? Right now, the hard left at Williams College has more in common with Joseph Stalin than FDR.
February 28th, 2016 at 12:37 amfrank uible says:
As we are all reminded this election year, in politics lying is the currency of the realm.
February 28th, 2016 at 5:34 amsigh says:
so, just to get the timeline clear–Prashad visits in 2010 and made his factual errors in 2016?
as for segregated buses, here is Ha’Aretz on it: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.657448. Such a plan was proposed and nearly implemented.
On wikipedia, there is a link to the UN stating there are over 500 Israeli checkpoints: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_checkpoint. Here is B’Tselem’s report on them, updated in April 2015: http://www.btselem.org/freedom_of_movement/checkpoints_and_forbidden_roads.
also, Drew, that’s not how surveys work. not at all. and these personal attacks of yours are despicable, and would be even if it they weren’t quite as unhinged and false.
If anything, this is the argument for following the Woodward Report–especially the part about coordinating speakers w/ the administration as an ally in the planning and implementation of said visitors. But the title of this post and many of its claims deserve more scrutiny.
The ADL’s definition of hate speech and who is doing so is widely criticized and debated as over-broad. I wouldn’t use them as the watchdog.
fwiw, this was written by an american jew.
February 28th, 2016 at 11:49 amJohn C. Drew, Ph.D. says:
– sigh
What’s your real name? I’m confident you would show better manners and make stronger arguments if you were not hiding behind a pseudonym.
FYI: This was written by an Armenian American who is realistic about the danger Muslims pose to their neighbors.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopics/topics_armeniangenocide.html
February 28th, 2016 at 1:46 pmsigh says:
John,
So, attack the person again, eh?
I’ve been here before under my real name and, like w/ dcat, it’s likely easy to figure out if you have a brain (hint: I was on that williamsalternative thread as well). but i do not want to be google-able to this site because, well, this site is a damn embarrassment and i’m ashamed i ever waste anytime here (sorry, friends–it’s not you, its the trolls).
Armenian genocide, eh? Irony, thy name is using that (unrelated) example when the ADL was notorious for shamelessly denying that it was a genocide for years.
February 28th, 2016 at 2:37 pmNaomi Friedman says:
Sigh,
Your decision to pick one article (from a highly bias-prone source) and come to an erroneous conclusion that confirms a demonized image of the Jewish state beautifully demonstrates the role that pre-existing assumptions about a group play in the rise of anti-Semitism (and likely racism).
Your comment makes a terrific example to illustrate the mechanisms through which hate speech arises and is managed within a community.
Let’s analyze:
(1) You picked at article from Ha’aretz. Ha’aretz is a remnant of Israel’s socialist period when newspapers were organs of political parties — and of course, Ha’aretz is now associated with the anti-Zionist and post-Zionist movements. There are two other major daily newspapers that are prone to the same type of commercial bias that US media is prone to (scandals sell, etc.), but they do not serve political purposes.
(2) You decided based on your reading of one article and your erroneous assumptions about Israeli government that Israel “almost” had segregated buses. This is where you go from expressing an uninformed opinion to an anti-Semitic opinion. (No insult intended — just honest dialog.) You obviously don’t know enough about Israeli government to know that there are multiple “checks” through which any such proposal for any segregated system would be rejected.
(3) You also fallaciously assumed that the motivation behind this proposal was “racisim” rather than self-defense. If you had followed this event, you would know that this proposal arose as a result of the fact that buses are frequent and vulnerable targets for terrorism. Why do I believe that “the racist motivation” is your anti-Semitic assumption? Because otherwise you would understand that this example in no way “almost supports” Kanazi’s claim of segregated buses. Kanazi’s argument of course is that these are part of a racist, apartheid system. And in proposing that this article supports Kanazi’s position, you proceed from expressing opinion to making an anti-Semitic claim.
(4) If we were not among a community of alum from this particular college (and perhaps even if we were), other people who are just as uniformed and have similar anti-Semitic assumptions might listen to your claim and then share it. For some, your claim to “Jewish identity” would help validate your claim. Nora Barrow-Friedman (of Electronic Intifada fame) and many other prominent Jewish anti-Semites like to use tactic. Those of us who have studied anti-Semitic rhetoric, however, recognize it as a common calling card.
(5) Now, because your comment was not banned but rather discussed openly and analyzed, we now understand a great deal more about how anti-Semitism (and likely racism) arises.
And isn’t that cool — and just what the First Amendment is all about?
I don’t at all mean to offend you, Sigh, but I think the example you offered is really excellent.
February 28th, 2016 at 3:19 pmsigh says:
Naomi,
My link was to the first source i found on a google search. But the plan was proposed by the defense minister. That’s simply fact. And it’s in english, that’s nice for readership here. The point is not the source, the point is the fact that you said somethign was untrue but it was actual proposed publicly by a cabinet level adminstrator. That’s “almost” in my book. In fact, it was even launched, though Bibi at least had the sense to cancel it hours later: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32807783
Or is the BBC inaccurate too?
I never said the buses were for racism and not security. But segregated buses, for whatever reason, are racist. I’ll stand by that.
I identify as jewish to stop the obnoxious “you don’t get it, you’re not one of us” arguments I’ve received when I do not identify as such. It is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t identity in this case. So whatever.
Get off your high horse at me. I’m far more cognizent and aware of the situation in Israel than you presume. And your attempt to tar me as related to anti-semitism is a shameful turn that many Jews have taken (like the ADL calling Jewish organizations hate groups recently). That silencing is far more problematic than anything Falk has done.
In fact, you do claim I’m anti-semitic multiple times while also putting words into my mouth. Shame on you. Shame.
February 28th, 2016 at 3:49 pmNaomi Friedman says:
Sigh,
Thank you for responding.
First, good for you that you looked into the topic again and discovered one of the many “checks” within the Israeli democratic system.
Second, despite this, you continue to make your anti-Semitic claim: that a response to a serious security threat (and a *not really* “almost” segregation of one bus line) supports Kanazi’s demonized portrayal of Jews as perpetrators of apartheid.
Can you honestly not see the irrationality in that claim?
Third, I didn’t claim that you are an anti-Semite. I identified your speech as anti-Semitic expression.
One of the crucial steps to fighting anti-Semitism and racism (and one that should be discussed openly and honestly) is that not everyone who expresses anti-Semitic or racist views is an anti-Semite or racist.
Where is that boundary? That would be a wonderful topic for a lecture/discussion at Williams.
Kanazi is an anti-Semite as he is actively engaged in trying to convince others of his demonized image of the Jewish state and of Jews who believe they have a right to self-determination.
Contrast that to far more numerous individuals who simply express anti-Semitic opinions, make anti-Semitic claims, and have deeply entrenched anti-Semitic attitudes.
You (and many of us) and Kanazi may play very different in the spread of hate speech.
Wouldn’t it be amazing to have a frank and open seminar on this topic at a top academic institution like our alma mater?
February 28th, 2016 at 5:16 pmJohn C. Drew, Ph.D. says:
-sigh
Thanks for the hint. It makes me happy to know we are now on a level playing field. I’m impressed with your recent grant. I write them for a living and I know they are not so easy to obtain. Congratulations!
February 28th, 2016 at 6:32 pmsigh says:
Naomi,
you continue to put words into my mouth. I did not support or express any opinion on Kanazi. I have no idea who he is and don’t care to look into it. I simply knew and corrected a misrepresentation of what Israel has done and your over-reaction (saying that such a correction is “anti-semitic expression”) does Israel no favors. Additionally, it is quite simply laughable on its face to claim that I am saying anti-semitic things but am not an anti-semite. it is, even if we accept that bizarre distinction, one that makes no difference. And, as a Jew it is extremely hurtful to be called that by a fellow Jew. Extremely.
John,
thank you for the congratulations. I would hope that that spirit of camaraderie could extend further in your writings.
February 28th, 2016 at 6:49 pmJohn C. Drew, Ph.D. says:
– sigh
Ironically, our work overlaps — slightly. I have got very interested in difference education interventions. See, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/SingleStudyReview.aspx?sid=20012
I leveraged that study to win a $1.5 million grant to build a multi-cultural center that would offer a difference education intervention exactly like the one in the experiment.
I’m interested in this issue, in part, because I was the first person on the Armenian side of the family to attend college. I’m the first in my family to attend an Ivy League school and the only one to take a Ph.D.
I’m not sure what my life would have been like if I had parents who had graduate degrees. I probably would have known better and gone after an MBA.
February 28th, 2016 at 7:49 pmNaomi Friedman says:
Sigh,
It makes a huge difference.
If we box up racism, call it “John Derbyshire,” and ban it, then we never see how racist attitudes, opinions, and claims penetrate our own expression and our community.
We might all feel very good about ourselves for being “not John Derbyshire,” but we then allow the din of racist expression to go unexamined within our communities and the only “check” on it is by accusing individuals of being “John Derbyshire.”
You are hurt because you think I called you “John Derbyshire,” but what I called you is — human.
February 28th, 2016 at 8:05 pmsigh says:
Naomi,
I’m disappointed you did not hear and respect that what you called me hurt. Though you want it to be one way, a way that is understandable, you should also respect that people do not always hear things the way you meant them.
I was hurt because I do not believe in the distinction you believe in. Think about that. Think about what it does to your ability to fling a term “anti-semite” at a fellow jew simply for disagreeing with you about a set of facts and the word “almost.”
February 28th, 2016 at 9:42 pmNaomi Friedman says:
Dear Sigh,
First, of course I am sorry that you are hurt — whatever the reason.
Second, how can you not see the distinction?
If a young person, in a fit of anger and on one of his/her worst days, calls a Jew who seriously wronged him/her, a kike — and never does this again and feels badly afterwards, does that make him/her an anti-Semite?
What about if someone uses the expression “jewing me down”?
What if they use it and they don’t know the origin of the word?
What if someone calls someone else a “pushy Jew” a couple of times? What if they are doing it seemingly in jest?
What about Disraeli (I think it was Disraeli) who thought of his bad habits, behaviors, or thoughts as the Semitic part of him?
What if a teenager hangs out with kids who tell him about greedy, power-hungry Jews — and he spray paints a Swastika on the Hebrew teacher’s door (and stops in the middle to talk to a Jewish friend of his). Later grows up, realizes what he’s done, and is ashamed?
Are all these people anti-Semites?
February 28th, 2016 at 10:10 pmsigh says:
Naomi,
Well, there are a variety of responses I have, but I’m tired of the repetition. The simple fact is that you accused me of having anti-semitic opinions (not said an anti-semitic response or used an anti-semitic slur in ignorance or anger) based on the fact that I said that Israel almost had segregated buses (a true fact!) and used Ha’Aretz, the oldest daily Israeli paper just because it is a leftist paper, as my source. But that was a simple artifact of a google search. The source was irrelevant–the bbc proves that. My only claim was israel had segregated buses was “Such a plan was proposed and nearly implemented.” That has been proven true using the BBC and Ha’Aretz.
So what, exactly are you accusing me of? Why? Why reflexively jump to and continue to assert that I have “anti-semitic opinions” for stating a fact? What does that do to dialogue? Why be so harsh to someone who has presented only the opinions that:
February 29th, 2016 at 9:51 am1. segregated buses, if in existence, would be racist.
2. the ADL’s definition of hate speech is overly broad.
3. the over broad, reflexive use of the term “anti-semitic” to defend Israel from any criticism (including valid statements of fact like what I did) is shameful and worse than what Falk did.
Naomi Friedman says:
Sigh,
You didn’t answer my question. Are all those people anti-Semitic?
I don’t think so. But if you do, then that would make you an anti-Semite–in your own eyes, but not in mine.
You associated Kanazi’s claim of apartheid with one instance in which the Israeli government sacrificed the physical security of its own citizens to uphold its high democratic standards for non-citizens.
Here are my words:
“Kanazi poeticizes about segregated bus (no such thing), hundreds of Israeli checkpoints (there are 13), and other fabrications in order to falsely associate Jewish society with apartheid.”
Here are your words:
“as for segregated buses, here is Ha’Aretz on it: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.657448. Such a plan was proposed and nearly implemented.”
“I never said the buses were for racism and not security. But segregated buses, for whatever reason, are racist. I’ll stand by that.”
“I said that Israel almost had segregated buses (a true fact!)”
In my view, your expression is at least equivalent to a “jewing it down.” But if you don’t like ADL’s definition, take a look at our State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm
Or read this excellent book by our fellow alum:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-definition-of-anti-semitism-9780199375646?cc=us&lang=en&
There are a lot of ways of trying to shut people up about anti-Semitism and racism apart from banning speakers.
You’ve raised two commonly used tactics: (1) The “I’m Jewish” card; (2) You hurt me by calling me an anti-Semite and using that term too broadly.
Sigh, anti-Semitism does not begin with gas chambers. It ends with gas chambers.
We can’t fight racism or anti-Semitism if we aren’t open and honest about the ways in which they penetrate our discourse and our perceptions.
February 29th, 2016 at 12:26 pmNaomi Friedman says:
And now Sigh (and John),
Consider this case:
Several years ago, I was asked to sit in on a class about the modern history of the Middle East to monitor it for anti-Semitic expression.
The instructor began with Turkey and at the end of the lecture, a student asked him “What about the Armenians?”
He replied, “What about them?” (The instructor had failed to mention them.)
The student said, “Did the Ottomans kill a lot of Armenians at the end of World War I.”
The instructor replied, “Well, they rebelled.”
How could that happen? He denied the Armenian genocide in front of a group of almost 100 students! And nobody questioned (except for me of course in the next class, with the administration, and in the local paper).
I’ll tell you how that could happen, Sigh. We don’t teach students about the Armenian genocide like we do about the Holocaust. These students were ignorant of this history.
Now, back to your comment:
“I said that Israel almost had segregated buses (a true fact!)”
Like those students, you may be making this statement because you simply don’t know enough about Israeli democracy and you think of Ha’aretz or BBC as reliable sources.
Is that anti-Semitic? No. It’s just uninformed.
The role of ignorance in the rise of racism or anti-Semitism is very important.
It’s only when you associate an “almost” act of segregating one bus line (that didn’t actually happen despite the fact that it endangers a population) with a claim that the Jewish state has an apartheid system, that you are jumping to an anti-Semitic conclusion.
February 29th, 2016 at 12:48 pmsigh says:
Once again, this time with emphasis, stop putting f*cking words into my mouth. I NEVER used the word “apartheid” and I never said the intention of anything was “racist” just that the act of segregating a bus line, FOR WHATEVER FUCKING REASON ONE WANTS TO, is a racist act.
stop writing about me. and FUCK THIS BULLSHIT AGAIN for implying that my thoughts in any way shape or form lead to Nazi-style genocide.
yes, i’m mad and cursing. this is beyond the pale.
February 29th, 2016 at 1:08 pmJohn C. Drew, Ph.D. says:
I don’t think there is any doubt that sigh is articulating anti-Semitic ideas. He appears, without much study, to have bought into the most extreme anti-Israel ideology, the ideology which would erase Israel out of the Middle East.
Given his research interests, I would be curious to see him redeem himself by investigating the extraordinary anti-Semitism evident in polling of the black and Hispanic communities. As I understand it, support for anti-Semetic statements ranges around 30% in both of them. (It is about 12% in the white community.)
Unfortunately, it is fairly natural and predictable for the hard left coalition to drift into anti-Semitism – especially when its black and Hispanic members collaborate with adherent Muslims, the Muslims who have turned anti-Semitism into its own independent religion.
FYI: I believe the Armenian genocide is suppressed in our history books and current debate because it demonstrates that Muslims were a severe, deadly threat to their neighbors, long before the establishment of Israel.
February 29th, 2016 at 10:43 pmanon says:
Plenty of dangerous moral platitudes to go around.
Especially in wartime.
The IDF and US military kill hundreds to thousands of innocent people every year. And?
Part of the argument seems to be “shit does not happen in war.”
Let me assure you, it does.
When we get done counting the bodies maybe we can find out who is left that is clean enough to speak at Williams? Or perhaps who can have their picture on wall?
March 1st, 2016 at 7:53 amsigh says:
let’s be abundantly clear here: I have been accused of anti-semitic writings and thought. Now by two different individuals. Anyone want to stand against that? Or you’re ok with that (and this is but one more reason not to come here and certainly to not post under my name)? Really? Leave it up all you want, but you could disagree. I’ll take silence as agreement (from regular posters who I’m sure have seen this thread).
Second, John, I’ll not be taking any career advice from you, thanks. Considering I’m progressing toward tenure fine and have published multiple articles in top journals in my field, I’m good. thanks but no thanks for that unsolicited (and non-sociological) recommendation. Especially after impugning me. GTFOH.
March 1st, 2016 at 9:22 amJohn C. Drew, Ph.D. says:
Unwelcome career advice? Don’t be silly. As a political scientist, I would earn far more than you employed at the same institution. As a small business owner, I earn more than you will ever make as a sociologist.
You need to get real about your life. You are teaching at an unselective, regional Catholic university. As I understand it, Villanova University, named for the Spanish Augustinian St. Thomas of Villanova, is still affiliated with the Augustinian Order. It’s not like you are at a selective school, or even in a high paying prestigious field. It doesn’t look to me like you have ever competed and won in the big leagues.
https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/vpaa/careers/placement/2011/salarystats.html
The issue with you is a certain lack of moral courage. Are you going to ignore the anti-Semitism of black and Hispanic students? Have you ever considered that anti-Semitism in those communities is at least partially responsible for their difficulties in adapting to, or succeeding, in academic fields? How, if at all, do you confront anti-Semitism among your black or Hispanic students?
March 1st, 2016 at 11:21 amanon says:
It is fair to be critical of Israeli actions- as well as American actions in this current war. To deny that there is an imbalance in equitable distribution of the law as it relates to the laws of war is to deny reality.
Israel, the United States, Russia, NATO etc have conducted and are and still conducting protracted air campaigns that kill many noncombatants. Including many innocent children. That is a fact.
Defense of PM Netanyahu’s war policy or the policy of radical Islam as a function of ideological righteousness does not do anyone justice. In this realm you are going to find division- and destructive language that supports prejudice. Denying people to speak for such reasons (based on selective work or statements) is precarious.
It involves a false sense of self righteousness…
March 3rd, 2016 at 9:35 amanon says:
sigh- Yes, these attacks on you are total bullshit… but that is how it is done.
It involves a false sense of self righteousness… support for the sustained killing of innocent people- on both sides of the war.
March 5th, 2016 at 10:07 am