Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘campus’

A school in Ariel – yes, a “settlement” – has a program to help Arab students get into college in Israel… and amazingly, it gets high praise from everyone except Israel’s left:

The one-year program, which is financed by a new grant from the Council for Higher Education, offers math, English, Hebrew, computer and learning skills classes. Students who do well in the pre-college program according to criteria established by the college will be able to enroll in B.A. programs without taking the psychometric exam that is required of all potential university students in Israel.

Following the government’s decision to initiate a process for granting the College of Judea and Samaria the status of a university earlier this year, the college came under harsh criticism from individuals and groups of left-wing Israeli academics and political activists, who protested against granting university status to an institution they considered to be located on “a settlement in occupied land.”

The students, however, feel differently:

Traveling home on Monday afternoon from the College of Judea and Samaria, nineteen-year-old Majdi Karaki explained why he decided to commute a total of four hours a day, four times a week, from his home in the Ras El-Amud neighborhood of east Jerusalem to Ariel, where he enrolled this week in a special pre-college program for Arab students.

“Sure, some of my friends criticized me for my choice of school,” Karaki told The Jerusalem Post. “They asked me why I was going to study in the same college with Jewish settlers, but I just don’t care about what they say.”

[ . . . ]

Like others among the 300 Arab students currently enrolled in the college itself, however, Karaki said that a good, government-subsidized education, rather than politics, were his personal consideration when he decided to enroll.

“A friend of mine studies here, and I think this is one of the best colleges in Israel,” Karaki said.

“Arab students that come to study here are fulfilling a dream,” said Rifat Sweidan, who received a Masters in social work from Bar-Ilan University and is now the College of Judea and Samaria’s academic advisor for Arab students.

[ . . . ]

Cohen-Orgad also said that the college did not require its Arab students to hold Israeli citizenship. “The college’s charter says that it welcomes anyone whose deed or behavior does not counter the principles of Israel’s declaration of independence,” Cohen-Orgad said.

“The past four years have been very difficult ones,” he added. “But they passed without tensions between Arabs and Jews, and with an Israeli flag in every class and every lab.” Indeed, according to Sweidan, no Arab students have complained “of feeling racism or prejudice.”

Nobody’s arguing that the situation for Israeli Arabs is great. All agree that prejudice – in schools, in the job market – exists. But, in this example at least, it seems that there are people trying to actually do something to improve the situation… and then there are people attacking them for it. And they’re not the people you might expect.

The British Association of University Teachers voted to reverse their boycott of Haifa University and Bar-Ilan University, after getting a severe amount of egg on their face.

Of course, the Palestinians are reacting predictably:

Meanwhile, Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh, who last week urged an end to the boycott, has been under attack by many Palestinians who have been calling for his dismissal from his job as president of Al-Quds University.

Several Palestinian political and academic groups issued statements strongly condemning Nusseibeh, accusing him of normalizing ties with Israel and acting against the interests of the Palestinian people.

Leaflets distributed in some areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip branded the widely respected Nusseibeh a “traitor” and “collaborator.”

Nusseibeh co-signed a letter with the president of Hebrew University calling for an end to the AUT boycott, which is what some think was the deciding factor in the reversal. The letter called for “problems to be resolved through dialogue”. Needless to say, those passing out leaflets branding Nusseibeh as a “traitor” don’t agree with that statement.

(Hat tip: Lynn).

A student at Plattsburgh State University is charged with attempted murder as a hate crime after stabbing a fellow student, allegedly because he thought the victim was Jewish:

Prosecutors say a stabbing on a local college campus is a hate crime.

Police say Philip Robertson, 22, stabbed Jordyn Lavin behind a dorm at Plattsburgh State University in September.

According to court papers, Robertson went after Lavin because Lavin is Jewish.

Robertson is charged with attempted murder and assault as hate crimes, and is being held on $10,000 bail.

More details can be found in a campus report:

Plattsburgh State student Jordyn Lavin remembers walking behind Wilson Hall to smoke marijuana with his roommate, then feeling a knife pierce his back.

During a preliminary hearing Friday in Plattsburgh City Court, Lavin testified that his then roommate, Philip Robertson, accompanied him to a wooded area near the Saranac River the afternoon of Sept. 1.

Robertson handed Lavin a pipe and gave him permission to take the first hit, according to Lavin’s testimony.

“He walked behind me, and I felt pain,” Lavin said. “I could see the knife was in me.”

After that first stab wound, Robertson allegedly asked Lavin if he is Jewish, saying Lavin sounds like a Jewish last name.

Lavin replied that he is not Jewish.

Lavin and Robertson were apparently roommates and friends, so it’s hard to say what truly motivated this attack. Was this a symptom of the increasing virulent anti-Jewish sentiment on many college campuses, or an isolated incident of an unbalanced individual? Details are too sketchy to say at this point. But it’s certainly worth watching carefully.

After Concordia allowed the Netanyahu riot to set a precedent by initially not allowing Ehud Barak to speak, it seems free speech is now only a privilege of the side of rioters. A planned speech by US Ambassador Paul Cellucci at UQÀM was cancelled for “security concerns”:

Following on Concordia University’s decision last month to call off a speech by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the Universite du Quebec a Montreal yesterday cancelled an address by the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Cellucci was to have spoken at 2 p.m. yesterday at a conference organized by the Raoul Dandurand chair in strategic and diplomatic studies.

[ . . . ]

Nobody was able to say what the nature of the security risk was, but this week a group calling itself Bloquez l’empire (Block the Empire) sent out a statement by e-mail urging Montrealers to rally to “stop Cellucci from speaking.”

The University claimed that RCMP and US Security Officials recommended cancellation. But spokespeople from both deny that claim, and say the decision was made by the University.

The violence-rules contingent is crowing over their success:

Cellucci represents a regime whose ambitions to political and economic domination are expressed ruthlessly, but have the merit, at least, of being openly acknowledged. His legitimacy, especially after the concerns raised about election fraud in the US, should not be recognised. The only place Cellucci should be allowed to speak is before a tribunal, trying him for complicity with crimes against humanity.

The cancellation is a minor victory, and a little indication of what can be done – especially around the coming visit of Bush to Ottawa (30 November-1 December).

If this keeps up, it will kill free speech everywhere. Mob rule is being permitted far too much success. Eventually, only one viewpoint will be represented: that of the groups willing to resort to violence to suppress all speech besides theirs.

Concordia has set a very dangerous precedent. What people need to realize is that yesterday, it was an Israeli former PM who wasn’t allowed to speak. Today, it was a US ambassador. Tomorrow, it may be your speech that’s suppressed.

This is an issue that affects us all.

After reversing its decision to allow Ehud Barak to speak on campus, Concordia is now trying to claim that they didn’t really change their minds:

Nov. 5, 2004 — Media coverage of a statement issued by Federation CJA yesterday may have caused misunderstanding about Concordia’s position regarding inviting Ehud Barak to speak at Concordia. Concordia’s position has not changed and the university’s primary concern remains the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and our guests.

As Dr. Lowy outlined in his update to the community of Oct. 25 and subsequent opinion page pieces in the Toronto Star, The Gazette and Le Devoir:

“Concordia is presently reviewing its physical plant and general environment. Changes recommended by experts will be considered so that all speakers can then be welcomed on campus. And this will be done in a timely fashion with an eye towards implementing the necessary changes this academic year. Until then, we will continue to hold off campus under Concordia auspices any event considered not secure in our present facilities. Freedom of expression will continue to be supported as it always has been at Concordia.”

This has been Concordia’s position and remains Concordia’s position.

The university is examining possible locations from a security viewpoint with the intent of making the necessary modifications so an event of this kind can be held with the proper level of security, dignity and respect that such a visit demands.

In the light of the work that remains to be done, this will certainly not be possible in this calendar year. The university will try to make this possible before the end of the academic year.

This is spin 101: try to please everybody and offend nobody by saying contradictory things in the same statement.

The fact is, Concordia initially said no to the Barak speech, citing security concerns. Now they’re saying they hope they can host him in the current academic year on campus. Whether they admit it or not, that’s a reversal. And the right thing to do. But I wish they weren’t so cowardly about admitting it.

Concordia University has had a change of heart. Reversing its initial decision to disallow the speech due to “security concerns”, now Barak will be allowed to speak on campus:

Backtracking on a decision that fuelled a furor over free speech, Concordia University in Montreal has agreed to invite former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to speak on its campus.

The university reached the decision after “extensive discussions” with Jewish community leaders, according to a press release yesterday. Concordia says it will welcome Mr. Barak once it can upgrade security in one of its buildings.

Federation CJA has applauded this decision, and I hope that the support that the university receives from the public will convince them that they are doing the right thing by allowing the former PM to speak.

Many students will be upset by this decision, and I can understand why. They don’t want more tensions, more headlines, or the risk of another riot. They just want the situation to calm down and go away.

But ultimately I believe that this is the right decision. I hope that the average student can understand the importance of defending free speech – not just for rioters, but for everyone.

If the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had any kind of lesson, it’s that certain kinds of speech are very dangerous, because certain groups have ensured that this is so. Upon hearing that news, Damian had this reflection:

It’s worth remembering a scene in Martin Himel’s Global TV documentary, Jenin: Massacring Truth, in which a cartoonist for The Independent is asked about his cartoon showing Ariel Sharon eating a baby, and why he wouldn’t draw Arafat in such a manner. He responds, glibly, that “Jews don’t issue fatwas.”

Martin Himel, you will recall, was also behind the controversial documentary Confrontation at Concordia, about the 2002 Netanyahu riots.

The point here is that certain people are willing to resort to violence in order to shut down speech they disagree with. They cannot be allowed to succeed. Otherwise, they will grow bolder and bolder, until eventually the only speech permitted will be their point of view.

Concordia made the wrong decision at first. I believe that strongly. And their change of heart is a case of better late than never.

To all of you out there who may have written leaders or participated in the awareness campaign about this event, I believe you had an effect. Thank you.

To the students and alumni who will be upset or angered by this decision – including some members of a divided Hillel – please try to understand the larger implications of this decision, and realize that defence of free speech – while not always smooth – ultimately benefits us all.

And to anyone considering rioting: you may have thought you were victorious. This new decision proves you were wrong. If you disagree with Barak’s message, feel free to mount a peaceful protest. That’s what freedom of speech is all about. But I hope you think long and hard before resorting to violence again. That has absolutely no place in a free society.

The Concordia administration has answered back with their side of the whole Ehud Barak mess:

Let’s be fair and truthful. We have not compromised freedom of speech by our decision regarding Mr. Barak. We simply do not have the facilities that allow us to hold this particular event in a safe environment without disrupting the normal academic activities on-campus or those of our neighbors whom we consider an important part of our community. Nevertheless, freedom of speech remains alive at Concordia University as does our responsibility for the security of the community.

To support that claim, they point to a number of “controversial Jewish and Arab speakers” who have been hosted on campus.

Sadly, they have once again missed the point. It’s not enough to claim that a few controversial speakers equals freedom of speech. True freedom doesn’t exist selectively. Hosting speakers who the rioters find “acceptable” and calling that freedom is, de facto, allowing the rioters to dictate what speech is allowed and what speech is not allowed.

Concordia made a bad choice, and now they’re trying to defend it with faulty logic.

Well, we didn’t have to wait long to find evidence that the Concordia debacles have affected free speech elsewhere. A planned speech by Premier Jean Charest at Université de Montréal was cancelled due to protests:

Protesters rushed into a university building where Quebec Premier Jean Charest was scheduled to speak on Wednesday afternoon, forcing organizers to cancel the speech.

The premier had just entered the hall where he was scheduled to address a cultural conference when about 150 students crowded into the area and chanted slogans. The students were angry at recent government cuts to bursaries.

The sad thing is, these students didn’t even have to let their protest turn violent. They just had to mass and threaten violence… and the university decided they couldn’t risk it.

Here is solid evidence that violence – or even the mere threat thereof – works like a charm in shutting down any viewpoints they oppose. This isn’t just about Israel, it’s about any kind of free speech… and the evidence took less than two days to appear.

Editorials all over the place today decrying Concordia’s decision:

From the Gazette:

“We were pleased to hear,” Lowy told us, “that it was Barak who was invited. Barak is quite different from Netanyahu. We were surprised to learn that there wasn’t a distinction made,” by some Muslim students and their allies.

Oh really? Then Concordia’s “risk-assessment team” is in for more surprises each time the extremists who won another round this week decide to escalate. How long will it be until some hapless professor who happens to be Jewish is deemed “a provocation” or “offensive” or “a supporter of war criminals”? When that happens will Concordia cave in again? No? Then why cave in this time?

From the Globe and Mail (subscription required):

Concordia University in Montreal has handed a stunning victory to the forces of violence and intimidation. By refusing to allow Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister, to give a speech on campus, it has in effect handed a veto over free speech to those who would riot to make a point.

And from Monday’s Toronto Star:

But forced silence on controversial issues is a much greater threat to the university than protesters ever could be. By supplanting freedom of speech by forced silence, Concordia’s administrators have made a mockery of the university’s motto: “Real education for the real world.”

The Gazette reports that today’s Hillel rally outside Concordia was “peaceful”:

Almost two years after a violent demonstration outside Montreal’s Concordia University against former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there was another protest.

Only this time, it was more vocal than violent.

About two hundred people staged a peaceful demonstration outside the university’s downtown campus Tuesday.

They were protesting the administration’s decision not to allow a speech by another former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.

I’m sure we’ll be seeing lots more on the 6 o’ clock news. This story was just a placeholder. But even in its brevity, it says a lot.

Hillel holds peaceful protests. The right to free speech in Canada incorporates – and in fact, depends on – the right to peaceful protest.

But when the line is crossed into violence, protest becomes thuggery. That’s what happened when Netanyahu came to speak.

And now, Barak is denied his right to speak because of the fear of a repeat of the violence of the 2002 Netanyahu riots. SPHR has succeeded in shutting down any speech it doesn’t like at Concordia, through the use of violence.

But when speakers came who Hillel disagreed with, they protested peacefully. So speakers continue to come who Hillel disagrees with.

In other words, the viewpoint that the violent thugs agree with gets to be heard. But the viewpoint that the peaceful demonstrators agree with gets shut down.

Concordia is sending a strong message here: violence works. Who will be the next groups to employ SPHR’s tactics to muzzle speech they don’t like?

That’s why this isn’t just an issue for pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian students. It’s not just an issue for Concordia students. It’s an issue for all Montrealers, all Canadians, and all people committed to democracy. We cannot let violence win.