≡ Menu

Editorials decrying Concordia’s decision

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.”

{ 5 comments… add one }
  • shawn 10.06.04, 4:49 PM

    According to the CBC, Palestian groups are even equating Barak with Bin Laden. It’s absurd.


  • John S. Anderson 10.06.04, 7:28 PM

    Concordia is probably correct that their own security would be unable to handle the potential vioence. This is not really the type of job they are trained and prepared for.

    So why not out-source? Would Montreal security firms and police not agree to be at least on stand-by? And make it very clear that instigation of violence is not just grounds-for, but guarantee-of, being kicked out of the U.

  • Peter 10.08.04, 8:38 PM

    I guess we can expect this on US campuses in the next 5 to 10 years. In fact it is already happening. I remember the rutgers protesters were pretty scary. There were only maybe 50 to a 100 of them, but listening to their vitriol when walking past them sent a chill down my spine. You could even hear them cursing from a quarter mile away at the pro-israel rally.

    There were maybe 10,000 muslims in the US before the Immigration Reform Act of 1966 and hardly any muslim Arabs. Thank you President Johnson!

  • DaninVan 10.10.04, 10:56 PM

    Pardon my memory lapse but why Pres. Johnson? What’d he do?

  • uhhhhhsegacs 10.11.04, 3:07 AM

    RE: 2 posts up….
    So, speaking of free speech, this illustrates a point here, very nicely: should racsist be allowed free speech, like this idiot? If yes, then it would free speech has a universal quality that extends to the point of degrading other human beings. If no, where does one draw the line, and more importantly, how is that line to be drawn?
    some food for thought….

Leave a Comment