Open Letter to Glenn Greenwald Regarding Brooklyn College
It is crystal clear that the political science department's co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakers does constitute an endorsement of BDS. The best proof is that they have refused to endorse anti-BDS events or even pro-Israel speakers who advocate the two state solution and an end to the settlements. If you can't see through the charade of the political science department 's claim of neutrality, then you don't deserve to be a journalist.
Dear Mr. Greenwald:
Before I respond to your questions I have two questions for you:
1. Are your editors aware that you are an active participant in the controversy at Brooklyn College about which you are writing—that you have threatened to cancel your speech if the event is cancelled?
2. Are your readers going to be made aware of your bias in this matter?
Now to answer your questions. First, I hope you will emphasize that I would be completely opposed to any cancellation of the event. As I have written in all of my articles, I want the event to go forward. My sole objection is to the fact that the political science department has officially "endorsed" and "co-sponsored" the event.
Your absurd comparison between this highly politicized advocacy event and the Konefsky lectures reveals your bias. I was selected to give the Konefsky lecture by the Konefsky family about 40 years ago. It was an entirely academic lecture. Much of it was devoted to memorializing my great professor, Samuel Konefsky (who would be appalled by the invocation of his name for the support of BDS.) I have no problem with an academic department sponsoring an academic lecture. I would be just as opposed to the political science department endorsing and co-sponsoring an event advocated increased Israeli settlement on the West Bank. (Of course the political science department would never sponsor such an event.)
If and when I come to Brooklyn College to speak against BDS, I do not expect the event to be co-sponsored by the political science department. It will be sponsored by student and outside groups, as this event should be.
I am opposed to any officials trying to stop the BDS event from taking place. But I think it is perfectly appropriate for all concerned citizens to speak to the issue of principle. Namely: whether departments, which include students who are taking classes, should be officially endorsing highly contentious and divisive issues. What if the political science department had decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney's campaign for president? You would be jumping up and down in furry. If you don't like that analogy, you would be jumping just as high if the political science department , or any other department, were to sponsor an event by pro-settlement advocates demanding more building in the West Bank. I believe there should be a rule prohibiting any department from co-sponsoring or endorsing one sided political events that are not academic in nature. Any other approach denies academic freedom to students who disagree with the official political line of the department and risks putting them in fear of being downgraded or otherwise discriminated against for deviating from the "party line." Every school I've ever been associated with has such a rule. At Harvard, professors can't even use their official Harvard stationary to advocate political positions. They are, of course, free to do so with their own stationary and without the university's imprimatur.
In this case, it is crystal clear that the political science department's co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakers does constitute an endorsement of BDS. The best proof is that they have refused to endorse anti-BDS events or even pro-Israel speakers who advocate the two state solution and an end to the settlements. If you can't see through the charade of the political science department 's claim of neutrality, then you don't deserve to be a journalist.
Of course advocates of a movement should be able to gather at an event to debate tactics and strategies without having someone there who objects to the movement itself. The absurd way in which you pose the question again reveals your bias. Do you know anyone who objects to the BDS movement gathering to debate among themselves? Do you think that the political science department should officially sponsor and endorse such an unacademic meeting that deals with tactics and strategies? Would you favor the political science department endorsing or sponsoring a gathering of Republicans debating tactics and strategies as to how to roll back healthcare reform or how to pack the Supreme Court? I don't think I've ever heard a more ridiculous analogy or question. I would expect you to hide your bias with a little more subtlety.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the editor of the Guardian, because I don't trust you—as an advocate—to report my views fairly and in context. I am also publishing your letter and mine online as a further protection against your anticipated mischaracterization of my views based on your history and your advocacy position. I hope you will surprise me and actually present my views fairly, fully and in context.
Alan M. Dershowitz
Harvard Law School
Letter from Glenn Greenwald to Alan Dershowitz
From: Glenn Greenwald
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:36 AM
To: Alan Dershowitz
Subject: From Glenn Greenwald/THE GUARDIAN
Professor Dershowitz - I'm writing a piece on the controversy over the BDS event at Brooklyn College. I have a few of questions:
(1) You yourself have previously spoken at this college, including when you delivered the Political Science Department's annual Konefsky Lecture (coincidentally, I'm giving that same lecture next month at Brooklyn College).
On that occasion, you spoke alone. You've spoken alone on other occasions at the school. Why is that different? Should they have had someone next to you who disagrees with your views? Did you request that?
(2) As a long-time advocate of free speech and academic freedom, do you view it as concerning that local political officials are now trying to interfere in BC's events and dictate to the PoliSci deparmtent how they should hold such events?
(3) Why shouldn't advocates of a movement be able to gather at an event to debate tactics and strategies without having someone there who objects to the movement itself?
(4) PoliSci departments host a wide range of speakers. Indeed, the one at BC hosted you. Is it fair to view their sponsorship of an event as an endorsement of the ideas expressed by the participants?
Reader comments on this item
|Leftist/Socialist Hypocrisy [37 words]||Edward||Feb 3, 2013 06:40|
|Well Said [13 words]||James||Feb 3, 2013 03:19|
|"Kauft nicht bei Juden" [94 words]||Rita||Feb 3, 2013 01:53|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Timon Dias
"Arab leaders are a reflection of their people. Arab leaders don't come from Mars or the sun, they emerged from among the people and share the same beliefs... I challenge any Arab citizen who may become a ruler to do anything beyond what current Arab leaders are doing." — Anwar Malek, Algerian author.
If anyone was trying to commit "genocide" during the Gaza War, it was clearly Hamas.
What the protestors in the Netherlands also revealed is that a killed Palestinian is only worth demonstrating for when the blame can be pinned on Israel.
The normalization and common approval of slogans that actually call for the destruction of the entire Jewish State, Israel, contribute to an atmosphere of hatred, violence and anti-Semitism that now seems as acceptable as it is overt.
by Anne Bayefsky
Why couldn't the UN... sponsor a conference on combating global antisemitism?
In theory the UN Charter demands equality of... nations large and small. In reality the UN mass-produces inequality for Jews and the Jewish nation.
The UN has launched a "legal" pogrom against the Jewish state. A "legal" pogrom is a license to kill.
Modern antisemitism targets Israel's exercise of the right of self-defense because self-defense is the essence of sovereignty.
by Vijeta Uniyal
In Europe, displays of ferocity were clearly not a "spontaneous reaction" to the developing situation in Gaza. They were an opportune moment for many to act on their anti-Semitism by dressing it up as a supposedly "genuine concern" for human suffering.
In India, youth groups rallied to show their support for Israel, a fellow democracy under terrorist siege -- a pain known only too well by Indians, who have lost more than 30,000 of their countrymen to terrorism since 1994.
A majority if Indians, whose culture is not tainted by anti-Semitism, can see that Israel not only has the right to defend itself, but an obligation to protect its citizens from terrorism.
The media elites of Europe seem unable to see the threat posed to the West by radical Islamist ideology, which drives countless terrorist outfits, including IS, Hamas and al-Qaida. They also seem unable to distinguish their friends from their foes.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Many Arabs and Muslims identify with the terrorists' anti-Western objectives ideology; they are afraid of being dubbed traitors and U.S. agents for joining non-Muslims in a war that would result in the death of many Muslims, and they are afraid their people would rise up against them.
Many Arab and Muslim leaders view the Islamic State as a by-product of failed U.S. policies, especially the current U.S. Administration's weak-kneed support for Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki. Some of these leaders, such as Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, consider the U.S. to be a major ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sisi and his regime will never forgive Obama for his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Also, they do not seem to have much confidence in the Obama Administration, which is perceived as weak and incompetent when it comes to combating Islamists.