Does Brooklyn College pass the "shoe on the other foot" test?
The chairman of the political science department, a radical leftist, would be complaining that his academic freedom is being denied by these departments officially endorsing positions with which he disagrees. The president of the college, known for her feminist views, would not likely remain silent in the face of an official departmental endorsement of the right to life.
The decision by the Brooklyn College political science department to endorse the BDS movement—which includes the boycotting of Jewish-Israeli academics—has been "justified" on freedom of speech and academic freedom grounds by the Chairman of the department. Brooklyn College's President has said that departments have the right to sponsor one-sided partisan events. Let's see if these "justifications" pass the "shoe on the other foot test."
What would these administrators say if the department of philosophy were to officially endorse the right to life and oppose a woman's right to choose abortion? What if the economics department had officially endorsed Mitt Romney during last year's election? What if the Spanish department had voted to endorse an academic boycott against Cuban or Venezuelan professors? What if the department of religion were to officially condemn homosexuality?
I can assure you that both the lyrics and the music would be very different. The chairman of the political science department, a radical leftist, would be complaining that his academic freedom is being denied by these departments officially endorsing positions with which he disagrees. The president of the college, known for her feminist views, would not likely remain silent in the face of an official departmental endorsement of the right to life. Nor would many faculty members justify a departmental condemnation of homosexuality on the ground of academic freedom or freedom of speech.
So these invocations of free speech and academic freedoms are merely a smokescreen to cover the hypocrisy of those who claim that they are committed to open dialogue and the expression of all points of view. That is so much hooey. Of course, the event should go forward, but it should be sponsored by students and outside groups, not by a department of the college. The same should be true of pro-Israel events.
The very same professors who demand the right to advocate BDS against Israel would demand the right to suppress the free speech and academic freedom of those who support Israeli settlements and the denial of statehood to the Palestinians. "Free speech for me but not for thee" has always been the hallmark of extremists on both the left and right. These extremists believe they know the Truth and that there is no reason for supporting, endorsing or even tolerating opposing viewpoints. They cannot be trusted to grade students neutrally and without bias. I know that if I were a student at Brooklyn College today, I would not major in political science for fear that my support for Israel and my opposition to BDS might make me a target in the eyes of professors whose department has officially endorsed BDS, thus discriminating against my point of view in the marketplace of ideas. How could I be sure they wouldn't discriminate against my point of view in grading or recommending students? This is the real issue in the hullabaloo over the decision by the Brooklyn College political science department to co-sponsor and endorse the BDS campaign at Brooklyn College.
Nor is this only a hypothetical or abstract fear. One political science student at Brooklyn College said she was afraid to criticize her department because "that's going to put a target on my back." Other students talked about a "chilling effect" that the department's decision would have on them. And yet another student said that she had "an uncomfortable feeling" about raising her hand and arguing "with a professor who voted for it" and who tried to justify his vote in the classroom.
The president of Brooklyn College says she believes that departments have the right to take controversial positions and to sponsor and endorse controversial events. Where is the line to be drawn? Would the Brooklyn College political science department have the right offer a course entitled, "Why BDS against Israel is a good thing?" Would the faculty have the right to grade students based on whether their exams agree or disagree with the department's official party line on BDS? Would the department have the right to deny the request of a faculty member to teach a course on why BDS against Israel is a bad thing? Surely the answer to these questions is no and even the chairman of the political science department at Brooklyn College would probably agree. But his department has endorsed BDS against Israel, and it would not co-sponsor or endorse an equivalent speech on the other side of the issue: namely, by a radical, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian statehood, zealot. I doubt his department would co-sponsor and endorse a speech by a moderate pro-Israel advocate who favored the two state solution and opposed settlement building That issue is being tested because Brooklyn College Hillel is asking the political science department to "co-sponsor" and "endorse" an anti-BDS talk by me. The shoe is now on the other foot! And it is causing painful blisters.
There are only two reasonable approaches to what departments should be entitled to do: either they should sponsor and endorse events on all sides of controversial issues, or they should get out of the business of selectively sponsoring and endorsing only one side of such issues. The approach taken by the political science department at Brooklyn College is absolutely unacceptable: namely, to endorse and sponsor only one side of a controversial issue, while refusing to co-sponsor and endorse the other side of the issue. The president of Brooklyn College is wrong when she says that departments should have the right to selectively sponsor and endorse only one side of a controversy. That is a long step on the road to turning academic departments into biased, partisan and one-sided propaganda centers, reminiscent of "political science" departments in the former Soviet Union that "encouraged" their students to follow the official party line.
Reader comments on this item
|Eliminate Tenure [112 words]||Edward||Feb 3, 2013 06:25|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."