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 Khaled Abu Toameh
The "Arab Spring" did not erupt as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather, it was the outcome of decades of tyranny and corruption in the Arab world. The Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and Yemenis who removed their dictators from power did not do so because of the lack of a "two-state solution." This is the last thing they had in mind.
The thousands of Muslims who are volunteering to join the Islamic State [IS] are not doing so because they are frustrated with the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The only solution the Islamic State believes in is a Sunni Islamic Caliphate where the surviving non-Muslims who are not massacred would be subject to sharia law.
What Kerry perhaps does not know is that the Islamic State is not interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. Unlike Kerry, Sunni scholars fully understand that the Islamic State has more to do with Islam and terrorism than with any other conflict.
by Steven J. Rosen
Palestinian officials have generally been silent about security cooperation with Israel. They are loath to acknowledge how important it is for the survival of the Palestinian Authority [PA], and fear that critics, especially Hamas, will consider it "collaboration with the enemy."
"You smuggle weapons, explosives and cash to the West Bank, not for the fight with Israel, but for a coup against the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli intelligence chief visited me two weeks ago and told me about the [Hamas] group they arrested that was planning for a coup... We have a national unity government and you are thinking about a coup against me." — Mahmoud Abbas, PA President, to Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader.
According to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, if the IDF leaves the West Bank, Hamas will take over, and other terrorists groups such as the Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State would operate there.
In recent months, Abbas has been making a series of threats against Israel. If Abbas becomes another Arafat, it could be the Israeli side that loses interest in security cooperation.
by Burak Bekdil
It was the Islamists who, since they came to power in the 2000s, have reaped the biggest political gains from the "Palestine-fetish."
But the Turkish rhetoric on "solidarity" with our Palestinian brothers often seems askew to how solidarity should be.
by Raheel Raza
One blogger writes that Malala hates Pakistan's military. I believe it is the other way around.
I would so like to see the day when Malala is welcomed back in Pakistan, with the whole country cheering.
by Francesco Sisci
Democratic evolution in China was being seriously considered. The failures of U.S. support for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya gave new food for thought to those opposed to democracy. Lastly, the United States did not strongly oppose the anti-democratic coup d'état that overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand.
On the other hand, Russia -- dominated by Vladimir Putin, a new autocrat determined to stifle democracy in Russia -- provided a new model.
The whole of Eastern Europe and most of Latin America, formerly in the clutches of dictatorships, are now efficient democracies. This seems to indicate that while democracy cannot be parachuted into a country, there is a broader, longer-term global trend toward democracy and that its growth depends on local conditions.
As economic development needed careful planning, political reforms need even greater planning. The question remains: is China preparing for these political reforms?