Subscribe
The Tutu episode -- whither academic freedom?
To avoid offending some in Minnesota’s Jewish community, the University of St. Thomas scrubbed a plan to invite Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, to speak at its campus next year. But along the way the Catholic university offended many others and rekindled a debate about a larger question: Is there an effort to stifle a critical discussion about the Israel-Palestinian conflict in this country?
Some say that the Tutu episode is emblematic of a successful campaign to reduce anyone who criticizes the state of Israel as anti-Semitic.
“Objectively speaking, you could say that there’s no serious debate about our foreign policy toward Israel,” said Cris Toffolo, an associate professor at St. Thomas who was demoted as the director of the justice and peace program after she questioned the university’s decision to disallow Tutu to speak.
“Israel receives large military and financial aid from the United States. As U.S. taxpayers, we’ve a perfect right to debate the issue. It’s an analogous public policy debate,” she said.
Julie Swiler, a spokeswoman for the Jewish Community Relations Council, or JCRC, the organization that voiced concerns about Tutu, denied that there’s a nefarious agenda to smear critics of Israel.
“All opinions ought to be aired in the marketplace of ideas,” she said. “But when stereotypes about Jews are invoked, that’s when it goes beyond legitimate debate.”
Tutu, a Nobel laureate is currently in Sudan as part of The Elders, a group of respected leaders from around the world, including former president Jimmy Carter. They are trying to stop the bloodletting in Darfur.
As has Carter, the Anglican archbishop criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied land in 2002 as part of a speech he gave in Boston. In it he drew a parallel between the apartheid regime in his native South Africa and some of the tactics used by Israeli settlers.
Recent incidents in academia
In recent years there have been incidents involving academics who are critical of Israel who were either denied permanent positions at universities or accused of anti-Semitism.
In Chicago, DePaul University, a private Catholic school, denied last month tenure bid by Norman G. Finkelstein. A descendent of Holocaust survivors, he criticized how Israel and some Jews used the tragedy “to perpetuate occupation.”
Last year, Richard Drake, the chair of the history department at the University of Montana, was called anti-Semitic and received hate mail for inviting Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor who recently co-wrote a book critical of Israel titled “The Israeli Lobby.”
“One of my critics told me before startled witnesses that he would not rest until I had been stripped of my position of power, which manifestly had corrupted me,” Drake wrote on the website of the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP. “He initiated a campaign to bring about my dismissal.”
Last month Barnard College in New York was the subject of an intense pressure by Jewish groups because of a tenure bid by Nadia Abu El-Haj, an American of Palestinian descent, who wrote a book questioning some aspects of Israel’s archaeological claims in the Holy Land. The case is still pending.
The rash of incidents involving people who are critical of Israel is a sign “that the wall of silence is finally cracking. We need to get beyond this taboo,” said Toffolo, the St. Thomas professor.
Next week, many of the scholars denied tenure positions are descending on Chicago to participate in a conference titled “In Defense of Academic Freedom.”
Controversial speakers at St. Thomas
In April 2005, Ann Coulter, the provocative conservative commentator, spoke at St. Thomas. Shortly after her appearance University President the Rev. Dennis Dease wrote in a letter: “Ms. Coulter was unsparing in her vitriolic criticism of “liberals” and treated in a sarcastic, disrespectful and mean-spirited manner any audience members who challenged her viewpoints,” he said.
But then he gave a hint of how the university will handle potentially controversial speakers. “We need to continue to carefully examine requests to bring speakers and performers to campus in order to assure that their presentations will comply with our controversial issues statement.”
Remarkably, that statement says in part that “open forums through which controversial issues may be addressed in a responsible and educative manner will be available.”
The AAUP isn’t convinced that Tutu’s previous remarks warrant the actions taken against him and is investigating the case. Eric Combest, a senior program officer, said the episode “raises concerns for us” and that “a valid invitation was extended for Tutu.”
He said his organization, which promotes academic freedom, will urge St. Thomas to reexamine its decision.
Doug Hennes, vice president for university and government relations at St. Thomas, says he doesn’t think that will happen. Asked about the Coulter case, Hennes said: “In hindsight, we probably made a mistake. We would probably not invite her again.”
As it was with Tutu, Coulter was invited by an outside group. The university never had “disinvited Tutu, as widely circulated,” said Hennes. However, he said, the school routinely conducts a thorough vetting process.
“Red flags came up on Tutu,” he said. “We consulted with our Jewish community, whose opinions we value. They didn’t persuade us to not invite him. We made that decision.”
Swiler, the JCRC spokeswoman, praised Tutu as someone “who made great contributions to human rights.” And though he’s not anti-Semitic, she said, he has made extreme remarks.
Ivan Suvanjieff, the president of PeaceJam, the Colorado-based youth group that invited Tutu, was incensed. “Tutu is one of the greatest moral arbitrators of our day. This is loss for Minnesota.”
Maybe not quite: Tutu will speak at Metropolitan State University in April next year.
Comments
Crying Wolf
Nadia Abu El Haj did indeed write “a book questioning some aspects of Israel’s archaeological claims in the Holy Land”
What she says in that book is that Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was “not Jewish,” that the city was not burned by the Romans in the year 70 (according to El Haj it was burned by Jews,) and the ancient Israelite kingdoms never existed: “a tale best understood as the modern nation’s ‘origin myth’ was transported into the realm of history.” And a lot more of this kiind of nonsene.
Her work is mere Palestinian propaganda, it is not scholarship. She may well be denied tenure on the gorunds that her work is not good enough for an Ivy League job.
Stop crying wolf.
They have worse than Ann Coulter there
There is a tragic irony in excluding a Nobel Peace Prize laureate because his questions about the conditions of Palestine occupation might be “hurtful” to some.
The stark contrast in my mind is their own law professor Robert Delahunty. Working in the office of Legal Counsel with John Yoo, Delahunty authored the infamous “torture memo” that have dehumanized and degraded our entire nation. First, the February 2002 memo stripped prisoners of the Geneva protections, so those in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the Bagram base in Afghanistan and Diego Garcia have been denied legal protections that they are due under international law. Second, they defined torture almost completely out of existence, restricting it to pain equal to major organ failure that would result in death. (My understanding is that over 70 have been documented as dying under U.S. torture.)
This memo has brought our country great shame and turned the world against us. This memo has cheapened the entire legal profession, turning the law into a mere whore of the powerful. This memo has created a cascading effect, increasing the use of torture in many countries throughout the world.
Criticizing the unjust policies of any country is not “hurtful,” whether that country is the United States or Israel. Torturing people is hurtful, in every sense of the word.
In theory, St Thomas is an academic institution, a vibrant marketplace of ideas; why are they so afraid of Desmond Tutu? In theory, St Thomas is a Christian institution; why do they harbor the legal architects of torture? Who would Jesus torture, I wonder.
The Tutu episode -- whither academic freedom?
Tutu is an antisemite, at least according to the The EU’s Definition of Antisemitism:
“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/antisemitism/EU-definition-of-antisemitis...
____________
Is this fracas really about academic freedom or is it just another opportunity to whip hapless Jews with the bogus claim that they undermine the democratic ethos of the United States Constitution? In other words, there is an inexorable drive to give antisemitism the respectability of an academic subject. This is not about freedom of academia, just as inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia had nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge, free of dogma. Universities should be a place where knowledge is gained, not manufactured. Where accuracy and reliance on reason and facts are the principles, not disgusting hyperbole and defamatory analogies.
Here is what I think. There is a great thirst out there to have speakers of any stripe proclaim against Jews and Israel. The recent outbreak of books and speeches and tenure cases and boycott proposals and divestment advocacies seem to suggest almost an epidemic. Archbishop Tutu is riding high on this tidal wave. A saintly antisemite. Now where have we had this unlikely combination before?
Here is a thought to consider. This whole ruckus is about one thing only: Who gets to decide and define what antisemitism.
Is talking about a Jewish
Is talking about a Jewish Lobby antisemitic. Baloney. This is used by apologists of apartheid like Noga to smear anyone who dare bring up the Israeli occupation and subsequent land grab. The moment you talk about the Israeli land grab and there come out the baiters.
“Is this fracas really about academic freedom or is it just another opportunity to whip hapless Jews with the bogus claim that they undermine the democratic ethos of the United States Constitution?”“
Here we go again. How are Jews hapless in the United States. Give me a break. Here you have another example of pro-semitic baiting by people who want to avoid all questions regarding the harmfull effects of their lobbying on the foreign policy of the US.
Let the average person decide what is anti-semitc, or even anti-muslim. Not some self appointed and self serving organization.
What "self appointed and
What “self appointed and self serving organization”? Surely you don’t mean “The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia”, do you?
http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&ca...
"Working definition" of anti-semitism
The EU document that you reference includes this statement:
Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Working definition" of anti-semitism
Exactly. It is perfectly possible to criticize Israel’s policies without lurching into antisemitism. This Working definition aims at clarifying what kind of “criticism” does not meet this standard. I won’t repeat them. The document is available, very simple to follow, the examples are very clear.
"What "self appointed and
“What “self appointed and self serving organization”? Surely you don’t mean “The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia”, do you? “
No i mean the ZOA and other bull…. orgs that harp anti-semitism to cover for Israel.
B.T.W if the EU defines Tutus words as anti-semitic how come they did not act on it …..I guess because nobody in their right mind considers it, except of course the usual suspects
Let's face it, Anti-Semitism
Let’s face it, Anti-Semitism has always been popular, and there were always reasons given why in that particular case it’s legitimate. People are just searching for new-pretexts every time. These cases stand in a long historical chain of Jew hatred. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of Israel, and good portion of it being made by Israelis themselves. Besides that though, there are millions and millions of people who just plainly hate the Jews and Israel. That’s why the lies they repeat become acceptable: lies such as that Jews are stifling legitimate criticism of Israel.
Post new comment