This is not true. We have several things to help balance the position taken by the article in the OP. We have the words of the organizer’s themselves, as cited several times by myself and others, and we have the history of the conference itself. This is The Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement. We can look up what happened at the first conference and determine if there was hate speech there. If not, why would you assume there will be this time? FTR I was not able to find any evidence of such speech at the first conference. Also FTR, my skills with Google are above average.
Judging by this previous statement of yours **
I believed you were interested in obtaining a more balanced view of the conference. I even provided information for you from the conference organizer’s website and the URL so you could do more reasearch on your own. Why have you not used it?
**
My own personal position is that Hate Speech on a University should have the same definition, and punishment, as it has under Federal law. In other words, there should be no need for Universities to enact additional restrictions. They are already under the jurisdiction of Federal law. Universities usually have some type of contractual agreement with their students whereby they provide teaching services and facilities and most “student codes of conduct” come as part of that contract. This is the right of the individual Universities. This University determined the conference would not violate it’s policies or US law.
The big points the article makes against the conference are the “Racism inherent in Zionism” arguement, and the lack of clear condemnation of acts of terror. I’ve already said lack of condemnation is not the same as approval/encouragement(otherwise we better start setting up concentration camps for those who haven’t explicitly condemmed Bin Laden). As for the Zionism is Racism piece, that seems to be a hot topic. Taken from The Jewish Virtual Library
So, lack of denunciation of abhorrent actions, and the promotion of a controversial position. This is what you base the restriction of freedom of speech upon? Too flimsy for my taste.
I highly doubt that the transcripts of conference one are online. I read the statements referenced and appreciate that they personally do not want to engage in terrorism, but it is irrelevant to whether or not the op quote accurately reflects what was said about the means that others take.
My initial motivation for getting into this fray was annoyance with london’s debate by dispargement of the poster and by the claim that “Zionism=Racism” was some kind of intellectual discussion instead of a pile of crap. I do however believe that some speech does not need to be granted a venue on university property. Sure they have a right to say it, but a university has an obligation to balance the “free and open” with the “welcoming to all” on their grounds. I do think that some greater degree of civility is required in order to use university facilities, than is required for a soap box on the corner, or a newspaper.
My own take remains that, if this group does explicitly condone (different than “not condemn”) terror against jews as a means of achieving goals (even if they do not engage in such themselves), that it then crosses such a line.
I understand that others feel that the line should be drawn much farther down. I can respect that position.
Right–but we’re not talking about merely “talking about” something. We’re talking about holding conferences on University campuses for the purpose of talking about something.
We’re not talking about whether a person should have the freedom to say “I think little boys and girls should be allowed to be prostitutes” out on the quad. We’re talking about whether someone should be allowed to rent a room from the University of Michigan for an entire conference dedicated to the proposition that little boys and girls should be allowed to be prostitutes.
Okay, you’re right, that does sound contradictory.
Clarification:
Yes, I would have a problem with the UM renting a room to any organization whose weekend conference agenda, upfront, was that they were going to discuss and promote the lynching of blacks. Lynching blacks is illegal, and so I’d have a problem with the UM renting them a room.
And yes, I would have a problem with the UM renting a room to any organization whose weekend conference agenda, upfront, was that they were going to discuss and promote the burning of gays. Burning gays is illegal, and so I’d have a problem with the UM renting them a room.
However, that wasn’t really what December was getting at. What he was getting at, and what I was getting at, was organizations like the KKK and Fred Phelps, and neither of those organizations would be stupid enough to announce that their official weekend’s agenda would consist of seminars on how to lynch blacks and burn gays.
If all the KKK and Fred Phelps conferences were going to do was talk about how much they disliked blacks and gays, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the UM renting them a room, since talking about how much you dislike gays and blacks isn’t illegal. It’s ugly, but it’s ain’t illegal.
I couldn’t find transcripts from the first conference online. I did find a basic agenda and sign-up form on the web. The invitation made the first conference look as harmless as the current incarnation seems from the current organizer’s pages. If it helps, here is another article about the current conference(it wasn’t hard to find, we’re not the only ones talking about it). http://www.freep.com/news/mich/divest5_20021005.htm
This article doesn’t seem to believe planning/supporting/encouraging terror is the goal of the conference, or the group behind it, at all. The primary thrust of this article seems to be the goal of the SAFE group to urge people not to invest in Israeli companies. Terrorism is mentioned only briefly, and is mentioned by the representative of the University’s Zionist student group.
I don’t think it’s out of line for a student group to petition their University to disinvest in companies which form the tax base for a government they feel is in the wrong. The University has indeed done such things in the past to show disapproval for a government. This does not mean I believe U-M SHOULD disinvest, OR that I believe they SHOULD NOT disinvest. Simply that I don’t find anything remarkable in SAFE making the request.
At the time it was adopted 72/139 countries(~52%) voted that Zionism was indeed a form of racism. At the time of its repeal, 111/166 of the member nations(~67%) voted that Zionism was NOT racism. This is not unanimous. The debate is not “a pile of crap”. You believe Zionism is not racism. Cool. They believe it is. Why are you trying to take away their right to try to convince people their viewpoint is correct? They aren’t doing it by force.
Quite frankly, I’m having trouble distinguishing between this movement and Zionism. I fail to see how someone can support Zionism and condem this movement. Aside from the nationality(read “race”) each movement advocates for, I don’t really see any fundamental difference. One could argue that extremist groups which commit acts of terror in the name of the Palestinian goals makes this movement as a whole reprehensible, but I would counter that extreme Zionism is every bit as reprehensible(and don’t try to pretend there haven’t been extreme Zionist groups). Let’s compare shall we?[list=1]
[li]Desire for an Internationally-Recognized state for the people in question to inhabit? Check.[/li][li]Right of return for members of this “race” into the aforementioned state? Check.[/li][li]Hi Opal![/li][li]Increased sense of racial identity and goal of gathring people who share a common historical culture in the state? Check.[/li][li]Desire for this state to occupy lands the people in question have traditionally inhabited? Check.[/li][/list=1]
I’d admit I only have a passing familiarity with Zionism, but as far as I can tell those are the major points. It’s a hard target because it’s splintered several times and there’s this whole thing with post-Zionism where the actual return of Jews to Israel is now the primary focus(as opposed to the simple establishment of an Israeli state) and some even more esoteric definitions. I read one passage where someone posits the goal of Zionism is the re-affirmation, or rejuvenation of Judaism once the Jewish population has re-migrated to Israel. It seems Zionism has been a great unifying force for the Jewish community and many of it’s proponents seem reluctant to put down its banners now that the goals of its primary founder have been achieved. Nothing wrong with that.
Anyway, what makes Zionism above reproach and this movement beneath contempt? I believe I’ve already made the point that being a member of a certain ethnic/cultural group doesn’t get you anything in my book, no additional animosity, no additional respect(c.f. my position on the term “Anti-Semitic”). As far as I can tell the only differences between the goals of the Zionists, and the goals of this group is that one advocates the above mentioned things for the Jews and another advocates them for Palestinians. What am I missing here?
**
Fine. I happen to disagree, and the lovely thing is, in this country, with the freedoms offered by the US Constitution, both viewpoints can co-exist. Some Universities will agree with you and enact certain codes of speech as part of the contractual agreement they have with their students(students who disagree with this can either try to re-negotiate the contract or seek a different University). This is how they control what speech is and is not permitted on their property. Some Universities will agree with me and say the Federal government’s restrictions on speech are adequate and leave it at that(students who disagree with this can find a University which has speech codes more in line with their sensibilities). If you believe the University of Michigan should adopt your views of what is and is not appropriate speech on their campus, please feel free to write them a letter to that effect. Perhaps they will consider it. But as for right now, there is nothing I have seen in the University’s position that makes me believe they are acting inappropriately, or outside the bounds of their mission/guiding principles.
**
Personally, I’m right beside you on where that line should be drawn. I just happen to believe, from what I’ve read, that this conference will not cross that line.
First off, Duck Duck has graciously acknowledged that he too believes that a University ought to be slightly selective in what speech they provide a venue for, that such is not as black and white as quoting the first amendment. Even Steve seems to believe that a call explicitly condoning or endorsing terrorism(legal speech) is on the other side of this line.
Steve,
The short answer to the Zionism issue is that the UN adopting a resolution and maintaining it for years does not mean that something is other than a pile of crap. And your other point is ironically valid. I do not claim that any desire for a Palestinian homeland is antisemitic or racist and I find it ironic that when those against Israel play the so called “race” card (what dang races?) that they cry foul when some Zionists respond in kind.
You may have noticed that December tends to provoke an exasperated response, so when I’m talking to him, I tend to paint in broad strokes, with simple colors like “black” and “white”, same as he does.
I have a problem with you summarizing my position like that. A “call explicitly condoning or endorsing terrorism” is NOT “(legal speech)”. So you’re right that I don’t support the right of a conference which is a call to commit atrocities. But if you take out the “call [to action]” piece, then it DOES become “legal speech” and I’d support it(although my sentiments would personally differ). You’ve summarized my position in a statement that is self-contradictory and my position is not self-contradictory.
My position is simply this. If it crosses the line of “hate speech” as defined by US law, then it’s to be forbidden and the conference should be shut down and appropriate action taken to enforce the law. Otherwise, I’m fine with it.
**
Likewise, your assertion that the conclusion “Zionism = Racism” is a “pile of crap” does not mean it is a pile of crap. As long as we’re saying the UN doesn’t have a monopoly on the determination of truth, then we should also acknowledge our own lack of such a monopoly.
**
Agreed. Unless there is a stated goal of one of the movements which makes it racism and there is no corresponding statement in the other movement(and I have not seen such a goal), then they either stand or fall together. Either both are racism, or neither are.
Dang it Duck Duck! Do you know the number of times I’ve typed in “(s)he” to no end and then I go and blow it. I shoulda known or else you’d have been “Mallard Mallard Gander”!
Steve,
Ah, but I’ve given more than my say so. Respond with a reasoned counter argument, but not with quoting the UN for evidence. It went as follows:
Please note that what I call antisemitic is the (alleged) acceptance of Jews as fair targets. Not a desire for a Palestinian homeland. The targeting of Temples. The imans who cal for attacks on Jews everywhere. That and the singling out of the Jewish state.
