I recently visited Wellesley College to attend the lecture of lawyer-scholar Patricia Williams, who spoke about book banning, censorship and critical race theory. She was brilliant. Her lecture will be posted as soon as Wellesley releases the tape. She spoke as part of the annual lecture series that I endowed.
At the end of her lecture, a student asked a question. The student said that she had sent out a notice to all the others in her dorm denouncing genocide. Now she wanted Professor Williams to advise her on how to respond to an older alumna about genocide in a manner that was respectful and would lead to further discussion.
Professor Williams responded, and I paraphrase, “If you really want to have an honest exchange, don’t use the word ‘genocide.’ It’s a conversation stopper. Genocide has a specific legal definition, and it’s not the right word to use if you really want a discussion.”
Later, I had dinner with Professor Williams and Wellesley President Paula Johnson. Dr. Johnson described what happened when Hillary Clinton, the College’s most distinguished alumna, spoke recently on campus. Students disrupted her speech and denounced her as a war criminal. When her car pulled away from the President’s house, students surrounded the car, shouting obscenities and exercising their middle finger.
Frankly, I was appalled. Colleges and universities must protect free speech, but there are limits. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. There must be other limits. The purpose of a college education is to teach critical thinking, to exemplify the value of reasoned debate, to maintain civility when there are strong disagreements, to be open to learning.
This morning, Columbia University announced that it is offering online classes because the campus is unsafe for learning, especially for Jewish students. This is outrageous. Campuses must be safe places for all students and faculty. Civility matters.
Colleges and universities should, in my opinion, establish clear rules about the speech that stifles others from speaking, about speech that diminishes freedom of discussion, about speech that threatens the physical safety of others, about speech that undermines free speech and civility. And most certainly for behavior that makes the campus unsafe for students and faculty.
Pro-Palestinian students should argue their cause without shutting down discussion and threatening Jewish students. Closing down debate, antagonizing those who disagree, creating a climate in which “academic freedom” is used to negate academic freedom is simply wrong.
There must be clear guidelines about the kind of conduct that is not permitted because it destroys the fundamental purpose of higher education, which is the freedom to teach, to learn, and to debate.
We have heard repeatedly since October 7 that expressions and behavior that are anti-Israel are not anti-Semitic. But the widespread harassment of Jewish students, even Jewish faculty, gives the lie to this claim. Such harassment is anti-Semitic.
I deplore the barbarism of October 7. I deplore the brutality of the war in Gaza and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. I hope that peace negotiations bring about two states and a just peace.
I deplore the surge of Jew-hatred on American campuses. Jewish students and all other students, as well as Jewish faculty and all faculty, should be able to learn and teach without fearing for their safety.
Colleges and universities must establish rules that promote and protect civility. Students who harass and endanger others cancel the purpose of higher education. They should be warned and if they persist, they should be suspended, and if they continue in their actions, expelled.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If you can’t see the apparatus being used to shut down Pro-Palestinian speech on Columbia’s campus, you’re missing the story. There are many dozens of Jewish students in that encampment. The pro Hamas sentiment is coming from the streets outside of Columbia. Non Columbia people. And it’s isolated individuals who become media sensations. As for the cost of free speech, students have been arrested, suspended, thrown out of their homes. It’s beyond weird you don’t see the massive difference between how they are treated and others. As for the word genocide, we have used it over and over again in the last 30 years to describe Srebrenica, which was a collective punishment of 8,000 Bosnian men for acts committed in Bihac prior to the genocidal act. It’s really disappointing that you’re calling for the end of free speech and expulsion for these students. Biden has doubled down as well to quell their voices. He is losing the young people.
What “apparatus” is being used to shut down speech on Columbia’s campus?
And was it the content of the speech that was being policed, or the setting up of a CHAZ-style encampment on space governed by university rules?
You have got to be kidding me. Lies are lies and the truth is the truth. This will all come out in the wash, I hope everyone who pushed this false narrative get what they deserve.
It’s unclear what you are saying, Some Guy.
It’s all “copypasta” as the kids say, so I think we can fill in the blanks with confidence.
I love that term, copypasta. Artful!
If people want to demonstrate against Israel, they should demonstrate at the Israeli Consulate or the Israeli Embassy to the UN.
The genocide could not last another day without the full backing of the US government and political class.
Today, multiple mass graves found in Khan Younis, with hundreds of bodies, many handcuffed and mutilated.
Closing down campuses in NY and CA and shouting at Jewish students and faculty in the U.S. will not end the war.
Shutting down UC and Columbia did force the withdrawal of US support for SA apartheid. And this movement does not co-sign anti-Semitism. That’s simply not true, no matter how many pony shows are trotted out on the media.
It is interesting that the violent protests are taking place on campuses with 70K tuition, the CUNY colleges, with 7K tuition and far more diverse student bodies are deeply engaged in final exams.
why are the most privileged students leading the charge? Parents who protested the war in Vietnam?
Are privileged college students also opposing Biden?
Or, are we seeing an “if it bleeds it leads’ moment in “click-driven” journalism?
CUNY students and faculty and staff are not uninterested in what’s going on in the world! They may have less financial resources to fall back on in case of retaliation, though, than students at the Ivy League schools. At CUNY, there are very many immigrant students who are afraid to be too public and come under attack. And we have many students who commute a fair distance and work at jobs and/or care for families in addition to being in college. It is just easier for students at residential campuses to organize and demonstrate. Nevertheless, there have been protests, petitions, letters — and dismissals and doxxing of faculty and grad students, and cancellations of events — at CUNY. Gov. Hochul is investigating CUNY, but not because there are antisemites hiding under every desk, I might add. As at the Ivy League schools, we have differences of opinion and we and our college presidents are under huge huge pressure, politically and by donors, to tow the pro-Israel line.
Thank you!
Well said, Diane!
This needs to stop:
Israeli strikes in Rafah kill 18, mostly children, Palestinian officials say – CBS News
This story is nowhere to be found on the Guardian’s website. Oy.
Don’t know if it’s true. I hope it isn’t.
Yes!
It shocks me that you are repeating lobby talking points (and in their own language) that have all the legitimacy of Saddam’s WMD. This has been an obvious media campaign, with planted stories a la Cheney, which are then referenced by politicians – local, state and federal Even the Israeli government joined the chorus.
It’s really disappointing to see you sing along with the Mighty Wurlitzer, Diane.
The Netanyahu government opposes a two-state solution. It also opposes a dismantling of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
I support a two-state solution. I support the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank, which should be part of a new Palestinian state.
The assumption that Palestinians want a two-state solution is the problem. By many reports, the majority of Palestinians support Hamas’s leadership. According to FDD (https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/22/poll-hamas-remains-popular-among-palestinians/). A two-state solution requires accepting Israel’s right to self-determination and peace. From all apparent Hamas, Fatah, PA, and Palestinian rhetoric, that is not the goal. I do not support Netanyahu or his regime. The settlements are hugely problematic. But to blame the current situation on Israel and the settlements, Biden, propaganda or anything else, is just plain wrong. Until we accept that Hamas’s, Iran and its proxies, and their fundamental ideology is the major obstruction to peace, we cannot solve the wider problem.
Michelle, not only does Hamas not accept a two-state solution, it does not accept the existence of Israel. Its rallying cry “from the river to the sea” means the Islamicization of all that territory, including Israel. The war must end. Hamas will not be part of the solution. The Palestinian National Authority (Arafat’s group) will be. Bibi supported Hamas and diminished the PA to avoid the only path to peace.
Patricia Williams’s reliable brilliance shines brightly in her advice about our rhetorical choices. The term genocide stops not only conversation between and among people, but corrupts the internal debate in many individuals’ heads as well. Righteous Jews and Gentiles both may take umbrage at effectively equating Israel with Nazi Germany, turning them away from solidarity with those on the front lines of the battles to save Palestinian lives and realize an internationally recognized Palestinian state. It’s a short, easy step from “This isn’t genocide” to “It could be worse,” “We’re doing all we can,“ “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” and other deflections, rationalizations, and avoidances.
Being right without being smart never rights a political wrong.
“I deplore the barbarism of October 7. I deplore the brutality of the war in Gaza and the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.”
Correction, that’s tens of thousands of innocent civilians – those still alive are facing starvation being perpetrated as an act of war. Sorry, but I don’t see the implied symmetry between these two actions. Expecting our young people to stay calm and rational while our country supports Israel’s crimes against humanity is unrealistic.
The notion that the two actions are remotely comparable and the unrealistic expectations placed on the protestors behavior seems to me to be rooted in the belief that Palestinian lives don’t matter all that much.
Thank you for this post, Diane.
I just posted this comment in another thread but it’s more appropriate here. I continue to see crazier and crazier stuff on video coming from Columbia. Here’s a chant exhorting the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s military) to “burn Tel Aviv to the ground,” and “Hamas, we love you / we support your rockets, too.”
https://x.com/jcandersonnyc/status/1782395925815538079?s=46&t=vV_4bJ7GuABaalzetJofQA
I was thinking the other day about the protests against the second Iraq war. Although it was quite popular (initially) in Congress, the second Iraq war was always opposed by a substantial chunk of the public (which grew significantly after the war started), and universally among those on the far left. A war that killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians, led directly by the U.S., against international law. But there were no sustained demonstrations in NYC with the intensity and frankly deranged animosity that I’ve seen at “free Palestine” rallies over the last six months in NYC. Anti-semitism isn’t the whole story but it is definitely part of it.
Flerp: I have often wondered what is required for Americans to overtly demonstrate, to assemble in protest to a state act. I once met a man who had been a part of demonstrations against the sale of scrap metal to Japan after the invasion of Nanking in 1937. He knew missionaries in China that reported the Japanese invasion and its genocidal progress. I knew some Vietnam War protestors sort of after the fact, as I was a bit too young for that conflict. I have read that recent migrants in the later 1800s often demonstrated in solidarity with Eastern European cousins concerning various political and economic conflict where they came from. I think this last example might come closer than others to the present Anti-Israel protests.
I have a strong disagreement with one point you made above.
“…Hillary Clinton, the College’s most distinguished alumna…”
I believe that would correctly be a title Diane Ravitch holds. Secretary of State is not nearly so important as educational gadfly.
I have a sort of disagreement with Professor Williams over the word genocide. We have often used the word Civil War or colateral damage to mask what happens when we seek violent solutions to social problems. History then comes along and says “well yes, it was.” Bill Clinton admitted his response to Rawanda was colored by his lack of realization that what was unfolding there was genocide. It took us a long time to suggest that genocide was actually happening in Germany under the Nazis, in Sarajevo at the hands of the Serb Milosevic, and we even paused a bit to understand the genocide of Pol Pot. We need to use the word quickly to avoid the actual onset of a true genocide. Only then can we move toward the honor human life deserves.
That said, we need to avoid riots that we call free speech. The right to assemble, famously protected under the First Amendment, does not include the right to violent behavior, whether it be turning over a police car or storming the Capitol on Jan 6. And hate speech is a form of violence. The middle finger? Now that is a sign language I have seen from my car.
Clinton knew that there was an ongoing genocide, and he chose not to act. This was and is unforgiveable.
Whereas Biden knows there is an on-going genocide and he chose act – by funding and arming it.
I will say something else, though. It is interesting to see the flip-flop between the “right” and the “left” (forgive the generalization but it’s necessary to make the point) that 10/7 has caused with respect to speech. For years, “free speech” (especially on campuses) and “cancel culture” were decidedly issues of the right, as protests by controversial right-leaning speakers were routinely disrupted and canceled based on the supposed “harm” their speech inflicted on students. One of the most popular memes on Twitter was this one below, which snidely delivers the now-cliched lecture on the Firsr Amendment and the difference between “cancel culture” and “consequences.”
Now it’s the left that’s invoking free speech and the right that’s cloaking itself in the rhetoric of “harm.”
We should be cognizant of mob mentalities that can give rise to truly dangerous circumstances. And it is important to maintain public order, because mobs can get out of control, and intimidation is a form of heckler’s veto that is not consistent with free speech.
But at the same time, we should be wary of attempts to shut down speech and debate because of supposed “harms” speech can cause.
incendiary speech is hard to define until it comes at you, perhaps. You make cogent points.
I almost never agree with you, but I guess there’s always a first time!
I went offline for a few hours and returned to find that the same troll who has been haunting this blog for a couple of years had slipped a few comments in. He is obsessed with vaccines and never stops insisting that he shouldn’t be vaccinated. He also is obsessed with gun rights. Most of his comments are responses to posts that are more than a year old.
He used to post as Ragnarsbut. Every day, he would ask 10-15 questions. He never accepted answers and posted the same questions over and over. Now, he returns with new names and new ISP addresses. As soon as I block one name or ISP, he pops back up. Same endless questions. It’s pathological.
Eventually he’ll go away.
Greg Abbott showed his hand yesterday by making clear that students at UT are being arrested because of the content of their speech.
https://x.com/gregabbott_tx/status/1783237229252346194?s=46&t=vV_4bJ7GuABaalzetJofQA
I had another comment here that appears to have gotten held up in moderation, perhaps because it included an image link.
Thank you, Flerp, for your wise words on this topic.
Of course, I denounce and abhor any speech or action against Jews or any ethnic or religious group. I am not on a college campus, so I don’t know firsthand the extent of such behavior. I’m sure it happens. However, I reject the idea that all of the protests against Israel’s war on Gaza and its long-standing denial of Palestinian rights are by definition antisemitic or threatening to Jewish students. I reject the ADL conflations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. That is being used to shut down widespread critique of Israel that is not against Jews in egregious is ways that threaten free-speech and dissent.
The charge that Israel’s killing of thousands innocent Palestinians meets the definition of genocide has merit however much it upsets some people. Policing the passion behind that charge is both wrong and counterproductive. As a Jew, I am horrified that my own people’s history is being weaponized to kill others. I identify with the slogan, “Not in our name.” Similarly, while I recognize that, “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea,” is fraught, I know that the most of folks I know who say it want peace and democracy for all people. Netanyahu and Likud have declared that they want Israeli /Jewish control of historic Palestine from the river to the sea for decades. There should be room for legitimate debate about whether the solution to the ongoing conflict is a one- or two-state solution within the parameters of respect for and assurance of peace, democracy, and human rights for all people. Questioning the legitimacy of an ethnocentric nation is not by definition anti-Jewish. It was debated by Jews long before and at Israel’s founding.
I am as alarmed by the efforts to shut down critique of Israel as I am by efforts to do so in the name of so-called anti-woke speech and reading. There are now countless reports of people being fired for legitimate critique. It is profoundly dangerous and anti-democratic at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise here in the U.S. and around the world. It the latest version of McCarthyism. The alliance of defenders of Israel with extreme right wingers is profoundly disturbing. In the current circumstances, with a far longer history that the terrible Hamas attack of October 7, I feel less safe as a Jew than ever. Israeli/ADL/AIPAC conflation of anti-Zionism with Jewishness, if anything, is exacerbating antisemitism and my safety as a Jew.
thanks for seeing the nuances of the present situation. I once met a really nice lady at s laundromat in Oxford, NY. She told us she was from Israel and her husband was teaching Talmud in the city. There was a spate of violence going on in Israel at the time, and I offered my hope that her friends and family were safe. Her answer was chilling:
”Palestinians are not people.”
Her voice was serious, bitter, a stark contrast with our conversation up to that point.
I have often mused about that lady. How could she, a survivor of the post-Holocaust, come to the conclusion that it is ok to say something like that?
I think opposition to Likud and Hamas mss as led perfect sense.
makes perfect sense
The phrase “from the river to the sea” is Hamas’ expression for the elimination of Israel and for Islamic control of all the territory that is now Israel. It represents a rejection of a two-state solution. I support a two-state solution.
That slogan, “from the river to the sea,” has a lot of different meanings to different people. It’s a hell of a stretch to deem it antisemitic, especially given that, as a previous commenter said, it is something expansionist Israeli leaders have declared as part of their anti-Palestinian ambitions. As to the slogan today in the USA, twice a week a big part of the historic anti-war movement in the Twin Cities is demonstrating against funding to Israel. Among the chants that people are in the habit of repeating is “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” My sense is this is a way to express solidarity for the cry of Palestinians for freedom in their homeland. I don’t think Americans who repeat this chant see it as a commitment to any particular solution, whether one-state or two-state or something else. It certainly isn’t a call for expulsion of Jewish Israelis. They too live in the land from the river to the sea that the chant is calling for to be “free.”
There are a lot of signs around the Twin Cities about “genocide” and “apartheid,” though, and I think it’s about time that American Democrats and “liberals” face facts. The status quo of a Jewish ethno-state funded and protected by the US (as it discriminates and dispossesses Palestinians) led to the attack of Oct 7 and to the current massacre. Now there’s a growing call among Americans not only for a ceasefire but also for a change to the status quo.
Sorry, but the phrase “from the river to the sea” has a specific meaning: the Islamic control of all lands from the river to the sea. That incorporates the entire state of Israel.
I’m sorry Dr Ravitch, but you are not the living dictionary of all people
Hamas uses it as a slogan, if that tells you anything. I suggest finding a new thing to chant, unless of course this chant just so awesome and perfect that it’s worth making people think you seek the destruction of Israel.
Many thousands of Americans are using this chant and don’t think it’s antisemitic. I’m not in charge and anyway I’m getting a little annoyed at people telling other people what to say.
Oh gee I’d hate to annoy you. How about we go out on some swastikas and march around and when people get upset we’ll lecture them about the rich history of the swastika outside of Naziism.
You know this is a Hamas slogan. You know how people interpret it. If you want to chant it anyway, stop whining about how people don’t like it.
It’s not necessary to accuse people of being Nazis. I’m actually a social scientist who doesn’t lie about behavior I observe of real people in real places. No matter who else (Israeli politicians, Hamas politicians, any others) has said “from the river to the sea” and meant whatever they meant, the fact is that the slogan is now part of the repertoire of pro-Palestinian slogans adopted by demonstrators in two U.S. cities where I have personally observed it recently. Ask a journalist covering demonstrations. Or go to a demonstration for a ceasefire and see for yourself, and maybe interview one of the Americans chanting along and see what they mean by it.
I think for the sake of civility and the other people reading this blog that I will get off the internet now and take care of my granddaughter.
Goodbye, good people.
I’m not accusing you of being a Nazi. I’m accusing you of being dense. You are defending the chanting of a Hamas slogan that advocates for the destruction of Israel on the basis that it doesn’t have that meaning for everyone. Perhaps spend more time considering who it does have that meaning for, how many of those people are attending these rallies with you, and why that slogan in particular is the most popular one to chant at these rallies.
It amazes me how this effectively this works. You have a slogan that is used by Hamas itself to express the goal of eradicating Israel. There is zero confusion about this. Advocacy groups/professional protesters make the deliberate choice to use that slogan in their rallies. People take note, and the spokespeople for these groups start the process of laundering. “AcTuAllY it describes the hope that all people in the region will one day be free.” Midwits lap it up and regurgitate it and here we are.
“Actually, Make America Great Again just expresses the hope that America will be made greater than it is now. Who could have a problem with that?”
“Actually, America First is about putting Americans’ interests above non-Americans’. Who could argue with that?”
“Actually, what’s wrong with nationalism?”
Actually, none of those assertions is true.
“But some people believe they are! Or at least that’s what I read!”
I mean, it is NOT true that that’s all these things mean. Obviously.
Consider for example why some people at the Columbia protests were yelling “go back to Poland.” Your movement has an antisemitism problem and you’re sticking your head in the ground.”
Arthur, remember a few years ago when people who said or did things that were deemed racist or sexism were fired or otherwise penalized, and people complained, and others told them “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”?
Around we go!
We don’t need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we’ve got to find a way
To bring some lovin’ here today
Picket lines and picket signs
Don’t punish me with brutality
Talk to me
So you can see
Oh, what’s going on
What’s going on
What’s going on
Please stop using the word “Jewish” without specifying which portion of the large and diverse Jewish population you mean. A group of Jewish Columbia faculty wrote to their college president asking her to stop pretending to speak for all Jewish members of the Columbia community. They decried her calling in of the NYPD against the demonstrating students, who included many Jewish students. Do those Jewish students occupying the lawn feel afraid? Maybe, but not of fellow demonstrators. The ones they need to fear are the university administrators who may suspend them and lock them out of their dorms, and of course the NYPD. Would pro-Israel students – Jewish or not – feel afraid to wave Israeli flags at the demonstrators? Perhaps, but they have no reason to fear the college administration or the NYPD.
Side with the child over the gun every single time, no matter whose gun and no matter whose child — Naomi Klein ________________________________
Citing Naomi Klein is a good way to undermine everything that precedes and follows the citation.
Oh, sorry, was thinking of Naomi Wolfe.
“If the Naomi be Klein / you’re doing just fine / If the Naomi be Wolf / Oh, buddy. Ooooof.”
I don’t know who made this up, but it helps keeping them separated.
Well, in a “free” society, and by American law and tradition, people do have a right to demonstrate, and that should be allowed on college campuses–against you or me or Hillary–BUT it should be peaceful–should not stop speeches or movement from one place to another.
So, according to that, we have a right to stand on the street and yell stuff (however undignified) at politicians, but we don’t have a right to stop their speeches or their transport–and certainly not to threaten or attempt to injure them physically.
Horrible as it may seem to most of us, in the US we have the right to wave a swastika or burn a cross while robed, but we don’t have the right to threaten people so as to put them in fear of bodily injury–that’s the tort of assault.
Dear Flerp, did you read the quote by Naomi Klein before getting upset that I quoted a “Naomi”? The quote is part of my signature. It was inspired by a small group conversation we had in October trying to find common ground, trying to get everyone to agree that killing children is wrong. We could not reach agreement. One person said that if there were possibly a chance to destroy a Hamas person or location, a child’s death by Israeli missile was legitimate and should be blamed on Hamas.
I read it and I thought it was Noami Wolfe.
Naomi Klein wrote a book about being mistaken for Naomi Wolf. It happens frequently. The book is called “Doppelgänger.”
“War is hell” is inaccurate only because hell doesn’t exist. War is worse than hell.
I’m not aware of any war in which innocent children did not die.
I always think of this when people in our Congress are debating going to war. Do these people understand that if they take this action, children will die. Have they bothered to ask themselves, “Is this worth killing children?” That’s a pretty high bar, I would think. Have they bothered to ask themselves, “Is there something else that we could do that would avoid killing children?”
This was is setting records for the number of innocent children killed.
Though I dearly wish Hillary Clinton had been the winner in 2016, I also understand the protests against her. In 2009 as Secretary of State, she refused to call out the coup in Honduras that led to President Manuel Zelaya being put on a plane out of the country in his pajamas. Juan Orlando Hernández, whose coup was successful, has recently been convicted in the US as a drug dealer. He should never have been allowed to assume a position of such power and Hondurans have been harmed in ways from which it is difficult to recover.
https://nacla.org/honduras-narco-state-made-in-the-united-states
Our interference is Latin America goes back to at least 1954, with the Dulles brothers’ overthrow of Guatemala’s elected president and its subsequent 36 year civil war, which sparked a genocide against the indigenous population. Our policies come back to bite us when refugees and asylum seekers show up at our southern border. But each time, we memory hole those events.
I agree that the word “genocide” is a conversation stopper. It is meant to be. The curriculum of Facing History and Ourselves has as one of its goals to train students to understand what genocide is while it is underway so as to take measures to intervene and end it.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to say if what is happening in Gaza is genocide. It is likely that the protests at Columbia include non-students; it is likely there are some anti-Semitic protestors among them. But President Shafik calling out the NYPD the day after she was on the same hot seat in front of the House that cost Claudine Gay and Elizabeth McGill their positions seems unlikely to be mere coincidence. We saw similar occurrences play out on college campuses during protests against the Vietnam War, too.The last time police were called in response to a protest at Columbia was in 1968.
Of course, everyone should feel safe on a college campus. There ought to be no comfort zone for hate. Shutting down a rowdy vocal protest must make folks like Elise Stefanik happy, as it reinforces the right’s allegation that all universities are woke, even as the GOP seeks to eliminate the right to peaceful protest, while the MAGA GOP faction itself sows hate and division everywhere. I am afraid Columbia’s president has played into their hands to keep her job.
Guess I’m not alone in thinking Shafik is protecting her own interests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/23/columbia-university-president-committed-job/
While I generally align with your thinking, I am appalled at this one-sided post that never mentions the anti-Palestinian, anti-Islamic voices that arise on campus (often led by Jewish students and the ADL!). As a Jew, and someone who cares deeply about my people, but is outraged at what Israel is doing to Gaza and it’s Arab citizens and neighbors on the West Bank, I think you present a picture here that shows a huge bias and one in which you seem to be wearing blinders. I expect better from you.
Carole Levine
Chag sameach, y’all! That means something like Happy Passover. I’ll write between bites of matzah. I’ve been meaning to mention my most recent thoughts on Israel, but it’s not easy, so I procrastinate. First of all, a recognition here that Dr Diane Ravitch is not a staunch supporter of any particular religious beliefs or of any particular nation or people over any other, yet strangers here have assumed the opposite about her. That’s stereotyping. That’s antisemitism. Get to know someone before judging.
When Israel invaded the West Bank, I supported the invasion. I had visions of a quick war followed by speedy elections to oust Netanyahu and Hamas. Didn’t happen. Now, there are settlers calling October 7 a “gift from God” and stealing land. Now, Jared Kushner is eyeing West Bank beachfront property with a desire to build hotels. The extreme right has taken control. I can no longer support the war.
If you agree with me that the war must end soon, however, take caution in your tone. In the U.S., it’s perfectly permissible to denounce Israel. I personally would love an opportunity to take advantage of our freedoms and give charter school loving Hillary Clinton the finger in person. That’s free speech. That it’s a freedom and a right, though, doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it moral or just. You know where you cannot legally denounce the war in Gaza? Germany. Think about that. And by the way, if the U.S. were to stop funding the Israeli military, you know who would almost definitely do it for them? Germany. Think about it. Genocide is a controversial word? In Germany, it’s not controversial. Neither is the word guilt. Nor is antisemitism.
There is only one way to protest effectively. It’s with understanding, listening, and nonviolence. Anger and violence do not stop anger or violence.
YES! What ought to be controversial is people suggesting that we should NOT use the word. Genocide is all too frequent, and that is why its illegality is a fundamental precept of international law.
Never, ever forget.
If your president or prime minister has been in office for more than a decade and his name isn’t Franklin Delano, it’s time for a new president or prime minister.
Left Coast Teacher,
Thank you. Discussion is the only way out of hatred and mutual recrimination. Anger and violence provoke anger and violence.
I can’t believe they had to go to online instruction.
I think one of the brightest minds in Congress belongs to the representative for Queens, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.
No paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/progressives-democratic-party-aoc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.m00.txAT.2Gf3TyQuSA0p&smid=url-share
Once outsiders, progressives like Ocasio-Cortez, Ayannya Pressley, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Jamaal Bowman are now moving into the Democratic mainstream.
Christopher Hitchens once said, “Civility is overrated.” The powerful always place emphasis on politeness and etiquette when confronted. As Caitlin Johnstone said, “As long as everyone’s worried about being perceived as sufficiently well-mannered, the people will never awaken to their true power.” Offensive speech is the only speech protected by the First Amendment. Offensive speech is the only speech in need of protection!
In the Trump era, I believe that civility is underrated. You have the right to call people by racial, ethnic, religious, and homophobia slurs, but it makes for a very nasty society where life is unpleasant for the object of your slurs. I prefer civility.
https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/04/23/elites-in-the-global-north-are-scared-to-talk-about-palestine/
That troll sounds positively annoying. But to be clear, my comment about rarely aligning was in reply to Flerp, not you, Diane.
Kk, I’m relieved to hear that. I didn’t want to go to sleep thinking you were upset with me.