#798 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday November 17)
Good morning,
ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM, ANTI-FREE SPEECH, AND ANTISEMITISM AT YALE
A week or so ago, a group of Yale organizations, including several academic departments, hosted an event called “Gaza Under Siege.” In response, a Jewish organization attempted to provide information explaining the Hamas charter, details of the massacre and the use of human shields. The attendees weren’t interested in reading this information, presumably because it was at odds with their chosen narrative.
Two Yale students related their experience in an article in The Wall Street Journal:
“What we heard was two hours of denial, lies and incitement. Speakers referred to the atrocities of Oct. 7 in the sanitized language of ‘civilians killed,’ not beheaded, raped or kidnapped. They called the terrorist group ‘militant,’ and one observed that ‘violent resistance movements often emerge in colonized spaces.’
Nobody mentioned the Hamas charter’s call to ‘fight Jews and kill them,’ but somebody asserted that Israel aims to ‘inflict as much harm, damage, and death as possible.’ One panelist remarked, ‘The one most important part of our conversation here today is that Israel is still occupying Gaza.’ Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.”
IGNORING FACTS AND GOING ON FEELINGS
It is the last statement that I thought particularly enlightening (well, in an unenlightened way). In our world today, facts are secondary to feelings and inconvenient facts are ignored or rationalized. Witness, for instance, the “feeling” that Joe Biden couldn’t have accumulated 80 million votes, the “feeling” that the election was rigged, the “feeling” that Hunter Biden was acting as Joe Biden’s shill in an elaborate payola scheme, and the “feeling” that the COVID vaccine was “unproven” and, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands of lives saved, was an unnecessary governmental intrusion into people’s liberty.
We are well beyond truth in our civic discourse. One would expect—would hope—that universities would stand as a bulwark against the non-fact based arguments of our time. One would hope universities could do a better job of living up to their charters. At their most simplistic, universities are places where students come to learn and develop their minds, faculty congregate to research and collaborate on ideas, and everyone ostensibly exercises critical thinking and creative problem-solving to address issues both of the theoretical and the topical.
In the meantime, universities are hotbeds of radical thought, places where undesirable speakers who are espousing unpopular views are not engaged in defending their ideas, but are shouted down. It is tough to find a college campus where Jewish students feel safe and free to share their ideas on what is happening in the Middle East. They are, in this world of intersectionality, quickly labeled as enablers and ambassadors for an “oppressor class” that preys on Palestinians. Gone is nuance; gone is historical perspective; gone is empathy and engagement. Most of all, what is gone is kindness.
When was it that academics stopped being interlocutors of ideas and moderators of intelligent expression of thoughts? When did they become advocates and proselytizers? “Gaza Under Siege” was anything but an opportunity for academics (faculty and students) to engage in great issues, seek common ground, and seek solutions. It was a political coming together, co-sponsored by the American Studies, Anthropology and Religious Studies departments; the programs in Ethnicity, Race and Migration and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies; the Center for Middle East Studies; and the Black Feminist Collective, in addition to pro-Palestinian groups. This hardly seems an open discussion or academic exchange, but a clear attempt by faculty to espouse a set of political viewpoints, to the exclusion of others.
As I type the words “pro-Palestinian groups,” I have to remind myself that in these fraught times, we all should be Pro-Palestinian, as we should all be pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish. Empathy and understanding of one group’s history, traditions, and aspirations should not exist to the exclusion of understanding and empathizing with the other.
THERE IS ANOTHER WAY—SIMPLY ACT AS A UNIVERSITY SHOULD
As I think about Yale’s responsibility to its students and to the pursuit of truth and critical analysis, I think of how universities historically have been conveners of thought leaders to discuss the difficult topics of the times, sometimes sometimes offering up possible solutions to those issues.
What would Yale have been like if its administration had—instead of allowing their university departments to make common cause with a political point of view—provided a forum to discuss the issues and propose tentative solutions. Such a conversation would not take the form of a debate—that would just mean more of each side reading from their tired old scripts. What is there were a forum wherein different interest groups were asked to propose solutions? What is the conversation included questions to be posed of students and faculty on all sides of this debate, such as:
“Without discussing a specific recent event and without interpreting history, while considering the aspirations of both sides, can you propose a single trust-building concreate action on each side that you would urge be taken.”
“What does a world where the Israeli and Palestinian people look like, with both sides coexisting in peace?”
“Is there a historical precedent you might cite to inform a potential interim government for Gaza and the West Bank?’
Or…if we really want to interact, and acknowledge the humanity and aspirations of each other:
“Express in your own words the best argument to be made for the other side’s continued existence and flourishing in the community of nations.”
This sort of thoughtful inquiry is what I thought universities were all about. Namely, let student groups pontificate, blow off steam and protest. But then have them enter an academic venue, moderated by thoughtful and knowledgeable faculty that can coach, facilitate, educate, and empower them to consider the variety of issues and try to reach those ephemeral goals of truth and those twin objectives repeatedly cited by the great philosopher, Ringo Starr, “Peace and Love.” Have a great day,
Glenn