 |
| Roy Horovitz |
The good news is that the scheduled lecture, “Welcome to
Theaterland: The Theatrical Scene in Israel Today with Roy Horovitz” at
Michigan State University went ahead as scheduled on September 12. (You can read a little about Horovitz and the
topic of his lecture here.) Apparently, the fact that Horovitz is Israeli
was enough to try to silence him (well, sort of…), however, as there was a bill passed overwhelmingly (!) by the General Assembly of the Associated Students of
Michigan State University (ASMSU) demanding its cancellation.
Of course, the ASMSU had no authority to prevent the
presentation, and they knew it. They
didn’t even go public with their proclamation until the day of the event (and
it received no press coverage beyond the campus, at least that Curmie can find, until several days after the speech went forward). This would seem to be the proverbial tempest
in a teapot, except…
No one would deny that the situation in Gaza is both complex
and disquieting. Curmie has made several
attempts to make sense of it all, especially here,
here,
and here. Emotions are high on both sides, and not
without reason. Curmie struggles to find
anything positive to say about either Hamas or Likud. But the barbarity inflicted on an
overwhelming innocent Palestinian population is indeed outrageous. To that extent, ASMSU has something of a
point.
But, Gentle Reader, you will note that there are two
qualifiers in the previous sentence: “to that extent” and “something.” Taken as a whole, the bill is problematic in
the extreme.
First off, it assumes that inviting a guest speaker who
happens to be Israeli is somehow “harmful to Palestinian, Arab, and allied
students and is ignorant to the current global context.” “Harmful”?
Really? How? Even if Horovitz was taking a stance on the
situation in Gaza, which he wasn’t, it’s difficult to imagine how anyone
with a modicum of maturity could feel threatened, let alone harmed. And to suggest that literally anyone in a
position to invite speakers to a university would be ignorant of the context is
absurd.
The ASMSU claims that they “obviously believe in freedom of speech”… well, except, you know, Gentle
Reader, when they don’t. But their real
issue is that “the university... has adopted a stance of neutrality on the
issue.” Exactly which issue that is—the situation
in Gaza or the decision to invite Horovitz—in unclear from the reporting. Either way, the MSU administration got it
right. Miracles do happen.
Moreover, the principal argument against Horovitz’s
appearance is that he is “IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] personnel.” Seriously?
First, he’s former IDF.
More significantly, with very rare exceptions under extraordinary
circumstances, literally every Israeli adult has served in the IDF, willingly
or otherwise. Curmie quotes Beloved
Spouse: “who doesn’t know that?”
You don’t believe in free speech if you don’t think it
applies to those whose ideas you cannot support, or even if you find them
offensive or “hateful.” (Donald Trump and Pam Bondi, please take note). If you don’t think Mr. Horovitz should appear
on your campus, you have a number of options, the foremost being: don’t
go. There are several means of protest,
too, because your speech is as protected as his is. But you look silly, and indeed hurt your own
cause, if you want to deny him the opportunity to speak and your primary
objection is that he once (perhaps against his will) was a member of a military
outfit that subsequently engaged in some pretty questionable acts. It’s rather like cancelling a WWII vet
because of My Lai or Abu Ghraib.
The bill, in other words, is a silly amalgam of paranoia,
petulance, and virtue signaling. Of
course, if the ASMSU statement was a little… erm… over the top, the response from a coalition of campus Jewish organizations is not above criticism. Yes, they’re right on the basic issue, that the
“legislation directly violates the purpose of our student government which
should represent all students and foster an open exchange of ideas.” But it’s a stretch to suggest that the
“safety and belonging of Jewish students on campus.” Again: “safety”? The reason to oppose this bill is that it’s
stupid, not that it’s in any way threatening.
In brief, then, words like “harmful” and “safety” overstate
the case on both sides… or at least Curmie hopes so. If encountering a perspective other than one’s
own causes damage beyond mild perturbance, then the fragmentation of society
into rigidly defined camps borders on the inevitable. Curmie may have criticized some aspects of FIRE’s recently-released report on free speech on university campuses, but that doesn’t mean that the findings
aren’t a cause for concern. In particular,
students’ unwillingness to even listen to opposing viewpoints is deeply
disturbing. Couple that with hypersensitivity
on all sides of virtually every issue, and the ability of educational
institutions at every level to fulfill their mission is imperiled.
Curmie does not impugn the motives of either set of students—neither the
ASMSU nor the coalition of Jewish organizations and their allies. They’re speaking out against what they perceive
as an inappropriate action, and even if Curmie thinks they’d benefit
considerably from a thicker skin and a diminution of hyperbole, they have every
right to do so.
A couple of nights ago, Curmie and Beloved Spouse streamed
an episode of the British crime drama “Professor T.” Our hero, both brilliant and quirky (isn’t that
always the case?), is a police consultant whose real job is as a professor of
criminology. In the latter persona, he closes
the episode with an intriguing discussion of how easily empathy can morph into
hatred. That seems both relevant to the
situation at Michigan State… and chilling.
(By the way, the original Belgian version of “Professor T” with Koen De Bouw in the title role, also available for PBS members to stream, is even better
than the British show. If you’re willing
to read subtitles, Gentle Reader, Curmie recommends it highly.)
No comments:
Post a Comment