The Return of the ‘Useful Idiot’

2023/11/14 Leave a comment

Some history of the term “useful idiots” and its application to some groups and individuals in the Israel Hamas war:

The Hamas charter calls for killing all Jews (not just Israelis), so how could it be that there are Jewish groups, such as If Not Now and  Jewish Voice for Peace, who carry water for Hamas? Hamas and other Islamist groups punish gays with death, so why are there LGBTQ+ groups that are pro-Hamas? Given the way that Iran and Islamists treat women, why do some feminists back them?

The Jewish groups are the most perplexing. Placing the blame for the barbaric terrorist attack of October 7thsquarely on Israel, they are busy lobbying Congress to stop sending military aid. Anti-semitic harassment does not seem to concern them, and their rallies have led to headlines that surely make Hamas leaders gleeful: “Progressive Jewish Groups Blame Israeli ‘Apartheid’ for Hamas Violence” (Newsweek) and “Hundreds Arrested as US Jews Protest Against Israel’s Gaza Assault” (The Guardian) are but two examples.

This phenomenon is not new. Lenin supposedly called people of this sort “useful idiots” and, as the phrase suggests, he had utter contempt for them, especially the liberals of the Kadet (Constitutional Democratic) party. Although they did not themselves practice terrorism, the Kadets apologized for, even applauded, it. As with Hamas, Russian terrorists of the early 20th century reveled in cruelty. It was common to disfigure a person, often chosen at random, by throwing sulphuric acid in his face. Another favorite was to toss bombs laced with nails into a crowded café “to see how the foul bourgeois will squirm in death agony.” One group threw “traitors” into vats of boiling water.  As the leading scholar of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, explained, “the need to inflict pain was transformed from an abnormal irrational compulsion experienced by unbalanced personalities into a formally verbalized obligation for all revolutionaries,” as it apparently was for ISIS and is for Hamas.

How could the liberals have stomached such cruelty? Paul Milyukov, the Kadet leader, declared that “all means are now legitimate… and all means should be tried,” much as apologists for Hamas favor decolonization “by any means necessary,” including, it would seem, burning babies alive. Another Kadet official, asked to condemn such terrorism, famously replied: “Condemn terror?  That would be the moral death of our party!”

No sooner had Lenin seized power than the Bolsheviks proclaimed Kadets “outside the law,” which meant anything could be done to them. Right away two Kadet leaders were murdered in their hospital beds. Since Lenin made no secret of his plans—again, like Hamas—why did the liberals not oppose him? Even Russian capitalists contributed to the Bolsheviks and other parties sworn to destroy them!

As if not to be outdone by their Russian predecessors, some American liberals justified Stalin’s purges, the Gulag, and the starvation of millions of peasants. Other liberals objected, and so a split reminiscent of what seems to be developing today took place. Closer to our time, the radical gay cultural theorist Michel Foucault, whose ideas helped form the current academic ethos, came to back Ayatollah Khomeini. In short, we are witnessing a familiar pattern.

What explains it? What makes people useful idiots? It isn’t lack of intelligence. One is most likely to find useful idiots on the campuses of elite colleges and universities. Nor is it ignorance: Hamas is proud to broadcast its atrocities. So what then is it?

In his cycle of novels about the Russian Revolution, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn poses this very question. In one memorable scene, he describes the novel’s hero, Vorotyntsev, at a meeting of the Kadets. “They were all overwhelmingly certain that they were right, yet they needed these exchanges to reinforce their certainty,” he thinks.  And despite his better judgment, Vorotyntsev goes along with them as if he were hypnotized—not because he felt he was wrong, but out of fear of saying something reactionary.”  Today, many are unwilling to risk being called “conservative” or worse, not just to avoid the consequences that such a reputation might entail, but so as not to tarnish their sense of self, which is inextricably tied up with being on the progressive side of everything. At last, Vorotyntsev breaks free from ”the bewitchment” and speaks his mind. How wonderful it would be to get people to do the same in the present day.

Perhaps supporters of Hamas terror naively imagine that they will never find themselves the target of it. “There is reason to fear that the Revolution may, like Saturn, devour each of her children one by one,” declared the French revolutionary Pierre Verginaud at his trial, and it wasn’t long before the guillotine also claimed the revolutionaries who condemned him. Useful idiots need to use their heads before they lose their heads.

Source: The Return of the ‘Useful Idiot’

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Regg Cohn: Canadians who seek justice in the Israel-Hamas war should choose their words — and their targets — very carefully

2023/11/13 Leave a comment

Of note. Money quote:

“We used to say that the world needs more Canada.

It can now be said that Canada does not need more Middle East — neither the madness nor the menace.”

Across Canada, protesters are raising their voices for their rival truths on both sides of the Middle Eastern divide. But two harsh realities await:

First, Canadians can’t stop the endless bloodshed in Gaza and Israel from here.

Second, they quite possibly can start a new conflict on the home front — pitting Canadians against Canadians on the streets of Toronto.

That would be the worst possible legacy of the latest war.

In Sunday’s Star, I wrote at length about the continuing war against peace, based on my own journalistic journey covering the front lines in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. Today, the conflict is closer to home.

Tensions are rising here just as they are around the world, notably in European countries where antisemitism and Islamophobia are two sides of the same debased coin. The difference is that Canadians aren’t habituated to so much intolerance and incitement.

Today, demonization is the common denominator.

Antisemitism is being normalized. Islamophobia is being legitimized. And xenophobia is being Canadianized.

Please don’t close your eyes to it, for it is in plain sight. If you can’t feel it — in the air, on the streets and online — then you have lost all feeling.

In my last article, I described how far-right Jewish settlers and inciters undermined the peace process in Israel with an assassination and occupation; how Hamas and Islamic Jihad acted not merely as terrorists but rejectionists, blowing up the peace process with suicide bombs targeting civilians.

Never underestimate the ability of extremists and extreme voices on both sides to hijack the agenda — two tails wagging two warring dogs.

I worry that something similar is happening here in Canada — not with weapons of war, just the weaponizing of words. Some are using social media and megaphones to drive a wedge of division.

Debate is good and democratic. Protests are core to the fabric of freedom and petitions are part of our history.

However, hate speech isn’t protected — antisemitic or Islamophobic attacks can be prosecuted. When a synagogue is hit with Molotov cocktails in Montreal, or a mosque in Ottawa is smeared with feces, it’s against the law.

Small comfort. I worry as much or more about the rhetoric that is perfectly legal yet utterly hostile, if not inciteful.

I’m not pining for a country that bans harsh words or uncomfortable ideas. But it is painful when I see people validate or celebrate protests that devalue what their fellow Canadians hold dear.

I don’t expect every protester to be a model of modulation. I’m not counting on every social media monger to show moderation.

But when it feeds bigotry and bullying, we are moving into perilous territory. There’s a fine line between protesting for peace and provoking a war of words.

That line has been crossed in recent weeks.

Those protesters who seek justice should also show judgment — in choosing their words and their targets. When they criticize Israeli actions over there, and then single out Jewish Canadians over here, it sends a chill here at home that Jews everywhere are fair game.

When crowds chant outside the Jewish Community Centre at Bloor and Spadina (on their way back from a nearby protest), it transmits an unmistakably antisemitic signal across the city that Jews are somehow interchangeable with the Israeli consulate. When protesters yell slogans outside restaurants allegedly to call out Jewish or Israeli connections — intending only to intimidate and berate those trapped inside — it sends an ominous message across the country.

Boycotts are blunt instruments at the best of times. This is the worst of times.

Shall our universities ban books or appearances by bestselling Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, one of his country’s harshest social critics, because of his origins? Should Canada follow the lead of Lebanon and other Arab countries in banning Wonder Woman movies because its leading woman, Gal Gadot, is Israeli?

Beware such sophistry, for it is a slippery slope.

Obviously it is possible to criticize Israel without being antisemitic — as I did and I do. It is also possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish — though it is not as simple as it sounds.

For if Zionism is truly racism, and Israel is transparently racist, would we say the same of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — carved out as the explicit homeland for Muslims during the 1947 partition of the subcontinent, a place where blasphemy still triggers a death sentence and church bombings remain rampant?

Polling shows most Canadian Jews are broadly supportive of Zionism and the existence of Israel (setting aside illegal settlements). So it is hardly surprising that chanting Zionism is racism, or that Israel is an abomination — and calling for its elimination — would raise alarm bells (just as attacking Ukraine’s right to self-determination would trigger anxiety among Canadians with family ties to that country).

Righteous sloganeering is the wrong way to bring people together. Without humility, there is no empathy.

We have already seen violent and hateful incidents in Canada and the U.S. against Jews and Muslims. We have already heard people claiming that pro-Palestinian protesters should be doxxed or deported for speaking out, or listened as Canadian Jews were accused of dual loyalties for having strong opinions.

Instead of reaching out across the divide and joining hands, too many Jews and Muslims can only see themselves as the bigger victim — oblivious to the other — both in the Middle East and now in Canada. But in any competition for victimhood, there are no victors — it doesn’t work over there, and it won’t help over here.

It is not too late for Canadians to regain their footing, recover their balance, reclaim their compass. But we all need better filters.

Campus excesses are today magnified by social media and then amplified by mass media — distorting the dialogue further. An echo chamber has been transformed into a boxing ring where people take their best shots to provoke the worst instincts among cheering throngs.

Instead of joining hands, we have moved to finger-pointing and flag-waving. I wince when I see the Israeli and Palestinian flags affixed to cars whose drivers honk furiously for their rival tribe or team — as if this deadly conflict were a World Cup soccer competition for the loudest fans.

In a world of conflict and ignorance, Canada can remain a country of coexistence and tolerance. At a time of political polarization, Canadians must show the path to pluralism and remain a role model for multiculturalism.

I wake up with a heavy heart when I think of the bloodshed across the Middle East now — as I did in the past for the hundreds of thousands of souls that have died in the countries I’ve covered as a foreign correspondent. But when I wake these days to what is slowly unravelling in Canada, I hear unmistakable echoes — and yes, echo chambers — from my time abroad.

Which makes my heart even heavier.

We used to say that the world needs more Canada.

It can now be said that Canada does not need more Middle East — neither the madness nor the menace.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/canadians-who-seek-justice-in-the-israel-hamas-war-should-choose-their-words-and-their/article_8b42ba0a-ee70-59cb-9a40-7125c887c51d.html

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism – The Atlantic

2023/11/08 1 Comment

Important distinctions:

On October 7, the Islamist militant group Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, killed more than 1,400 people in Israel. Israel responded with military operations that have killed several times that number of Palestinians in Gaza, a territory described by Human Rights Watch as an “open-air prison” as a result of an Israeli and Egyptian blockade. In both cases, most of the casualties are civilians. The conflict has reverberated into other areas of the world, including the United States, where anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim incidents have included the killing of a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy. The bloodshed has revived the perennial debates about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

“Look, it’s clear that the hardened anti-Zionists from the far left are the photo inverse of the white supremacists from the far right,” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told CNN’s Dana Bash earlier this week. “There is no argument anymore that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, that is as plain as day. And to think that extremism only comes from one side of the spectrum is a joke.” Greenblatt’s sentiments were echoed among supporters of Israel, including in publications such as The Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post, which editorialized that “to deny the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people, a right afforded to all nations—is to discriminate against Jews.”

The claim that “there is no argument anymore” is curious. Even within the ADL, staffers have objected to the argument that anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitism, as Jewish Currents reported last year.

Political Zionism, defined concisely, is the belief that the Jews should have a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. Anti-Zionism, in similarly brief terms, is the opposition to that belief. It should be no surprise that most Palestinians and those who sympathize with their plight are anti-Zionist. “The Arab has been on the receiving end not of benign Zionism—which has been restricted to Jews,” Edward Said wrote in The Question of Palestine, “but of an essentially discriminatory and powerful culture, of which, in Palestine, Zionism has been the agent.”

There are certainly forms of anti-Zionism that are anti-Semitic, such as the belief that Jewish Israelis should all be expelled or killed or that they should be forced to live as second-class citizens under an Islamist government. Storming the tarmac at an airport in Dagestan in the hopes of participating in a mob lynching of passengers arriving from Tel Aviv, or vandalizing synagogues in Madrid and New York in response to the Israeli government’s actions, or threatening Jewish students with rape and murder, are clear expressions of hatred toward Jews. Americans, both Jewish and not, can underestimate how common anti-Semitism remains in the rest of the world.

But there is nothing anti-Semitic about anti-Zionists who believe that the existence of a religious or ethnically defined state is inherently racist, and that the only real solution to the conflict is, as the Palestinian American advocate Youssef Munayyer writes, “equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians in a single shared state,” with a constitution that would “recognize that the country would be home to both peoples and that, despite national narratives and voices on either side that claim otherwise, both peoples have historical ties to the land.” Perhaps you think this idea naive or unrealistic; that is not an expression of prejudice toward Jews.

For one thing, there were prominent Jewish advocates for this idea before the founding of Israel, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber. In 1921, the Jewish philosopher Ahad Ha’am wrote that Arab Palestinians “have a genuine right to the land due to generations of residence and work upon it. For them too this country is a national home and they have the right to develop their national potentialities to the utmost.” There are also some prominent Jewish supporters of a single binational state today, such as the former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg. The Jewish American writers Tony Judt and Peter Beinart have also made the case for a one-state solution.

I should say here that I do not have an answer to this question. Two states or one, my preference is for both Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live freely and in peace and equality, in whatever arrangement allows them to do so.

Nevertheless, it is a cruel absurdity to demand of Palestinians that they not only acquiesce to Israel’s existence, but also actively support the idea of an ethnically defined state that excludes them from equal citizenship, one that was made possible only by the flight and expulsion of 700,000 of their forebears in the Nakba of 1948. It is not anti-Semitic to want equal rights in the land you share with others, and to oppose a political arrangement that has resulted in what Israeli human-rights groups justifiably describe as a form of apartheid. While Jewish Israelis retain their rights wherever they go within Israel’s borders, Palestinians are subject to draconian restrictions on their lives and freedoms depending on their location.

“My mom was born and raised a mere 10-minute walk from my childhood home, but my father’s family is from Tulkarem, a small city in the West Bank. And so my dad, my siblings, and I have West Bank IDs while my mom, a Jerusalemite, has a Jerusalem ID,” the journalist Abdallah Fayyad wrote in The Boston Globe in 2021, describing life in his childhood neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. “That meant that while my mother had a right to live in Jerusalem, the rest of us were only guests in our own home, living there because we renewed travel permits that technically allowed us only entry into Jerusalem, not a permanent stay.”

Palestinians in the West Bank who have been displaced at gunpoint by Israeli settlers, Palestinians in Gaza who have watched their children die in Israeli missile strikes, Palestinians who have been evicted from their homes in Jerusalem as part of an effort to Judaize the city—are none of these people allowed to question whether a Jewish state is an optimal arrangement for them? Are none of their relatives, friends, and loved ones abroad allowed to do so?

Nor is the question of national self-determination as straightforward as the Post would have it. Since the beginning of the occupation in 1967, maintaining the Jewish character of the state of Israel has required an extraordinary amount of violence, because Jews are not a clear majority in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank put together. Even if they were, however, it is not as though Palestinian demands for equal rights would cease. Opposing that violence, or believing that it stems from the state having a specific ethnic character, is not a form of bigotry. It is not “self-determination” if you are determining the fate of your neighbors because they lack the same rights as you.

In the United States, the ADL itself has highlighted those on the far right who believe “they are fighting against demographic and cultural changes that are destroying the ‘true America’—a white, Christian nation,” and who want Jews to “either leave the country or be converted.” Sadly, this is a racist chauvinism that echoes sentiments expressed by politicians in the current Israeli government.

Few Americans who are not themselves white nationalists would think it prejudiced for those who are not white Christians to oppose such an arrangement in the U.S., least of all Jews.

Obviously, there are factors in Israel that make a commitment to one state with equal rights for all more complicated than in the United States, where the concept is foundational even if the execution is not. For generations, Palestinians have borne the brunt of the violence of war, occupation, and discrimination. The near-destruction of European Jewry is less than a century old, and the flight (both voluntary and involuntary) of the Mizrahim, who make up the largest portion of Israel’s Jewish population, from other Middle Eastern and North African countries is younger than that. Fears and grudges build up over years of conflict and separation, making the personal and emotional connections necessary for such reconciliation difficult, although brave souls on both sides of the divide are trying.

The ideal version of the one-state solution also remains unpopular for now among both Israelis and Palestinians (except for Arab citizens of Israel). You may think it impossible. You may prefer a different outcome. You may think it is dangerous. But the vision itself is not an expression of anti-Jewish hatred and should not be treated as such.

The effect of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is to silence the criticism of the Israeli government by Palestinians and their advocates. Characterizing all such criticism as an inherent form of bigotry is used to justify the exclusion of such critics from mainstream society, to suspend them from their schools, or to fire them from their jobs. But it is not anti-Semitic to want equal rights for all in Jerusalem, in Tel Aviv, in Gaza, in Ramallah. That is, after all, what generations of Americans have sought in their own home.

Adam Serwer is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Source: Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism – The Atlantic

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Car: Choose Respect

2023/11/07 Leave a comment

Winnipeg MP on the importance of dialogue, listening and respect:

How can you say you care about combatting Islamophobia or the lives of innocent children without calling for a ceasefire? How can you say you care about the loss of innocent Palestinian life if you attend a vigil for kidnapped Israelis? How can you say you care about defeating Hamas if you want Israel to respect calls for humanitarian pauses so that aid can flow?

These are several of the questions I have faced from people upset with the perspectives I have shared in relation to what has been happening in the Middle East. For some, it does not matter that I am speaking with members of both the Jewish and Muslim community every day. It does not matter that I have called for more aid to flow to Gaza, for the hostages to be released by Hamas, or for a two-state solution that can bring peace to this conflict. It does not matter that I am actively organizing meetings with police, elected officials, community leaders and experts to address the rise in hate against both the Jewish and Muslim community.

Every single word we utter, every single action we take, is parsed through by too many who are looking for some iota of ammunition they can use to establish what they believe to be an allegiance to one side or the other. It is not always about choosing a side, it is not always black and white, and it is certainly not always static.

It is possible to disagree on the ways in which we solve conflicts, without having to denigrate the character, morals, or intentions of the person with whom we disagree. President Obama said recently that “we should choose not to always assume the worst in those with whom we disagree.” How we conduct our behaviour towards others is a choice, and it is a choice we should pause to consider often.

I have had many respectful and productive conversations about the conflict recently with constituents, some Jews, some Muslims, and many from neither community. What made them respectful and productive?

First, we listened to each other. No interrupting, no positioning for the last word, just moments of genuine pause and reflection as the other spoke. Second, we were calm. No shouting, and no attempts to leave scars behind. Third, they were honest. The words conveyed stayed true to the values of those conveying them, and in that, each maintained their integrity. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the objective in that moment was not to change the mind of the other – or to see the inability to do so as a failure – however, it was to leave the other with a broadened understanding of an opposing point of view that provided an opportunity for further reflection. It is this that contributes to the meaningfulness of thinking critically through difficult issues.

I am grateful to those who are continuing to reach out. However difficult the discussions, they need to happen. I hope that when they do, they can unfold in the ways I have highlighted from recent experiences noted above.

Protesting outside of businesses owned by members of a specific religious community, with calls to boycott them, simply because they are members of that community, is wrong. Intentionally intimidating people in the streets, is wrong. Calling for Jews to be flushed into the sea, or for Muslims to “go back to where they came from”, is wrong. These actions are not only hateful, they also prevent the conditions necessary to foster healthy relationships and peace from taking root.

As an educator, I often worked with kids and families who had experienced traumas in their lives. In order to help heal, it required trauma informed language and practices. This means reframing our own bias, making an effort to shift from asking “what’s wrong with you?”, to “what happened to you?’. We must do our best to move from judgement to curiosity.

These are fundamental principles in a trauma informed approach to conflict resolution. The intention is not to adjudicate on questions of who or what is “right” or “wrong”. The intention, is to guide us towards greater understanding of one another’s perspectives, and to restore a sense of humanity to a societal dialogue that has become increasingly void of it.

As difficult as the conversations are that we are having right now, we must have them. One day, we all hope soon, this war will end. When it is over, we will still be neighbours, co-workers, and family. We will still want the best for our kids and our communities. In order for us to overcome the trauma and wounds left behind from this current crisis here at home, we will need to lean as heavily as ever before, on the principles of respect, compassion, and love, while choosing to see the best in one another. That starts now.

Ben Carr is the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre

Source: Choose Respect

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Goldberg: When It Comes to Israel, Who Decides What You Can and Can’t Say?

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

Good discussion of the players and the issues:

Last week, the Anti-Defamation League and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law sent a letter to nearly 200 college presidents urging them to investigate campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine for potential violations of federal and state laws against providing material support to terrorism. As evidence for these very serious accusations, the ADL and the Brandeis center offered only the student group’s own strident rhetoric, including a sentence in its online tool kit, which praised Hamas’s attacks on Israel and said: “We must act as part of this movement. All of our efforts continue the work and resistance of the Palestinians on the ground.”

Under the direction of Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has also ordered state universities to shut chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine. Citing the same tool kit, DeSantis said, “That is material support to terrorism, and that is not going to be tolerated in the state of Florida, and it should not be tolerated in these United States of America.” Virginia’s Republican attorney general has opened an investigation into American Muslims for Palestine, a national group that, according to the ADL, helps coordinate the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine, “for potentially violating Virginia’s charitable solicitation laws, including benefiting or providing support to terrorist organizations.” Several Republicans, including Donald Trump, have called for revoking the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists.

Ever since Hamas’s slaughter and mass kidnapping of Israelis on Oct. 7, there has been mounting fear and fury over the mistreatment of Jews at American colleges and universities. The Homeland Security, Justice and Education Departments are all taking steps to combat campus antisemitism. Congressional resolutions have condemned it. But while plenty of pro-Palestinian students have behaved in appalling ways, many also feel besieged, and for good reason.

For Palestinian and Muslim students, the invocation of terrorism law is especially frightening. Attempts to curtail anti-Zionist activism are not new; about 35 states have laws targeting the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. But now advocates for Palestinian rights describe a new level of repression. “The ADL is calling for the mass violation of students’ rights in a manner that’s reminiscent of the post 9/11 environment, but with a more intensely Palestinian twist,” said Radhika Sainath, a senior staff attorney at the civil rights organization Palestine Legal. She predicts that if federal and state governments follow through on the ADL’s demands, Palestinian activists will be subjected to an increase in surveillance, infiltration and investigation, even though their groups “pose zero threat and have done nothing but engage in speech 100 percent protected by the First Amendment.”

Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi, a pre-eminent historian of Palestinian history, readily acknowledged a rash of recent antisemitic incidents on college campuses. But he drew a distinction between interpersonal harassment and an institutional crackdown. “Both sides have feelings of being victimized,” he told me, but the forces arrayed against them are not the same. “The Patriot Act may be mobilized to shut down speech” deemed supportive of Palestinian terrorism. “That’s the difference.”

No one should underestimate how awful the campus climate is for many Jewish students, who’ve experienced a surge in violence and abuse. At Cornell, an engineering student was arrested after threatening to shoot up a kosher dining hall and calling for Jews to be raped and murdered. Demonstrators at a rally in support of Palestinians assaulted Jewish counterprotesters at Tulane; one student had his nose broken. In October, Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean of at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote an opinion essay headlined, “Nothing Has Prepared Me for the Antisemitism I See on College Campuses Now.” In it, he told of a student who insisted that she would feel safe on campus only if the school got “rid of the Zionists.”

This hostile environment stems, at least in part, from the nearly vaunted role played by the Palestinian cause in the left’s understanding of global dispossession. Because America helps underwrite Israel’s military occupation, Palestinians are often viewed as singular symbols of imperialist oppression. For decades, radical Black activists in America have seen, in Israel’s occupation of Palestine, a mirror of their own subjugation, and that identification was supercharged during America’s 2020 racial justice protests, when a mural of George Floyd appeared in Gaza City. In some social justice circles, then, support for Israel is viewed as something akin to support for the K.K.K.

This contempt for Zionism has only accelerated with the pulverizing bombing of Gaza and its thousands of civilian casualties. And too often, on hothouse campuses full of young people with half-formed ideas and poor impulse control, anti-Zionism segues into hatred directed at Jews.

For some Jews on campus, the vituperation against Zionism has been particularly disorienting because, for years now, they’ve been trained in exquisite sensitivity to identity-based slights.

Not all Jews identify with the state of Israel, of course, and activists from Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow have led protests against Israel’s war on Gaza. But many Jews see their relationship with Israel as an essential part of their Jewishness, and even some fierce critics of Israel’s government were shaken by the widespread demonization of the country so soon after Hamas’s atrocities. When they say that the campus climate makes them feel unsafe — a rhetorical trump card in other contexts — they expect official action.

On Wednesday, the presidents of several Israeli universities wrote a letter to their international colleagues calling on them to accord Jewish and Israeli students and faculty members “the same respect and protections as any other minority.” Citing principles of safety and inclusivity, the letter said, “Just as it would be unthinkable for an academic institution to extend free speech protections to groups targeting other protected classes, so too should demonstrations that call for our destruction and glorify violence against Jews be explicitly prohibited and condemned.”

But this demand for protection can collide with the First Amendment rights of Zionism’s critics, and with academic freedom more broadly. “I wouldn’t compare this with the internment of the Japanese Americans in World War II, but the point I’m making is that there are times when people get really upset about what’s happening in the world and do things that are unwise at best and really harmful to people and democracy at worst,” said Kenneth Stern, director of Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate and author of “The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate.”

Stern occupies a unique position in this profoundly polarizing debate. He’s a liberal Zionist and an expert on antisemitism, as well as a committed civil libertarian who critiques the way mainstream Jewish groups wield institutional power to try to silence pro-Palestinian voices.

As he describes in his book, in 1982, he resigned from the left-wing National Lawyers Guild rather than face what felt like a purge for refusing to sign onto a strictly pro-Palestinian line. Years later, he became the in-house antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee, but eventually left in part over concern that, in its ardent defense of Israel on college campuses, the group was forsaking a commitment to academic freedom. He helped draft an internationally adopted definition of antisemitism that includes some forms of anti-Zionism. He’s also inveighed, in opinion essays, congressional testimony and in his 2020 book, against the use of that definition, put out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016, to traduce the free speech of Israel’s critics.

“The complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should make it an ideal subject to teach critical thinking and how to have difficult discussions,” writes Stern. “Instead, it is being used as a toxin that threatens the entire academic enterprise.”

As with the conflict between Israel and Palestine more broadly, there’s plenty of blame to go around. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a libertarian-leaning free speech organization, shared data with me showing that, since 2002, there have been more attempts made to de-platform pro-Palestinian campus speakers than pro-Israel ones. But attempts to shut down pro-Israel speakers, by disinviting or disrupting them, are more likely to be successful.

Both sides, then, have credible stories to tell about being censored and intimidated. The difference is where that intimidation is coming from. For supporters of Israel, it largely comes from peers and, in some cases, professors. For supporters of Palestine, it comes from powerful outside institutions, including the state.

There is little reason to think that the pressure brought to bear by these outside institutions is making Jewish students any safer. One result of the denunciatory mood that overtook many progressive spaces toward the tail end of the Trump years was to give reactionary ideas a rebellious frisson. You could see this in the little subculture of New York scenesters who adopted the trappings of conservative Catholicism as a rebuke to liberalism, but also in more significant cultural phenomena, like the popularity of the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast and the right-wing radicalization of Elon Musk. Among young people, the appeal of right-wing heterodoxy was limited by the fact that relatively few want to give up either a commitment to human equality or premarital sex. Anti-Zionist activism, by contrast, offers something that’s been missing from left-wing politics for years: the chance to stand up for the downtrodden and scandalize elites.

“By trying to censor anti-Israel remarks, it becomes more, not less, difficult to tackle both antisemitism and anti-Israel dogma,” Stern writes in his book. “The campus debate is changed from one of exposing bigotry to one of protecting free speech, and the last thing pro-Israel advocates need is a reputation for censoring, rather than refuting, their opponents.”

Of course, Israel’s partisans already have that reputation. “What can you say about what settlers are doing in the West Bank?” asked Khalidi. “What can you say about ethnic cleansing in 1948,” the year of Israel’s founding? “How can you defend any of those things? They don’t have an argument. They have to shut down debate.” Those who disagree with him might try to prove him wrong.

Source: When It Comes to Israel, Who Decides What You Can and Can’t Say?

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Israel Must Not Revoke Their Citizenship – Haaretz Editorial

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

Of note. Hopefully one outcome of the war will be the replacement of the Netanyahu government and these extreme ministers:

On October 7, the Israeli Arab actress Maisa Abd Elhadi published two posts. In one, she captioned an image of Yaffa Adar, 85, being abducted by Hamas from her home in Kibbutz Nir Oz, with the text, “The lady is going on the adventure of her life.” The other showed a tractor breaking through the fence, captioned “Let’s go Berlin style.”

A few days later she was arrested, and last week she was charged with incitement to terrorism and expressing solidarity with a terror organization.

Interior Minister Moshe Arbel was not content with that, and called for the revocation of her citizenship. On Thursday, he approved the publication of a draft law he wrote with Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the architect of the government’s judicial coup, that would enable the revocation of citizenship or residency of a citizen or resident who incited to terrorism or expressed support for terror during wartime.

Levin and Arbel want to expand the list of acts for which citizenship can be revoked. According to their proposal, citizenship could be revoked from anyone who supported terrorism, incited to terrorism or sympathized with a terror organization “while a special situation had been declared in the home front, due to the aggravated severity attended to the commission of such acts at wartime.”

The list of acts included under this definition includes the publication of statements of praise, support or sympathy, waving a flag, displaying or publishing a symbol or displaying, playing or publishing of a slogan or anthem in order to express solidarity.

Arbel and Levin are arming Israel with a weapon that allows it to embark on a literal witch hunt, particularly after Arab citizens. A situation of war does not justify such hysterics. Revocation of citizenship is a draconian step (the practical upshot of which is deportation, or leaving a person stateless) that should not be used, let alone for offenses such as incitement or the expression of identification. We also must not lose the critical distinction between someone publishing a post and those committing or aiding a terror attack.

In addition, according to the bill the person authorized to revoke the citizenship of a person convicted of such offenses will be the interior minister, acting on the recommendation of an advisory committee and the concurrence of the justice minister. Judicial review, according to the draft law, will take place after the decision is made.

In other words, Arbel and Levin will be able to revoke citizenship without court involvement. This is unlimited power, worse than that envisioned by the coup. The government is not a punitive agency; that is the role of the courts. The government coup was stopped, but under the cover of war Levin has continued his fight to eliminate the separation of powers.

This bill could contribute to the silencing of entire groups within Israeli society at best and to political persecution, revocation of citizenship and mass expulsion at worst. Such power cannot be placed in the hands of the government, not even in wartime.

Source: Israel Must Not Revoke Their Citizenship – Haaretz Editorial – Haaretz

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

The Conversations About the War in Gaza We Ought to Be Having

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Worth reading:

The conflict in Israel and Palestine has thrown American campuses and society into turmoil.

We are both deans of public policy schools. One of us comes from a Palestinian family displaced by war. The other served in Israeli military intelligence before a long career in academia. Our life stories converged when we were colleagues and friends for 10 years on the faculty of Princeton University. Notwithstanding our different backgrounds, we are both alarmed by the climate on campuses and the polarizing and dehumanizing language visible throughout society.

Universities should state hard truths and clarify critical issues. As leaders of public policy schools, we train the leaders of tomorrow to think creatively and boldly. It starts with countering speech that is harmful, modeling civic dialogue, mutual respect and empathy, and showing an ability to listen to one another.

Universities should not retreat into their ivory towers because the discourse has gotten toxic; on the contrary, the discourse will get more toxic if universities pull back.

Faculty and students on some campuses across the country have reported feeling unsafe in light of verbal and physical attacks. Activist groups and even student groups are screaming past one another instead of listening and engaging with the other side. The polarizing talk in media, political and campus circles create an environment lacking in sophistication and nuance.

For example, chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are commonly perceived as calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel. What’s more, the position these chants represents completely ignores the fact that the majority of Palestinians have rejected this stance since the 1993 Oslo Accords, and leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have consistently called for a two-state solution. Furthermore, the claim that all Palestinians in Gaza are responsible for Hamas lacks empirical support.

Condemnation of the Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas — and calling it out as an act of terrorism — shouldn’t be avoided out of risk of offending Palestinians and their supporters. Not condemning the terrorist attacks is a failure of a moral core, and by no means should condemnation of terrorism be viewed as incompatible with believing in Palestinian rights and statehood, alongside Israel. Terrorism is, by common understanding, an attack on all humanity.

We teach our students to deal with policy predicaments that start with tough questions that require understanding opposing ideas. The uncertainty about what the future of Gaza will look like, whether the peace process can be revived and how the security and safety of Israelis and Palestinians will be achieved — these are, to be sure, hard questions with solutions that do not fit on placards.

While campus groups and all Americans enjoy freedom of speech, educators at universities must respond to speech that is harmful, hateful, untrue or lacking nuance and historical context. Free speech only works when there is vigorous counter speech.

As deans, we also know that in this volatile political environment, we must ensure that our campuses have places where each side can air their opinions and even come together and hold difficult conversations without fear of retaliation. Examples of this include webinars that our respective schools held in the wake of the attacks featuring a diversity of voices, including academics and policymakers, Israelis and Palestinians, Democrats and Republicans. That must start with the core element of civic engagement and civil disagreement.

Campuses must protect free speech, but equally advocate for mutually respectful dialogue. That obligation is both especially important and especially demanding in our current political and societal landscape.

A discussion of the actions that states should take in self-defense is worth convening, as well as one on the conduct of warfare in a dense urban environment. Israel’s response should be directed at eliminating the threat posed by Hamas, not at innocent civilians in Gaza. What that means in practice is a matter for debate. Calling out Israel for its bombing of civilian areas in Gaza shouldn’t be avoided out of risk of offending Israelis and their supporters.

There is no better place for these discussions than a university campus. But sponsoring this kind of debate takes courage.

As educators, we at times have to make our students uncomfortable by challenging their preconceptions and encouraging them to think through their positions using data, evidence and logic. It is unrealistic to believe that individuals can put their emotions away. But if a university doesn’t encourage students to reflect on how their own emotions shape, and occasionally distort, their analysis of the world around them, where else could they possibly learn this?

Even prior to the current violence, the Arab-Israeli conflict was an intensely uncomfortable topic to discuss, and, unfortunately, some schools may try to solve that problem by omitting it from their curriculums. Journal editors may be wary of wading into such hotly charged topics. This gap has left an intellectual vacuum filled by hate speech, antisemitism, Islamophobia and other stereotypical tropes on campuses and crowded out rigorous empirical analysis and reasoned discussions. Add to that a polarized media establishment, political landscape and social media, and no wonder we’ve seen the conversation on campus devolve into a verbal war of platitudes and talking points.

We remain hopeful, however. Over the past few weeks, we’ve also witnessed a vibrant student body eager for more information around these issues.

Universities play a vital role in shaping the conversation. Polls show that universities still enjoy a higher level of trust by the public than many other institutions, although it is dwindling. We have unique access to the world’s best intellectual minds and financial resources to support them.

We will squander this trust and legacy if we stay on the sidelines.

 Amaney Jamal and Keren Yarhi-Milo: Dr. Jamal is the dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. Dr. Yarhi-Milo is the dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Source: The Conversations About the War in Gaza We Ought to Be Having

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Kheiriddin: Pro-Palestine protesters ignore history — and their own causes pay the price

2023/10/28 Leave a comment

Valid questions for those who openly support Hamas and its actions, as distinct from those who support a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel:

By now, the world has been treated to countless demonstrations in support of Palestinian self-determination, most of which conveniently whitewash the Oct. 7 atrocities committed by Hamas as a justifiable “resistance” against Israel. The latest was a protest on Thursday by students in Toronto.

This mirrors another walkout a couple years ago, in which Toronto high school students were photographed holding a sign reading: “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free.” As a parent, that one felt the most disturbing.

Do these young people understand what that slogan means? Do they know who they are “allied” with by chanting those words? I suspect not. Kids know what they are fed on TikTok and Instagram, where disinformation is rampant and history, both recent and ancient, is conveniently ignored. And they aren’t the only ones who ignore it.

How is it that feminists can cheer a “resistance” that raped women so badly, they were found with their pelvises shattered, and that paraded half-naked, half-dead young women the streets? Perhaps because they conveniently ignore that violence against women is also endemic in Gaza: in 2019, the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics reported that 41 per cent of women there had experienced domestic violence.

How can LGBTQ+ groups shout and scream for a “free Palestine” when earlier this month, a gay Palestinian man was beheaded in Hebron, his head and torso dumped near his family’s home, for the “crime” of being LGBTQ+? How can they support an organization like Hamas, which killed one of its own commanders in 2016 after accusing him of having gay sex?

How can Black Lives Matter (BLM) post an image on Twitter of a paragliding terrorist with the caption, “I stand with Palestine”? (BLM subsequently took it down, but stated that, “We must stand unwaveringly on the side of the oppressed.”)

How is it that BLM turns a blind eye to Hamas’s Black slave trafficking in the early 2010s to fund its terror operations? Why don’t they mention that up to 800,000 Africans were trafficked to the Middle East during the late 19th and early 20th centuries — and that slavery continued to be legal in much of the Mideast as late as the 1960s?

Why? Because to concede any of these things would spoil the left-wing narrative that binds these “allies” together: oppression is solely the purview of white, heterosexual, colonizing westerners, and any group that is “west-adjacent,” such as the Jews. It also undermines their belief that any means, including terror, is justified in order to resist it.

What we are witnessing is intersectionality gone amok. It’s also a story that is over 200 years old, again buried in the mists of time.

The year was 1789, and the event was the French Revolution. The Jacobins and their allies revolted against the French ruling class, including nobility, clergy and anyone who smelled of privilege, on behalf of the peasants who were starving, miserable and oppressed.

But they didn’t just revolt. They launched the Reign of Terror, formally declaring in the French National Assembly that, “Terror is the order of the day.”

In the words of their leader, Maximilien Robespierre, “Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie (homeland).”

For the next five years, the French terror crew gave Hamas a run for their money. They held public executions by guillotine, filling the streets with blood. They slaughtered entire towns. When they ran out of guillotines, they used cannons.

In the worst district, the Vendée, they slaughtered thousands of people, including women and children. They held mass drownings in the Loire River, where if victims managed to free their hands from shackles, troops in boats were there to hack off their arms. The latter event was even immortalized by artist Pierre-Gabriel Berthaul as one of the “great moments” of the revolution.

By the time the Reign of Terror ended in July 1794, 17,000 people had been officially executed, and as many as 10,000 had died in prison or without trial.

The left has copied this playbook consistently since then. The Bolsheviks deployed the Red Terror in Russia between 1918 and 1922; Stalin presided over the genocide of an estimated seven-million people in the ’30s and ’40s; Mao Zedong’s government sent between 500,000 and two-million Chinese to their deaths during the Cultural Revolution of 1966 to 1976. All justified in the name of overthrowing the “oppressors” to liberate the oppressed.

Today’s “allies” ignore this history. To them, the end justifies the means — even if those means contradict every social-justice principle they claim to espouse.

The irony, of course, is that the end they seek would not be the paradise they envision. It would not be a state where women, LGBTQ+ and Black lives are respected. It would not be one of equality and human rights.

A Palestinian state under Hamas would be no different than any other murderous theocratic or ideological regime, where the government uses terror and oppression to keep people in line. And where you can bet that kids wouldn’t be allowed to skip school and hold protests on the street.

Source: Pro-Palestine protesters ignore history — and their own causes pay the price

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Tasha Kheiriddin: Re-election is more important to Trudeau than supporting Canadian Jews

2023/10/27 Leave a comment

A bit over the top but yes, diaspora communities influence all parties and governments. But I fully expect the PM will visit Café Landwer and his initial messaging was strong. But of course the changing demographics have an impact. That 23 Liberal MPs called for an immediate ceasefire, along with recent mixed messaging, reflects, in part, that there are 114 ridings where Muslims form more than 5 percent of the population, compared to 13 ridings where Jews form more than 5 percent:

The Israel-Hamas War has shocked the world on many levels: the brutality of the Oct. 7 attacks against Israeli civilians, the propagation of disinformation by supposedly reputable news outlets, and the overt antisemitism on display in academia, politics and public demonstrations. The concept of decolonization, so fashionable in left-wing circles, has been turned against a people who for over a millennium have been persecuted, stateless, and the victim of racial hatred. Yet today, Jews are being cast as villains, in a manner that would make even Shakespeare blush.

In Canada, the conflict has also done something else. It has definitively exposed the true motivations for Liberal government’s seemingly incoherent and milquetoast foreign policy. Instead of standing for principle and the interests of our nation and its allies, the Trudeau Doctrine is dictated by diaspora politics and his party’s re-election prospects. This is true not only of its positioning on the current conflict, but on every major foreign policy issue in the past year.

It began with the Liberals trying at all costs to avoid a public inquiry into Chinese electoral interference. In February 2023, the Globe and Mail broke the story of how China implemented a sophisticated strategy to engineer the return of a Liberal minority government and defeat opposition Conservative politicians in the 2021 election. Allegations about this had been swirling for months, including reports on Chinese interference in the previous 2019 election.

But instead of seeking answers, Trudeau sought cover. He appointed “special rapporteur” David Johnston to examine the issue, effectively kicking the can down the road. Months later, Johnston quit in disgrace when the House of Commons demanded he resign after he had conveniently concluded that interference claims were based on “limited and partial intelligence” and thus did not warrant an inquiry.

Yet months later, when Trudeau was given information by CSIS that the agency was “actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link”  between India and the killing of a Canadian Sikh separatist gunned down in the parking lot of a temple in Surrey, the government leapt into action.

Trudeau first raised the issue privately with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a G20 meeting in New Delhi. When that didn’t achieve the desired result, Trudeau publicly accused India of involvement in the crime in September, setting off a diplomatic firestorm that continues to burn. Canada’s trade mission to India was cancelled, 41 of our diplomats in India have been recalled, and our Indo-Pacific Strategy lies in ashes less than a year after it was unveiled.

Why did Trudeau act in such an incoherent way on these issues? Well, it’s math. A glance at the Canadian electoral map shows the importance of the Sikh and Chinese diaspora vote in both British Columbia and Ontario. There’s also the matter of Trudeau’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP, led by Jagmeet Singh, who was strongly supportive of Trudeau’s stance.

And now, as war rages once again in the Middle East, there’s the Muslim vote to worry about, in electoral districts in Scarborough and the 905 belt around Toronto, as well as in Montreal. With the Conservatives soaring in the polls, ridings like Mississauga-Lakeshore, which the Liberals kept in the past byelection, could be in jeopardy if Muslim voters switch allegiances or stay home.

So once again, Trudeau is letting domestic policy dictate foreign policy. And this time, he’s not only throwing the Jewish community under the bus, but the values Canadians cherish, including the protection of minorities from hatred. And this weekend provided yet another example of that.

On Oct. 21, Trudeau visited a mosque and tweeted, “As members of the Palestinian, Arab, and Black Muslim communities gathered for prayer yesterday, I wanted them to know this: We know you’re worried and hurting. We’re here for you. We will not stop advocating for civilians to be protected and for international law to be upheld.”

Yet on the same day, a Jewish-owned business in Toronto was targeted by protesters waving Palestinian flags and screaming to boycott the “Zionist café.” Social media was flooded with images of hundreds of people mobbing the windows of Cafe Landwer while frightened patrons sat helplessly inside.

Trudeau’s response? We’re still waiting.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Re-election is more important to Trudeau than supporting Canadian Jews

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Diversity and inclusion on campus after the Hamas attacks – Inside Higher Ed

2023/10/25 Leave a comment

Reflections worthy of note, particularly the question: “How can campuses sustain some semblance of civility, forbearance and open-mindedness in the face of deep political and ideological divides?”

No easy answer but the last few weeks have demonstrated the necessity:

As tensions on elite college campuses flare in the wake of the deadly Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, and as many students and faculty members take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many worry that the earlier talk about diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion has turned out to be a fraud.

It’s easy, at this fraught historical moment, to worry that tolerance and pluralism on campus are fraying and that antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of ethnic tribalism, stoked by ideologues, extremists and zealots, threaten to rip our campuses apart.

Every day seems to bring another account of students assaulted on a campus for their political views or their religious identity and of fliers and posters being ripped down. We even have reports of a professor at major university expressing “exhilaration” about the flaring violence in the Holy Land and another “ruminating about killing ‘zionist journalists who spread propaganda & misinformation.’”

Isn’t that what we mean by a hostile educational environment?

You don’t need to be Jewish to worry about the circulation of antisemitic tropes, memes and sentiments on campuses and social media. Meanwhile, many Muslim students feel that their concerns and viewpoints are downplayed, disdained or dismissed.

All this is especially shocking because campuses, in recent years, have placed such a high premium on diversity and multiculturalism and campus leaders have expressed such a strong commitment to facilitating “difficult dialogues.”

Much of the public conversation of what’s occurring on campus has been framed in terms of free speech, doxing and faculty members’ right to academic freedom. But I think there’s an even more pressing issue: How can campuses sustain some semblance of civility, forbearance and open-mindedness in the face of deep political and ideological divides?

I myself fear far less about the future of free speech on campus than whether all students will feel welcomed and supported when their political or religious views or identities or personal opinions differ from their classmates’. I have witnessed intellectual bullying, guilt-mongering and deliberate provocations within my own classrooms. Those problems aren’t simply a Fox News–fueled fantasy.

I will offer some suggestions about what campuses can and should do to support a more inclusive campus environment, but before I do, I’d like to take a few moments to discuss the broader issue of tolerance, assimilation and pluralism in American history.

This topic presents us with a paradox. On the one hand, this country has had a long history of nativism, xenophobia and discrimination against outsider groups, punctuated by rancorous and ongoing debates over immigration policy. On the other hand, it’s also the case that the United States has been more successful than almost any other society in absorbing and integrating immigrants. I think it’s indisputable that, for all its failings, by almost every measure, including interracial and interethnic marriage, this society has made genuine progress in becoming more inclusive.

This makes the apparent decline in mutual acceptance on campus all that much more worrisome.

During the 20th century, the United States was described, at various times, as:

  • A melting pot, where immigrant groups shed their distinctive identities and melt into a single, unified culture.
  • A salad bowl, a metaphor that suggests that the United States consists of distinct cultural groups that maintain a unique identity while co-existing side by side and contributing to the nation’s character.
  • A nation of nations, in which each group retains its autonomy but all are united under a shared national identity.
  • A tapestry, with ethnic group maintaining its own distinctive characteristics, yet woven together to create a vibrant mixture of languages, traditions, music, foods and art.
  • A kaleidoscope, as a continually shifting pattern of cultures that change and re-form into new patterns, emphasizing the dynamism of American cultural interactions.

There are those, like John Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur, who described an American as a “new man” who is distinctively individualistic, self-reliant, pragmatic and hardworking. Free to pursue self-defined goals, this new man rejects the ideological zeal and fixed identities that had characterized the Old World.

Then there are those who stress acculturation, the process through which individuals and groups absorb and adopt elements of the larger society. This doesn’t necessarily mean they fully assimilate; they can certainly maintain aspects of their original culture. And yet the tendency is to gradually adopt the customs, values and norms of the dominant culture—as a result, their original cultural identity fades or disappears.

Then, too, there are those who view the pressures for conformity and homogeneity much more negatively. This perspective looks at how schools, employers, mass media and the legal and political systems work together to suppress diversity and impose a high degree of cultural and linguistic uniformity—even as they nominally celebrate multiculturalism in cultural expression, dress, food and religion.

Assimilationist pressures can come from within or without: from a desire for social acceptance and belonging or economic advancement. From intermarriage, peer pressure, media influences and expectations in school and the workplace. From secularization, mass culture and consumerism, which have also contributed to a homogenized American identity.

Assimilation is, of course, a spectrum, not a binary outcome. Immigrants can adopt certain elements of American culture while retaining aspects of their original culture. I’d argue that the willingness to accept hybrid cultural identities, practices and traditions that has made assimilation easier.

Nor is American culture static. It is dynamic, undergoing a continual process of adaptation and change. In fact, one of American society’s distinctive features is a certain kind of cultural fluidity, adaptability and absorbative capacity.

Unlike France, the Western European country that, historically, was the most open to immigration, but which was also the most insistent on assimilation, the United States has been far less resolute in demanding that immigrants acculturate and its consumer industries far more eager to incorporate elements from the newcomers’ cultures, from foodways to music. Of course, this process was less a matter of cultural exchange than of cultural appropriation. The fact that the company previously known as Dunkin’ Donuts is the country’s larger purvey of bagels is telling.

Among this society’s most striking paradoxes is that largely in the absence of intensive “Americanization” campaigns, immigrants’ offspring became, within two generations, largely indistinguishable in attitudes, dress, language and politics from native-born Americans. Whether this pattern will persist in an age when it is far easier than in the past to maintain ties with one’s culture of origin remains uncertain. But rates of intermarriage suggest that it very well might.

It’s essential to emphasize that acculturation and assimilation co-existed with persistent discrimination and inequalities along lines of skin color. The burgeoning literature on the historical, social, legal and cultural construction of whiteness; on white privilege in terms of law enforcement, job prospects and access to educational opportunities, loans and health care; and on the normalization and invisibility of whiteness (and heterosexuality and maleness) as an identity remind us that identities are both fluid and profoundly consequential.

Which brings me to the topic of today: What can colleges and universities do to create a more civil and inclusive campus environment? After all, they’ve already taken certain obvious steps. Senior leadership has expressed a clear commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion and has asserted that these principles lie at the core of their institution’s mission and values. Campuses have mandated diversity training and established protocols for reporting instances of discrimination, harassment and bias.

In addition, institutions have incorporated multicultural perspectives into the curriculum, established cultural centers to support diverse students’ needs and promoted international food fairs and other activities and events to celebrate diversity. Many have acknowledged their historical ties to slavery, racism, colonialism, eugenics and other problematic aspects of their past and, as a result, have removed statues, renamed buildings and engaged in acts of restorative justice.

Nothing wrong with any of that. But, obviously, these steps haven’t been sufficient.

Not surprisingly, many wealthy donors want something more. As The New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat has written in a piece entitled “Why Big Money Can’t Easily Change Campus Politics,” many of these donors strongly object to the leftward ideological drift on elite campuses and the “administrative temporizing over the proper response to Hamas’s massacre of Israeli civilians and pro-Hamas statements by certain student groups.”

However, Douthat is right: their efforts to pressure college presidents and boards of regents are doomed to failure because, in the columnist’s words, an ideologically conformist, increasingly left-wing professoriate controls the curriculum, hiring and tenure and, he would no doubt add, an even a more staunchly progressive student life staff shapes the campus’s culture. The best donors can do, in Douthat’s opinion, is to:

  • Found or fund centers or institutes or programs or individual faculty members committed to heterodoxy and intellectual diversity and liberal ideals in some form.
  • Support smaller and poorer mission-driven institutions where their money might actually make a difference.
  • Give funds to student groups that do help those students who feel embattled and besieged and especially to student organizations that foster free debate.

Sounds good to me.

But let me add two other recommendations.

First, the college curriculum needs to treat diversity in a much more holistic, nuanced and comparative manner, especially at the lower-division level.

My students took U.S. history in fifth, eighth and 11th grades. I believe that they’d be better served by a course that looked systematically at various subcultures’ histories, traditions, values and challenges from a comparative vantage point and that looks at how these subcultures have interacted over time.

Wouldn’t undergraduates benefit from learning more, again from a comparative perspective, about these groups’ struggles for advancement and equality and the barriers they encountered?

Certainly, any course in comparative ethnic studies must avoid stereotyping, superficiality, tokenistic inclusivity and crude politicization. For some critiques of current approaches that lack the level of depth that I favor, see here and here. What we need instead is an approach that is truly analytical, fully inclusive and genuinely comparative.

Second, our campuses need to focus much more attention on local needs. I don’t believe there is a better way to foster a sense of community and connection on campus than by cultivating a shared commitment to addressing the problems that surround our institutions. Here’s how to do this:

  • Conduct a community-needs assessment. Identify the educational, environmental, health and other social problems and challenges that neighboring communities face.
  • Support research projects that address specific local challenges involving education, public health and environmental issues.
  • Increase engagement with local schools by offering tutoring programs, after-school activities, enrichment programs and mentorship opportunities.
  • Address local public health and social service issues and local environmental concerns by working with various local service providers.
  • Embed service-learning opportunities across the curriculum, for example, by awarding credit for community service in local schools, clinics and shelters or providing research and technology support to local organizations.
  • Host community events, forums, debates, workshops and theatrical events, art exhibitions and other performances on campus to foster constructive dialogue.
  • Expand continuing education opportunities tailored to the needs of the local community, including adult education classes, vocational training, English language courses and workshops on various topics, from computer literacy to financial planning, tailored to the needs of the community.
  • Research and acknowledge historical town-gown tensions and work toward reconciliation and trust-building.

Nothing I suggest here will address campus tensions over Middle East policy or the sense among many Jewish and Muslim students that their concerns are insufficiently acknowledged. But collaboration on issues of local concern might well advance cross-campus cooperation and communication, which are the essential underpinnings for positive interactions.

Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin.

Source: Diversity and inclusion on campus after the Hamas attacks – Inside Higher Ed

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →