The protest surrounding the Middle East Activism 102 workshop on Saturday seemingly came out of nowhere, but had roots as deep as the Israel-Palestine conflict itself.
Three weeks ago, faculty members began to contact President Bennet and the Board of Trustees about fears that the conference would foster anti-Semitism. Students called administration officials and discussed their concerns among themselves. At one point the American Zionist group Dafka called for their members to attend the conference and protest the “hate fest against Israel and Jews.”
In the midst of it all, Students for a Free Palestine (SFP) and other organizing groups defended the conference, asserting that it was not intended to be political. However, it clearly ended up raising one of the most volatile modern political questions.
The conference’s alleged goal was to provide activism skills for pro-Palestinian activists. It was criticized for hosting speakers who had been accused of anti-Semitism in the past.
“In light of the rising hate crimes in the United States and abroa—hat is Wesleyan doing?” wrote Professor of East Asian Studies Vera Schwarcz in a Wespeak last Friday. “Why are we giving space, voice and legitimacy to acts of vicious defamation?”
Professor of Biology William Firshein wrote letters to the Board of Trustees and Bennet in the week preceding the conference, likening the viewpoints expressed by conference facilitators to those of American racist organizations.
“I am certain [President Bennet] would never permit a meeting of students who were supported by neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan to take place here, as they would spew forth racist slanders about minorities,” Firschein wrote in a letter to Board of Trustees Chair Alan Dachs, “Nevertheless, in effect he is allowing such anti-Semitic hate speech to occur with respect to the Jewish people.”
SFP responded to the accusations by protecting their conference with the right of free speech. In a Wespeak last Friday the organization called on critics and attendees to respect the intentions of the conference.
“We had assumed the conference would be held without coming under fire from the Wesleyan community: the conference is not intended to be a debate, but a learning experience,” the Wespeak read. “However, unfounded, racist charges have been made against SFP’s intentions in holding ‘Activism 102.’ ”
As the conference date loomed, discussion among campus groups resulted in official responses from several campus leaders.
University Jewish Chaplain David Leipziger sent an email to the Jewish community listserv calling on students to open themselves to the opinions the conference and surrounding issues may present.
“Let us not be afraid of controversy, let us embrace it,” Leipziger wrote. “But to embrace this issue, we should commit ourselves to learning more and hearing multiple points of view.”
Friday evening, after speaking with several concerned faculty members and students, Bennet sent an email to the entire campus expressing confidence in the conference’s ability to avoid the anti-Semitism and racism others feared.
“I have every confidence that the Wesleyan community can avoid this risk, and I call on outside participants to meet Wesleyan standards as an academic institution,” Bennet said in his email. “This university places its faith in the student body and its faculty to make room for all opinions, even if some are viewed as extreme. Wesleyan has no room for bigotry.”
When the conference began Saturday morning, the hundreds of supporters Dafka had called upon to attend in protest were not present, but organizers and attendees alike recognized the potentially controversial atmosphere.
SFP started by reading a list of ground-rules that included Wesleyan’s non-academic code of conduct, which prohibits discrimination of any kind.
“Being a group that stands against racism, there would not have been attacks against any group of people,” said Angela Saad ’05, speaking for SFP. “There would not have been anything anti-Jewish.”
“It’s ridiculous that they’re putting in this threat,” said SFP member Javier Gaston- Greenberg ’05. “We’re trying to separate that idea [that] to be pro-Jewish or to be not anti-Semitic means to be Zionist. Today hopefully will open up debate. What we ask is for people not to be disruptive in what our goal is today.”
The Zionist movement stands for the right of a Jewish state in Israel.
“There are people who would like to make the case that anti-Zionism does not equate with anti-Semitism because they’re searching very deeply for a way to be able to be anti-Semitic without having the label of anti-Semitism attached to it,” said Todd Stock ’05, a Kol Israel member who spoke out against the conference in the week preceding it. “There should be no debate about it.”
“The country of Israel is like any other country,” said Mazin Qumsiych, media co-chair for the Palestian Right to Return Coalition/Al-Awda. “It deserves to be scrutinized for the actions it takes, including racist actions against native people. The Israel that did that does not represent Jews in the world, does not represent many of the Jews at this conference.”
Many attendees agreed that there were no anti-Semitic opinions presented.
“I had no idea what to expect, but I definitely didn’t see any anti-Semitism at the conference at all,” said Zach Strassburger ’06.
While Stock said he personally did not notice anti-Semitism, he remained critical of the people and organizations involved in the event.
“The types of things that we were worried about were not unfounded,” Stock said. “Some of the very groups that came here are groups where, in the past, anti-Semitism has come out of.”
Based on the allegations of anti-Semitism, some called on pro-Israel activists to acknowledge the possibility of racism on their own part.
“It is blatantly racist that many at Wesleyan demand pro-Palestinians prove they are not anti-Semitic, while Jewish community members are rarely asked to demonstrate that they do not hold prejudice against Palestinians,” said SFP member Lily Haskell ’04.
Patrick Connor, a volunteer with the pro-Palestinian organization International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who spoke at the conference, responded to the specific allegation made by Kol Israel that ISM was linked to a terrorist bombing in Tel Aviv.
“ISM has no relation with the attack,” Connor said. “At one point during their week in Israel and the occupied territory, [the attackers] happened to go to the ISM office in Rafa. They’re among hundreds of people that ISM people meet during their time there. Then to everybody’s complete surprise and dismay they carried out this suicide bombing. It’s a ridiculous accusation, and it’s a way of trying to smear a non-violent group.”
Though the end result of the conference was primarily an education in activist skills for pro-Palestinian activists, the conflicts that surrounded it continue to resonate.
“It wasn’t really an ideologically focused conference,” said SFP member Mike Butterfield ’06. “The conference was focused on political positioning …If we had been an environmental group and done the same workshops, nobody would have cared. The key word was Palestinian.”
Firshein has continued to criticize Bennet and others for not discussing the conference more extensively before allowing it to take place.
“I just condemn the faculty here for not standing up for what is right,” Firshein said. “It’s not a matter of free speech, it’s a matter of destroying a democracy in the Middle East. This should not have happened without further discussion and I’m still angry.”
Both Kol Israel and Students for Free Palestine have suggested they are open to a political discussion following the conference, but plans have not yet been made for such a dialogue.
Following the intense debate about the event that took place primarily through Wespeaks and emails, Leipziger suggested that campus groups explore more open routes of communication.
“We do not have good models for conflict resolution on this campus,” Leipziger said. “Whoever screams the loudest gets heard. As long as people do not acknowledge the other side, we’re going to keep having dialogues and monologues with ourselves. Violence will be stopped in the Middle East when people put their heads together and learn to dialogue. We’re not there yet.”
Leave a Reply