2008 Woodie Awards
DeGioia right to avoid murky statement
- Page 1 of 1
Recently, University President John J. DeGioia declined to sign a statement against intimidation in debate on college campus. The statement, initiated by six university presidents and sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, noted a rise in anti-Jewish and anti-Israel incidents on college campuses and declared the signatories commitment to investigating and punishing incidents of violence, threats and libel. According to University spokesperson Julie Green Bataille, President DeGioia chose not to sign the statement because it did not go far enough in decrying discrimination and intimidation against all groups. President DeGioia's decision was the correct one.
The goals of the statement are laudable. As a university, Georgetown must constantly renew its commitment to safe and open debate and free expression. Unfortunately, the focus and context in which the letter has been disseminated give it political connotations beyond its words, making it an inappropriate venue for our president to express his disgust with bigotry of any form.
Importantly, the statement does not offer a clear definition of what is considered appropriate expression. In particular, the statement says, "posters and websites displaying libelous information or images have been widely circulated, creating an atmosphere of intimidation." Libelous, in this context, can mean a lot — anything from the most gross and offensive anti-Semitic materials to the statement "Israel murders Palestinians."
The issue is the distinction between politically motivated speech or actions against Israeli policy and those motivated by anti-Semitism. In any situation as inflamed and passion-filled as that in the Middle East, the lines between debate, propaganda, intimidation and hatred are quickly blurred. It is important to note the most of those supporting the Palestinian cause today are neither anti-Semitic nor necessarily anti-Israel. The current surge of support for the Palestinian cause is in large a direct result of the perception that Israeli actions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip indiscriminately target Palestinian civilians rather than those who perpetrate attacks against Israel.
While the validity of that perception is the very subject of the debate, painting those who honestly disagree with and oppose Israel's actions in the same light as those who would wish for the destruction of Israel or the Jewish people is unfair. While they all could be wrong, most of them are not bigots. The two should not be intermingled.
Supporters of the statement, however, do exactly that. In an essay on the American Jewish Committee website, Kenneth Stern writes "Why Campus Anti-Israel Activity Flunks Bigotry 101." A list of campus "Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel" events on the Anti-Defamation League website places any sort of pro-Palestinian demonstration on the same page as an incident in which pro-Israel demonstrators in San Francisco were told to "Go back to Russia" and that "Hitler didn't finish the job." This implies that any student who demonstrates against Israeli actions in the West Bank is on the same moral spectrum as one who would support the murder of an entire race.
There have been a number of truly anti-Semitic and despicable incidents on campuses. The purpose of this editorial is not to downplay the seriousness of those incidents. Georgetown itself is not immune to the threat of bigotry. Our University's experience, however, speaks to the dangers of bigotry in general rather than bigotry against any group in particular. As well as incidents of vandalism against Jewish symbols such as the menorah, Georgetown has also seen attacks on its Muslim prayer room. In these cases, however, our community has rallied around the violated party, as was the proper response. When it has come to the Israel-Palestine struggle, however, protests on campus have been loud, extreme, shocking and, arguably, occasionally inappropriately timed, but they have not been anti-Semitic.
Violence and vandalism of any sort have no place on campuses, not to mention the world at large. "Libelous" speech, however, is the nature of politics and is only more prevalent the more impassioned a debate becomes. Part of becoming an educated person is learning to distinguish between truth and falsehood in even the most complicated debate. The Israel-Palestine issue has provided Georgetown students with a trying test of that ability.
In such a complicated debate, then, by signing a statement that discusses only anti-Israeli actions without reference to specific incidents and is sponsored by an organization that arguably conflates legitimate, though radical, political speech with bigoted and violent speech, university presidents risk associating themselves with a political cause rather than a moral stance. We hope that Georgetown will uphold the ideals of the statement, but in avoiding the morass of its specifics, President DeGioia has made the right choice.