Why is it that every time an administrator from the University of California opens their mouth about social protest they immediately insert their feet?
First it was UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau claiming that student protestors who linked arms were "not non-violent." Next it was UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi claiming that by pitching tents on the campus quad, student protestors had left her "no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal," resulting in the infamous pepper spray assault.
Now it is Mark Yudof, president of the entire University of California, claiming that protests against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza constitute "hateful incidents" on par with defacing LGBT centers or painting swastikas on campus buildings.
President Yudof thus confuses protest against the policies of the state of Israel with racism against Jews.
By this logic, student protests against the segregationist policies of southern states during the civil rights movement would be considered "hateful events" against whites, while protests against Serbian policies in Bosnia would be considered "hateful events" against Serbs.
The Israeli state is not synonymous with the Jewish people, and criticism of its policies and actions do not constitute hatred against Jews. The state of Israel is just as valid a target of criticism as any other state in the world, including the U.S.
It is not surprising that some defenders of Israeli state policies try to portray criticism of these policies as hate speech against Jews. This tactic has been used very effectively in this matter for many years. What is surprising and shocking is that the president of the University of California would echo this view uncritically. It seems like President Yudof could benefit from some basic undergraduate classes on the campuses over which he presides.
For more information on the incidents in question and President Yudof's letter, see the excellent statement by California Scholars for Academic Freedom, a group of 150 scholars at twenty California institutions of higher learning.
It's difficult to be in any position of authority and to be in charge. Cut the guy a little slack. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't be so disrespectful.
Also, Mr. Ostertag, I urge you to look for the line between constructive criticism and delegitimization/demonization of the state of Israel. Whether or not these acts are anti-semitic - that's a whole other point. It IS acceptable socially and legally to disagree with and criticize any other country's policies, but there is no room in our beautiful, free country for anything over that line. As America's strongest democratic ally, Israel should not be subject to any double standard.
UC Berkeley Birgeneau ($450,000 salary) has forgotten he is a public servant, steward of the public money, not overseer of his own fiefdom. Tuition fee increases exceed national average rate of increase; On an all-in-cost Cal. ranked # 1 most expensive public university; Recruits (using California tax $) out of state & foreign affluent $50,600 tuition students who displace qualified instate applicants from Cal; Spends $7,000,000 + for OE consultants to do the work of his management team (prominent East Coast university accomplishing same at 0 cost); When procuring OE consultants failed to receive alternative proposals; Pays ex Michigan governor $300,000 for several lectures; Tuition to Return on Investment drops below top 10; QS academic ranking falls below top 10.
In tough economic times, unpleasant decisions must be made. UC Board of Regents Chair Lansing must oust Chancellor Birgeneau
Email opinion to marsha.kelman@ucop.edu
(The author has 35 years’ consulting, has taught at Cal where he observed the culture & ways of senior management & was not fired)
“University campuses are proper venues for collisions of ideas and viewpoints. Conflicting viewpoints not only are inevitable but also healthy in this context.
“What is not acceptable are acts meant to disrupt the speech of others. What is not acceptable are hate-driven physical and, yes, verbal attacks on any group or individual that are meant to silence or intimidate those who would express differing opinions.”
The full text of his statement is available at: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/27279
Yudolf would have zero grounds for objection if the nature of the protests that he's commenting about were as simple as Ostertag paints them as. They aren't.
IAW protests commonly include posters equalizing Stars of David with swastikas, mock checkpoints that include acting out summary executions and infanticide, and defacement of Israeli flags. There's a difference between acceptable and unacceptable rhetoric, and while both are protected under the first amendment, the latter does not need to be accepted by U.C. personale.
Yudolf is not objecting to the protests wholesale, but to the actions that are commonplace at most of them.
The Jews are the most powerful people in California, and hold the most powerful lobby in the entire country, so to say that people are getting away with "commonly" comparing swastikas to the star of david with no press attention is laughable.
The Palestinian dove on the a wall that depicts minorities in UC Davis was defaced with the Star of David with no action taken. Where was Yudof's objections to that?