www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic College Revokes Desmond Tutu Invitation

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1463394.html

I'm curious what everyone's views on the discussion of American-Israeli relations and anti-Semitism.

When is it and how do you approach the question of Israeli policies without being labeled an anti-Semite?

Nathan

I do think we mollycoddle the jewish community a bit too much when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians. Not that the Palestinians have been complete angels, but it seems that anything goes and in the academic world it seems to be taboo to say anything against either Israel or the jewish community.But it's about money and votes, not justice.

It's tough when there is injustice on both sides. I would be careful.

How many car-bombs have there been since the walls and checkpoints were built? I remember them being far more frequent.

From the article,

"In addition, Cris Toffolo, an associate professor who supported inviting the South African archbishop and activist was removed as director of the St. Paul university's justice and peace studies program in August."

Clearly this is political.

And then...

A Jewish faculty member defends Tutu's right to speak,

"Marv Davidov, a longtime peace activist who teaches at St. Thomas, expressed dismay that Tutu had not been invited and that Toffolo had lost her position. "I am Jewish, and stifling debate and dissent [and] criticism of Israel is a disservice to all Jews, the state of Israel and the American people," he said."

It is sad that the University lacks the moral courage to facilitate honest debate. Have they invited any pro-choice speakers lately? I would sincerely hope that with such stringent standards they would at least be rejecting those who actually promote things against Catholic doctrine and not merely those who offend a special interest group that is hypersensitive to any just criticism of Israel. Or maybe it is all about money if you just have enough doners willing to call up the President of the University and say, "If Tutu comes, no more donations?"

Joe

I must preface this with saying I am a convert to Christianity from Judaism and still consider myself ethnically Jewish and and proud of my heritage. That being said I see nothing wrong with Desmond Tutu speaking at the University. I may not agree with some of his sentiments but that I or other Jews (religious and or ethnic) might get offended by his mere presence is hogwash. I am not in the least offended by him, and I know others who share the same thoughts on him, his statements aren't galvanizing people against Israel but are just statements on his personal views. In addition to this many Jews who have become Christian are saddened by Israel's treatment of us and Christians. Just think back to the early 2000's when a group of ROCOR religious were evicted from their house by the Israeli-troops in favor of the ROC community. Or something that touches all Jews gone Christian is our essential birthright of being able to assume Israeli citizenship due to our ancestry is being denied to us as we are "apostates" when many of those in Israel are not regularly practicing the Jewish faith as it is. One final thought on all of this is that the Palestinian Christians is Israel are treated awfully by the government (think about Bethlehem). Israel has some serious problems to be held accountable for just as the Palestinians do. Tutu's views on the conflict should be most welcome so as to have a balance in the rhetoric on the subject in America. Sorry is this seemed non-cohesive sometimes I just rant and rave.

Shalom!

Hersch

Hersch, thanks for your thought here. I think these are hard issues. I think it is unfortunate the invitation to Bishop Tutu was withdrawn. I appreciate your courage as a Jewish Christian to make the statements you do here.

I'm not Jewish in either sense, but I certainly objected when the Archbishop justified the ANC's detonation of a car bomb in traffic in South Africa during the '80s -- not exactly the work of a churchman....

--------
Western Orthodoxy Blog [westernorthodox.blogspot.com]

Regardless of Desmond Tutu's views and how sound or unsound they are, there's no reason for him not to be able to come and speak here.

If this is to be the case, then much of the Israeli and Zionist establishment merits being barred from campuses as well.

I'm a Jewish convert to the Church and a former Zionist.

Regards,
Robster

I do agree that the bishop's justification of such an act was most unbecoming for a bishop.

I think that a big problem for the left is that they decry oppression by right wing regimes, but some of them justify violence by oppressed people. This is not the teaching of Christ.

In this sense, a model bishop would be Oscar Romero; he challenged and prophesied against injustice and the status quo, but did not justify violence in pursuit of liberation.

he is a true saint.

I just wanted to respond the the second of Nathan's questions on how to respond to Israeli policies without being labeled as an anti-Semite. The answer in a nutshell is that it is impossible to respond in the negative in any way whatsoever about Israeli policies without being labeled by some (no matter how few) as an anti-Semite. Israel is a sensitive subject for many in Judaism as many of us have family in the moshavs, kibbutz,or larger cities over there (myself included). The only way one can discuss Israel or Israeli aggression is to do so calmly and slowly, measure the weight of your words before you speak them. It is even very difficult for Jews to discuss them amongst ourselves as there are many on both sides of this issue within Judaism itself. I hope this has helped.

Shalom,

Hersch

Perhaps the University of St. Thomas was just being prudent. Desmond Tutu offends one side by speaking negatively about Israel, and another side by supporting abortion. Of course, if the University was to say that the reason he is banned is because his view on abortion is unbecoming of a prelate - they'd get the flak.. by saying that the reason he's banned is because it offends a minority group, I think it shields them from any real vitriol. A bit backhanded? Yes. and sneaky too.

Thanks for the responses.

I guess my take on academia is that speakers from opposing views should be allowed to speak, but not just given a platform to espouse their views without discussion. The recent Columbian Univesity event with the Iranian President for example. Even though I wish they would have debated the president with a little more class, I thought they had the right idea of challenging the beliefs of the Iranian President and making him look a bit foolish.

I think universities are places where all ideas should be open to debate (or discussion), and the students should not be shielded from ideas that are deemed to be evil, but rather they should be able to discuss why the church, university, society, or other students believe the ideas are wrong.

Just my two cents for what it's worth.

But if the speaker is brought into the university with donor-supplied funds, then that changes the whole balance. I don't know about this case in particular, but speaking invitations usually come with travel & hotel compensation and speaking fees.

A university in that situation would have every right to change their mind if a speaker were to upset their private donors and public image.

Terry

Dear friends,

I would prefer to see institutions err on the side of academic freedom. Our ideas and values should be able to withstand public debate. We should be able to listen to those we disagree with.

There are things I do not agree with Bishop Tutu on- his theological liberalism, his stances on abortion and homosexuality. I do not know enough about his views on Israel. Sometimes, people are considered anti-semitic if they support the rights of Palestinians, or criticizes public policies of Israel.

I do admire that Bishop Tutu was a spokesman against apartheid during that turbulent period of the 1980's. He was a prophet for his people in their struggle, and I honor that.

I do not like his rationalize for violence. I prefer the stance of someone like Oscar Romero, who fulfilled a similar role in El Salvador. He did not support the use of violence because it goes against the teaching of Christ.

I think, as an Academic, that Nathan has hit the nail on the head.

Although a college/university has a church background, by claiming "university/college" status, it has an obligation to the ideals of the university: "universitas" = "all things considered".

The university/college must be a place where any and all are received to expound their views and subject them to scrutiny. This is the absolute foundation of research and scholarship that constitutes the reason for a university's existence.

To 'ban' somebody at a university is to chip away at the very essence of the institution. If the 'powers that be' are frightened at what might be said or debated so as to bar someone, they give credence to the accusation that the 'university' is merely a mouthpiece for one or another agenda. And all of its 'scholarship' and 'studies' are therefore suspect as being agenda-driven. How sad.

Letting people speak to express a value-driven perspective (like Bishop Oscar Romero, for example) allows the community to both understand and debate the values that are presented.

And the "Truth" will prevail!!

Dr John