Pro-Israel professor harassed and defamed

May 8th, 2013
Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

For some years, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin has been almost the sole faculty voice in the University of California system speaking out against harassment of Jewish students who support Israel. Here is an excerpt from a complaint she filed with the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights in 2009:

Professors, academic departments and residential colleges at [The University of California, Santa Cruz] promote and encourage anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish views and behavior, much of which is based on either misleading information or outright falsehoods. In addition, rhetoric heard in UCSC classrooms and at numerous events sponsored and funded by academic and administrative units on campus goes beyond legitimate criticism of Israel.  The rhetoric – which demonizes Israel, compares contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calls  for the dismantling of the Jewish State, and holds Israel to an impossible double standard – crosses the line into anti-Semitism according to the standards employed by our own government. …

The impact of the academic and university-sponsored Israel-bashing on students has been enormous.  There are students who have felt emotionally and intellectually harassed and intimidated, to the point that they are reluctant or afraid to express a view that is not anti-Israel.

In the snake pit of academia, where unfashionable explicit Jew-hatred has morphed into enthusiastic and widespread over-the-top anti-Zionism, Rossman-Benjamin stands out — even among pro-Israel faculty members, most of whom are happy to  keep their mouths shut and their noses clean for the sake of promotions and tenure.

Now it seems that her enemies have decided to make an example of her, attributing to her the worst possible sins — the 21st century equivalent of witchcraft — racism and Islamophobia.

In the fantasy world of our universities, being accused of crimes against political correctness can get you in big trouble. And there is a degree of viciousness there that those of us who live on Earth and have real jobs can barely imagine. Rossman-Benjamin recently wrote a letter to University of California President Mark Yudoff, where she wrote in part,

… I have recently come under a vicious and unjustified personal attack from a pro-Palestinian student group on my campus, the Committee for Justice in Palestine (CJP) and members of affiliated Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) groups on other UC campuses. They claim that I made “openly racist” and “Islamophobic” comments about the SJP and Muslim Students Association (MSA) during a talk I gave at a synagogue near Boston last summer. …

Most recently, in response to a 2-minute video clip taken from a much longer video of my talk last summer, the UCSC CJP and affiliated SJP groups on other UC campuses have not simply voiced dissent but waged a virulent and harmful campaign to assassinate my character that includes: posting and promoting a defamatory on-line petition accusing me of racism and censorship and calling on you to condemn me; widely posting defamatory flyers about me on the UCSC campus; launching over a dozen videos about me on YouTube that wrongfully accuse me of being “hateful,” “dangerous,” and “Islamophobic;” instructing SJP students UC-wide to fill out hate/bias reports against me on their respective campuses; passing libelous resolutions condemning me for my “inflammatory, hateful, and racist assumptions” in the UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and UC Irvine student senates; and, perhaps most egregiously, appearing to collaborate with groups sympathetic to terrorists (e.g. the International Solidarity Movement) and associated on-line publications (e.g. Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss) to more widely circulate these defamatory materials about me.

Please understand that the CJP/SJP’s targeted and well-orchestrated campaign of intimidation, harassment, and defamation has caused me to feel real concern for my safety and my ability to carry out my responsibilities as a faculty member at UCSC.

It is no longer remarkable that supporters of the most racist, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant, anti-free-speech and violent forces in the world today — for example, Hamas — take shelter behind Western concern for the complete opposite of all of those. They are expert at the game of political correctness (here is another example). At the same time, their behavior conveys veiled physical threats against their targets.

I find it interesting to recall the atmosphere on campus when I went to school, before the upheavals of the mid-1960’s. One significant difference was the attitude of the Jewish students, who weren’t cowed and apologetic, still not having been beaten into submission to the idea that the Jewish state was an evil, apartheid, Nazi-like oppressor of ‘indigenous’ brown Palestinians. How this happened is a long story, but there certainly is no hope for reversing it if the few faculty members who can serve as models and mentors for Jewish students are intimidated or even driven out.

Check out Rossman-Benjamin’s request for letters of support here.

Previous posts about Tammi Rossman-Benjamin are here and here.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

 

Outrageously one-sided Chinese proposal needs lots of work

May 7th, 2013
PLO's Abbas meets XI Jinping this week in Beijing

PLO’s Abbas meets XI Jinping this week in Beijing

I’ve heard suggestions that Israel should be looking east for allies, rather than toward the US and Europe. Judging by the four point “peace plan” proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping while both PM Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas were in China, maybe that wouldn’t be such a good idea. Do we really need another plan that doesn’t mention recognition of Israel as a Jewish state?

Here are the four points, with a few comments interspersed. You can decide for yourself if this represents a positive breakthrough.

First, the right direction to follow should be an independent Palestinian State and peaceful co-existence of Palestine and Israel. To establish an independent state enjoying full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital is an inalienable right of the Palestinian people and the key to the settlement of the Palestinian question. At the same time, Israel’s right to exist and its legitimate security concerns should also be fully respected.

Just in case we have any question about whether the Chinese are taking sides, the ‘Palestinian people’ have “inalienable rights” to specific territory while Israel has only a “right to exist.” The word ‘legitimate’ is ambiguous, too — does it mean that Israel’s concerns are legitimate, or does it mean that only ‘legitimate’ concerns should be ‘respected’?

As we know, there are no “1967 borders,” only 1949 armistice lines which neither side accepted as having any permanent significance, and which were understood by the drafters of UNSC resolution 242 as needing to be replaced by “secure and recognized” boundaries. And if ‘full sovereignty’ includes militarization and control of airspace, then that is simply inconsistent with Israel’s security.

Second, negotiation should be taken as the only way to peace between Palestine and Israel. The two sides should follow the trend of the times, pursue peace talks, show mutual understanding and accommodation, and meet each other half way. The immediate priority is to take credible steps to stop settlement activities, end violence against innocent civilians, lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip and properly handle the issue of Palestinian prisoners in order to create the necessary conditions for the resumption of peace talks. Comprehensive internal reconciliation on the part of Palestine will help restart and advance the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

Ending violence against innocent civilians, if this means stopping Arab terrorism, would be great. But keep in mind that the PLO promised — when it signed the Oslo accords, and received weapons, money and training for its ‘police force’ — to do just that. PLO-supported terrorism continued, before, during and after the murderous second intifada, under Arafat and Abbas, on both sides of the Green Line, and is even increasing today, giving rise to fears of a third intifada. So any agreement must include a way to ensure that the PLO would honor it, as well as a way to restrain Hamas and the other extremist factions.

I recall the ill-fated ‘Road Map‘, whose full name was “A Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” It called for “ending terror and violence” and stopping incitement as part of Phase I. Supposedly there would not be a Phase II if this didn’t happen. Of course it didn’t. Along the way, the idea of conditioning Israeli concessions on Palestinian performance seems to have been given up.

Regarding ‘settlement activities’: the argument has been that even if a ‘settler’ adds a bedroom onto his house within an existing settlement, then he is somehow creating facts on the ground which prejudice a future agreement with the Palestinians. This is illogical, considering that a) the settlement blocs where most Jews live are expected to remain part of Israel under any reasonable agreement, and b) there is established precedent for Israel withdrawing from inhabited settlements. But more important: Arabs, too, are building ‘settlements’, especially in Area C, the part of Judea/Samaria that is supposed to be under full Israeli control. Will they agree to stop their ‘activities’ as well? Because they are the ones creating facts on the ground today.

“Comprehensive internal reconciliation” is a lovely phrase, which means at least the integration of the belligerent, racist and genocidal Hamas into the Palestinian government. Since Hamas is the strongest and probably most popular force among the Arabs of the territories, it would probably lead to a complete takeover. The proper response to Hamas by all civilized peoples should be to reject and isolate it, not invite it to participate. I should add that removing the blockade to permit the import of missiles and other weapons is hardly conducive to peace.

The Chinese also seem to see a release of prisoners as a reasonable precondition. Perhaps they are used to the idea of political prisoners from their own case, but most security prisoners in Israeli jails are there for terrorist acts, of which they have been convicted according to due process (the Chinese could learn something from this).

Third, principles such as “land for peace” should be firmly upheld. The parties concerned ought to build on the existing achievements that include the principle of “land for peace,” the relevant UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative to advance the Middle East peace process across the board.

The idea of Land for Peace is pernicious. It could be rewritten, “your land or your life.” The contrapositive equivalent is “no land, no peace.” It ignores Israel’s historic rights under international law, assumes that Israelis or Jews do not have the right to live in the territories, and asserts that the penalty for doing so is war and terrorism. The Arab peace initiative makes precisely this kind of statement, placing blame for the conflict entirely on Israel and expecting Israel to bear all of the burden of resolving it.

Fourth, the international community should provide important guarantee [sic] for progress in the peace process. Relevant parties of the international community should have a greater sense of responsibility and urgency, take an objective and fair position, make vigorous efforts to encourage talks for peace, and increase assistance to Palestine in such fields as human resources training and economic development.

May I paraphrase: “Israel should be coerced by the ‘international community’ into agreeing to a disadvantageous settlement. Said community will also provide aid to ‘Palestine’, which as always will be used for weapons or to fatten the Swiss bank accounts of its leaders.”

The Chinese proposal gives nothing to Israel except a vague ‘right to exist’ — which of course is in not question regarding any other nation — and echoes PLO demands about borders, Jerusalem, and prisoners. Indeed, it could have been dictated by Mahmoud Abbas.

It almost certainly was. So what was Bibi doing in China?

Technorati Tags: , ,

Bombing Syrian weapons and Israel’s future

May 5th, 2013
These Syrian missiles did not make it to Lebanon (courtesy pietervanostaeyen)

These Syrian missiles did not make it to Lebanon (courtesy pietervanostaeyen)

I just watched some video of stuff blowing sky high in Syria.

I won’t add to the speculation about whether they are bombing weapons intended for Hizballah, chemical weapons, or “military research installations.” I do think we can say without fear of being wrong that it is Israel that is doing it, for the second time this week.

Yesterday, I listened in on a discussion about whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about Israel’s survival. My thought was: “I am guardedly optimistic.” Recent events make me feel even more so.

The way I see it, long term trends are mostly in Israel’s favor, although there are serious short-term threats that have to be overcome.

One of the most important of the long-term changes is the erosion of the Muslim oil monopoly. New sources of oil and gas in Canada, the US, China, even some in Israel, will make it harder for Israel’s enemies to pressure the West or Far East, and will reduce the amount of excess cash available to buy politicians and universities.

Although the Islamist takeover of Egypt is often placed in the negative column, the fact is that Egypt — once Israel’s most formidable enemy — is falling apart, as it proves that as far as running a country goes, Islam is not the answer. Egypt’s economic problems are immense, and it will be a long time before it will be capable of using its US-supplied weapons for anything other than putting down demonstrations.

While there has never been anything that united the Muslim Middle East more than hatred of Israel, today the ideological and religious issues dividing it are more important than ever.

Syria, another formerly formidable enemy, is cratering itself as we speak. Although there are justifiable fears that a radical Sunni regime even more hostile than Assad’s may take over, it appears that a decision has been taken in Jerusalem that it is the lesser evil compared to an Iranian/Hizballah takeover. Anyway, whoever follows Assad won’t inherit his massive arsenal, because it won’t be there at the end.

Assad’s exit — as long as Iran is kept out — will cut Hizballah off from its source of weapons, money and expertise. This is important because Hizballah is one of the main short-term threats I mentioned above.

War with Hizballah still seems probable, although less likely than before. In the event of war, its 60,000 missiles will have to go somewhere — I expect some will be destroyed on the ground, others will be launched and intercepted, and some will hit their targets. Hizballah also has built formidable defenses against ground attacks in South Lebanon, and even has plans for incursions into Israel. One has to take the threat seriously, but on the other hand there’s no doubt that Israel would prevail.

Without support via Syria, Hizballah will be weakened, and opposing forces in Lebanon — who do not want to see their national infrastructure damaged yet again by a pointless war of Hizballah’s making — may restrain them.

Iraq is also out of the picture, riven by internal conflict.

What about Iran? There are both short and long-term considerations. In the short term, we can’t minimize the danger from its nuclear program. The probability of American action seems small, so if they are to be prevented from developing actual weapons — and they don’t have far to go — Israel will need to do it. It is certainly correct that the program can only be set back, not taken out entirely.

But for the long term, the regime is highly unpopular. Like Lebanon, there is a large, relatively advanced segment of the population who would prefer peace and development to belligerence and Islamic fundamentalism. The Persian people also have not displayed the degree of Jew-hatred that one finds among the Arabs, unless the present regime has succeeded in ‘reeducating’ them. There is a good chance that a more moderate regime can arise, especially if it is encouraged to do so by the West.

So much for the good. What about the bad and the ugly?

The PLO and Hamas have little military capability, but their hatred is implacable and they can be expected to continue doing whatever they can by means of diplomacy, terrorism and subversion to destroy the Jewish state. Thanks to the ‘educational’ program established by Yasser Arafat and continued by the present Palestinian leadership — despite promises to end incitement — today’s residents of the territories are more pathologically consumed by hatred than ever before.

Israel’s options are limited — it must continue security precautions, work to assure loyalty among its Arab citizens, and make sure that the rest of the world is aware of the true intentions of the ‘Palestinian’ leadership (insofar as it doesn’t share them — see below).

The only thing that can make this problem go away is time, and this only if incitement can be ended. Unfortunately, Israel has little or no power to control this.

What historically empowered the ‘Palestinian cause’ was the Soviet Union and Arab petrodollars. Russia is now more neutral in this particular conflict for various reasons, and the Arabs have fewer and fewer petrodollars to throw around. But there is another factor, one which was kick-started by those same forces, that has taken on a life of its own almost everywhere in the world — Muslim nations, Europe and the academic sector of the US — old-fashioned Jew-hatred, now transmuted into anti-Zionism.

I’m not going to discuss all the ways that Israel should respond, but one is based on a simple psychological principle: humans hate weakness and victims; they like strength and winners.  The way to end Jew hatred is not to apologize or compromise with it, and not to appeal to the haters’ better natures, but rather to maintain our honor: to fight the enemies of the Jewish state with determination, to develop respect — love is not available — and deterrence, the political aspect of fear.

Bombing Syrian weapons depots is a good start.

Technorati Tags: ,

In support of free speech — Updated

May 1st, 2013
Leila Khaled

I’m Leila. Fly me to Damascus!

The University of British Columbia Alma Mater Society (what is usually called the ‘Student Union’ in the US) has a Social Justice Centre (motto: “We work toward progressive social change”).

So whom do they invite to speak to the students but Leila Khaled — because nothing is as progressive as airline hijacking.

Khaled, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) took part in the hijacking of TWA flight 840 in 1969 (no one was injured, but the plane was blown up in Damascus), and in a foiled attempt on El Al flight 219 in 1970 in which a crew member was killed by another hijacker. She was turned over to British authorities — after being beaten up by passengers — who managed to hold onto her for about a month before she was released in exchange for Western hostages held by the PFLP.

Well, actually, UBC is only inviting the virtual Leila, because the real one, being a convicted if not punished terrorist, is not allowed into Canada. So they are doing it by Skype.

Nevertheless, some have objected on the grounds that an actual terrorist is not a good role model for students.

Naturally, the university is defending the idea. Lucie McNeill, UBC Public Affairs Director, said

A university is an open community and there are all sorts of groups that think, believe and state their opinions differently … You expect different schools of thought to contend on a campus.

And we agree with her, as does our correspondent Joel B. Shapiro, who sent her and some others the following email:

From: Joel B. Shapiro
Sent: May-01-13 8:52 AM
To: ‘lucie.mcneill@ubc.ca’; ‘public.affairs@ubc.ca’; ‘presidents.office@ubc.ca’
Cc: ‘BCHumanRightsTribunal@gov.bc.ca’; ‘communications@bnaibrith.ca’
Subject: I applaud your defense of free speech on campus

Dear Lucie McNeill,

I applaud your defense of free speech, open dialogue, and political debate on campus, as described in Globe & Mail this morning.

In appreciation and affirmation of your point of view, and UBC’s official (current) policy, I would like to apply for permission to hold the following three annual events on the UBC campus. With whom can I meet to submit and discuss the applications? And would you be so kind (and politically progressive) as to help me champion these important political debates at UBC? The three events:

  1. A conference comparing the lethal techniques of Palestinian terrorism (and Islamist terrorism in general) to non-lethal forms of self defense employed by Israel—and the implications for Canadian and international law. Just in case you are not aware of this issue, here are a few tiny examples (just the tip of the iceberg): the terrorists target innocent civilians, maximize civilian casualties, and use their own people as human shields. Israel, conversely, uses checkpoints and security fences (including the infamous “wall”), tries to minimize civilian casualties, and of course, attempts to protect its citizens rather than using its own people as human shields.
  2. Saudi Apartheid Week: protesting and debating gender apartheid (misogyny), homophobia, state-sponsored racism, slavery, sectarian violence (which is a lethal form of racism)…and support of terrorist violence throughout the Arab world. The meetings and demonstrations will focus on presenting legitimate evidence against Arab nations so as not to target the Muslim religion directly, which of course is not “kosher” in Canada. (Although we will point out the repugnant irony that criticizing Muslim racism and violence is almost always criticized as a racist act, especially on the left, and that insofar as Islam is both a religion and a political ideology, we can & must treat its ideology as we do every other ideology in the world, i.e., with cautious respect and vigilant critique.)
  3. Finally, we wish to have a visual type demonstration to help student understand the dilemma posed by terrorism and the root cause of Israel’s defensive actions. The demonstration would look something like this: perhaps there can be a fake explosion, fake blood and body parts, and loud air raid sirens in the cafeteria or large classrooms, and everyone has to evacuate their classrooms for 5 minutes — to remind everyone and encourage debate about Palestinian terrorism.

We will, of course, conduct all of the above with the utmost honesty, integrity, dignity, and scholarship—free of any hint of racism, and with the only purpose of encouraging debate, dialogue, awareness, and political action against clear injustices in the world. After all, who is not against state sponsored racism, misogyny, homophobia, slavery, targeting innocent civilians, using people as human shields, etc., etc.? We also promise, unlike the Palestinian groups, not to invite any speakers who are convicted terrorist or who call for violence or racism of any kind, but only those who, conversely, stand opposed to racism and violence.

Given that UBC has been so supportive of anti-Israel events, and even hosting a convicted terrorist to speak on campus, I expect that UBC will be equally supportive of (i) a far less racist and far more honest defense of Israel, and (ii) legitimate political dialogue around much greater evils (which are in fact, ironically, root causes of Israel’s self defense anyway). We do not ask for any kind of favoritism, but we do request equal time and consideration.

Supporting the one cause but not the other would expose UBC’s policy (and motivation) as not being grounded in free speech but rather in the one-sided war against Israel and against Jews on campus. Please choose free speech over (or in addition to) your (inadvertent?) promotion of Palestinian & Islamic terrorism on campus.

Your current one-sided approach contributes to a climate of fear for Jews in Canada—so much so that Canadian Jews are afraid to speak up out of fear of reprisal. What better place to encourage that debate than a university campus that is already out there promoting free speech and political debate.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,

Joel Shapiro, Ph.D.

Update [1857 PDT]: The dialogue continues:

From: McNeill, Lucie
Sent: May-01-13 4:24 PM
To: Joel B. Shapiro
Subject: Re: I applaud your defense of free speech on campus

Dear Mr Shapiro,

The group organizing this event at UBC, the Social Justice Centre, is an Alma Mater Society (AMS) resource group.  The AMS is the student union at UBC and is completely independent from the university.  The AMS does not represent the University of British Columbia.

At the following URL, you will find UBC President Stephen Toope’s letter to the UBC community on respectful debate which expresses UBC’s core values:

http://president.ubc.ca/files/2010/04/respectful_debate_20100303.pdf.

Best wishes,

Lucie

***

From: Joel B. Shapiro
Sent: May-01-13
To: McNeill, Lucie
Subject: Re: I applaud your defense of free speech on campus

Hi:

Thanks for the quick response. But you have not answered my questions:

  1. Will you help me sponsor those three events through an AMS / if I go through an AMS – or not?
  2. And will UBC allow those three events to take place, as they have allowed “anti-Israel weeks” in the past? You will definitely get some pushback.

Or are you saying that I do not need permission, buy-in, or cooperation from you (or UBC) in any way, and that I can just go ahead and do whatever I want if it is in conjunction with an AMS and adheres to your core values?

I would of course prefer your full support. And I assure you that my three events will be far less dishonest and racist than the pro-Palestinian events—which means that if pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel events are allowable according to UBC’s core values, then my events will definitely be. We will, of course, study and respect your core values while promoting the event and while on campus. I would also be happy to organize some internationally renowned speakers to help raise the international profile of UBC in the process (no terrorists, of course).

Thank you.

Joel

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Israeli professor a victim of political correctness — updated

April 29th, 2013
Scene at Claremont McKenna College, near Los Angeles

Scene at Claremont McKenna College, near Los Angeles

Here is a little story: Claremont McKenna College is a private institution near Los Angeles. On March 4, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) held a “West Bank checkpoint simulation,” for which they had written permission from the Dean of Students, Mary Spellman.

The simulation consisted of blocking the entrance to the college dining hall and rudely demanding that students show their IDs in order to enter. One wonders what went through the mind of the dean — did she see educational value in this activity?

In any event, a student was distressed by the event and called an Israeli Economics professor, Yaron Raviv, who went to the dining hall.

He reported he arrived to find students blocking the entrance, so he asked the dining hall manager to move them away from the door.

Soon after, the verbal altercation took place, as reports indicate [SJP member Najib] Hamideh – upset [that] Raviv aimed to move them – said, “Oh, you are faculty? I will hunt you down!” The professor responded: “What? You will hunt me down? You’re a fucking little cockroach.”

Exactly what was said remains unclear, but campus officials’ probe into the incident – during which nearly a dozen witnesses were interviewed – indicates that’s roughly the exchange between the two.

Raviv told administrators the “hunt you down” comment was particularly offensive because of his Jewish heritage, according to the review. Hamideh, for his part, denies saying it.

Students for Justice in Palestine also filed a bias complaint against the professor, stating “the term ‘cockroach’ must be taken in its specific historical context as hateful, racist, enemy imagery.”

The first thing that I want to say about this is that when I went to college in the early 1960’s, such a demonstration would not have been permitted, because the administrators would quite correctly assume that it would have turned into a brawl. Jewish students would have found it offensive enough to push back physically, right away.

The second thing is that it is interesting how the incident immediately became a contest about who made the most ethnically offensive remark. Is it worse to tell a Jew that you will ‘hunt him down’ or to call a Palestinian a ‘cockroach’? In his defense, Raviv argued that Israelis don’t call Palestinians ‘cockroaches’, and anyway he had no way of knowing Hamideh was Palestinian (he had grown up in the US and had no accent). On the other hand, said Raviv, it was obvious that he was Israeli and likely Jewish.

Everyone involved knew that there is no greater sin in their world than making an ethnic/racial slur. Even a physical threat.

Hamideh filed an ‘informal written grievance’ against Raviv, and the administration performed a ‘review’ of the incident, which involved the dean, the president of the college, etc. I’m sure that quite a bit of very expensive administrative time was consumed.

Note that nobody seems to have objected to the fact that the ‘street theater’ was essentially mendacious, since it portrayed an Israeli ‘checkpoint’ without including the Arab terrorism that makes such checkpoints necessary. There is also the unspoken fact that this kind of ‘theater’ is intended to intimidate the other side. Neither the ‘actors’ nor pro-Israel students will admit it (for different reasons) but the objective is that the ‘audience’ will become afraid of confronting the ‘actors’ in other contexts.

Raviv may or may not have escaped from the confrontation unscathed, at least from the standpoint of disciplinary action. From the college’s review:

The faculty member’s statements to the student were not in compliance with the expectations set forth in the College’s Statement on Professional Ethics, but these statements, when viewed in context, were not sufficiently severe or pervasive as to constitute a violation of the College’s Harassment Policy. The faculty member has acknowledged that his statements were inappropriate and unprofessional, and has apologized for his statements. Any additional personnel-related actions that may be appropriate will be confidentially addressed by the Dean of the Faculty’s Office.

Although Hamideh denied threatening Raviv, another student reported that Hamideh later used the expression again, saying that he would ‘hunt down’ the faculty member. The review of the incident does not mention that any action is contemplated against Hamideh, but it seems to me that he may have committed the crime of “making a criminal threat” (CA Penal Code 422 – 422.4). One hopes that a police report was made.

Raviv gave an interview to the Claremont Independent, which is worth reading. It describes the incident from his point of view, including mentioning that Hamideh said “now I’ve got you” after the professor’s intemperate remark! Compare this to Arab/leftist demonstrations at Israel’s security barrier, where they deliberately try to provoke IDF soldiers.

It also includes some examples of hate mail he received afterwards:

Raviv: So, this is an email, for example, from “Juice2”: “Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever. I thought you might enjoy that since you seem to be such a huge supporter of genocide. Cheers.”

I got several like this: “I am one of your students. What right do you have to call one of my colleagues a ‘cockroach,’ you filthy Israeli cunt? Please, could I ask you to leave the U.S. and return to the land of Zion-Nazis where you can slaughter innocent cockroaches at whim? See you in class you wasted inbred.”

Raviv’s account is apologetic, and he is clearly hurt and worried:

Raviv: I poorly chose my words. I regret using bad language. We should all aspire to higher standards and not chaos. That’s not appropriate, so I’m sorry for that. But we need to understand what provoked this kind of language. What the student did to me, there’s no equivalence. Worst case scenario, I curse at somebody. But he has caused me real damage.  …

[Student newspapers that published his name] really damaged my reputation. I have some Arab students in the class, I have some Palestinian students in the class, and they accused me of being a racist.

This has never happened in the college, this kind of persecution just because of political views. And you try to ask yourself, if I was an Irish-American, would they accuse me of being a racist? Or are they accusing me only because I’m an Israeli-Jew? So now, I ask you, where is the bias-related behavior? If I was an American and I said, “Fucking little cockroach,” would they accuse me of being racist?

Update [30 Apr 1255 PDT]: The Campus Safety Officer, Mario Trinidad, who overheard the conversation “corroborated certain aspects of each individual’s description of this interaction, but did not fully corroborate either individual’s description,” according to Dean Spellman. A March 15 article in a student newspaper includes this quotation from the report:

I arrived at 1738 hours and noticed the performers standing near the doorway of Collins Dinning [sic] … As I walked towards the group a male adult approached me and stated he did not want the demonstrators blocking the entrance to the dining hall,” Trinidad wrote in the incident report. “At this time a white male, a member of the performance group, approached the male adult and asked him for identification and who he was. The male identified himself as a professor and told the white male to ‘fuck off.’ The performer replied[,] ‘[W]hat did you say?’ and followed up by asking, ‘Do you have permission to be on campus?’ The professor quickly flashed his CMC identification card and told the white male that he was a cockroach and to mind his own business. The professor then left the area. The performer was angry but in control of his emotions.

Now compare this to Raviv’s account of the interaction:

The [Campus Safety] officer arrived and he parked his car 30-40 feet south of the entrance in front of Story House. I saw the guy and wanted to go talk to him to explain what was going on. I started to walk toward his direction, and a [student from the demonstration approached me] and told me to my face, “Who are you? Show me your ID! Are you faculty or a visitor? If you are a visitor, you cannot be on campus after 5:00 p.m. Show me your campus pass!” I told him, “I will never show you my ID. It’s not your business who I am. I can be a faculty or a visitor; it’s not your business.” I kept walking toward the officer and this guy is in my face, you know, like overly aggressively. I started to talk with the [Campus Safety] officer and I said, “Listen, this student event has been approved for this demonstration, but they cannot block the entrance, you need to move them 10 feet aside.” To give [the Campus Safety officer] some validity to what I was saying, I pulled out my faculty ID. The [student] who was in my face basically said, “Oh, you are faculty! I will hunt you down!” And I said, “What? You will hunt me down? You’re a fucking, little cockroach.”

So [the student] heard that and said, “Oh! Now I’ve got you!” The moment he said that, I was really concerned—not because of the “cockroach,” I was concerned because of the f-word. I immediately disentangled because I didn’t want there to be a physical [altercation], so I went back to the Pitzer student who had asked for my help. I told him, “Listen, campus safety is here. They will take it from there.” And I left.

Do we have Trinidad’s complete report? Keep in mind that it is in the interest of the college to make this whole thing go away. They would prefer not to discipline Raviv — not that I think he deserves disciplining — and even more, not to have a student arrested for threatening a professor.

Technorati Tags: , ,