In Re: “Student laments lack of dialogue at Arraf’s speech” on April 7.
Mr. Efrat’s contribution in last week’s Concordiensis suffers from many serious deficiencies in his argument. Regardless how one feels about the problems between Israelis and Palestinians, it is important to point out the failings in Efrat’s argument.
The argument is that Union denied him the right to engage with a controversial speaker via a policy allowing only questions—rather than comments—at Huwaida Arraf’s speech last term. Arraf is a Palestinian human rights activist.
First, let it be noted that Efrat arrived on the scene with a clear agenda: “I attended this speech as an attempt to show the school that Arraf’s propaganda was far from the truth.” No wonder he took so little from the event. He arrived clouded by his bias in favor of Israel, unwilling and unable to open his mind to the possibility of other alternatives—he condemned Arraf even before he heard her out! The possibility of learning something was inconceivable, as it was Efrat’s duty to “show the school” from the very beginning.
Efrat, I applaud Union for denying you the opportunity to immaturely “yell at her,” an act that would surely have embarrassed not only yourself, but, far more importantly, the institution. Surely you know that such conduct cannot be tolerated.
For all of your supposed “facts, evidence, and confidence,” you provide none of it for our readers. You say the speaker’s presentation was a “tirade,” but, hypocritically, you offer only a tirade to the community. Your argument is: I am right, she was wrong, and I am angry. Fuming, your contribution is devoid of the evidence required to make your point. Union only wasted money because it brought a speaker to campus that challenged your deeply held beliefs, as a liberal arts college should. Instead of getting your buck’s worth, you sat “restlessly,” like a child, probably because you are not used to a Nobel Prize-nominated intellectual challenging your passionately held beliefs with poise and control. For this Union should be thanked, not shamed.
[/media-credit]
It is healthy to be exposed to differing ideas, but, instead of rising to the challenge and responding to Arraf’s with the “chutzpah” you so admire, you sat in your chair. This is your failing—not the College’s—and you would do well to take ownership.
I thank you for your contribution, and encourage you to write more. But I would warn against shaming this institution in so public a forum when your argument is underpinned by emotion alone. You only do a disservice to yourself when you let emotion override your intellectual engagement.
Union did not deny you the right to “stand up for what you believe.” You denied yourself that right when you sat silent.
Loading ...
The only embarassing thing I have seen so far is this article. How dare you attack a student so rudely. In fact you are doing the same thing you accuse Efrat of doing. You read an article, made your opinion and attacked a student. Efrat has every right to be upset that Huwaida had come to speak- and rightfully so. It was his opinion and he was allowed to write it- it was in fact a letter to the editor. Shame on you Brian Karimi for being so forward and outright rude. It was his opinion and a popular opinion on this campus. I am especially offeneded whan you say that his article “shamed this institution” when rather his opinion made me finally find lost pride I once had for this school. Now the only shame is this article and your harsh, untrue, and uncalled for rhetoric.
So to Efrat- if you are upset- you are not alone. I 100% support you and many others on this campus do to. I am proud of your article and you. Keep on writing even if people do not agree with you.
You, too, seem overridden by passion, Rachel; your shame of me is as inappropriate as Efrat’s of the institution. I am only “rude” is so far as I disagree with you. I did not say the article “shamed the institution.” Efrat, in his article, said “shame on you,” referring to the institution. You must acquaint yourself with the discussion at hand, Rachel. This you clearly have not done. I would urge, in contrast, that no one be shamed in healthy academic debate. Also, I’m not sure as to how rhetoric can be “untrue.” Rhetoric is not truth-functional; it is a type of communication.
Thank you for your input.
Wow. I can not believe an editor would write an article like this. Huwaida Arraf doesn’t just have different views than Efrat, but she IS A TERRORIST! http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=213324 How can an editor not acknowledge this fact? It’s not just that Arraf was a “waste of money” for the school, but the school is actually funding terrorists through this. Arraf said in her speech that she would be donating all of her speaker’s fee to the terrorist Flotilla movement. Efrat’s article was right on target and Brian’s is insulting and rude. Brian, you criticize Efrat for condemning Arraf before even hearing her out? Anyone who’s been paying attention to the Middle East for the past year should know that they don’t have to hear someone like Arraf out! All it takes is a little googling to learn about Arraf’s terrorist nature and associations in her own words.
Maybe the Concordiensis should have a faculty member review letters from the editor in the future. While I agree with parts of his sentiments, I find it horribly inappropriate that he should use his post as a bully pulpit.
To Anonymous: “Anyone who’s been paying attention to the Middle East for the past year should know that they don’t have to hear someone like Arraf out!” This is exactly the type of thinking I would urge against. It is a type of prejudgement that undermines the process of healthy discussion.
To Matt: The faculty has no place censoring the paper! Surely you know the paper is by students, and for students. As to the inappropriateness of discussion in a student paper, I wholeheartedly disagree; we needn’t be bullies when we engage in healthy—albeit controversial—debate.
The issue is that it is not healthy when it comes off as mean. This article is not healthy- it is just mean.
The Concordy shouldn’t be faculty censored, but the editors-in-chief need to take a closer look before they publish articles like this. What an embarrassment to Union and the Concordy that an editor would write and publish a personal attack like this! This is simply childish and mean and the school paper is certainly not the venue for this type of bullying.
And again, Brian seems to ignore the real issue at hand: Arraf is a terrorist. Yet he chooses to defend her and refer to her as a “human rights activist” and “intellectual”? Brian, you are either incredibly naive or are spouting terrorist propaganda.
Bringing a speaker to campus is an issue of free speech. I vehemently supported Ehud Olmert’s appearance, both publicly and among friends, knowing the many awful things he had done. I imagine many of you would not criticize me for that position. This is because, for many, they only want to engage with what they already believe. I’d like to do otherwise, and would encourage others to do the same.
No one said anything of Olmert coming to speak or Huwaida’s right to speak. Efrat was just stating his opinion and if it filled with passion, love, or any other emotion he has a right to do so. But to assume he came into Huwaida’s talk with a purpose is wrong. People came to hear her side, and they did. It was her who represented herself in such a way that she was not legeitmate. For her not to mention the other side even a bit weakened her argument. This issue is passion ridden and you will have students driven by love for a side. It does not mean their opnion should ever be attacked- especially in such a public matter.
As for Huwaida- she also has done many horrible things and they are public and she was supported in coming. She came, she spoke, not let students address their ethical concerns for her visit. For many it was not righ and they are entitled to that.
You say, “to assume he came into Huwaida’s talk with a purpose is wrong.” It is not an assumption—rather, it is a fact—and is most certainly not wrong: “I attended this speech as an attempt to show the school that Arraf’s propaganda was far from the truth.” These are Efrat’s words; not my own. She did not represent herself as illegitimate at all; rather, she presented her argument, and people challenged it. You are wrong: opinions should be attacked! That is the educational process.
I cannot understand your last paragraph and cannot speak to it.
First off, I base all of my factual information on google. It can do no wrong and has never led me astray when writing thesis, articles or lab reports. I suggest google scholar because let’s face it, no one can figure out the library search systems.
Secondly, I support bullying via the school newspaper, I’m pretty sure it’s protected in the first amendment. Unless it’s slander, I say write it! At first I didn’t like the picture associated with this article, but it seems just super appropriate now.
I would also like to point out that terrorist is a relative term. Some may call George Bush a terrorist, he certainly terrorized me, not to mention countless Afgans who simply want to chill with a bunch of virgins. In all seriousness, however, I would consider contributors to the NRA terrorists.
~~ More of a serious note ~~
I agree that students should be able to voice opinions, but let’s get down to brass tacks, this is an incredibly sensitive issue and people are responding as such. A controversial speaker comes to campus and I’m sure Union took measures to make sure no one took the microphone to shout “YOU ARE A TERRORIST!!” Not only do we need to protect our student’s right to speak, but we need to protect our speakers from being victimized no matter their political views.
In terms of the speaker’s failure to present the other side of the story only shows that their argument was weak (go ahead an revel in that!). If a speaker comes to talk about environmental causes, I honestly don’t expect them to talk about how big corporations have a really good point that spewing chemicals into river systems is more cost-effective and will benefit the economy in the long run. The speaker need only present what they want to present. Typically, they are presenting an argument or point when they are speaking and when we know they are subjective (helloooo! Google said she was a terrorist!), no one should expect them to be objective.
~~ Less serious here ~~
As for you, Brian Karimi, shame shame shame shame shame shame! How dare you present the other side of the argument. How dare you share with the campus community another opinion… oh wait, isn’t that what you guys were arguing that you should be able to do? Perhaps Brian was a bit rude, but hey, shouldn’t people be able to say whatever they want to say? Isn’t that what you guys were arguing you should be able to do? Because I would consider calling out a speaker in front of a room full of people rude. But hey, what do I know, I’m woefully ignorant of the goings-on in the middle east. Just wanted to hear the sound of my own fingers on the keyboard.
Brian can say whatever he wants. But as an editor, it’s unprofessional for him to be personally attacking a student for his views rather than just attacking his views. Efrat is “shaming this institution”? Brian is undermining his own point if he believes Efrat is “shaming this institution” for expressing his point of view. This whole back and forth makes Brian look silly and unprofessional. I’ve never heard of an editor having to rebut every individual point that criticizes something he wrote.
This is getting a tad ridiculous. You haven’t read my piece. I never said Efrat was shaming the institution for expression his views. Efrat said “shame on you Union” in his last piece. So, he was shaming the institution— explicitly. I replied that Union should be thanked, not shamed. You’ve got to read the relevant argument before you comment. Also, I’ve rebutted nothing, just re-expressed what I’ve already said.
Why doesn’t Brian’s letter have the same statement that was at the end of Efrat’s letter:
“This letter was written after Arraf’s speech at Union on March 7. This response is the writer’s own and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Concordiensis or its staff.”
Albeit an editor who wrote this, I can’t imagine that it reflects the views or opinions of the Concordiensis or its staff.
I’m glad this is sparking debate on campus, though we should keep it respectful. Don’t make somebody feel bad who is stating their opinion. There aren’t enough active voices on this campus as it is.
Geesh, well then by that logic please don’t attempt to stifle Brian’s opinion that another opinion is uncalled for. We are all entitled to our opinions, even those that are about being too opinionated… opinion.
Furthermore, Karimi is entitled to his opinion despite the fact he is on the staff. I think it would be silly to stifle an opinion just because they are staff on a newspaper. There are allegedly too few people with opinions (yet I hear people complaining all the time… waaaaa) and we wouldn’t want to stifle such a well-spoken one.
Brian – shame shame shame shame shame! Next time you write an opinion article, please make the fact you wrote it more blatant. I’m tired of this guessing game! Perhaps you should write your name in bold or italicize it! Hold on, I feel I’ve lost my point… I mean, she’s a terrorist!!!