Tom Paulin barred from Harvard for his anti-settler remarks

by Phuq Hedd Fri Nov 15, 2002 21:03

Good post and analysis of Rita Goldberg's duplicity are in a post on Thursday 14th in the related link below and here:
The Harvard Crimson has more on the English department's decision to cancel tomorrow's scheduled appearance by the Irish poet Tom Paulin. Last April, Cairo's Al-Ahram Weekly quoted Paulin as saying that Israel is a "historical obscenity" and that "Brooklyn-born Jews" who settle in Israel "should be shot," adding “I think they are Nazis, racists. I have nothing but hatred for them.” Paulin has also written one rabidly pro-Palestinian poem in which he refers to the "Zionist SS" (scroll down for the goods).

These facts are well known by now; they've made their way through the mainstream media and the blogosphere; they were the reason Harvard English cancelled Paulin's appearance. Yesterday the web practically did the wave when, as Eugene Volokh put it, Harvard "did the right thing."

One thing that remained a bit mysterious was what precisely went on at Harvard to cause such an unusual turn of events. The Crimson piece is enlightening on that point:

Though Paulin’s remarks and frequent British TV appearances have created controversy at Oxford over the past few months, little was known in the United States about his work and views.

Rita Goldberg, a lecturer on Literature who had been familiar with his work, began gathering a protest as soon as Paulin’s lecture was announced last week.

Goldberg sent out an e-mail to her students encouraging them not to attend the lecture, and asking them to contact the English department to protest the speech.

“Under rules instituted by the Rudenstine Administration, students are entitled to an environment free of racism, hostility and threatening speech,” she wrote. “An audience is oxygen to a poet, and the most effective way of showing your feelings is to deprive him of air.”

The controversy escalated after the Wall Street Journal published an article on Monday that described his anti-Israeli views and criticized Harvard for hosting him.

As word spread of the article and Paulin’s controversial views through the University via various e-mail lists, protest mounted against the lecture.

Between 100 and 120 people, mainly undergraduates, e-mailed and called the department to protest the reading, according to Buell. They decried Paulin’s views as hate speech, and said the Department should not give a forum to those who advocate violence and racism.

In other words, a member of Harvard's English faculty took it upon herself to decide that Paulin's personal views constituted, in and of themselves, a violation of Harvard's harassment policy. She determined, through some mysterious alchemical process unavailable to us less privileged mortals, that Paulin's presence on campus would constitute, in and of itself, a hostile environment--regardless of what he might or might not say or do while there. And then she "encouraged" her students to object to this violation of their right not to be offended by protesting Paulin's visit. In short, she came damn close to assigning activism. Certainly she made it clear to her students what she thought they ought to think and do about Paulin's visit; certainly she made it clear they ought to think as she does, and do what she says; certainly she made it clear that to do so would curry favor with her and implied, inevitably, that not protesting Paulin's appearance would be tantamount to endorsing his heinous views; certainly she created an inexcusable conflict of interest for her students, whose political opinions and extracurricular activism--or lack thereof--are far beyond her pedagogical purview and should have been allowed to stay there.

Maybe Harvard English should use the time that would have been dedicated to Paulin's lecture for a little workshop on pedagogical ethics.

by Mike Fri Nov 15, 2002 21:45 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

Barred? Where does that come from? All I can see here is that his invitation was withdrawn. Nothing to support the claim that he isn't being ALLOWED to come to or speak at Harvard.

Presuambly if some other group at Harvard wishes to extend an invitation provide him with a place to speak then he could. Presumably any individual with "room reservation" priveledges could do so. And presumably nothing would prevent him from coming and speaking at any of the "public areas" even without an invitation.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Nov 15, 2002 22:14

Well Mike, seeing as we're in the game of "presuming" I would presume that if "some other group" tried to invite him then an intolerant anti-freespeech campaign would strong-arm that group into "withdrawing their invitation". Let's call it "effectively barred". That should make us both happy.

Now, do you agree with preventing people from speaking about their work if they have made a comparison between "settlers" and "Nazis"?

I don't. I think that restricting speech like that is Nazi-like.

by gargoyle Thu Jan 29, 2004 03:08

Sharon should pay a few more visits to the al Aqsa mosque in jerusalem! Freedom of expression. :)

Oh, what? Muslims don't believe in freedom of expression?

by a curious pedant Fri Jan 30, 2004 08:07

Why should denying the right to speak be one-sidedly characterised as "Nazi-like" ?
The German National Socialists didn't have a monopoly on denial of free speech ...

In fact I think that is you consider the matter more carefully you will be forced to conclude that any totalitarian regime (whether "Nazi" or "Stalinist" or "Pol-Pottist" or whatever) has a strong ingrained tendency to curtail free speech ....

But anyway you know how the French explain the distinction between a "dictatorship" and a "democracy":
Dictatorship = shut your gob !
Democracy = blabber away as much as you like ...