Letters to the Editor

To the editors:

Last year, Columbians for Academic Freedom (CAF) was formed to combat attempts to stifle intellectual discourse on the Columbia campus. Although the group focused its efforts on lack of open debate about Zionism in the MEALAC department, I believe the spirit of the group was to encourage fair representation of all sides in academic discourse. Thus, I was surprised to find in The Current's Spring 2006 issue, the article "Lessons from the Palestine Solidarity Movement" written by The Current's editor and CAF's co-founder, Bari Weiss, displaying her own share of one-sidedness.

It is clear from the first paragraph that the only lesson we are to learn from the Palestinian Solidarity Movement is that it is a threat to Zionism. The origin of these lessons is "a dubious cast of characters" that is "too easy" to dismiss as a "bunch of crazies." Weiss' article makes no attempt to examine the Palestinian position but structures the article in order to discredit it.

It is disturbing that Weiss chose to portray the PSM as a disingenuous human rights organization with terrorist sympathies. She directly ties the organization's operations to the militant arm of Hamas. The PSM states that its community work falls under Palestinian leadership, but this does not in any sense undermine PSM's central efforts to achieve Palestinian freedom by non-violent means. Moreover, Weiss misrepresents Hamas's undertakings. Ninety percent of Hamas's work entails expansive social, educational, charitable, and cultural programs, yet Weiss chooses to portray Hamas as merely a terrorist organization and, worse, use that information to discredit the PSM. The PSM's work with Hamas does not imply that the PSM is itself supportive of terrorist activities. It is difficult for Weiss to successfully argue that the members of the PSM believe whole-heartedly in human rights and non-violent activism and also support a terrorist organization that is antithetical to human rights.

Weiss's critique of the PSM's stance on Sudan is similarly misleading. Placing Sudan and Israel on equal planes fails to contextualize the dissimilarity between the two situations and fails to acknowledge that the PSM has never taken a stance on other Muslim land disputes in places like Pakistan and the Philippines, where Muslims are the oppressed. It would have been more appropriate and interesting for Weiss to have asked Abed about his views concerning the Jews struggle during the creation of Israel, as Jewish self-determination has more in common with the current Palestinian struggle than Sudan.

Weiss also states that the PSM's platform leads to distressing conclusions regarding genocide. Weiss, however, never details what "distressing conclusions" are made or how those conclusions could be reached. Weiss's vagueness implies that she views the PSM's position on genocide as a barbarous embrace of genocide.

In presenting the Palestine Solidarity Movement as ideologically disingenuous, Weiss does not assess the PSM platform fairly. The article provides no support for how the PSM's human rights binary is false, makes misleading statements about the PSM's stance on genocide, and connects the organization to Hamas's terrorist operations maliciously. Her approach to the PSM is one that is staunchly Zionist and presumes a Zionist audience. The article in no way serves to encourage discourse and ironically silences the Palestinian voice that she has vouched to protect through Columbians for Academic Freedom.

—Stephen Wang

Mr. Wang claims my piece argued the only lesson we "are to learn from the PSM is that it is a threat to Zionism," and that I "structure my article in order to discredit" the PSM. In these respects, Mr. Wang is entirely correct. The thrust of my article was explicitly to emphasize the PSM's misappropriation of the banner of human rights while working with Hamas and ignoring large scale human rights tragedies around the world. He writes that he is disturbed that I find it alarming that the PSM works with known terrorist organizations bent on destroying Israel. It is difficult for me to respond to this. Mr. Wang seems to think my pointing out this contradiction undermines my own argument. I urge him to reread the article, because he misses this point. The contradiction is not my own but rather the PSM's. The fact that the PSM cannot recognize the absurdity of claiming to defend human rights while forging a partnership with a terrorist organization is itself disturbing. How does Mr. Wang think my pointing out the PSM's contradictory stance harms my own argument, when that inconsistency is my argument

Regarding the discussion of Sudan, Mr. Wang again misunderstands me. I did not bring up the current situation in the Darfur region of Sudan to compare it with the conflict in Israel-Palestine. I discussed Sudan to shed light on the PSM's disregard for gross human rights violations around the world, and thus to question whether it is solely the issue of human rights that drives the organization's work.

As far as catering to readership: I wonder whether Mr. Wang would expect an article in a right-wing publication like The Weekly Standard to support universal single payer health coverage, or The Nation to advocate an amendment to ban gay marriage. This journal is a publication that supports Israel, even as we criticize it. We are gratified that people across the political spectrum are reading, discussing, and criticizing the work of this journal. But I fail to see how taking a stand on an issue stifles debate on a particular issue. How effective would a publication be if it insisted that every article present every possible argument and never stake a position? I believe it is precisely this journal's willingness to take clear positions that allows it to be a jumping off point for meaningful debate on issues.

Finally, a word about Columbians for Academic Freedom: It remains baffling to me that students like Mr. Wang do not seem to understand the difference between criticism and stifling debate. CAF advocated—and continues to advocate—the right of students to express their views in an environment free of professorial intimidation. That doesn't mean we are not free—all of us—to criticize ideas with which we disagree. Criticism is a fundamental aspect of academic freedom. This is why people who accuse CAF of stifling academic freedom were, and continue to be, wrong.

—Bari Weiss

Just wanted to let you know that Birk Oxholm is our nephew and the article he wrote sounds very much like him. We are very proud of our nephew and what he has accomplished thus far in his life, including the many other achievements he has had that are not monetarily compensated!

—Karen and Paul Oxholm
Reading, PA