CAN WE TALK?

Several weeks ago, I attended a UJA-Federation “town meeting” that brought six members of Knesset to New York to learn more about Federation and the American Jewish community. It was fascinating to hear their differing views on President Obama, Netanyahu, the peace process, and women and Ethiopians in Israeli society. At one point, addressing himself to the challenges of talking peace to Palestinians who refuse to even recognize Israel as a Jewish state, one of the Knesset members said (and here I must paraphrase)—I am very much in favor of appointing Canada as Israel’s official neighbor. But in as much as that appointment may never materialize, we’ll have to speak with the people who live on our borders, and right now, those people are represented by the Palestinian Authority.

It was a lighthearted yet profound lesson in pragmatics. With whom do you speak when there is a conflict? Do you speak to your friends or your enemies? You can speak with your friends all you want, but that will never resolve anything with your enemies.

This past month, Brandeis University rescinded an offer to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary doctorate from the university. Who is Ali? Ali is a women’s rights activist and a vocal critic of Islam. You might recall the Dutch film director, Theodoor Van Gogh, who was brutally murdered for creating a film highly critical of Islam’s treatment of women. That film, Submission, was written by Ali. She now declares herself an atheist, speaks of violence as being intrinsic to Islam, opposes female genital mutilation (of which she is a victim) and honor killings, that is, the “accepted” killing of women for so-called acts or infidelity. In 2005, Time magazine named her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Apparently, the Moslems at Brandeis, and many other sympathizers, were unhappy with the university’s choice. In an editorial printed in The Justice, the university’s independent student newspaper, the author(s) wrote: “By presenting Hirsi Ali with an honorary degree, the University applauds all aspects of her work [bold and italics are mine]. An honorary degree validates the good she has done for women’s rights, yet it also condones the comments she has made against Islam, and therefore against a valued portion of our community.” Really? I don’t think so. There is no specific logical connection between presenting a person with an honorary degree and thereby applauding “all aspects of her work,” unless the university specifically were to say that, and it did not. So why did Brandeis pull the plug on Ali?

I don’t know. I wasn’t in any of the backroom discussions on this so I don’t know. Was it a fear that it would insult the Moslems? Was it a fear that Moslems might retaliate, disrupting commencement ceremonies or physically damaging the campus? Was it a financial threat—the witholding of substantial revenues were the degree to be conferred? Was it something else I haven’t thought of? I don’t know. But what I do know is that the administration caved to the forces that shouted—We can’t talk to her. We can’t listen to her. We only talk to our friends, to the people who believe as we do.

Sad. So much for the Brandeis logo with the Hebrew word “Emet” [that is, Truth] emblazoned upon it.

It should be noted that Brandeis did permit Israeli Apartheid Week on campus, demonizing Israel as an apartheid-like state. It has honored American playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner, who has referred to the creation of Israel as a “mistake.” It has honored South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, whose anti-Israel statements are well-known. But those programs or honors were ok because they involved the people we talk to.

Can we talk? In this polarized, radicalized, demonizing society of ours, the answer is no. We could possibly talk, but many of us make the conscious decision not to, because that’s the toxic air of western cultural society today.

The Conservative Jewish Movement, often parodied as vacillating, irresolute, wishy-washy, or namby-pamby, is actually the movement that has historically and uniquely looked for the truth in what different people are trying to convey. And the truths, we discovered, are all over the place. More often than not, there’s truth, perhaps only a lentil’s worth of truth, but nonetheless truth, in just about everything that people do say. The truth may emanate from their own whacky and distorted perceptions, but unless the people with clearer perceptions choose to interact, the whackiness and the distortion remain unchallenged. An error in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by some other forceful idea. When we stop talking to “those other people,” whether for personal, professional or academic reasons, the certainty of our own righteousness is almost always a road to Hell. And when something like this manifests itself in an institution of higher learning, where the free exchange of perspectives and ideas is the path we walk to the truth, the consequences are pathetic in the extreme.