Rediscovering Columbus Day
The oxidized forehead of the Christopher Columbus statue in front of Columbus, Ohio's city hall, precisely marks the culture wars timeline. The statue was dedicated in 1955, before "100,000 grateful Americans," as its plaque records. In that simpler post-War era when history belonged comfortably to well-to-do white males, the American capital city which bore the name of the famed explorer would never have considered "deconstructing" a gift statue of the famed explorer which had been bestowed to it by his native Genoa. Words of gratitude recited at the 1955 ceremony by Columbus' mayor at the time, M.E. Sensenbrenner, and inscribed on the statue's base, convey today an acutely ironic comment on the relative strengths of political correctness and holiday tradition. Sensenbrenner swore by the Columbus statue in 1955: "We shall ever cherish and be guided by its meaning." Thirty-three years later, a few years ahead of the 500th anniversary of Columbus' arrival in the New World, the city of Columbus invested in a renovation of the statue, this time recording various platitudes and sponsorship attributions less conspicuously, on a small plaque pasted on the side of the explorer's robe. The statue has quite evidently been in moral quarantine ever since then. Scorched by the summer sun and soaked by the 250-day-a-year rains, the oddly oxidized, balding forehead of this Columbus statue symbolizes something more than bad Ohio weather, or parsimony in municipal spending on public works. It represents a democratic civic culture which has become awkwardly embarrassed about what was inside the heads of its founding patrons. The Rule of 20
One phenomenon I've observed over the years, but have never really been able to explain, is that no matter how many Jewish students are on a campus, the number of activists will be 20 or fewer, and usually less than 10. Whether a campus has 3,000 Jews or 300, this is likely to be the case. Very few students have excess time, energy and passion to devote to advocacy for Israel. These students are often the best and the brightest, and will become community leaders at some point, but it is still a source of frustration that we have not figured out a way to motivate larger numbers of students to become involved. Even with the success of Birthright - I often meet alumni who are now campus leaders - the number of students who return and become active is a tiny fraction of the thousands who have taken the trip. The hope, of course, is that the Israel experience will stick with them and have a longer-term impact, but it still is disappointing that it has not had a greater short-term effect. It may be time to reevaluate how the trips might be better structured to develop campus activists. Trading places
Political discourse is fraught with symbols, images, generalizations and stigmas. It is too often restricted by and limited to the rhetoric of the abstract and the over simplistic. Thus, instead of a profound discussion of issues and meaningful dialogue, a squabbling outline of conversation unfolds whereby the parties involved hurl all too familiar charges and accusations at one another in a never ending vicious cycle. Occasional exchanges between Jewish and Muslim students inside or outside of class usually follow such a pattern. One can almost guess, with a decent amount of certainty, what the transcript of the encounter would read like and what type of labeling would be used. This predictable path of interaction is self defeating and frustrating to all. It is perpetuated by ignorance and categorical thinking - the convenient haven of the prejudiced and the intolerant. In my classes at Rutgers there are plenty students of that sort. I have enough Muslim and Arab students alongside with Jewish and Israeli students to experience a simulation of the Middle East conflict in the heart of New Jersey. I cannot escape the difficult and sensitive topics, and am not trying to: I'm a political scientist and I teach politics. The Arab-Israeli conflict must be discussed head-on and I relish the opportunity. I take a special interest in trying to break the mold of self indulgence and over-confidence demonstrated by both sides by curbing the taken-for-granted and by challenging students to consider other viewpoints, especially those held by their opponents. We're not here to solve the Middle East conflict, I admit at the outset, but rather to try and understand why it has lingered for so long. That was an immediate relief for everyone, because apparently the first task was perceived as too daunting. However, the alternative wasn't an easy undertaking either. Each camp blamed the other for the continuation of the conflict and soon enough they all draw back to the well-known terrain of slogans and labeling. I let it flow until most formulae and clichés were exhausted and we decided to continue next time. But when they came in the next meeting armed with their usual rhetoric I quickly disarmed them by asking each side to convincingly present the claims of their rivals. They hated it; they were so effortlessly dexterous in reciting their traditional lines and suddenly became painfully all thumbs trying to explain the other perception. You see, I concluded, this is one of the reasons this conflict is one of the most protracted in the modern era. College spirit and 21st century Zionism
I was standing with two of my children, and 105,000 other spectators at the "Shoe," the Ohio State University football stadium, during last week's game, trying to figure out what the story was. There simply had to be a big, massive story. The dimensions seemed suited to ancient Rome, not modern Israel, and they also seemed fit for a Jewish joke whose punch line kept eluding me throughout the first quarter, despite the fact that my mind put up a strong chase. I reasoned that when I came up with the line, it would be a good lead for this piece. The joke is that the pointed question - what would you get you packed 105,000 Israeli students in a football stadium - has no real life answer, humorous or otherwise, other than the temporary collapse of our entire higher education system. Some 70,000 (give or take several hundred) undergrads are enrolled in BA programs in Israel's colleges, and a few thousand less than that total are BA students in the country's universities; so on a fall weekend, our total number of college or university students would not be enough to fill even a second tier Big Ten football stadium (it's probably just as well that they'll never try, because the thought of 70,000 people singing "On Wisconsin," or rumbling about the "Hoosiers," with Hebrew accents, is a little daunting). The first week of term at Syracuse
Describing my first week at Syracuse University is very challenging, as so much has happened. I would begin by saying that when I arrived at the beginning of August I found a sleepy, parochial, quiet town with barely any people around. Within weeks, however the scene changed, the streets were bustling, and there was life in Syracuse. The campus also changed as students, some new and some returning, were rushing from one class to another (the new ones were trying to make sense of the different halls, and names of the different buildings). What really surprised me during this week was the number of families on campus; it seems that in the United States when families can do so, they accompany their kid to college, they see the campus and they help them move into the dorms. This is known as "moving in week" though I would describe it as "U-Haul Week" since there are so many u-hauls around. Due to this, the University organizes functions for the families, such as a walking tour of the campus, a dinner and so on. My first class was on a Monday evening, as due to the high number of students at Maxwell, classes start at 08:30 and end at 21:30, making scheduling a nightmare, as the admin folks at the IDC (Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya) know all too well as they undergo this nightmare on a regular basis. As I walked into class, my heart was pounding: it felt like the first day at school, or the first day at university. I kept thinking would they like me, would I do a good job, would I remember my lesson plan, etc. I was lucky in that the equipment proved a handful and I did not know how to use it. This helped break the ice a bit because I was floundering about and therefore appeared more human to the students. At SU, there is enormous deference to staff members; there is none of the joviality that one experiences in a classroom in Israel. Once the lesson kicked off, I discovered that the students had read the materials. The students were engaging; they asked questions and made comments with references to the literature. They brought in some of their personal experiences and I discovered that I had students from Pakistan, the US army (men and women that served in Afghanistan and Iraq), from South America and Europe. Anti-Israel activities on campus fading
In March I wrote in this space that anti-Israel activities on campus had reached a level of intensity that had not been seen for years and that it was not clear if this was a temporary phenomenon related to Operation Cast Lead or a shift in the campus environment toward greater hostility toward Israel. It appears now that it was merely a blip and fears of campus upheaval were exaggerated. One central truth about campus life seems constant and that is most students could not care less about the Middle East. Even at times of peak involvement, tiny fractions of the student body participate in activities that are either pro or anti-Israel. The general sense is that the anti-Israel events attract the same crowd of like-minded students - and often more non-students - and do not influence the majority of students who are focused on the three Gs - grades, grad school and guys/gals. A New War on Campus?
Before the school year started I wrote that the expectation was that this would be a good year for Israel on campus. During the summer there were no indications of any problems and, in fact, the fall had little anti-Israel activity and a good deal of positive programming from pro-Israel students. Not surprisingly, the situation changed dramatically in the wake of the war in Gaza as students returned to school from their winter break to find an invigorated anti-Israel movement mounting protests against the Israeli operation. The war ended, but anti-Israel activities have continued and are reaching a level of intensity that we have not seen since its height. What is different now is that in addition to the campuses that are known hotbeds of hostility, anti-Israel incidents have occurred at a variety of schools, many of which have never had these problems before. A couple of incidents have also been unusually virulent and involved more serious physical threats to Jews than we are accustomed to seeing. On-campus panels attack Israel (again)
Dr. Shlomo Aronson is a Schusterman Visiting Professor, University of Arizona, and the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise The attached report is a letter written by an outraged listener following a panel discussion held at the University of Arizona by the Arizona Center for Middle Eastern Studies to that center's Director. The participants quoted here were Professor Charles Smith, a self styled "expert" on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, who is known for missing command of both Hebrew and Arabic; Professor Leila Hudson, a Syrian by origin; and Asher Kaufman, an Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Notre Dame. My more pro-Israel colleagues and I were not invited to participate. As you read this account, by a student whose name has been withheld for protection, please be aware of the usage of this panel in an academic setting to advance personal opinion and political rhetoric - not academic papers supported by research. This method is a time-honored way for anti-Israel propagandists to spread their diatribes under the guise of academic freedom. It is not the only instance of this type of panel occurring during the recent defensive Israeli Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. This letter continues to remain unanswered. Ill-equipped for the Israel/Palestine controversy
To most American students, the Middle East is far away; it does not arouse their interest or passion. Nevertheless, the impact of Arab propaganda at these institutions cannot be minimized on the basis of the size of the available evidence. Dissenting activist minorities have weight and influence disproportionate to their size. Thus, Arab appeals which cater to the active left present a critical problem today. The Arabs have found a wave length. Many Jewish students, startled by Arab attacks, are not equipped to enter into the controversy because they are not sufficiently versed in Middle East history to distinguish between truth and falsehood and to reply to the latter. Anti-Israel incidents on campus
This year a number of anti-Israel incidents have occurred on US campuses, ranging from vandalism to vitriolic speakers to anti-Semitic cartoons. Are the campuses ablaze or are these relatively insignificant brush fires? The answer depends on whom you ask. Some pro-Israel advocates will not be satisfied unless no critics exist on campus and believe that virtually every anti-Israel speaker or incident merits a response. The establishment groups focus more on proactive than reactive programming. I continue to believe, and reports from campuses bear this out, that the overwhelming majority of campuses today have more serious problems with apathy than anti-Israel activity. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (1)
