Don't Legitimate Propaganda

Should there be limits on who can speak at Harvard? Does Harvard have the right to deny individuals or groups the right to earn the respectability and status of holding an event here?

Most would agree that the answer is "Yes." In certain instances, it is clearly inappropriate for Harvard to accommodate every possible viewpoint. Possible examples are when a speaker professes racial hatred, when the premise of the discussion is unfounded or irrelevant, or when the sponsors of the debate want to hold it at Harvard to lend credibility to their own political agenda, not to enlighten or instruct.

An example of the last case is "Apartheid's Arc," a forum on Israel and South Africa that a group of pro-Palestinian activists planned to hold at the Divinity School. After Divinity School Dean Ronald Thiemann correctly rejected the organizers' request to hold the conference on campus, the conference was moved to another location.

One can support Thiemann's decision regardless of what one thinks of the topic. Supporters of Israel might point out that Israel is a democracy where citizens of all races vote and hold office, while South Africa is a tyranny of a white minority over the Black majority. Some might also note that Israel has given extensive technological and agricultural assistance to Black-African countries, or even that several Arab countries have strong economic ties to South Africa.

The only question that really matters is whether the proposed forum was an academic endeavor worthy of Harvard's support. And the clear answer is "No." This is not because the topic itself is "too controversial." Rather, it is because the sponsors of the forum are interested in more than promoting a constructive discussion or aiding the victims of apartheid; they also wish to deceive their audience and promote their own anti-Israel agenda.

THE scheduled speakers and topics do not reflect a balance of opposing viewpoints, as one would expect in an academic forum. Several of the speakers do not even have any particular expertise on the proposed topic. Though the forum is promoted as an intellectual exercise with the noble goal of opposing racism, it is more a not-so-subtle attempt to discredit Israel.

A quick background check on a few of the key speakers proves this. The keynote address, for example, is to be delivered by Benjamin Beit Hallahmi of Haifa University. His area of expertise is not political science or history, but psychology. Hallahmi has authored a misstatement-filled book on Israel's military connections, but he is neither an authority on Israeli foreign policy nor a reasoned intellectual observer.

Nor is Noam Chomsky, another key speaker. Renowned in the academic world for his work in linguistics, Chomsky is also known for anti-Zionism bordering on anti-Semitism. Chomsky loudly defends the rights of those Palestinians living within Israeli-controlled borders, although he seems less concerned with the plight of the 60 percent of Palestinians who live under the brutal rule of Jordan's King Hussein. Chomsky has long denied the right of Israel to exist. Should this person's enthusiasm for linking Israel and South Africa be regarded as a legitimate academic pursuit?

The goals of the program's sponsors are just as suspicious as the qualifications of the speakers. Of the nine sponsors, five did not previously have apartheid on their agendas. Only one is exclusively devoted to the issue. Although the sponsors may be sincerely dedicated to the rights of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, some are sincerely anti-Israel as well. Should Harvard feel compelled to lend them its resources?

Certainly, the University should not shy away from sponsoring forums on controversial subjects; to do that would be to abandon its duty to encourage the pursuit of knowledge and truth. As an opinion piece in yesterday's Crimson asserted, "Harvard's role isn't to make people comfortable; it's to foster critical thinking and dialogue."

Agreed. But to have a group of pro-Palestinian organizations and anti-Israel speakers debate Israeli policy unlikely to accomplish that. It's akin to having a board of Christian fundamentalists discuss the legality of abortion, or having Zairean leader Sese Seko Mobutu speak about peace in Africa, for that matter. Although all views should be heard, treating such a forum as an academic pursuit would make a mockery of the term. To lend Harvard's credibility to a conference so imbalanced in its approach, so determined to push a particular point of view rather than to give all the facts, is indeed inappropriate. Rather than "foster critical thinking and dialogue," the conference would have obscured real debate on an already murky issue.