YUFA
External
Freedom
of Speech and the Middle East Conflict
Saeed Rahnema
York, March, 28, 03
I teach the political science
course, War and Peace in the Middle East, jointly offered by the Faculty
of Arts and Atkinson Faculty. We have a good representation of Jewish,
Muslim, Christian and students of other religions, denominations, sects,
as well as non-religious, secular, atheist, agnostic, and pagan students. Most are passionate, and have their own strong belief and
perspectives. As you may
imagine, when in session, the classroom thermostat shows an extremely high
temperature. Sometimes we have the representatives of different factions
and parties involved in the conflict. This is the great advantage of York
University, which I think is the most diverse and multi-cultural
university anywhere. Every year, to no avail, I begin the course by saying
this is a course ON war and peace in the Mid-East, and not an extension of
it.
I want to use the example of this class for today’s discussion of the Middle East conflicts on the campus, as I see many similarities between the two. This class is a microcosm of the York campus, and conflicts in the region immediately spill over to both. While we have problems in the course, sometimes lots of it, but we survive in maintaining a good learning environment, and at times we succeed in reducing tensions and even develop friendly relations.
Simply because we follows a set of
clearly declared policies and rules that are agreed upon and respected
(sort of!) by all sides, and are enforced decisively. Without sounding
pretentious, I think if we adopt similar policies and democratically apply
them at the campus level, we may avoid situations when police is called to
the campus, and can work toward creating a peaceful campus.
The first rule of the class,
incidentally relates to freedom of expression. Students are free to say
anything they want to say without fearing consequences.
I emphasize on consequences of free
speech, because without the question of consequences, free speech is not a
problem at all. And this has two aspects, one of which is related to the
reactions of the authorities. In my country of origin, Iran, there is a
political joke which says in Iran we have freedom OF expression, but what
we don’t have is freedom AFTER expression! (You can say whatever you
want, but may end up in jail, be killed, or disappear!) The other aspects
of consequences of free speech relates to the impacts of free speech on
other citizens. Here is there is one off limit for free speech. I do not
believe in extending the privilege of free speech to those who try to
deprive others of such freedoms or those who hurt others through their
speech. Thus, there should not be any freedom of expression for hate
mongers and fascists of different sorts. No freedom of speech for the
likes of Zundel and Pipes.
The second rule is impartiality and
maintaining balance at all costs. That is not getting intimidated and
yield to pressures when as each group tries to drag you to their sides.
Not taking sides does not mean we
should act as passive arbitrators. Not taking SIDEs does not mean not to
have a POSITION. In my understanding, taking sides (for example being on
the Israeli side or on the Palestinian side) has a sense of permanence,
generality, and rigidity, while taking position is temporary, selective,
and flexible. (You can criticize or support aspects of each side).
If the policy of impartiality,
fairness and equal treatment is effectively in place, then we can achieve
a more important aim of making all sides feel safe and secure. Every
member of the class, and the York community should feel that she or he is
protected. Neither side can intimidate the other.
Also we should take into
consideration the interests of those students (and there are many of them)
who do not formally or ideologically belong to either side and are caught
in the middle.
So if we establish such rules and
enforce them properly on campus, we might succeed in lowering tensions.
You might ask who will set these rules and enforce them on the campus? My
answer is the students themselves can play a major part in the process. As
some of you know, there are already several initiatives in process to
create a grass roots organization where student representatives of all
sides, along with few faculty members, run it democratically, agree upon a
set of rules, and enforce them consistently. We hope the university will
support this initiative.
If we succeed in doing this, then
we can prevent situations when police is called to the campus. Frankly I
am absolutely dismayed to see police coming to the campus so often and
even take students in handcuffs. The campus is or should be a sanctuary
for the students, and police should not enter, unless for criminal acts.
Let me tell you, in the 1960s I was a university student in Iran under the
dictatorial rule of the Shah. While the campus was full of secret agents,
police was rarely allowed inside the campus.
Also let’s not forget that a
large number of students who live on the campus, some with children. They
are also dragged into unpleasant conditions when police enters the campus.
Apart from the responsibility of the educators and administrators in preventing confrontations, students and their numerous organizations should also take responsibility to maintain a peaceful learning and living environment, and should advocate tolerance.
Free speech and tolerance are two sides of the same coin. In a world full of conflicts, and contradictory interests, if there is free speech, different and even conflicting views will be expressed. To listen to conflicting views, one should be tolerant. Lack of tolerance leads to attempts for silencing opposing views. It can lead to censorship and self-censorship, which eventually leads to the erosion of free speech.
Tolerance is achieved in a learning process that includes not
only learning about “others”, but also about self. Learning about self
accompanies a painful process of self criticism. To give you two brief
blunt examples. Some Muslim students, for example, cannot continue
insisting that Islamic Fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam, and
avoid criticizing it. Some Jewish students need not defend whatever
Israeli government does, and should not take every criticism of Israel as
anti-Semitism.
I would like to conclude by
asserting that if we in an academic institution, thousands of miles away
from the centre of REAL conflicts in the Middle East, cannot find a way to
live and learn together, we should forget about the prospects of peace
between Palestinians and Israelis. The compelling fact of this last
Arab-Israeli war (i.e. the Palestinian-Israeli war) is that since neither
side can defeat the other, they have no other choice but to live together,
and to do so they have to make difficult concessions and compromises. Here
at York, none of you are forced to make concessions. Here we have an
easier task, because we don’t have to trade land for peace. We don’t
have to decide about the boundaries of the east and west of the campus,
and the right of return, etc.
We cannot solve the problems of the
Middle East, but can make use of the opportunity to learn the complex
issues, and engage in discussions in a calm and rational manner. Let’s
do it. Thanks