I have thus been surprised by arguments that the recent seminar was inappropriate because it was not “balanced.” Balance was not the goal. Airing of differences was the goal. Presentation of perspectives not usually heard on CNN was the goal. Most people will concede that in the course of a two-hour seminar it is not possible to present all perspectives on an issue. In a university setting presentation of a strong position on a given topic without full representation of “the other side” is not generally regarded as a problem. Consider, for example, the previous event in this series: of the many ROTC students who were present to hear former United Nations weapons inspector and former member of the U.S. Marine Corps, Scott Ritter, speak about U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq, not one of them expressed outrage about either Ritter’s lack of objectivity or his misplaced sympathies toward Iraqi women and children. I am certain that many of these ROTC students found Ritter’s critiques of the policies of both the Clinton and Bush administrations toward Iraq to be naïve, antithetical to U.S. interests, insufficiently respectful to the military, or simply wrong.

Universities are a place where strong positions are taken all the time. They provide an organizational structure that allows these positions to be produced, evaluated, critiqued, and revised. I realize, of course, that the issues aired by the 9-11 Seminar Series are particularly sensitive on a very personal level. In my view, however, this only increases the relevance of a university setting as a place to work through the issues.

In my view, the seminar on Palestinian-Israeli conflicts did not make general arguments about Jews or Israelis as groups. Both speakers did condemn Israeli government policy, making arguments that I know are controversial. Both understand Israeli practices are in breach of international law and believe that the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories could result in a “just peace.” Ruebner went so far as to say that Israel is addicted to the violence, which could result in ethnic cleansing. These are, indeed, harsh statements. This is not, in itself, a reason to deem them inappropriate to air on a university campus, or as in immediate need of a balancing antidote. Again, one purpose of the university is to provide a setting where strong positions can be aired, analyzed, and critiqued.

Like other seminars in the series, the speakers for this one were chosen by a small sub-group of students, faculty, and staff who had agreed to be responsible for the seminar. One reason we chose to invite Khalid Turaani (a Muslim, born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, who is now a U.S. citizen) and Joshua Ruebner (a U.S.-born Jew who is also an Israeli citizen) as speakers, was because they had a record of co-presenting in public forums, which the 9-11 group found interesting in itself given the tendency to portray Palestinian advocates and Jews as simply unable to cooperate. We were also interested in their efforts to re-shape the U.S. lobby on the Middle East, in part by encouraging people to become active commentators on U.S. foreign policy. Clearly this is an issue worthy of consideration in a seminar series focused on global citizenship, whatever the topical content of the effort. Joshua Ruebner’s background prepared him well for addressing this. He has an M.A. from John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, where he focused on Middle East Studies and International Economics. Before becoming executive director of Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel, Ruebner worked as an analyst in Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan federal government agency that provides information and analysis to Members of Congress; at CRS, Ruebner focused on Israel, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, the Middle East peace process, and regional economics.

Any dissatisfaction that I have with the speakers—whether because of what they did not say, or because of what they did say—is worth discussing with others interested in better understanding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Such dissatisfaction is not, in my view, grounds to condemn the seminar that the speakers were part of. Also worth discussing is how to respond to the kinds of harsh condemnations of the seminar that many of us have heard in the last few days in a way that works toward the goal of making Rensselaer a place that deals well with diversity.

I, for example, received an e-mail from another Rensselaer faculty member on the day of the seminar. It was a vehement condemnation of any attempt to create a “terrorist Palestinian state.” It included a graphic attachment that equated Palestine with Osama bin Laden. I think that the equation of Palestine and bin Laden is empirically inaccurate, and that such statements will only make negotiations in the Middle East more difficult. I also think that it was wrong to send this e-mail to me on the day of this particular seminar. It is difficult not to understand this as an attempt at intimidation. I am, nonetheless, unsure about how to best respond. So far, I have chosen to ignore it, thinking that the tone of the e-mail suggests no possibility of productive dialogue with the person who sent it. On the other hand, it does not seem entirely right to just let this kind of thing go, if a goal of the seminar series is to improve our ability to deal well with our differences.

My point here is that dealing with differences is not straightforward. So condemning a seminar hosted by the 9-11 group because it drew out differences that are difficult to deal with does not make sense to me. The very purpose of these seminars, in my view, has been to draw such differences out.

The sub-group that organized the seminar knew that Ruebner (as well as Turaani) would present positions that many people would disagree with. We were, nonetheless, confident that disagreements could be handled respectfully and productively and we put in the extra effort to ensure so. A faculty member in the group discussed our expectations for the event with both speakers beforehand; we planned a meeting at which Jewish students on campus could talk with students and faculty in the 9-11 group, so we could better understand the concerns the Jewish students had about the seminar on Palestine and Israel and to explain the goals of the seminar series overall. That meeting resulted in plans for another discussion meeting following the seminar (to be held on April 10) and also in plans for the Jewish students to meet with Joshua Ruebner for lunch on the day of the seminar series itself. We believe we tried to be as diligent and inclusive as we could.

I hope that people who did not appreciate this seminar will take the initiative to be involved in planning future seminars. The 9-11 organizing group has always been, and will continue to be, open to all who are interested. At this point, plans are underway for next academic year, in collaboration with the Office of Institute Diversity, and the Office of First Year Studies. Seminar topics are still open, and people are encouraged to join the organizing groups.

Kim Fortun

Associate Professor