|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Yaacov on Sunday, December 12 2004 @ 02:48 AM CST |
It seems dumb to oppose WPIRG because they rightly define Judaism as not exactly the same as a race.
My understanding from discussions with Colan and others who've interacted with WPIRG on this issue is that it's not a problem of definition but of action. According to them (and I still haven't reviewed all of the documentation, but hope to soon), the way WPIRG treats and addresses discrimination against Jews is significantly weaker (or even non-existent in some cases) than the way they treat discrimination against other groups.
Having recently watched a copy of the Finkelstein lecture, I can safely say that what Finkelstein said, what some audience members said and the way the lecture and question period was set up to promote intimidation rather than a safe discussion environment is opposed to my understanding of WPIRG's values. In addition, the WPIRG board's "apology" is one of the least apologetic apologies I've read. Rather than focusing the central issue of the problems with the Finkelstein lecture and expressing WPIRG's apology for its role in sponsoring the lecture, the letter makes allegations against Jewish people in the audience and seeks to mollify or excuse Finkelstein's anti-Semitism with it's own definitions about what is and isn't anti-Semitic.
I've been disappointed with the apology since it was issued, but it's only now, after watching the lecture, that I understand to what extent the apology ignores what actually happened in the room.
However - this is not a reason to disband a PIRG. Why not present a motion to change their policy at a General Meeting?
First things first: I don't believe that Colan has any association with those who are circulating the petition. I certainly do not, nor do I support the petition. I believe that an organization with WPIRG's mandate is important on our campus and would recommend voting NO to the question on the petition if it goes to referendum.
However, WPIRG's written policy, which you suggest changing, is not the issue. The written policy is fine. The problem is how it is acted upon. Colan and several other people have worked at length to change the attitudes within WPIRG and have been unsuccessful. I believe this lack of success is one of the things that led to Colan resigning his position on the WPIRG board.
Given that internal discussions at WPIRG have been unsuccessful, and that a general discussion about WPIRG's merits is happening here, this seems to me as good a place as any to make public the information that Colan shared.
---
"an ideology is a thought—economizing device" - Moisés Naim[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
