Where the Jewish Lobby Loses Me

[sr71plt]

The indexed article reports that CUNY has reversed its decision to revoke an honorary degree it was going to give (and now has given) Pulitzer prize-winning Angels in America playwright Tony Kushner because a university trustee charged him with being "Jewish and anti-Semetic" for being critical of Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza. The Jewish Lobby is now protesting the granting of the honorary degree.

This is, I think, where an organization/people more than starts becoming what they claim to oppose/hate.

What they're going after him is for being honored for something totally unrelated to Israel--and how more two-faced can they get over a person's right to disagree with a state's policy anyway?

http://my.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=20110603/911dcf93-1339-4f70-8094-f86d9bfb0298

I'm not anti-Jewish, but the Jewish Lobby--especially in how it pulls the United States around by the nose--certainly has single-handedly made me growl about Israel a lot--and made me tip toward the Palestinians. (Having lived there has made me sympathetic to the Palestinians too.)

This also offers a lot to think about in terms of freedom of expression in the arts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

*nods and agrees in bobble-headed fashion*

yes, as always, power corrupts. We see the same sort of abuse in every activist and advocacy group, the minute the group gains enough power to try it. Worker's unions, women's and race rights, gay rights, religious rights.

And then the majority has something to point at in shock and horror. Proof that those minority folk are ebul.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

This also offers a lot to think about in terms of freedom of expression in the arts.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

This debacle has nothing to do with freedom of expression in the arts; as far as I can tell, no one is stopping Kushner from writing or producing or doing whatever the hell he does. Being an artist doesn't mean you can get a free pass to say whatever the hell you want and still expect an honorary degree. This same thing would have happened if, say, a CEO had made Mr. Kushner's statements.

Instead, this debacle has everything to do with the intersection of politics, money, and education, and specifically, what happens when a trustee with ties to the state and local governments that fund over sixty percent of a university's operating budget, and who donates who knows how much each year, gets cranky. I'm sure there's a formal term for this type of situation, but as far as I can tell, it's business as usual at public universities.

My own opinion is that CUNY should have said, "we've considered your opinion, Mr. Wiesenfeld, but we feel that Mr. Kushner deserves a degree." Instead, the school looks foolish.

But my opinion reflects the specifics of this situation. I don't believe an artist has an automatic right, no matter how good of an artist they are, to say what they want and expect a university to hand over a degree. Should a spectacularly talented artist be granted an honorary degree, even if they've made incredibly racist, sexist, homophobic, or actual anti-Semitic remarks? If the remarks are extreme, I'd like to think they the answer is no.

 

[sr71plt]

Guess we disagree then. If the honorary degree was for his literary work, what in the hell do his views on Israel's Western Bank and Gaza policies--views that are hardly out of the mainstream--have to do with that? Bringing unrelated politics into it is quite directly messing around with freedom of expression in the arts, I think. If, of course, the honor was for his literary work (I don't see that this is mentioned in the article.)

No, I don't think an artist loses his/her political rights of expression just because they are an acclaimed artist. Using their political views to limit honoring them for their art would be doing just this. This is an institutional matter, not a personal right to take whatever attitude you want on a person whatever reason you wanted to.

 

[PennLady]

My own opinion is that CUNY should have said, "we've considered your opinion, Mr. Wiesenfeld, but we feel that Mr. Kushner deserves a degree." Instead, the school looks foolish.

Form the article, I gather CUNY did essentially that, since Kushner did receive the degree. I don't know much about him but I did see Angels in America, both parts, live in Washington, DC. Pretty wild stuff.

But my opinion reflects the specifics of this situation. I don't believe an artist has an automatic right, no matter how good of an artist they are, to say what they want and expect a university to hand over a degree. Should a spectacularly talented artist be granted an honorary degree, even if they've made incredibly racist, sexist, homophobic, or actual anti-Semitic remarks? If the remarks are extreme, I'd like to think they the answer is no.

Well I doubt any artist goes into their field expecting, or looking for, honorary degrees like that. I'd have to read more about this incident, but from what I did see, it doesn't sound like Kushner expected it.

Should an artist such as you describe receive such a recognition? Likely not, and likely they wouldn't. Any artist should be prepared for negative feedback, as it were. On the other hand Ty Cobb is still a baseball legend, and wasn't exactly a nice guy.

And yes, it looks like politics played into this way more than it should have.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Guess we disagree then. If the honorary degree was for his literary work, what in the hell do his views on Israel's Western Bank and Gaza policies--views that are hardly out of the mainstream--have to do with that? Bringing unrelated politics into it is quite directly messing around with freedom of expression in the arts, I think. If, of course, the honor was for his literary work (I don't see that this is mentioned in the article.)

No, I don't think an artist loses his/her political rights of expression just because they are an acclaimed artist. Using their political views to limit honoring them for their art would be doing just this. This is an institutional matter, not a personal right to take whatever attitude you want on a person whatever reason you wanted to.

I don't think artists live to be given honorary degrees, therefore I don't see this as limiting their political rights of expression; an artist isn't going to think twice about what they say simply because they might lose their shot at an honorary degree.

I was also quite clear in my original post that I thought CUNY was absolutely bonkers for making an issue out of Kushner's statement(s). I pointed out that this issue was all about how a university worries about being perceived by its donors, which is something that universities struggle with on a daily basis.

Lastly, I, personally, would be disturbed if my alma mater gave an honorary degree to an artist--no matter how brilliant--who suggested that the Nazis really had some great ideas, and that the US should consider mass exterminations for gays, Jews, the Roma, etc. Obviously, that's an extreme, but in general, I tend to shy away from absolute statements suggesting that political statements should never come into play when granting honorary degrees.

ETA: PL, I see that you said much of what I said, only you made more sense and used fewer words. One of these days, I just might learn how to write . . . but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[sr71plt]

Lastly, I, personally, would be disturbed if my alma matter gave an honorary degree to an artist--no matter how brilliant--who suggested that the Nazis really had some great ideas, and that the US should consider mass exterminations for gays, Jews, the Roma, etc. Obviously, that's an extreme, but in general, I tend to shy away from absolute statements suggesting that political statements should never come into play when granting honorary degrees.

This isn't remotely that sort of case, of course.

Everything is situational, I think. But I don't rush to the extreme to counterargue the mild.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

This isn't remotely that sort of case, of course.

No, it isn't.

Everything is situational, I think.

Absolutely. But see, you made this statement:

No, I don't think an artist loses his/her political rights of expression just because they are an acclaimed artist. Using their political views to limit honoring them for their art would be doing just this. This is an institutional matter, not a personal right to take whatever attitude you want on a person whatever reason you wanted to.

And this leaves room for the extreme, or at least, that's how I read it. That's all I was pointing out. I honestly didn't know if you were making a black-and-white, there-is-never-a-gray-area argument or not, and saying that an institution can never take political statements into account when awarding a degree.

But I don't rush to the extreme to counterargue the mild.

But . . . I live to counterargue the mild.

I'm only half joking.

[soapbox]
Quite a few disagreements could be avoided if people said, "In general, X is bad, but exceptions can occur in the following circumstances," instead of, "X is bad."
[/soapbox]

ETA: I need to stop breaking quotes up; this is an obnoxious post. As penance, I will admit I was an idiot who misspelled "alma mater."

 

[MatthewVett]

As for me, I'm just opposed to honorary degrees.

 

[sr71plt]

ETA: I need to stop breaking quotes up; this is an obnoxious post. As penance, I will admit I was an idiot who misspelled "alma mater."

I remember Alma Mater well--and affectionately.

 

[sr71plt]

As for me, I'm just opposed to honorary degrees.

Reading recent article on the college years makes me worry than maybe a good many degrees were no better than honorary.

I was a real dunce in college. Since I was paying for it, I had the dumb notion I should go to class, take notes, and sit for exams.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

As for me, I'm just opposed to honorary degrees.

Well, just so I can, "rush to the extreme to counterargue the mild," does your opposition extend to these honorary degrees?

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/16_japaneseamericans.shtml



Sr, I love that quote. It makes me giggle.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

I remember Alma Mater well--and affectionately.

I bet. I heard she grew good 'maters in her garden.

 

[Pure]

LFT put matters well.

It's not at all odd that politics plays a role, not just 'artistic merit' (in this case).

If the shoe were on the other foot, many posters here would be yelling, e.g. if an publically-anti-gay scientist got an honorary science degree from Harvard.

That said, the trustees were right, i think, to reject the trustee's proposal. I think the man deserves the degree.






LFTI don't think artists live to be given honorary degrees, therefore I don't see this as limiting their political rights of expression; an artist isn't going to think twice about what they say simply because they might lose their shot at an honorary degree.

I was also quite clear in my original post that I thought CUNY was absolutely bonkers for making an issue out of Kushner's statement(s). I pointed out that this issue was all about how a university worries about being perceived by its donors, which is something that universities struggle with on a daily basis.

Lastly, I, personally, would be disturbed if my alma mater gave an honorary degree to an artist--no matter how brilliant--who suggested that the Nazis really had some great ideas, and that the US should consider mass exterminations for gays, Jews, the Roma, etc. Obviously, that's an extreme, but in general, I tend to shy away from absolute statements suggesting that political statements should never come into play when granting honorary degrees.

ETA: PL, I see that you said much of what I said, only you made more sense and used fewer words. One of these days, I just might learn how to write . . . but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[MatthewVett]

Well, just so I can, "rush to the extreme to counterargue the mild," does your opposition extend to these honorary degrees?

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/12/16_japaneseamericans.shtml



Sr, I love that quote. It makes me giggle.

Aww, that's great. Nope, extenuating circumstances. I approve totally. Besides, they actually wanted to do the work and outside forces prevented them. Life is too complex not to have inconsistencies, after all.

 

[sr71plt]

LFT put matters well.

It's not at all odd that politics plays a role, not just 'artistic merit' (in this case).

If the shoe were on the other foot, many posters here would be yelling, e.g. if an publically-anti-gay scientist got an honorary science degree from Harvard.

That's not a shoe that fits the foot. Being Mel Gibson anti-gay isn't the same shoe at all as opposing a governmental policy that bunches and bunches of other people oppose on principle as well.

But in that instance I'd also say it was irrelevant (while you are right, that there would be nonsensical protests)--unless the guy's science work was somehow tied up with his anti-gay activities and if the honor was for his science work.

It's also not the case, which I was waiting to come up, of Roman Polanski later being denied honors that had been designated for him for his movie work. Roman Polanski used his movie work to do his dirty deeds--they were intertwined.

 

[stephen55]

Let's see...

The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York voted last month to deny the degree at the urging of trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, who denounced the playwright's views on Israel and branded Kushner "a Jewish anti-Semite" and a "kapo," a term for Jews who worked for the Nazis in concentration camps.

Kushner said Wiesenfeld had distorted his position and objected that he was given no chance to present his own views. The playwright has said that while he's been critical of Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza, he unconditionally supports Israel's right to exist.

I would say that the Board of Governors should be brought to task for initially agreeing to deny the honorary degree, then mildly commended for rethinking the situation and realizing that just because one trustee has a turnip for a brain doesn`t mean that university exists to grow turnips.

 

[sr71plt]

Let's see...

The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York voted last month to deny the degree at the urging of trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, who denounced the playwright's views on Israel and branded Kushner "a Jewish anti-Semite" and a "kapo," a term for Jews who worked for the Nazis in concentration camps.

Kushner said Wiesenfeld had distorted his position and objected that he was given no chance to present his own views. The playwright has said that while he's been critical of Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza, he unconditionally supports Israel's right to exist.

I would say that the Board of Governors should be brought to task for initially agreeing to deny the honorary degree, then mildly commended for rethinking the situation and realizing that just because one trustee has a turnip for a brain doesn`t mean that university exists to grow turnips.

Gotta walk carefully around trustees/university board members, of course. They usually got there by dumping money on the university.

Not long ago our then-governor appointed Pat Kluge (divorced from one of the world's richest men) to the UVa. Board. She had no college education, but had once been a porn star married to the publisher of the UK's equivalent of Hustler magazine. The governor, of course, had his own reasons for putting her on the board (there were newspaper exposes of his midnight helicopter landings at her country estate). We made her donate a medical building before we let loose of her. Now she's bankrupt. (Donald Trump is buying up her holdings--and, no doubt, landing his helicopter at her country house at night.)

 

[JackLuis]

Wiesenfeld said Kushner had accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing." He didn't quote directly from Kushner's writings but cited statements from Kushner that he attributed to the website of Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist who angered many Jewish groups with his book "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering."

As I read the op, it was about the "Zionestia" viewpoint, of most of the Jewish Lobby. They will brook no criticism to Israel's conduct. They will deny, the Nakba, excessive force and "Law Enforcement by Artillery."

The American press is very careful to never criticize Israel, but if you read the Israeli press, there is a lot of it. Much of the criticism in the Israeli press never sees light of day in America.

The kerfuffel on the degree, wasn't even about Kushner's conduct, but it appears Finkelstein shook Wiesenfeld up and he conflated the issue with Zionist zeal!

Zeal, without understanding is exactly how we got in this position. People are the same all over.

 

[estragon]

The indexed article reports that CUNY has reversed its decision to revoke an honorary degree it was going to give (and now has given) Pulitzer prize-winning Angels in America playwright Tony Kushner because a university trustee charged him with being "Jewish and anti-Semetic" for being critical of Israel's policies on the West Bank and Gaza. The Jewish Lobby is now protesting the granting of the honorary degree.

This is, I think, where an organization/people more than starts becoming what they claim to oppose/hate.

What they're going after him is for being honored for something totally unrelated to Israel--and how more two-faced can they get over a person's right to disagree with a state's policy anyway?

http://my.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=20110603/911dcf93-1339-4f70-8094-f86d9bfb0298

I'm not anti-Jewish, but the Jewish Lobby--especially in how it pulls the United States around by the nose--certainly has single-handedly made me growl about Israel a lot--and made me tip toward the Palestinians. (Having lived there has made me sympathetic to the Palestinians too.)

This also offers a lot to think about in terms of freedom of expression in the arts.

To call the Israel lobby the "Jewish" lobby is to conflate the Zionists with all the Jews. The two are not the same.

You may (or may not) remember that a number of religious Jews were guests of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in denouncing Israel as constructed by the Zionists.

The religious issue, simply put, is whether the Jewish homeland is to be a Kingdom ruled by the Lord's Anointed (the Messiah or, depending upon your viewpoint, the Christ, the Chrismated One), the heir of David, whose kingdom is to have no end (cf. the prophets, with a sidelong glance at the psalms), to the establishment of which God will see in God's time, or else a socialist commonwealth bankrolled at first by a Franco-Prussian millionaire (Rothschild) and given impetus by an assimilated Austrian journalist (Herzl) who had his eyes opened by the Dreyfus affair, and finally given birth by Western guilt at the Holocaust, which guilt the Zionists have effectively milked ever since.

The issue is further befogged (as if it weren't complex enough) by the Western evangelical Protestants (if I may borrow some Australian slang, hereinafter referred to as the "Wowsers") who think, if all the Jews go to Israel, Jesus will thereupon show up. As usual, the Wowsers overdose on the Revelation to John, treating Scripture as cookbook, or perhaps as DaVinci Code. These furnish additional encouragement, carefully picking and choosing (as we all do) upon what part of Scripture they choose to rely.

As one raised as a religious Jew, but a Christian for the last thirty years, I am fully prepared for obloquy, derision and insult from all quarters. I am convinced that God will sort it out.

 

[JackLuis]

Washington Gives Green Light for Attack on Unarmed Flotilla,

June 30, 2011 |

The Obama administration appears to have given a green light to an Israeli attack on an unarmed flotilla carrying peace and human rights activists — including a vessel with 50 Americans on board — bound for the besieged Gaza Strip. At a press conference on June 24, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the flotilla organized by the Free Gaza Campaign by saying it would "provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

If it were North Korea, assaulting ships in International Waters, do you think Hillary would be so accommodating?