Arguments over the controversial removal of Palestinian artwork at Brandeis University have continued into recent days, with Law and Politics professor Jeffrey Abramson supporting the artwork and University President Juhuda Reinharz defending his decision to take down the exhibit.
Abramson rests his support on the contentions that 1) it doesn't matter that the artwork wasn't balanced, as this should not be a requirement for free expression, 2) the exhibit was indeed educational, and 3) the exhibit was not hate speech against Israel. Reinharz, however, while generally agreeing with Abramson's first two assertions, strongly disagrees with him on the third, and defends his actions as such.
So where do I stand? I fully agree with Dr. Reinharz. Student artwork need not always present counterbalancing points of view, and one could certainly argue that the piece was educational. But as for not being hate speech - that's pure hogwash.
Take a look at one of the drawings in the exhibit. The map of the state of Israel is dripping in blood and represented with a Palestinian flag. It is clearly symbolic of the Palestinian desire to violently destroy Israel and kill Jews.
Not hate speech? Message to Dr. Abramson: This drawing could stand in as the direct definition of "hate speech" in the dictionary. Dr. Reinharz and his administration made the absolutely correct decision in removing the artwork.
Brandeis University should be proud of its decision. Now if only they could get better graduation honorees than Tony Kushner. My suggestion for next year: passionate Arab Zionists (yes, they do exist) Walid Shoebat and Brigitte Gabriel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment