Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Speech and its Aftermath

January 25, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

When President Jimmy Carter shook his last hand Tuesday night and left Waltham, Mass., after a much-anticipated and controversial appearance, Brandeis University administrators most certainly exhaled. It was the culmination of a highly charged month leading up to Carter's speech defending his new book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, that some have criticized as being overly critical of Israel's dealings with the Palestinians. 

There were modest student protests at the Carter event but no major disruptions during his hour-long speech. The latter couldn't be said for the run-up to the event.

Carter's invite spurred a campuswide discussion about academic freedom and the religious identity of Brandeis, an institution that was founded by Jewish leaders in an era of Jewish quotas at top institutions. Brandeis is not officially a Jewish university but has always attracted many Jewish students, faculty and donors.

Last year, the university became entangled in another controversy when it  displayed and then removed a library art exhibition created by Palestinian teenagers after Brandeis officials determined the artwork only showed one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Carter episode attracted national attention. A Brandeis trustee initiated contact with the former president during the fall term, and the proposed event had Carter squaring off in a debate with Alan M. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor and staunch supporter of Israel. But Carter nixed that format. Some saw the decision to propose a point-counterpoint event as a sign that Brandeis was unwilling to consider Carter's ideas alone.

"Lots of faculty felt that if you invite a president, you don't ask him to debate anyone. You want to hear him speak by himself," said Gordon Fellman, chair of the peace, conflict and coexistence studies program at Brandeis.

Still, others argued that not allowing Dershowitz to speak at the event violated his freedom of speech and would allow Carter to emerge from the event without being challenged on his views.   

After weeks of back-and-forth at Brandeis, more than 100 students and professors signed a petition inviting Carter to speak alone. A committee of faculty members and students extended the new invitation to Carter, and he accepted. So on Tuesday, the former president gave a 15 minute speech and answered questions that had been selected in advance -- a decision that some students and faculty criticized. Dershowitz spoke in a separate event later that night. 

Dennis Nealon, a Brandeis spokesman, said the university was proud of the civil discourse that took place at both events.

"It's the duty of a college to spark debate and make sure those who want to engage in the debate were given the outlet," Nealon said. "Controversy is part of a university's life. We've never flinched from controversy."

Added Fellman, who was on the committee that invited Carter the second time: "Here's a university at its best -- allowing open inquiry. We know there are donors who are upset [by Carter's presence], but they need to be reminded that there's nothing that shouldn't be open for discussion at Brandeis. We hope this sets the tone."

But Stephen Flatow, the father of two daughters who attended Brandeis (one of whom was killed in Israel in a suicide bombing) said he wanted to attend the event to challenge Carter on points in his book. Flatow said he was told by a university official that the event was open only to faculty, students and staff.

“For an institution that's supposed to represent freedom of speech, it seemed pretty controlled," he said.

The circumstances surrounding Carter's invitation to Brandeis were unique, but the case of a controversial speaker or a speaker with a controversial message coming to campus is not. A new policy at Boston College, which requires balancing speakers for those who differ on certain issues from Roman Catholic teachings, has upset many students there. Last year, the American Association of University Professors reviewed the issue of controversial political speakers and published a proposed statement declaring the importance of inviting such people to campuses — and rejecting the notion that speakers must be balanced, person by person, as invitations go out.

Robert Post, a Yale University law professor who was on the panel that wrote the AAUP statement, said there's no general rule when inviting guests to campus.

"You have to think through the mind of an administrator," Post said. "A bad way to go about it is to say, 'We don't like your views and stay away.' A good mindset is, 'He has very strong views, and we want to give students the full educational experience by hearing both sides.'"

Nealon, the Brandeis spokesman, said the decision to invite speakers belongs to the faculty and students, and that the college's role is to create a forum for discussion. He said the college has no official policy on whether a speaker should come alone or be invited onto a panel. In the case of the Carter invitation, that choice was limited by the president's decision to reject the panel format, Nealon said.

Greg Lukianoff, president of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said often times colleges get in the most trouble when they attempt to "over-regulate things."

"This case is not about individual rights but about good pedagogy and policy," Lukianoff said. "If a university invites a person to speak, it’s in its power to define the format."

Brandeis was under no obligation to give Carter the whole stage, nor was it obliged to find a speaker with a different viewpoint, he said.

"The belief that Brandeis needed to provide a counterpoint is part of a growing misconception that some colleges seem to be buying into -- the idea that they are endorsing a speaker’s ideas if they invite them to come alone," Lukianoff said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Speech and its Aftermath

  • Part of a Bigger Controversy
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on January 25, 2007 at 8:05am EST
  • As corporate acknowledgments for presentations on public television expand, the fair and balanced component of the programs contract.

    The profit motive view becomes the only view.

    Bill Moyers gave a comprehensive speech to the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis last month that sums up the threats to our democracy. It can be viewed at:

    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/13/18346340.php (last viewed 1-25-07)

    Without agreement or disagreement with former President Carter, the views he expressed stimulate quality thought.

    Too often the minority, and sometimes the correct voice, is stifled.

    The most serious question that faces the United States now is: Why are we fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq to save Theocratic constitutions. Are we crazy or do we want a Theocratic society here?

    Correct answers begin with in-depth analysis. The Great War Decider and the 174 US House of Representative members who voted against embryonic stem cell research can sell decisions based upon their personal views, rather than facts, only because main stream media is stifled by the war and religious profiteers.

    Higher Education with the aid of a free Internet must give platforms to those with unpopular or minority views if Democracy in the United States is to survive.

    Only the Internet and courageous college administrators provide people the opportunity to get quality information. We must use these two remaining bastions of social order to reverse the trend in public television and radio and open up main stream media.

    This topic should move from Carter’s views to how to get free speech into main stream media in America.

    William Sumner Scott, J. D.

    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

  • Brandeis University and Jimmy Carter
  • Posted by feudi pandola on January 25, 2007 at 8:10am EST
  • I tend to agree with the faculty of Brandeis that a former President deserves his own forum if he is being invited to discuss his book. That does not preclude a question and answer session. I have heard Mr. Carter defend his book on several occasions now, and it seems that much of what he says has validity. There was one very poorly worded sentence regarding suicide bombers that he has asked his publisher to correct in future printings. Brandeis acted appropriately.

  • Sumner
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on January 25, 2007 at 8:51am EST
  • The idea that the MSM has somehow been stifled by the right is a crock. The only MSM that has been able to show both sides of the story consistently is FOX. The fact that Sumner objects to the Iraq situation and want stem cell research has clouded his view of reality. Overall the MSM has been trashing the Bush administration and US policies ever since he "stole" the 2000 election. Getting to Carter, it is interesting that a president who found it impossible to successfully deal with the vitriolic political climate in the Middle East has suddenly become an expert. When Iran grabbed the US embassy in Tehran and kidnapped all those US citizens, Carter should have demanded that Congress declare war. An embassy is considered the sovereign territory of a country, and is supposed to be defended as such. Carter has become the laughing stock of almost all of the Right, and a good percentage of the Left side of the political spectrum.
    The college probably made the correct move by not allowing a debate on campus, however.
    Looking at recent "debate" style confrontations on college campuses around the country indicates that it probably would have degenerated into a circus act, with those on the Left shouting down Dershowitz without allowing him to speak his views. The university doesn't need that sort of publicity.

  • "facts" and "speech"
  • Posted by Larry on January 25, 2007 at 9:10am EST
  • As a lawyer, Mr. Scott, perhaps you can explain the difference between “personal views” and “facts” and whether a legislature should always base their decisions on one of these trite descriptions or another. This distinction seems so easy to say, but so hard to describe. Do you really think that the congressmen that voted “in favor” of embryonic stem-cell research really had researched exactly what they were doing, and were conversant with the science? If these congressmen based their opinions on “fact” I wonder if they knew, as a “fact” exactly how long it would be before the lives of Americans start getting saved by stem cells? A week? A month? Twenty Years?

    Unfortunately, Bill Moyers, lacking any serious education, isn’t much help to serious academics. But, people like to talk about him. And he talks about Start Wars. On that note, why do you always say that you have a “JD” Look, just having a degree doesn’t make your ideas any better or worse. They need to stand on their own without reference to your degree. As a rule lawyers should never refer to themselves in the first person using "Esq." or "JD" unless specifically ordered to.

    Also, even assuming that Carter is prohibited from giving a speech at all universities, how is his speech stifled? He can still blog. He can still write. Americans are exposed to plenty of free speech. Unfortunately, most of it is just political diatribes by people that don’t do serious research and, quite frankly, don’t know what they are talking about. But, since we don’t license the presses in this country, we have to accept this. (Not that Carter doesn’t know what he is talking about.) On the other hand, if Brandeis really makes an effort to restrict views that their students are exposed to, it reflects badly on them. But, this isn’t the case.

    Moreover, it isn’t as if nobody has ever heard of his ideas, or they are going to convince die-hards in one camp or another to switch sides.

  • Distortion Fields
  • Posted by Matt DeForrest on January 25, 2007 at 9:25am EST
  • Dear Craig,

    I am curious about something. You say, "Getting to Carter, it is interesting that a president who found it impossible to successfully deal with the vitriolic political climate in the Middle East has suddenly become an expert." How do you reconcile your statements with Carter's success with creating a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab states through the Camp David Peace Accords?

  • Open Inquiry?
  • Posted by Kevin on January 25, 2007 at 9:30am EST
  • "There were modest student protests at the Carter event but no major disruptions during his hour-long speech."

    Of course not. Major disruptions and even violence are reserved for the other side.

    " 'Lots of faculty felt that if you invite a president, you don’t ask him to debate anyone. You want to hear him speak by himself,' said Gordon Fellman, chair of the peace, conflict and coexistence studies program at Brandeis."

    And I'm sure the faculty would have given the same consideration to President Bush were he speaking at Brandeis.

    "Here’s a university at its best — allowing open inquiry. We know there are donors who are upset [by Carter’s presence], but they need to be reminded that there’s nothing that shouldn’t be open for discussion at Brandeis. We hope this sets the tone."

    Did I miss something? What open inquiry?

    "The belief that Brandeis needed to provide a counterpoint is part of a growing misconception that some colleges seem to be buying into..."

    And why not. They're just following the lead of congressman Dennis Kucinich who wants to make it the law that conservative talk radio, television. and other media outlets "provide a counterpoint."

  • Posted by Larry on January 25, 2007 at 10:20am EST
  • Craig, While I am not a licensed political pundit, I am somewhat amused by your statement that one network – which, like the rest of them, relies on individuals and advertiser dollars – is able to be objectively fair.

    Kevin, I am curious, when was the last time there was student violence at Brandeis?

  • Larry - Since you asked...
  • Posted by Kevin on January 25, 2007 at 1:05pm EST
  • The most recent I could find goes back to December of '05. There's some other examples to be found over the last few decades. Probably one of the more famous ones dates back to the 1968 Ford Hall incident.

    But you weren't really interested in an answer to your question, were you?

  • Posted by Larry on January 25, 2007 at 1:55pm EST
  • Kevin, Yes, I was. How many people at Brandeis were killed or injured?

  • To Those Who Question Belief v Facts
  • Posted by Stay on Topic on January 25, 2007 at 3:25pm EST
  • The difference between those who voted "for" and those who voted "against" embryonic stem cell research it that the votes for were to protect "life in being" while those who voted against want to protect life that "could exist if".

    By definition, research of the unknown cannot predict when the work will be fruitful.

    What facts are known demand a yes vote on embryonic stem cell research.

    For this topic, mass media must present interviews with the Congresspersons to ask them to justify why they voted yes or no and let the public sift through the answers to find the facts.

  • Posted by Michael on January 25, 2007 at 3:30pm EST
  • Free inquiry in the academy is suppopsed to be untainted by outside influences. For this reason, research sponsored by corporate entities with a vested interest in the outcome, (e.g. tobacco companies sponsoring lung cancer research, pharmaceutical companies sponsoring drug reaction research) is considered suspect at best, and most likely valueless. Brandeis University should have been more concerned about former President Carter's research and writing being sponsored by the enemies of Israel than they should have about whether he had an opposing voice on stage with him. His own Institute's senior researcher resigned in protest over the conclusions stated in his latest book due to the sponsorship by vested interests from the Palestinian side. The university is supposed to be a place of free inquiry, not sponsored propaganda. It is a shame that Brandeis lost sight of this concept.

  • Posted by Mike B on January 25, 2007 at 7:35pm EST
  • There are serious questions about who are "enemies of Israel" Michael. In my book, those who promote peace between Israel and its neighbors are not Israel's enemies. Quite the contrary, it is those who insist on continuing the mindless bloodshed in the Middle East who are truly Israel's enemies. In the long run, Michael, who do you think will prevail if the conflict continues: 6 million Israelis or 1 billion of their opponents?

  • Posted by Belle on January 25, 2007 at 7:35pm EST
  • "How many people at Brandeis were killed or injured?"

    I can't imagine what difference that makes. Neither is necessary to compromise the free exchange of ideas that should be the university's concern.

  • To Put a Name to Michael's Comment
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on January 25, 2007 at 8:20pm EST
  • The former Carter employee who quit and later found fault with the book at issue today was Kenneth Stein. Prof. Stein details his position in:

    My Problem with Jimmy Carter's Book
    by Kenneth W. Stein
    Middle East Quarterly
    Spring 2007

    which can be read at:

    http://www.meforum.org/article/1633

    The UN and the Brits created the Israeli State - terror against the Jews appears misplaced in addition to the breach of morals to attack civilians.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

    wss@jefound.org

  • Posted by Michael on January 26, 2007 at 1:21pm EST
  • The Carter Center's funding does not appear to me to be coming from those who seek a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Arab states. Rather the funding comes from those with a vested interest in eradicating the state of Israel.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/28/112225.shtml

    http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NmVlNzc4OWI5YTc4MDY1MzhiMDM2OWRhNjgzYzk0ZTk=JRA

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976879837

    The funding is a matter of public record. How is this funding less a conflict of interest that infuses bias than the funding of pharmaceutical research by drug companies etc.?