Three years ago, I had the pleasure of serving on the Students’ Administrative Council with two excellent people: John Leef and Muhammad Basil Ahmad.
John was representing University College, active in the Jewish Students’ Union, and as a holder of joint Israeli-Canadian citizenship had done his mandatory service with the Israeli Defence Force. Muhammad was representing Arts & Science students to Governing Council, and was very active in the Muslim Students’ Association.
Needless to say, they approached the Israel-Palestine issue from very divergent perspectives.
However, while they were both willing and able to argue their respective positions with passion, eloquence, and authority, their treatment of one another was always marked by two other crucial characteristics: civility and respect.
Moreover, these two excellent parliamentarians were also able to look past their points of disagreement and work together on issues of common concern. This was also the same year that the JSU and MSA were working on a joint call for peace in the Middle East.
Flash-forward to today. Members of our community are spitting on one another, the Editor of The Newspaper is receiving death threats, and U of T is threatening to degenerate into another “Disconcordia.”
So what happened?
In a word, SAC happened.
As a multi-cultural institution in a very multi-cultural city, U of T has long been home to passionate debates reflecting the conflicts of the world. But for so long as these issues were being debated by members of the U of T community, those members seemed to largely understand and remember the obligations and duties incumbent upon members of our community.
In other words, the duties of civility and respect.
But SAC wasn’t satisfied with that state of affairs. No, rather than give voice to the hundreds of professors and students in our community who-like John Leef and Mohammad Basil Ahmad-could argue the Israel-Palestine issue with great authority and still want to shake one another’s hands, SAC decided to bring in outside rabble-rousers.
And to what possible end? With so many members of the U of T community willing and able to debate this issue, often from first-hand experience, why bring in Norman Finkelstein, a speaker known primarily for being a flashpoint for rage?
In any event, the result seems clear: by bringing in speakers with no connection to our community-and therefore no obligation to fulfill the duties of respect and civility incumbent upon members of our community-SAC has sent a very clear message: that the gloves can come off.
But what’s most disturbing is that this seems deliberate. Finkelstein wasn’t brought in to “stimulate interest.” The interest was already there. He wasn’t brought in because of some “greater authority” on the issue. There are many U of T professors with equal or greater authority.
No, Finkelstein was brought in for one reason only: to stir the pot. And as I watch my fellow students being spat upon and receiving death threats, all I can think to say is this:
Congratulations, SAC: pot well stirred.
