Today's not the problem, 2 years ago is the problem

Clearly, the Concordia controversy is complicated to dissect.

Adam, you bring forward some good points, the most powerful, of course, being that freedom of speech should never take second place to violence, or fear of violence for that matter. I agree. Wholeheartedly.

But the circumstances surrounding this controversy skew the possibility of a simple moral verdict such as “it is wrong to deny freedom of speech”. The fact of the matter is that history is quite significant in analyzing this situation.

Two years ago, violence erupted when Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Concordia. It was a most unfortunate incident. Obviously, this reality had a profound effect on Concordia’s decision. And you know what, it should.

Concordia has an obligation to ensure a safe and secure learning environment. Based on the facts on the table at this point, I accept Concordia’s choice not to hold the event in question because of security concerns. However, my acceptance is contingent on the reliability of the facts before me. If Concordia did indeed do everything in their power to try and accommodate the former Prime Minister in partnership with the proper authorities (RCMP, Montreal police, etc.) – and more importantly, did not use political concerns to influence security evaluations – then I am comfortable with their decision.

That doesn't mean, though, that I think Concordia is entirely in the right. While I don’t necessarily disagree with Concordia’s recent decision, I strongly question its decision in the days, months and two years separating this event with that of Netanyahu’s visit.

Concordia had two whole years to plan for something like this -- two years to beef up security on campus, two years to sit down with the authorities as well as with the major players in this debate (Adam, you’re right, everyone knows who’s involved by this point) and lay out procedures and strategies to facilitate peaceful political events on campus. Not doing so shows a blatant disrespect of its students, its staff, as well as those informally associated with the institution, such as citizens in the surrounding neighbourhood.

I doubt, as you suggest Adam, that Concordia is scared of legitimate debate. What they’re scared of is another PR disaster. That’s simple. What is perplexing, however, is trying to understand how the administration didn’t see this coming. For this, no apologies can be made.

But another factor in this controversy must not be ignored: the inexcusable obstinance of both Palestinian and Jewish groups involved. Much like the story in the Middle East, neither side of the conflict is willing to open lines of communication to discuss a potential resolution. Apparently, talking things over is futile. Fine, but if you’re looking for sympathy, you won’t get it from me. If neither side shows a willingness to discuss their differences – I take the verbal assaults carried out by both groups as evidence of this — then neither side should be allowed to claim a moral high ground. Period.

If you want real freedom of speech, on campus or in society in general, it takes a lot more than just security fences and keynote speakers. It takes respect and tolerance. And, regrettably, neither Concordia’s pro-Israel nor its pro-Palestinian populations can claim an understanding of even the faintest idea of such a crucial element of democracy.

posted by G E @ 11:06 p.m.