“At the University of Chicago, freedom of expression is vital to our shared goal of the pursuit of knowledge, as is the right of all members of the community to explore new ideas and learn from one another.” On Thursday, October 15, former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert was welcomed to the University of Chicago; the line above is taken from an e-mail sent detailing security protocols for the event. However, I noticed a disconnect when I saw that line, and compared it with the actions of the University. This event, which was supposed to promote a discussion on leadership and current events, was not allowed to be taped or recorded in any way by attendees and was sparsely advertised to the University community. The University clearly did not want any opposing voices to be present and this secrecy only serves to undermine the lofty goals quoted above.
I was among the audience at Ehud Olmert’s speech and, as many reports detail, Olmert was constantly interrupted. However, contrary to what has been stated in some media reports, I did not see a disorganized rabble, or a mock town hall mob. Yes, I heard some of the more provocative things quoted in the Maroon (“Jeers Stifle Olmert’s Speech,” 10/16/09). However, you wouldn’t have simply heard “war criminal,” “murderer,” “you have an ugly face,” and so forth. I heard things such as, “I’m here to give voice to Mohammed Samouni, who never had one because he was six months old when you killed him.” I saw one woman stand up and wave a list of more than 1,400 people killed in Gaza. A large number of students read lists of names of those killed in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank. I heard pro-Israel students laugh as one person threw a book at a pro-Palestinian student. I saw a pro-Palestinian student pushed by a supporter of Olmert, who cowardly fled, while the crowd around her blamed the protestors. There is no one side to any incident.
We are taught that interrupting someone never accomplishes anything. We, as future academics and leaders, are taught to base things on fact, to find a reasoned approach to problems. More than 1,400 people were killed in Gaza, and an overwhelming majority of them were civilians. By all standards, this would be considered military incompetence at best and a massacre at worst. The day after the lecture, the United Nations Human Rights Council formally backed a report that confirmed war crimes committed against Palestinians by Israel. And the University of Chicago, an institution committed to integrity and civilized discourse, welcomed the man who was responsible for it all.
Death is universal, and it is permanent; the death toll is a fact that does not change no matter which side of the argument you stand on. And the only way the former Prime Minister of Israel could be made to face the gravity of the deaths he ordered, was by men and women, normally quiet and nonchalant, standing up and proclaiming that their family members, friends, loved ones, or simply innocent fellow human beings were killed at the hands of the man before them. Were the responses of these people rational? Perhaps not, but they were human, and no amount of intellectualism should prevent humanity in any form. Ehud Olmert is not an academic who happens to have a difference of opinion that must be respected; he is responsible for the deaths of thousands. As the first protester who stood cried out, war crimes are not free expression.
Olmert was brought to this campus as a part of the King Abdullah II Annual Leadership Lecture. Ehud Olmert was charged in August of charges such as fraud, breach of trust, and tax evasion (for which, in part, he resigned). I ask my fellow students: Is this the best leader we can find to lecture us on leadership and integrity?
The only responsible course of action is for the University of Chicago to apologize to the members of the Arab, Muslim, and pro-Palestinian community for allowing such a blatant display of bias and insolence against them. The University must understand that it is responsible to its donors and alumni and to the hardworking students and faculty who make this school what it is. Most of all, the University owes an apology to each and every student at the U of C for bringing a man to campus who has damaged the reputation and standing of the institution we take pride in. If not, then your $50,000 a year isn’t worth much, is it?
Frank Pucci is a third-year in the College majoring in political science and history.
“Perhaps not, but they were human, and no amount of intellectualism should prevent humanity in any form.”
I’m sure that would get you a gold star at Brown but for a UofC student that is just sad and bizarre
I will support you on this only if you would react the same way to Abbas and other Palestinian leaders coming to campus. The Goldstone Report cited both sides as committing war crimes, so clearly I don’t see how that would be a problem for you.
That’s the issue here – for some reason MSA can bring anti-Semites like Ali Abunimah and Norm Finklestein (yes even though Norm is Jewish he once argued how Holocaust survivors like his own mother exaggerate their experiences for propaganda purposes…come on now) without so much as a word from anyone else. I wish I could give examples of how CFI or Jewish Action have been mishandling things, but so far I really can’t – all these protests have really been one sided.
Can we please stop being so combative and confrontational? I am expecting much negative response to this post with Olmert’s wrongdoings. I don’t care what the man did – both sides are at fault here, both sides are suffering…can we please put aside our differences?
He wasn’t committing war crimes in Mandel Hall. He was talking. Why would the University not be interested in inviting someone who is “responsible for the death of thousands,” and what student interested in international relations, political science or anything else would not want to hear what he has to say? The University scored by getting Olmert to come to speak.
And if you didn’t like what he had to say, you didn’t have to get a ticket! The so-called protesters who heckled Olmert are attention hogs. Why else would they bring a video camera to film their exploits and put it on YouTube? They have a cause and they are using the University’s open policy toward discourse to heighten their profile.
I want my $50,000 to be spent on inviting every person who can come to speak so I can hear what they have to say. I don’t care how notorious or murderous someone is, I want to hear as much as possible and then form my own opinion. If I disagree, I will express it. And when I’m on a podium disagreeing I don’t want someone shouting me down. It’s not mature and it gives the U of C a bad name.
this is a great piece. the comment alleging Abunimah and Finkelstein are anti-semites, notably unsubstantiated claims, is a classic example of how freedom of speech on the U of C campus hasbeen effectively stifled in the past– not by protesters challenging a controversial leader at a lecture, but by extremists claiming that any viewpoint other than their own is bigotry and must be stifled. calling for people to “put aside their differences” while accusing those “different” from you of being anti-semites is hypocritical and patronizing. perhaps the uproar over the speech is actually a sign that critical thought and freedom of expression are alive on campus. and janus nice comment proving the author correct– condescending doesn’t equal intelligent, btw.
This is indeed a great piece. Hopefully the university atleast realizes that inviting Olmert added insult to injury for a lot of people. Nobody should be surprised by the protest. If it were your loved ones losing their lives and homes, you would do the same. Maybe next time the administration will think twice before inviting war criminals, Israeli or not, to speak on leadership and peace. Also, please people, antizionism does not equal antisemitism. please stop pulling the race card. There are plenty of Jewish people who oppose Olmert and Israel’s war crimes also. And no, they’re not self-hating Jews.
Janus,
what exactly are you trying to say? That ad hominem attcks like yours are more appropriate for a U of C student?
janus, these stupid inferiority complex-driven attacks on other universities are sad. aim higher.
Olmert coming to the U of C has made many students angry. Not only Arabs and Muslims, but other protestors including hispanics, caucasions, and some black. This is not about Arabs and Jews, its about Olmert being a murderer. I do not understand why he is not in jail or why he is still in office. The man is not a great leader anyways. Many Jews oppose him, because he fails to do his job and because he is corrupt. U of C owes an apology to all students for allowing a man who represents massacres.
Thank you so much for posting this. It is a much needed perspective in this “debate”. I believe history will view you kindly. *Gold Star*
“And the University of Chicago, an institution committed to integrity and civilized discourse, welcomed the man who was responsible for it all.”
You can disagree with the war but you cannot ignore the reason why the war was started: attacks on Israeli citizens from Gaza by Hamas terrorists have been going on for years, despite peaceful attempt to stop them. Whether or not you think it was a good decision or a bad one, you cannot claim that Olmert was solely responsible for the war – Hamas attacks motivated the decision to try to stop Israeli citizen deaths, and therefore, Hamas is as responsible as Olmert is for the consequences – war, and for the deaths of Palestinian citizens.
Goodness gracious, can we get some fact checking here? There was a truce, yes? And who broke that truce, Hamas or Israel? I believe the latter is the correct answer.
Seriously, if your a U of C student, make use of your education and really dig into what happens before writing false statements. On a side note, E.H, you just justified the killing of thousands of civilians like it was nothing.
Pat on the back for that one.
Nobody seems to mention that being ‘responsible for deaths of thousands’ also applies to Tony Blair, George Bush, and Dick Cheney who are also still wandering around freely on this earth.
Besides – what did he ACTUALLY say?
He must have been invited to say something, which I didn’t quite catch, in any of the discussions about the event.
Regarding his ‘guilt’ – towards the end of one video that I saw – he did actually look like he was scratching his head and looking like the continuous wailing of women screaming ‘war criminal’ in pained voices was getting to him. He did look at least marginally distressed. Maybe if enough women stand and cry outside of his house, then eventually he will crumble into neurosis from guilt.