1. What is freedom of speech and was it violated? – The Ambassador was invited to speak by the UCI Political Science Department and UCI Law School. The presentation was opened up to the community with sponsorships by several groups both on and off campus. Over the years, the university has invited speakers of different political and philosophical persuasions to speak on campus. It has been the policy of the university to set aside a period with all such presentations for questions and answers so that students can create a dialogue and hear different points of view. At this forum, students from one particular persuasion set out on a coordinated plan to prevent others from hearing what the Ambassador had to say. In addition to interrupting his speech, they walked out prior to the planned questions and answer session, clearly indicating that they did not want to engage in an exchange of ideas. These actions are an affront to the purpose of a university and according to several decisions by the US Supreme Court are not protected speech under the 1st amendment.

2. Is the university administration at fault for encouraging this type of behavior on campus? While the university administration made an impressive show of stating up front that they would not tolerate a disruption of the presentation, they clearly had no plan to prevent it. To think that a group of students could out plan and outwit an administration intent on maintaining decorum in a public meeting is truly ludicrous. This is not the first time that Muslim students have disrupted presentations on the campus. Nor will it be the last as long as they have no fear that there will be any significant consequences for their actions. One has to wonder what the administration’s actions have been when students disagree with the content of classroom information. Perhaps that is because the university has already told all professors to be politically correct and make no statements that will offend their Muslim constituency.

3. Does anyone in the Muslim community really care about the facts? While there certainly are legitimate issues regarding the treatment of Palestinians, the major abuser has been fellow Arabs. More Palestinians have been killed by fellow Palestinians than by Israelis. More money has been stolen by fellow Palestinians than all the money withheld by the Israelis. It was the Jordanians and Lebanese who kicked the Palestinians out of their country. It was the Jordanians who revoked their citizenship because of fear of demographics. It was the Egyptians who refused to allow Palestinians into their country when the tunnels were closed. Most of all it has been the surrounding Arab states who have failed to provide financial support to the Palestinians. So where is the outrage? Where are the protests? Could it be that all the claims about Israeli abuses are just a smokescreen for a deep seated hatred for the only democracy in the Middle East?

I did apprecite JD comapring the students with a crying baby. The students did act like little children throwing a fit. But they planned it. They acted like 4th graders who do a planned book drop in class. The students are the ones who are trying to prevent an opinon contrary to theirs to be heard. Has the university ever prevented any of the extremist view from the speakers that the MSU has invited on campus?

I am disapointed with the coverage of the New University on this lecture. It appears the students were successful in one respect. I did not see an article on what the guest speaker actually said that got the students so emotional that they couldn’t control themselves.

Err… actually that part is wrong.

“(g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace. ”
-http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/7.html

In the future as to not offend just remember that the American Flag when placed on a stage is always to the ” Right” of the speaker and Always placed in Superior Prominence to that of other nationality flags, and when placed on a stage the flags are NOT to be crossed, the crossing of the flags is only to be done when placed against a wall.

Thomas H Hinkley
Commander SAL squadron 99
Kearny NJ

You are correct that it is possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. But from that it seems that you illogically conclude that one should assume that someone who claims to be a critic of Israel is not anti-Semitic! (an absurd proposition considering that there are many people who are both). Or, at least you imply that these students should be given the benefit of the doubt (since you state with confidence that “these students are non anti-Semitic.” The reason then why they might not be given benefit of the doubt (and therefore the reason why one might be well justified in asserting that the MSU as an organization and their leaders are anti-Semitic even after understanding that the two don’t have to come together) is that most of the speakers that the organization has brought to this campus for the past ten years have displayed indisputable hard-core anti-Semitism. In addition, it become clear when one realizes that for the most part Muslim opponents of Israel worldwide do not oppose Israel for “human rights violations” – that argument is merely the tactic that is propagated within the discourse of the Western world, while they don’t care about actual human rights violations in the Muslim world that are instigated in the name of theocracy. Within the value system of the 21st-century West arguments about imperialism and colonialism are used to try to relate the issue to others in history, but if this conflict were occurring hundreds of years ago, it would conceptualized not as a fight against imperialism but purely as a religious war, and that is how the vast majority of Muslim opponents of Israel do indeed understand it.

Also, I am surprised you mentioned that Jews are “People of the Book,” in Islam implying that Jews therefore have a positive place in Islam, without explaining what the term means within the original context of Islamic texts. To be a “People of the Book” means that you were a people that in antiquity was given a divine revelation and accompanying scripture, but that after that you physically distorted the text and meaning of your scripture. In addition, when Muhammad came to correct you from your error, you rejected and opposed him, therefore doubly securing your place as an enemy of divine truth. Once the Muslim world has conquered you, you are allowed to live and practice your religion as long as you live by a set of oppressive rules that symbolize your inferiority to Muslims. And even so, according to most authorities you (the member of a “People of the Book” would still go to hell after you died. So as you can see, the connotation of the “People of the Book” as it has been understood in the Muslim world from the 700s until today is in fact extremely negative, hardly something that would prove that Muslims are by definition not anti-Semitic.

Labeling criticisms of the actions of the government of Israel as “anti-semitic” simultaneously elevates it beyond criticism, something dangerous for the government of any country, and belittles real anti-semitism. No one should equate the criticism of a powerful military and government, with the persecution of a an ethnic group.

MSU, grow up. You’re a disservice to UCI and all past, present, and future Anteaters.