Wow. I’m not sure where to begin. I proud of UCI for many things, teaching me a thirst for politics and the importance of open and respectful dialogue as well as the critical thinking skills that have served me well so far in my career.

Additionally, for some reason you seem to think I graduated years and years ago, which well isn’t the case. I graduated in 2007 and knew at least one of those arrested when he was a freshman.

And further, do not misunderstand me. I do not think UCI is without flaws and have repeatedly voiced my concerns to Administration on that point. But many of the problems I see are in the crushing of free speech. What the 11 students did to the Ambassador was not free speech, they clearly had no legal right to undertake their actions. Rather, they did have full rights to organize a protest outside the event to make their grievances known to the speaker and the university. Let me be clear, your freedom of speech rights do not give you the right to prevent others from speaking in non-public areas, which includes almost all of UCI (except for the flagpole area, which is why you see protests there, but hardly ever anywhere else on campus). Instead, the individuals decided to act like disgruntled kids and tried to silence the speech of an individual they disagree with which is exactly what it means to suppress free speech. Also, during the course of my time at UCI I witness the MSU invited several speakers that I found offensive and strongly disagreed with, but to the best of my knowledge they were never shouted down.

Today, I make a living in politics. Every day I have to deal with overheated rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. It seems as though on every issue the American people are increasingly polarized on one side or the other and it saddens, but does not surprise me that this is appearing to happen on college campuses such as UCI as well. I was saddened during my time at UCI to see sustained efforts to marginalize the speech of specific groups if they did not tow a specific party line. In fact, Representative Brad Sherman (a California Democrat) has twice written UCI administration in the last several years expressing his concern over what appear to be student group backed anti-semitic activity.

I don’t really expect my words to have any effect on you, but I think it’s still worth the effort. People can and should disagree about things in this world, but it is important that we remember what it means to be American. In part, it means we allow people we disagree with to speak because we expect the right to have the same opportunity. How would you feel if Israeli supporters came to a private event those arrested held and repeated called Palestinians terrorists and murderers until the even had to be shut down?

Well, it’s two in the morning and while I’m not sure my post is entirely coherent, but I’ve had to write too much this week as it is, so I’m just going to leave it at that. It appeared as though you wanted a reply so there you have one.

Mengfei Chen is just the Opinion editor for the New U who posted this letter, which is from a body of students and not any one individual; Chen has no affiliation with the 11 MSU disruptors.

The irony here is that the Jewish students on campus give the MSU a form of respect that is in no way mutual or deserved; they don’t try to shut down their events like the MSU did with the Oren speech.

Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Somalia, Yemen and Mauritania are all 100% Muslim without any non-Muslim citizens. But none of these countries practice apartheid because all minorities have been “eliminated”.

Meanwhile, Israel –”the apartheid state” — has close to a 20% Muslim demographic profile with this demogrpahic group increasing faster than any other demographic group.

Why is it that at the Orwellian college known as UC/Irvine freedom of speech equals Muslims shouting down speakers they do not agree with and countries like the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia are beyond reproach while Israel is the focus of never-ending criticism?

Talk about hypocrisy.

And why is it if UC/Irvine values freedom of speech so darn much my comments are so often refused by those who monitor this site while young, angry, belligerent students are free to shout down anyone they disagree with?

Grow the fuck up.

Love,
Me

Free speech or not, more is said by the chickenshit actions of the 11 than by what they actually said. And, instead of possibly having that meaningful Q&A, the NewU is now bombarded by endless, one-sided rants where nothing is accomplished but the spreading of hate. Like in a good marriage, nothing is accomplished when each of the participants is shouting at each other all the time. It takes active listening. So, just stop. Please. Listen, then respond.

Lastly, realize that threats and demands mean nothing to rank. We should feel privileged to have had an Ambassador on campus, and you BLEW it. With rank, even those you disagree with, understand that respect (showing of respect for position and title, not the person) and civility go a long way. I learned the golden rule many years ago: treat others as you would have them treat you. Had the 11 simply presented challenging questions instead of vitriolic statements, this blemish to the credibility of the campus might not have happened.

The New University is rewarding students for acting like two years old and throwing a tantrum and disrupting a speaker giving a lecture in an auditorium. Has the New University ever printed an article on what Oren said during his lecture?

Meanwhile, the New University has provided a platform for these disruptive students to spew their venom and share their warped and distorted version of reality.

Do all of us current students a favor and stop pretending that UCI is the great ol’ institution that it must have once been in your memories from when you were still a student here and actually take the time to educate yourself on the current situation. The only thing that is embarrassing or shameful here is the fact that despite having once walked in our shoes, you still find it appropriate to use the rhetoric of the civilized/uncivilized binary to criticize your peers who have made great personal sacrifices to defend this university.

You took many points completely out of context. The article never proposed to make “Israel go away”; you merely spun the words around. The article criticizes the hypocrisy of Israel’s foreign policy; it in no way encroaches on Israel’s right to self determination. Furthermore, you reduce international indignation regarding transgressions of universal human rights to being “passionate about Palestine”. This isn’t a squabble in the sandbox, this is a conflict that has stretched on for generations. In order for the debate that Mr. Oren offered to be functional, critical issues such as the wall that isolates people from their lifelines must be adressed. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Oren is regarded internationally as a war criminal raises questions about his adequacy as a representative of the state of Israel.

In your words, I don’t suppose Mr. Oren is “shedding any positive light with actions like those that were taken against” the Palestinians.

You speak of an “Orwellian” world. Well let me just say you “Eleven” would make Orwell’s head spin.

You also speak of an “Apartheid” country. Your definition of “apartheid” would make Orwell’s head spin.

You speak of a “dialogue” with Ambassador Oren. He has already experienced your idea of a “dialogue” and your idea of a “dialogue” would make Orwell’s head spin.

In short, Ms. Mengfei, your letter, your logic, your reality, would make Orwell’s head spin.

Let’s take “apartheid” to illustrate just how “Orwellian” your logic truly is.

http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/03/what-about-the-arab-apartheid.php