Displaying posts categorized under

EDUCATION

DAVID COLLIER: ANTI-ISRAEL CIRCUS OF HATE COMES TO UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND

Corked is a word that defines something special turning rotten. A wine that is flawed due to a damaged or broken cork. In this case, it is perhaps fitting that Oren Ben Dor chose UCC, or University College Cork, as the new site for the failed academic hate-fest from two years ago. The hate fest, the venom, the anti-Israel activism posing as academic thought, the deception, the rush to be top of the ‘Israel hating’ pile. This is what happens when academia is not preserved properly. When unwanted and unsavoury elements are allowed to infest and spoil the natural academic process. The proposed conference is effectively ‘corked’.http://david-collier.com/ben-dors-circus-hate/

What do you do when on the one hand you want to adhere to the strongest principles of free speech, but on the other believe that academia is being used for something illegitimate.

For two years, the organisers of the disgraceful Southampton conference have had the ability to rent the local hall, pull these activists together, and conduct this vile call for the destruction of Israel in private. This is not good enough for them.

Almost all the academics involved are activists. People who are apparently on a mission to bring about the end of the democratic state of Israel. These people, in the vast majority, see Israel as an Apartheid, Nazi-like state. The conference is seen by these people, as part of their activism.

Therefore, it is not the ‘in gathering’ of like-minded people that is important. It is not about the discussion, but rather how the output can best be utilised to further delegitimise Israel and strengthen their personal cause. They need this to be in a university because they must have the academic stamp of approval.

It is that stamp that I believe should be denied them. They have the right to be activists, they have the right to be wrong, they have the right to gather together many hate-minded, vicious and sinister people to create fiction, spread lies, distort history and attempt to pass on whatever nasty disease they have all caught. They just should not be permitted to do this as if it were a legitimate academic exercise.

I have worked on the list of academics. I have updated the list from Southampton, added new material and included the new speakers.

I have also created a table, which is available at the bottom of this article. I think the table highlights precisely why this conference is so troublesome. Almost every single person on the list is an anti-Israel activist.

Out of the 47 present, there are only two who sit on the other side of the fence. Professor Alan Johnson from BICOM and Professor Geoffrey Alderman. Neither had been on the cast list for the original conference at Southampton. They were added later to present some type of Zionist argument when the public outcry began. I imagine the same reasoning is taking place here. In other words they are here to oppose the conference, in their own way.

I believe the action is misplaced. As can be seen from the table below. The concentration of hatred is the best argument against the conference itself. It delegitimises its own position through its clear one sided nature. Their presence, however minimal, dilutes the visible concentration. Because their inclusion isn’t the intent of the organisers, it’s impact is self-defeating.

Additionally, if the academic stamp is the legitimising factor for the organisers, anything that further legitimise the illegitimate is self-defeating. Their presence allows the organiser to declare that the conference was balanced, that Zionists were present, however ridiculous such a statement may be. For these reasons, despite my respect for both these academics, and the work they do, I believe their choice to be in error.

The list of ‘academics’ is present here. There is a table underneath.

IMPORTANT: This is a complicated exercise, that crosses nations, continents and language barriers. I have done my best to ensure accuracy, but especially with academics who produce their work mainly in languages other than English, this is a difficult task to complete. If anyone can provide either corrections or *additions* then please do not hesitate to contact me. I apologise in advance for any errors.

Andrew Harrod: Islamists Find Willing Allies in U.S. Universities

Two graduate students and two undergraduates recalled personally experiencing the July 15, 2016 coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government at a December 7, 2016, Georgetown University panel, before a youthful audience of about fifty. As crews from Turkey’s TRT Haber television network and Anadolu Agency (AA) filmed/recorded, the panelists praised the coup’s popular foiling as a democratic victory, irrespective of Erdogan’s dangerous Islamist policies.

Such willful blindness mirrors that of other American-educated Middle East studies scholars whose actions and pronouncements lend a veneer of legitimacy to Erdogan’s dictatorial policies, including mass purges and arrests of academics and teachers throughout Turkey. Erdogan’s personal spokesman is Ibrahim Kalin, a George Washington University Ph.D. who serves as a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. He joined Juan Cole of Michigan, Cemil Aydin of UNC Chapel Hill (Harvard Ph.D.) at an October 2016 conference in Istanbul even as innocent educators languished in prison or faced academic ruin.

Islamism certainly colored the experiences of the panel’s two graduate students, Harvard University Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations doctoral student Rushain Abbasi and his wife Safia Latif, who were in Istanbul during the attempted coup. Abbasi is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-affiliated Muslim Students Association and a former teacher at the Boston Islamic Seminary, an affiliate of another MB group, the Muslim American Society. His previous writing stereotypically attributed Islamist violence to the “histories of colonialism, imperialism, and economic exploitation that still plague the non-Western world,” maintaining, “[i]t is not the texts of Islam . . . that are in need of reform.”

Latif, a Boston University doctoral student in religious studies who earned an M.A. in Middle East studies from the University of Texas, was like-minded. She previously participated in a conference chaired by the notorious Islamist and UC-Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian at California’s Zaytuna College. Having witnessed Egyptians in 2013 overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of President Mohamed Morsi, she despaired of the same thing happening in Turkey. “To see another democratically elected government with an ostensible Islamist president fall was almost too much to bear. My first reaction was a religious one; I took to the prayer mat and I began praying for the Turkish people.”

Anti-Trump Derangement in Los Angeles Schools The education establishment there is apoplectic over the election of Donald Trump. By Larry Sand

As Inauguration Day nears, “Post-Traumatic Trump Disorder” is ubiquitous. Many of the president-elect’s supporters “suffer” from excessive jubilance, bordering on ecstasy, while many of his detractors are wallowing in angst, panic, and rage, and the latter, PTTD group is making life miserable for children across the country. Los Angeles may be ground zero for the disorder.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles — or, more aptly, the United Trump-Loathers Association — led by its radical, agenda-driven president, Alex Caputo-Pearl, is planning a major demonstration before school on January 19, the day before the new president is sworn in. The demonstrators are being instructed to launch a tweetstorm to Trump (#schooltrump) and hold symbolic shields at school sites, to show that “educators are united with our students and our communities against Trump’s racially charged and anti-immigrant proposals and that we will continue to fight attempts to privatize public education.” The union is urging the public to join “tens of thousands of students, parents, educators, school staff, and community members . . . to shield our public schools from the Trump/DeVos/Broad agenda.” (Betsy DeVos, Trump’s pick for education secretary, is a voucher proponent, while billionaire Eli Broad has donated millions to charter schools. Union involvement in both private and charter schools is minimal.)

Nothing like an early-morning dose of union-led political indoctrination for the kids to digest along with their Froot Loops.

Actually, the early-morning festivities on the 19th are just a kick-off for what Caputo-Pearl sees as a two-year offensive. (“Offensive” in both senses of the word.) The issues that are paramount to the union boss are “green spaces on a campus” and “a plan to achieve strike readiness by February 2018,” as well as fighting charter co-location (in which charter schools occupy space in public-school buildings) and getting union-friendly school-board members elected in March of this year.

The pre–Inauguration Day merrymaking is not limited to Los Angeles, or even California. The Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools, a national network composed mostly of teachers’ unions and groups they fund, is planning a “National Day of Action” on the 19th. AROS insists that the “best way to ensure each and every child has the opportunity to pursue a rich and productive life is through a system of publicly funded, equitable and democratically controlled public schools.” In fact, one of their demands is “billions of dollars for public schools in black and brown communities.” I guess the $670 billion we currently spend nationally on “democratically controlled public schools” isn’t enough for the AROS crowd.

As the teachers’ union goes off the deep end, how have Los Angeles Unified School District officials responded to Trump’s election? Clearly suffering from advanced PTTD, the school board also is in a state of sheer panic. The mandarins who rule over the massive school district have set up a hotline to deal with students’ concerns, which, of course, have been exacerbated by the education establishment’s regnant hysteria. While Trump has indeed made some questionable comments about immigration, certain educators and a compliant mainstream media have blown things way out of proportion and worried many children needlessly. So school-board members should not be the ones counseling frightened children; let their parents do that, please.

The school-board members also spent time at a recent meeting passing resolutions as a hedge against actions that they expect the Trump administration to carry out. Consulting “social-emotional learning experts” and declaring its schools “safe zones” are of paramount importance to the board these days. Actually, if anyone needs a “safe zone” at this time, it’s students who dare to wear “Make America Great Again” hats.

Maybe instead of playing psychologist and engaging in dubious policymaking, the school board should focus on its mandate, which is to educate children and, at the same time, be judicious in spending taxpayers’ money.

As for the education component, LAUSD, not to put too fine a point on it, is doing a rotten job. While California students did not fare well on the recent standardized tests, L.A. kids’ scores were in the toilet. In fact, 56 percent of the district’s 85 ranked middle schools were assigned the lowest overall ranking of 1, based on the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, a test taken by students this past spring. The “good news” is that just 20 percent of the district’s elementary schools received the lowest rank, as did 31 percent of its high schools. (The latter number would be higher, but many poor-performing eleventh-graders drop out of school before the test is given.)

Fiscally, LAUSD is also failing. As explained in LA School Report earlier this month, the district may not be able to meet its financial obligations in the future because it faces a cumulative deficit of $1.46 billion through the 2018–19 school year. But LAUSD chief financial officer Megan Reilly, maintaining a smiley face, assures us that with just the right combination of smoke and mirrors, the district may be able to winnow the deficit down to a mere $252 million. Don’t bet the mortgage on that, however.

University of Maryland Lectures: Trump Won Due to Racism, ‘Spiritual Depravity’ By Tom Knighton

The University of Maryland has a new lecture series coming up that makes the claim that Donald Trump won the White House not because his policies spoke to people better, or that his strategy understood the Electoral College better than Hillary Clinton’s did, or that he was running against an arrogant, corrupt, and dismissive candidate. No, the series seeks to illustrate that Donald Trump won because of racism.

I can’t make this crap up, folks:

The University of Maryland is hosting a series of post-election lectures on how a “commitment to white supremacy” fueled the Trump train, blaming “white America’s spiritual depravity” for his unexpected victory.

One talk scheduled for the February 13 “Understanding Race and Class in the 2016 Election” event, set to be delivered by Professor Paula Ioanide from Ithaca College, will apparently discuss the “spiritual degradation of white America in the age of Trump,” during which Ioanide will elaborate on the “spiritual depravity, deadening, and social alienation” of America’s working class.
Sponsored

“I argue that these collective symptoms are fundamentally rooted in white Americans’ investments in gendered racism, which teaches whites not only to deaden themselves to the suffering of others but to their own humanity,” her abstract for the lecture notes, suggesting that “white America will either reckon with and remedy its collective spiritual degradation, or the chickens will come home to roost.”

Sigh.

She couldn’t give Trump better advertising if he was paying her. Sure looks like something is coming home to roost.

A primary problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn’t require those who buy into it to actually listen to their opponents. Those who stand against the leftist forces at work in this country offer arguments regarding the Constitution, economics, and individual liberty, yet those who think like this just scream racism, cutting themselves off from reality and making dialogue impossible.

A Georgetown University panel shows Turkish President Recep Erodagan’s Islamist support in academia. Andrew Harrod

Two graduate students and two undergraduates recalled personally experiencing the July 15, 2016 coup attempt against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government at a December 7, 2016, Georgetown University panel, before a youthful audience of about fifty. As crews from Turkey’s TRT Haber television network and Anadolu Agency (AA) filmed/recorded, the panelists praised the coup’s popular foiling as a democratic victory, irrespective of Erdogan’s dangerous Islamist policies.

Such willful blindness mirrors that of other American-educated Middle East studies scholars whose actions and pronouncements lend a veneer of legitimacy to Erdogan’s dictatorial policies, including mass purges and arrests of academics and teachers throughout Turkey. Erdogan’s personal spokesman is Ibrahim Kalin, a George Washington University Ph.D. who serves as a senior fellow at Georgetown’s Saudi-funded Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. He joined Juan Cole of Michigan, Cemil Aydin of UNC Chapel Hill (Harvard Ph.D.) at an October 2016 conference in Istanbul even as innocent educators languished in prison or faced academic ruin.

Islamism certainly colored the experiences of the panel’s two graduate students, Harvard University Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations doctoral student Rushain Abbasi and his wife Safia Latif, who were in Istanbul during the attempted coup. Abbasi is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-affiliated Muslim Students Association and a former teacher at the Boston Islamic Seminary, an affiliate of another MB group, the Muslim American Society. His previous writing stereotypically attributed Islamist violence to the “histories of colonialism, imperialism, and economic exploitation that still plague the non-Western world,” maintaining, “[i]t is not the texts of Islam . . . that are in need of reform.”

Latif, a Boston University doctoral student in religious studies who earned an M.A. in Middle East studies from the University of Texas, was like-minded. She previously participated in a conference chaired by the notorious Islamist and UC-Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian at California’s Zaytuna College. Having witnessed Egyptians in 2013 overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of President Mohamed Morsi, she despaired of the same thing happening in Turkey. “To see another democratically elected government with an ostensible Islamist president fall was almost too much to bear. My first reaction was a religious one; I took to the prayer mat and I began praying for the Turkish people.”

Latif blasted the “shameful Western reactions to the coup,” such as media reports of its popular support and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeting that Turks are “taking their country back!” She complained that after the coup, a “lot of the media focus was on political grievances against Erdogan, him consolidating [sic] power, [and] his authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial nature,” all of which are, in fact, critical concerns under Erdogan’s Islamist rule. Instead, she blamed the West, claiming that it “doesn’t support democracy and freedom overseas, especially when Islamists are in power,” as “it seems to threaten the universality of the West and its political hegemony.”

Abbasi agreed: “If the coup was successful, we would be very happy” in America. In contrast to reporting on coup casualties, “all the headlines the next day I had seen were about freedom of speech and Erdogan. What are we talking about?” he asked, implying that free speech is trivial.

Radical Activists Hijack Civics Education, Study Finds: Civics Turned Into Free Labor for Progressive Organizations

The “civic engagement” movement has taken over American college-level civics education and turned it into progressive political training, concludes a new report by the National Association of Scholars (NAS).

NAS’s major new study, Making Citizens: How American Universities Teach Civics, documents how the term “civic” has been stolen by left-wing activists who smuggle their agenda into colleges under the pretext of wholesome teaching.

These activists’ version of civics—the New Civics—trains students to be protesters instead of teaching them the foundations of government—the Old Civics.

Making Citizens documents how this came to be. It also provides four case studies: University of Colorado, Boulder; Colorado State University; University of Northern Colorado; and University of Wyoming.

The National Association of Scholars has researched the New Civics since 2012, when the Department of Education under President Obama called on all colleges and universities to make “civic learning” a “pervasive” priority.

“The devil is in the details,” said NAS president Peter Wood. “Now ‘civic learning’ doesn’t mean what you would expect – straightforward things such as understanding the Bill of Rights, the three branches of government, and the Electoral College. Instead, this New Civics is all about ‘diversity,’ environmentalism, the LGBT movement, ‘global’ citizenship, and other liberal causes.”

David Randall, NAS director of communications and author of the report, said, “Civic engagement diverts at least $40 billion a year and 1.5 million hours of student labor toward progressive organizations. In the meantime, colleges are failing to teach students how their government actually works.”

The Campus War Against Israel and the Jews Fostering vicious lies about a bastion of liberal democracy in a sea of tyranny and hate. Bruce Thornton *****

Barack Obama’s abstention from a vicious, anti-Israel Security Council resolution is merely the latest attack in the West’s long, shameful war against Israel. That the historical birthplace of political freedom and human rights should make a pariah of its cultural offspring is an indelible stain on the honor of Europe and America.

That such irrational bigotry and moral idiocy should find a comfortable home in universities is even more reprehensible. Higher education is supposedly the protected space where critical thought, fidelity to truth, and humanistic principles are honored. But as Richard L. Cravatts meticulously details in his indispensable collection of essays Dispatches from the Campus War against Israel and Jews, universities and colleges today foster and promote the most vicious slanders and lies about a country that for nearly a century has had to continually fight for its existence, yet still has remained a bastion of liberal democracy and human rights in a region devoid of both.

Cravatts is the author of Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad against Israel and Jews, a recent president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, and a board member of the AMCHA Initiative at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law. His new book catalogues in fine-grained detail how universities and scholars across the world have betrayed their professional integrity and moral decency by obsessively demonizing Israel. The intensity and irrationalism of this “deranged hatred of Israel,” as Cravatts writes, has made it “a covert, and surrogate, form of anti-Semitism itself,” one that reprises all the slanderous tropes of traditional Jew-hatred.

One technique of this cognitive bait-and-switch is an Orwellian degradation of language. Calling Israel a “colonial” or “imperialist” power bespeaks a willful ignorance of history. The use of question-begging epithets like “racist,” “genocide,” and “apartheid” is a way to camouflage bigotry and make Israel responsible for the aggression and terrorist attacks it has suffered for nearly a century. Even more despicable is the false analogy between Zionism and Nazism, the greatest killer of Jews in history. It takes a particularly brazen moral stupidity to equate the victims of genocide with their murderers.

Professional malfeasance likewise fosters the academic hatred of Israel. The popularity of the fraudulent literary critic Edward Said has corrupted not just Middle East Studies departments, but disciplines like English, history, and the social sciences. Add Muslim student groups sympathetic with jihadist organizations and their eliminationist goals; left-wing bitter-enders who see Israel as a neo-colonialist outpost of Western imperialism; and juvenile admirers of “revolutionary” violence and noble-savage multiculturalism, and the result is, as Cravatts writes, “the compromised purpose of higher education, where scholarship has been degraded by bias and extremism on the part of a left-wing professoriate with a clear political agenda that cites Israel as the new villain in a world yearning for social justice.”

Six-Week University Program Will ‘Help’ Men Not Act Like Men By Tom Knighton

The University of Wisconsin-Madison is starting its six-week “Men’s Project,” a program designed to brainwash young men to not act like men because men are awful:

“The program operates on a transformative model of social justice allyship,” explains a news release from UW-Madison. “First, facilitators ask students to consider how the students’ opinions about masculinity affect their own perceptions every day. Second, they consider how those opinions affect the people around them.”

One goal of the project, said Sam Johnson, a violence prevention specialist at the University Health Services, is to “prevent future violence” by analyzing “unhealthy interactions” caused by traditional perceptions of masculinity and their role in gender-based violence, alcohol, and relationships.

The Men’s Project, which is in its second year of operation, begins with a weekend retreat and then continues with six weekly meetings lasting two hours each.

According to past participants of the program, the Project helped them become more vulnerable and make masculinity a “choice” rather than the default option.

Wait — if being masculine is simply making a bad “choice,” then won’t women who make the choice to put motherhood ahead of career also get blasted for not stepping in line with modern feminist thought?
Sponsored

Yup.

In reality, virtually all men — because of their masculinity — are both disgusted by the abuse of women and feel duty-bound to put themselves in physical risk to stop it when they see it.

Both of these nasty ideas about how men and women must behave spawn from modern feminism, which seems to want no less than total control over how other people live their lives. Imagine the outrage if a university men’s movement tried to shame women for being “too feminine.”

To make life more confusing for the men who have gone down the vulnerability path this program recommends, they later find themselves being “shamed” by the women in their life for having done so. A number of women actually want strong, masculine men, not the whiny beta males the University of Wisconsin-Madison seems determined to crank out. CONTINUE AT SITE

Education in Sweden: “Then Things Got Interesting” by Göran Adamson

She was proud of her submission, not of her achievements.

Other than that, her email was full of post-modern nonsense such as science as a “belief” just like religion. In fact, science is doubt based on knowledge, while religion is certainty based on faith. Would she, I wondered, also “deconstruct” the Koran?

She had exercised her freedom only to give it up.

She was sitting there quietly in the middle of the classroom — a Swedish Muslim all dressed in black with a white powdered face. I was lecturing on John Stuart Mill at Sweden’s University West. What did I say? I said that while religion may not be true, it still gives people a sense of belonging and trust, and liberal society cannot give you that. The liberal soup is thin, and most of us want something richer, some kind of political main-course goulash. When people say that liberal society is empty, they actually mean this: I cannot give my life any purpose, so can someone kindly do it for me? Please hand me some grandiose message to live by because I cannot figure out anything on my own. Emptiness? Well, that could be another word for limitless opportunities.

Two days later, the Muslim student sent me an email. She accused me of not being “neutral”. She wrote that I had called religious people “pathetic”. I had not. She accused me of defaming Islam, herself as a woman and as an individual student.

As for Islam, I had never mentioned it, and as for her, I had never seen her before. Possibly in her vanity, she seemed to think the lecture was about her; in fact, it was about John Stuart Mill. She said (and this shook me a bit) that she would keep me “under surveillance”; she signed off with: “The student dressed in her pride”. Too bad she could not find something else about which to be proud. She was proud of her submission, not of her achievements. If you cannot give your life meaning, perhaps somebody will chip in and do it for you.

Other than that, her email was full of post-modern nonsense such as science as a “belief” just like religion. In fact, science is doubt based on knowledge, while religion is certainty based on faith. We had given her the tools of postmodernism, and here she was trashing the fabric of Western society. Would she, I wondered, also “deconstruct” the Koran?

But I was not bothered by her email, really. Students have the right to say all kinds of things, perhaps even to write inappropriate emails to their professors. It is, someone said, a human right not to “get it”. All it takes is to talk. If a student fails to understand the basic principles of a university — free inquiry, the need to question our views — the university will introduce the student to them. So I did not reply, but calmly awaited the next step by my department.

A few days later, an email requesting a meeting was sent out. But she never got it. I did. How odd, I thought, but I went there and, in front of a wide-eyed administrator, explained the rise of the modern university as a realm of free discussion, unhampered by the power of the state and the church; and spoke about the principles of free speech, and cited Karl Popper, Mill, George Orwell, Voltaire, and others on the way. She looked happy.

A few days later came another email. Now I was called in for consultations with Head of the Department and the Head Administrator. “Look”, I told them, “this is a university. Do you know what that means?” They said they did. “Do you know why I am here?” I gave them the answer. “For lecturing on John Stuart Mill.”

“Ten years ago,” I went on, “I wrote an article about a performance of Ideomeneo — a Mozart opera that was cancelled in Berlin because it might offend Muslim sensibilities. The title of the article was ‘The Enlightenment may end up as a historical paranthesis.’ Do you know what the Enlightenment is about?”

I looked at them and they looked back at me.

A New Documentary Shows the Extent and Nature of Anti-Zionist ‘Hate Spaces’ on Campus by Jeffrey Barken

Americans for Peace and Tolerance’s (APT) new documentary, Hate Spaces: The Politics of Intolerance on Campus, explores the roots of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement waged against Israel, and reveals the mob mentality that characterizes antisemitic student groups on college campuses across the US.https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/12/26/a-new-documentary-shows-the-extent-and-nature-of-anti-zionist-hate-spaces-on-campus/

The 70-minute film strikes a nerve, and an emotional punch.

Authenticated cell-phone videos and recorded interviews transport viewers to hate-crime scenes where Jewish students are subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and are intimidated even by college professors and administrators.

British singer George Michael, who became one of the pop idols of the 1980s with Wham! and then forged a…

This is not a propaganda film about the Middle East conflict, Avi Goldwasser, the documentary’s executive producer, tells JNS.org. It is strictly “a film about what’s happening on campus,” he says.

Indeed, recent events at schools like Northeastern University in Boston deserve scrutiny. On that campus, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) protesters have chanted, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the state of Israel has got to go!” Statues of Jewish donors have been vandalized, while cruel sticker campaigns and “apartheid walls” are used to single out and shame individual Jewish students regardless of their opinions about Israel.

In April 2013, Northeastern University SJP activists stormed into a classroom and interrupted a Holocaust memorial service. “The lessons of the Holocaust were not learned, you are child murderers,” SJP members are caught shouting on camera. Going beyond Northeastern, Hate Spaces tours the country, revealing a long list of hotspots where the BDS movement is spiraling out of control.

The rigid ideology of BDS

A quote from George Packer’s 2011 New Yorker article, “Deepest Cuts,” gets to the core of what is wrong with BDS: “Ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked.” The scenes depicted in the documentary clearly demonstrate that a rigid ideology has taken hold of BDS supporters on college campuses. Groups like SJP use megaphones to shout their rallying slogans, but adherents are fundamentally uninterested in engaging in a serious, civil debate with anyone who questions their self-proclaimed righteous position.

APT is a Boston-based non-profit whose stated mission is to advocate for “peaceful coexistence and tolerance in an ethnically diverse America.” According to Goldwasser, Hate Spaces is geared at engaging “decent people in America who would look at an indecent situation … and understand the obvious unfairness.”

“No other minority group would stand for such treatment on campus,” Goldwasser says of Jewish students’ plight.

Hate Spaces meticulously charts the flow of money from dictators in Muslim countries to American universities, suggesting that this transfer of capital buttresses support for Islamic causes among academics. Devoid of intellectual integrity, professors choose a path of least resistance when discussing Israel and the Palestinian territories, and are unfairly sympathetic to the BDS agenda. The result is a classroom where one side of the debate is permitted to demonize the other, and pro-Israel students are systematically denied a voice.