Tuesday, December 10, 2013

SFSU Responds to Arab Calls for Violence Against Jews

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under and the Times of Israel.}

San Francisco State University (SFSU) president, Les Wong, has responded for the second time to criticisms that calling for the murder of Jews is perhaps something less than educative.  And for the second time he refuses to address the central issue, which is a call to violence against Jews by the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS).

Professor Wong, who earned a PhD in educational psychology from Washington State University, makes three significant points.  The first is that calling for the murder of Jews is essentially a matter of free speech.  That is his first and foremost point.  It is not that calling for the murder of Jews might be in contradiction to university policy, the law, or just common human decency, but that calling for the murder of Jews is a matter of free speech.

He writes:
First and foremost, I ask that you stay firmly committed to free speech.  Strong opinions—and strong disagreements—are essential to the life of our democracy, and the life of our university. 
Thus, in the mind of the president of San Francisco State University, whether or not to kill Jews is a matter for discussion and debate.  It cannot be condemned outright because that would ruin the discussion on this important matter.  SFSU cannot expel Mohammad Hammad, the president of GUPS, who held up a knife before the camera and said:
“I seriously can not get over how much I love this blade. It is the sharpest thing I own and cuts through everything like butter and just holding it makes me want to stab an Israeli soldier….” 
Nor can the university cease funding GUPS, and thus eliminate the call for the murder of Jews on the campus of SF State, because that would violate student rights to a free and open discussion on the issues of the day.  In other words, it seems to Professor Wong that the question of genocide against the Jewish people is a matter open to discussion and as the president of an important institution of higher education, dedicated to social justice and human rights, he does not want to interfere with that discussion.

He is, nonetheless, considering, maybe, doing something:
Second, trust that I will step in when speech or actions cross the line into violations of law or University policy. I am absolutely committed to maintaining a safe environment. In both recent cases, for example, we have conducted thorough threat assessments with law enforcement, increased campus safety measures, facilitated dialogue with student groups, offered counseling resources and initiated the student conduct review process. I am confident these actions protect both the safety and the rights of our campus community.  In all situations, I ask that you give our processes the time needed to be thorough, objective and effective.  Understand as well that these processes must protect the rights and privacy of those who may be the subject of counseling, review or sanction. 
The way that Dusty put it, over at San Francisco State Unbecoming, is that:
We are being asked to respect the system, and to respect the process. 
What president Wong is saying is that if, and when, it is determined that calling for the murder of Jews is in violation of the law or university policy then, perhaps, he may actually do something, but until we figure that out "first and foremost" is the matter of free speech.

It is not as if we are unclear whether or not GUPS called for the murder of Jews, because they quite clearly did so.  On November 7, during a rally in honor of anti-Israel / anti-Jewish scholar, Edward Said, they handed out signs that said, "My heroes have always killed colonizers."

The question to ask yourself is just who are these "colonizers" in need of killing?

I am pretty sure that you know the answer to that question.

Finally, professor Wong says this:
Third, keep an open mind.  I have spoken before about the obligation to own your own mind. Issues being debated on campus can capture widespread attention.  This can be a welcome contribution to the dialogue. It can also be a source of confusion, misinformation, and pressure to subvert our processes.  Each of us at this university is a scholar—whether student, faculty member or staff—and each of us has the obligation to form opinions and take action based on exploring, analyzing and carefully listening before drawing conclusions.

Who could disagree with such a reasoned and sensible assessment of the question of whether or not Jews (i.e., "colonizers" - otherwise also known as insidious "Zionists") should be killed or not?  We need to keep an open mind on the matter and thereby see point number one, the matter of free speech.  In truth, Wong's Point Number One and Wong's Point Number Three are essentially identical.

None of this should actually be surprising to anyone.  For decades the progressive-left has told itself that the Jews in the Middle East deserve a good beating.

Doctor Wong just wants students to be free to discuss the possibility.


  1. So I'm confused. Can we call for the death of Les Wong, or are we limited to opening a discussion covering the merits of killing Les Wong?

    1. Aghghghghghghghg!!!



      That hits the nail on the head, exactly, Trudy.

      But what really gets my gander - as my dear old pa might have said - is that after 14 centuries of nearly constant abuse by the Arab-Muslim majority in the Middle East, it is now a matter of "social justice" whether or not to kill Jews.

      We practically invented the entire concept and now they want to use it to kill Jews.

      It's absolutely mind-bending.

  2. Clearly, as the name implies, Les Wong is of Chinese origins.

    Maybe someone should ask him what he'd do it the word Chinese was substituted for Jewish.

    1. People of East Asian origin are (thankfully) noted for their lack of anti-Jewish racism.

      I have no doubt that this is true for president Wong, as well.

      But, he is a university president and that means that his job, among other things, is to stonewall as much as possible concerning anything that might be inconvenient for the school.

      In this case, what is inconvenient for the school is the small matter that a SFSU funded organization calls for the murder of Jewish people.

      I honestly do not see how they can get around this and, yet, I expect very few Jews to stand the heck up.

      The Jewish left is more interested in fighting the Jewish right and the non-Jewish left doesn't care, one way or the other.

  3. See this recent piece by Dawn Purlmutter at Middle East Forum about the ritual significance of throat cuttings, beheadings and decapitations of infidels by jihadists with beloved sharp knives who, just as this hateful kid in San Francisco, are outspoken about what must be done with the blades. If you can stomach it. It includes hypothesis that certain unsolved murders in the US and Canada could stand examination as jihadist hate crimes based entirely on MO..

    What is it above these guys and knives?

  4. FBI statistics of victims of religious[1] bias hate crimes in the U.S.


    62.4 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.
    11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Muslim bias.


    63.2 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.
    12.5 percent were victims of an anti-Muslim bias.


    65.4 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias
    13.2 percent were victims of an anti-Muslim bias


    70.1 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias
    9.3 percent were victims of an anti-Muslim bias


    66.1 percent were victims of an anti-Jewish bias
    7.5 percent were victims of an anti-Muslim bias

    Furthermore: the religious and political authoritative texts[2] of Islam call the Jewish people the worst enemies of the god of Islam and call for the subjugation and killing of all Jewish people (and call for the subjugation and killing of all other non-Muslims). Furthermore, there currently exists in the world a huge Islamic-supremacist political movement (covert and overt), and the currently existing huge Islamic-supremacist political movement is ideologically genocidally anti-Jewish.


  5. Mudar Zahran Jordanian Palestinian Leader Speaking in Israel

    Howard Grief - EC4I middle east conflict documentary: Give Peace A Chance

    "A 15 minute film about a new perspective for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians based on the discovery of the formerly classified minutes from the San Remo peace conference of April, 1920. This long hidden document explains the legal rights of the Jews as well as the Palestinians. By returning to the negotiating table and respecting historical facts and international law the film believes there can be real peace between Israel and the Palestinians."

    Note: "Palestinian": 'Palestinian' Arab

  6. Someone should ask Dr. Wong to explain how the behavior involved did not violate the student code of conduct.

    Or whether Jewish students, members of the University community, have the same rights against infringement as other students.

    Or if the University commitment to a "safe and healthy living and learning environment" creates a duty to require action to protect against infringement.

    Or if free speech that threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person within or related to the University community, including physical abuse, threats, intimidation, or harassment nevertheless is permissible.

    See: http://conduct.sfsu.edu/standards

  7. We have to assume a few truths

    Most people aren't sociopaths, in that they understand and respect right from wrong.
    College administrators aren't stupid or cognitively impaired.
    Most people in everyday life have some kind of moral compass - at least they believe they do.
    People with a modicum of education understand the difference between abstract absolute principles like 'freedom' and the social need to have laws against manslaughter.
    Rights, even in the absolute mean nothing if there are no parameters, that is, unless there's something outside the lines.
    There is no necessary corollary to defend, analogize or compare any single act of hate speech from any other - that is, what is forbidden to utter in one instance against one person or group in one set of circumstances has no bearing on what is permitted in any other circumstances directed at anyone or anything else. Simply put - each utterance of hate speech stands alone.

    If we accept these few guidelines as essentially the barest minimum that describes the difference between civilization and anarchy then we're lead to a few crucial conclusions

    People who utter hate speech know they are doing it.
    People who utter hate speech understand what hate speech is.
    Authorities who permit hate speech understand what hate speech is.
    Authorities who permit hate speech understand the intent of hate speech.
    Authorities who permit hate speech understand that acts which flow from it are seamlessly knitted together by specific intent - which is the purpose of hate speech.
    Authorities who permit hate speech are condoning this specific act not the abstract ideation of vague principles about that act or any other act.
    Condoning hate speech also condones any acts that flow from it.
    Condoning acts that flow from hate speech is aiding and abetting those acts.

    1. The above applies to all students, even one that is a "colonizer." They, too, are entitled to a "safe and healthy living and learning environment."

      The facebook page with the knife is circumstantial to show the racist intent here, and to justify those that believe the environment is unsafe and threatening.

      The student code of conduct is not limited to acts on campus, but any action by a student.

      According to the code:

      "Students are expected to be good citizens and to engage in responsible behaviors that reflect well upon their university, to be civil to one another and to others in the campus community, and contribute positively to student and university life."

  8. You can complain "colonizer" vilifies Bedouins and other Arabs whose origins were in present day Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and ultimately Arabia even as recently as the twentieth century emigrations Palestine drew following Zionist development of this land.

    They are the only people who could in any remote sense bear the description.

    Some claim that "Nakba" is the "Palestinian Holocaust". That's a dumb and desperate lie for sure but you can argue that the "Palestinians" have their own aliyahs and the mother of them all has as its Godfather a certain Austrian journalist working in Paris whose name is the ultimate irony of all.

    I know these people can sometimes be real pests. Enough said. But to advocate in a public place they should be slaughtered with knives, halal style, has to be way over the top in any place and language and a racist infringement of the civil rights of all Arabs that should be met with the full force of the law and institutional ethical standards.

    But you just know they don't mean them.,

    1. I tell ya, Geoff. I had some very interesting conversations on the SFSU campus today and my broad come-away feeling is ultimately positive, but not without reservations.

      The people that I spoke with are significant people on that campus and they are people for whom I hold respect.

      I'm still chewing it over.

    2. I'll be interested to read your take on this Mike. The university has been less than impressive so far. Where is the outrage? It doesn't even appear to shock any more.