An alternative view on things, given that the theme of this week’s Op/Ed page could very well be summarized as “discourse is not bullshit.” From Chris Kulawik’s (tad bit self-congratulatory) validictory a couple of days ago:
We are ordinary students, well over 10 percent of the community, who, like everyone else, want only a quality education and the chance to be heard. And I am equally proud of our methods. Unlike our various progressive peers, we respect your right to skip our columns and ignore our events. We have never forced our will on the Columbia community.
Chris Kulawlik is, to be sure, an proponent of enlightened political debate–of toleration, of talking things out, of intellectual pluralism. But the aforementioned Hillel president puts him to shame:
“Al Nakba” is a term that makes many Jewish students feel uncomfortable, so an event with “Al Nakba” in the title is not something Hillel will co-sponsor. In using the inflammatory term in its title, the week-long program eliminates the possibility of dialogue and understanding…
However, events labeled with “Al Nakba” are not models that will successfully engage in dialogue if a discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has to be based on the premise that Israel’s creation was a catastrophe…
The five-letter word Nakba, like some other inflammatory four-and-five-letter words, is not the beginning of dialogue.
Yet even she is a veritable Philistine (no pun intended) compared to my next-door neighbor (who, by the way, won’t be happy about this post I reckon. Just knock on my door, Jake…), LionPac president Jacob Shapiro:
The dialogue we propose requires diligent thought and planning, down to the smallest details. We do not offer this as a ploy or a political trick. We fully intend for this to take place, if you are willing to join us. As a first step, we propose a private meeting among representatives of our organizations to initiate discussions and talk about moving forward. While we fully understand the potential for failure, we believe that the time has come to challenge ourselves and search for solutions. Next semester we look forward to working together.
Our hand is extended. Will you meet us?
Let’s hope they don’t. My reasons why after the jump.
“Dialogue.” “Understanding.” “The chance to be heard.” These things are, of course, the enemy of effective and therefore responsible student activism, as attention hogs like the hunger strikers or Chirs Kulawik can attest. Indeed, the only reason Kulawik was even in the position to write a farewell column as deservedly smug as this one is because of his rejection of the fetishism of discourse, and his strategically prudent embrace of the opposite principle, which involved pissing off as many leftists (or, to be more accurate, as many non-Republicans) as he possibly could.
Kulawik’s column perfectly illustrates that activists–or should I say, people with ideological agendas–are never credible when they make the case for “discourse,” since dialogue requires them to jeopardize the same deeply-held values that create ideological strife in the first place. Hence, ”discourse” that is paradoxically aimed at negating the very premise of “discourse” (which is, fundamentally, strong, perhaps irreconcilable difference of opinion) is a travesty and an insult to everyone involved: The best it can hope for is superficial compromise. The worst it can do is leave its participants with a sense of sanctimonious self-satisfaction, in the form of renewed appreciation for their own awesome threshold for tolerance.
This gets us nowhere. Sure, it demonstrates that we exist within a milieu in which intellectual exchange is possible. But what made Kulawik such an effective CUGOP organizer was his recognition that intellectual exchange isn’t necessary, and difference of opinion should be celebrated rather than obfuscated. Dialogue gives us a chance to congratulate ourselves, but I submit that conflict is sometimes the higher form of intellectual honesty. I don’t believe for a second that the man responsible for Islamofascim Awareness Week has lost sight of this.
But I do worry that a potential Arab-Jewish dialogue would passively serve the interests of the organizing parties rather than actively serve the interests of intellectual moderation and debate.
I don’t doubt LionPac or Hillel’s commitment to dialogue. But I abhor their commitment to a dialogue that would satisfy our mindless dogma of “dialogue” while further sublimating some of the very real ideological real tensions on campus–and that would replace the kind of strong yet measured appeal to reason that a provocation like Nakba Awareness Week demands from Columbia’s pro-Israel community. Columbia’s Zionists shouldn’t look to the Kulawik model for inspiration. But they shouldn’t itch for a shambolic attempt at “discourse” either.