Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tony Kushner Denied Honors Over Palestine
This week, the news hit that Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, perhaps best known for his Angels in America, was being blocked from receiving an honorary degree from the City University of New York because of his views on Israel.
Kushner, who also has an honorary degree from Brandeis University, told Salon's Justin Elliott that this was an “unprecedented and pretty ugly experience."
Sadly, though, it's not that rare for academia to balk at support for Palestinians. Elliott notes that just this January, a Brooklyn College adjunct professor was fired—and later reinstated—after students and an assemblyman complained about his views. Last summer, GRITtv guest and fellow Brooklyn College professor Moustafa Bayoumi was the center of a controversy around his book, How Does it Feel to Be A Problem? Being Young and Arab in America. And back in 2009, Joel Kovel visited us at GRITtv to discuss his termination from Bard College, which he believed was over his pro-Palestinian views.
It's notable that the same cast of characters turns up again and again in these stories. Bruce Kesler, a Brooklyn College alum, caused a stir in both Brooklyn College cases, and Jeffrey Wiesenfeld is the CUNY board member who blocked Kushner's honor.
Wiesenfeld is, Elliott notes, a trustee at the pro-Israel think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and an organizer of the Salute to Israel Day Parade Committee. His views are clearly not considered controversial or problematic.
Instead, even a famed Jewish playwright like Kushner, who reiterated in his letter to the CUNY trustees that he supports the continued existence of Israel even as he opposes the state's policies, is accused of being an extremist.
At a time when dancing in the streets is accepted as a proper response to the killing of Osama bin Laden, it's ironic to see that support for human rights—in this case in Palestine—is still controversial.
24 Comments so far
Show AllNice. Israel and its various attack dogs in the US are thus disowning some of the finest Jewish minds around: Chomsky, Finkelstein, and now Kushner, not to mention all the non-Jews constantly being undermined by their fascist-like intolerance.
One gripe here with Laura Flanders. Did she really need to throw in that bit about the "killing" of "Osama bin Laden" at the end? Why do these people insist on playing along with the Big Lie?
you discredit yourself with the baseless conspiracy crap...chomsky, finkelstein, etc. will speak/write publicly on the osama killing soon and guess what? they're not gonna say "it's a conspiracy! it's a conspiracy!"... the Left doesn't need conspiracies, there's so much we know, that is verifiable and uncontroversial, like "the U.S. invaded Iraq illegally and killed thousands of innocent people and increased the threat of terrorism"... so what if bin Laden isn't really dead? Chomsky would say correctly that you're wasting your time with the conspiracy business, it's a useless diversion of energy, like the whole JFK assassination industry ... we need to organize and combat militarism, imperialism, corporatism, etc. without the nonsensical conspiracy language ... maybe it is a Big Lie, but not you or me or anyone can prove the lie...we can prove what we KNOW the U.S. is doing (war, torture, support for horrific regimes, assassination, etc.)
You obviously haven't done the research on any of the questions you cite. As for the dead Osama, there has long been plenty of evidence that he died a long time ago, between revelations by ex-spies and govenment heads.
You seem incapable of independent thought, since all you do is repeat Chomsky's own lame excuse for scarfing down the official government pabulum on JFK and 9/11. The fact that you even have to use the boilerplate reference to "conspiracy" speaks volumes as to your own unwillingness to look at the evidence and think for yourself. As if conspiracies somehow have never existed at high levels of government.
And you are too foolish to realize that without the excuse of 9/11 none of this war and torture would have been possible.
How, incidentally, do you explain the collapse of WTC7 in 6.5 seconds?
The question you should be asking is why, in the face of so much indisputable evidence gathered by so many serious individuals, are the government and mass media able to sweep it under the rug by dint Goebbelsian repetition of the Big Lie? There have already been a great many whistleblowers from within the government services (Sibel Edmunds, Michael Springman, Steve Piczienik, et al) and military. There are dozens of volumes of scientific analysis of the 9/11 events debunking the official story. There are mountains of eyewitness testimonies that contradict that story, indeed the vast majority of 9/11 witnesses interviewed by the Commission itself, which then chose to ignore their testimonies and go with only the tiny minority that buttressed their own official lie. There are high government officials abroad (former Italian president, minister of the interior, and spook Francesco Cossiga of Italy, former German secretary of defense Andreas Von Bulow, among many others) who have revealed that the 911 events were orchestrated from the inside. Indeed, there is far, far more than enough evidence AGAINST the official whitewash to bring the 9/11 case to court. You are simply joining in the collective, top-down effort to deny the evidence. Thus you are part of the problem, your attitude disgraces your Grateful Dead moniker.
Now you're going into the 9-11 business. My comments were a direct response to your placing the killing of bin Laden in quotation marks as if that's the "big lie." Because 800 different stories are out there suggesting he died already doesn't make any of em true. There's no more evidence that bin Laden died in December 2001 as there is he died a few days ago. You just really really want it to be true so you say that it definitely is true. Using the word conspiracy is, I agree, used by propagandists to discredit rational inquiry and legitimate questioning of official narratives. My use of conspiracy is not in that category. I'm using the word to describe people like you that take bits of information that are highly questionable and use it to proclaim with absolute certainty a version of events that is not at all definitive. I'm aware of the voluminous material questioning the official 9-11 narrative, the scientific analyses, etc. Some of it is provocative, some of it is bullshit, but none of it amounts to definitive proof that the WTC was destroyed by explosives or that it was an inside job. You point to some science. There's a whole lot of other science that confirms that portion of the official story that suggests planes hit the buildings and caused the subsequent collapses. I'm not a scientist but I'm intelligent enough to know that your case has not been proven to the extent to which your definitive tone suggests. I'm not part of the problem, thank you. And your suggestion that because I don't kneel down at the altar of David Ray Griffin I somehow disgrace my Grateful Dead moniker is another absurd leap of logic to which you and your David Ray Griffin True Believer friends are unfortunately prone to. I oppose imperialism, militarism, corporate domination, environmental degradation. I'm a good Leftist. I believe in peace and I love the spirit and music of the Grateful Dead. Admitting that I'm not willing to swallow the "Big Lie" narrative you put forth with such conviction doesn't make me a part of the problem. There's room for doubt man. Peace.
Finally, the fact that you, and people like Laura Flanders, can buy this ridiculous Bin Laden story, when there is literally no "body of evidence", this having been destroyed in much the same fashion as most of the forensic evidence of 9/11, an illegal act by any standard of criminal law, is astonishing.
At least Cockburn had the cojones to print Linh Dinh's excellent piece on this Bin Laden farce.
People like you, on the other hand. discredit "the left," which in any case doesn't exist in any tangible political form in the USA and much of the West. So you can flail about in your willful blind ignorance, but I'm sure it doesn't make you feel any better to agree with your oppressors. Unfortunately, for reasons such as those I've enumerated here, when there is an uprising in the US, it probably won't come from the left, and that will be primarily the fault of mentalities like yours.
Enjoy the kool-aid you're drinking in such long drafts.
Thanks, clovis-- well stated.
You may have seen comments here on recent threads touching upon public figures like the iconic Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, et al who treat abiding skepticism and persistent curiosity about "what actually happened" on 9/11/01 as a taboo subject.
I'm not "anti" Chomsky or the others. And I'm well aware of the often-vehement rationale offered by their defenders on this point that, in a nutshell, the topic is so emotionally and politically "radioactive" and risky that they'd rather devote their abilities, time, and energy to more congenial and fruitful topics.
I accept that there is validity to this attitude of prophylactic close-mindedness. I don't condemn anyone with an authentic emotional and intellectual horror towards certain controversial and politically apocalyptic topics for avoiding them.
But what I DO object to is persons in this position dishonestly claiming the intellectual and moral high ground by insisting that THEIR taboo should be EVERYBODY'S taboo-- generally dissuading, discouraging, and denouncing the validity and legitimacy of others' abiding skepticism and curiosity.
Ironically, as I commented at Glenn Greenwald's piece published on CD yesterday, Glenn is commendably concerned and bothered by "how little interest there seems to be in finding out what actually happened here"-- "here" referring to the what I've been calling the "Bin Laden Caper".
Good for him! He goes on to make a compelling case for why "what actually happened" obviously DOES matter, and conversely, why taking the ever-shifting official accounts at face value or simply washing one's hands on the question is wrong and ill-advised.
I find this deeply ironic because he's taking the position diametrically contradicting, and irreconcilable with, his supercilious, Chomskyesque rationalizations for why "what actually happened" on 9/11/01 isn't worth picking over.
It is indeed unfortunate and deplorable that, with exceptions like Linh Dinh, so much of the leftish commentariat has unconsciously or deliberately decided that buying into the Bin Laden Caper at face value is the better part of valor.
I agree, OS, as I always do with you. Yesterday I wrote on another thread how odd this allergy of Glenn's to the 9/11 events seemed to me in light of his superb work on the anthrax case, which is intimately and inseparably related to the events of that day. The disconnect doesn't make any appreciable sense to me. But I do appreciate the little glimmer of hope contained in his argument for the importance and mystery of "what actually happened."
There's just so much hate in your tone too. I'm sorry you think people like me are what's wrong with America and the world. It's not that we uncritically "buy the story." It's that we don't automatically say that because there's no "body of evidence" then it MUST be a lie, after all the government lies routinely so they absolutely MUST be lying right now. I think it's plausible and many others do too that the Navy SEALS killed the guy and got rid of em. Doesn't mean we applaud it or think it's right. Just means that it seems plausible, more plausible than oh he really died in Afghanistan in 2001 cuz somebody said it once. And furthermore, I'm not saying bin Laden orchestrated 9-11, maybe he did maybe others did. The FBI has no evidence and that's probabloy a big part of why the Obama admin. killed him. We're probably not that far apart, certainly not as far apart as you suggest. But you should have it in you to admit that you don't know anything that I don't know, or that Chomsky doesn't know, or that Laura Flanders doesn't know. You just leap from reasonable skepticism to "I absolutely know that the official story isn't true because look at what an Italian intelligence guy said once." You don't have enough to be as certain as you are. And I stand by the claim that your obsessing over the minutiae of 9-11 is a distraction from the bigger task of confronting the Machine on uncontroversial matters that anybody can agree with. "The oppressors," and I agree we are all oppressed, want you to burn all your energy on that because it isolates you and makes your movement a priori unattractive to millions of average people that you could otherwise ally with on the uncontroversial issues that Chomsky, Flanders, Amy Goodman, and I guess the mainstream radical Left for lack of a better term of which I consider myself a part are focused on. But I respect your passion and you as a person and I hope we can put the vitriol and personal attacks aside. Ain't no time to hate.
So, a gay Jew can write plays that advocate USAn gay/queer liberation in the most radical and explicit ways possible, and be rightfully lauded by liberal academia.
But speak out for the Arab Palestinians and their stolen homeland?
Totally unacceptable!!!
Chris Hedges critique of liberalism comes to mind. If this doesn't illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the establishment-liberalism that resides on our elite campuses, nothing does!
All Tony Kusher is guilty of is defending the progressive and humane values of the Jewish tradition-values that the Israeli government repudiated or abandoned decades ago, if it ever held them at all.
"Never Again" Good idea. Too bad, though, that about all the Israelis learned from the "Holocaust" was how to behave like its perpetrators.
What "Never Again" should mean is"MAKE sure that there's NEVER injustice towards ANYONE AGAIN".
Good article to get this information out to the public.
Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) has a petition to CUNY to get the decision reversed. JVP has been involved in prior successful petition efforts so I recommend signing it. Just go to their website.
I remember the dancing Israelis who boisterously celebrated the murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11 from the Jersey shore. How convenient that the memory of their obscene conduct has been erased by our traitorous Zionist media masters.
That group of young Israeli spies were likely celebrating that the plot they believed they had discovered, had been verified. The question remains why didn't they share that knowledge in advance with the US, or, if they had, what US agency spurned the Israelis?
The dissolution of Israel will result in greater civil liberties world-wide.
Plus Zionists owe the world reparations, as well as those individuals who have been villified and destroyed.
Forget it, Laura... it's New York.
Any award that requires the approval of Israel is about as useless as the Nobel Peace Prize. You can use that to push things into the garbage disposal.
Just don't allow the Zionist juggernaught to equate political and humanitarian criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. If they get away with that all political discussion of Israel will be stopped in its tracks.
Besides those of us who are anonymous and troubled by this, there is some opposition to the CUNY decision by well-known people. Below are some examples - please forgive the unattributed cut and paste as it is late.
The NY Times is reporting that CUNY will hold an executive meeting on Monday, May 9 to reconsider their decision. Chairman Benno C. Schmidt Jr. said in a statement: "Freedom of thought and expression is the bedrock of any university worthy of the name,"
At least three prominent recipients of honorary degrees from CUNY have asked to return them including Yeshiva University historian Ellen Schrecker, authors Barbara Ehrenreich and Michael Cunningham.
CUNY's own faculty union. Union president Dr Barbara Bowen said the vote to not give Kushner an award was "perverse" and aimed at cutting off genuine political and intellectual debate at the university. "The trustees' craven decision is an offence against open intellectual discussion and freedom of thought. It dishonors our university, and the values for which we ought to stand," she said.
The New School proposes to give Kushner an honorary degree.
Thank you all.
To hell with the New School, which never managed to rid itself of the war criminal and mass murderer who served as its president until he resigned of his own volition earlier this year.
As for Benno Schmidt, he's a piece of human garbage who's been busily turning over K-12s to the Edison Corporation and profiting mightily in the transactions. The last thing he gives a damn about is "freedom of thought and expression." He's all about preying on the nation's educational system for personal enrichment.
Hey, I forgot to do a background check on these guys. Just happy that they spoke up for Tony Kushner and academic freedom in this case.
All Benno the Venture Capitalist is doing is weathervaning.