I left the board in its modified state, and pointed out the obvious irony of the anonymous act to my classes. One student approached me to discuss the issue further. We did so; and upon further reflection, I sent this email.
~~~~~,
Our conversation on Friday morning remained in the back of my mind through this weekend, until this afternoon when it erupted once more into my conscious and deliberate thoughts.
What troubled me was twofold: one, your characterization of Chomsky and his views; and two, your assertion that his very name in attribution has no place on the wall of a Jewish school with a mission that explicitly supports the state of Israel.
You characterized Chomsky as a man who supported an outspoken Holocaust denier and who denies that the state of Israel should exist. As I suspected at the time (but did not vocalize, for lack of readily available evidence), I think both your claims about Chomsky's opinions are false.
With regard to your first claim about Chomsky, the affair to which I assume you were referring (and if I'm wrong, please tell me) is that in which Chomsky (in 1979) signed a petition supporting Robert Faurisson's rights of freedom of speech and expression. Faurisson is, you would very fairly say, in compiling his views, a Holocaust denier. Chomsky, however, is not. As Chomsky wrote in 1981, in response to this affair:
Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as ‘the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history’). [1]
To say that Chomsky “supports a Holocaust denier” suggests that he supports the content of that denier’s denial. But that is simply to skew the facts — or, more accurately and more semantically, to stop too soon. That is, Chomsky does not support a Holocaust denier. Rather, Chomsky supports a Holocaust denier’s right to deny the Holocaust — and to do so vocally and in the public sphere. Chomsky does not support the content of the denial; he supports the existence of denial as a form. He supports the existence of speech, and specifically of dissent, even when he vehemently disapproves of what is being said. As he wrote (the sentence that follows the quoted sentence above):
[I]t is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. [2]
Similarly, in response to your second claim about Chomsky (that he asserts the state of Israel should not exist), I urge you to look more closely at Chomsky’s views. His views are quite nuanced, and both practical and theoretical. He wrote in 2003 (a statement that seems, in my admittedly brief research, to be representative):
On the matter of legitimacy and recognition, once the State of Israel was established in 1948, my feeling has been that it should have the rights of any state in the international system: no more, no less. [3]
Granted, he qualifies this view with specific opinions on the particulars of international border recognition. But with respect to Israel’s existence as a state, he does not hem or haw. That said (to head off a possible objection), Chomsky does not acknowledge the state of Israel’s “right to exist.” But that is an objection stemming from political theory: he does not acknowledge that any state has a right to exist. That right, he suggests, is limited to human beings.
All that is to say: I think your characterization of Chomsky is erroneous.
But ultimately that is not what most troubled me about our conversation. What has kept our conversation in my mind these last few days was your suggestion that Chomsky’s name has no place on the wall of a classroom in a Jewish school. Chomsky, though, is one of the most well-known Jews in the world today. His work has revolutionized thinking (and spawned counter-revolutions) in the fields of linguistics and psychology. He is an outspoken and important political, social, and cultural critic. And yes, he says some things and holds some views you disagree with (though perhaps, as described above, fewer than you may have thought).
But we need to acknowledge people we disagree with; we need to confront their ideas, not ignore them. And we need to accept—and further, we need to embrace—their right to shout their ideas from streetcorners and op-ed pages. The quote on the wall of our classroom does not support the content of any of Chomsky’s views (whether you agree with them or not) except his re-formulation of Voltaire’s famous aphorism: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” With that in mind, you’ll note the parallel between the wall of quotes in our classroom and the list of signatures on the petition signed by Chomsky in support of Robert Faurisson’s rights.
But beyond the abstract reasoning for allowing the quote to adorn the wall of our classroom, note the practical consequences. Are you not taught in our Jewish school to question dogma, to investigate meaning, to parse texts, to converse with peers and teachers and the writings of your ancestors? Well, Chomsky’s name on the wall of our classroom has created conversation. It has led to discussion and argument. It has led people to speak and act in support of their values and opinions (some anonymously, and some—more courageously—in person). And that is the value I support most vigorously: the preservation of the marketplace of ideas, through which civil discourse will travel slowly but surely toward something like Truth.
That, to me, is education. If that is not Jewish education, I say to you that that is a shame.
So, should Chomsky’s quotation be on the wall in a classroom of a Jewish school? I should hope so.
---------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19810228.htm
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200309--.htm
**Another, uncited, reference on the “Faurisson Affair”: http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm
**You will, no doubt, notice that these references are articles cited on Chomsky’s official homepage. Still, in my admittedly limited research, these articles seem to be reliable artifacts of Chomsky’s words and views.
5 comments:
you always have to be a contrarian (note: much of this is written out of respect, not contempt). That's fine and all, but your own tolerance and liberalism that you pride yourself on will eventually be the destruction of the very fabric that holds your life together. Pulling the "provocative" excuse doesn't cut it--it was simply a cheap attempt to stick it to the 'higher ups' (you know who I'm talking about). I don't necessarily disagree with you on that front, but I still can't imagine that you're going to defend someone like Chomsky who has praised the likes of organizations like Hizbollah.
If you find yourself to be such a devoted humanitarian...someone who really gives a shit for what it going on in the world, then jumping on the Chomsky/Hizbollah bandwagon surely doesn't help.
Not exactly talking about that at Stanford, I suppose.
First, I thank you for the respect you offer, though I must say it's rather difficult to find.
Second, I find myself curious as to your identity -- your choice of anonymity reminds me of the relatively cowardly act that precipitated my letter in the first place.
Third, your prediction of my downfall has me wondering what precisely the "fabric that holds [my] life together" is. If you know, I wish you'd let me in on it.
Fourth, while sticking it to the "higher ups" does sound like something I might do, I'll confess that it wasn't the case with respect to posting the Chomsky quotation. Though I may have had some vague knowledge of anti-Semitic accusations against Chomsky at the time, I had no idea his very name would provoke such ire (I've never much had, nor sought, a real bead on "the Jewish worldview").
Fifth, I know relatively little about Chomsky and in no way intended to generally defend him and all his positions against all potential accusers. I should think that would have been obvious. I suppose my letter could quite fairly be labeled a defense of Chomsky against accusations of Holocaust denial and opposition to Israel's existence. But even more accurately, I think, my letter was an attempt to clarify what seemed (after admittedly limited research) to be Chomsky's actual views; and to assert that even if his positions were disturbing to some, his voice should not be silenced.
Sixth, while I expect Chomsky's view on Hizbollah is not as simple as you imply, I don't know what it is. I don't know whether I would be willing to "defend" his position or not. But still, even if Chomsky wholeheartedly supports Hizbollah in every way, I'm not sure why I shouldn't defend him against accusations of Holocaust denial. You'll have to forgive the legal example, but: A conviction for murder doesn't mean that person shouldn't be defended against seemingly false accusations of rape.
Seventh, your implication that by clarifying/defending two of Chomsky's views and supporting his rights to speech I have somehow jumped on the "Hizbollah bandwagon" is silly at best and outrageously offensive and stupid at worst. You sound like Stephen Colbert -- except, of course, he's making fun of statements like yours.
Eighth, I have no idea what you intended by your final sentence. I don't know what the "that" is to which you refer. If it's "ridiculous anonymous attacks" -- then no, we don't exactly do much of that. If it's "try to see all sides of an argument" -- then, actually, that's exactly what we do here.
Much of your goal in teaching was to show students how to not only read the words put before them, but to also understand the motivations and the purposes for why they were being written in the first place.
Do you not find it strange then that you would simply post a pithy quote by Noam Chomsky without understanding why he said it (which is essentially what you are claiming)? Although it somewhat pains me to make the parallel, your actions remind me of a naive 16 year old who looks at the quotes in her assignment notebook and glances upward and thinks, "I can really relate." The truth is, that person doesn't know what the hell prompted Ghandi do say this or that. Is that a strectch?
I still don't know who you are, of course, but if you were my student it seems I owe you an apology: Your first sentence suggests that I failed you, and for that I'm sorry. It was, as I hope you'll now remember, expressly not my desire to have my students understand the motivations/purposes of the authors whose works we read. While that is an entirely valid (and interesting, and fruitful) scholarly endeavor, it was only very rarely what I demanded of students in class. I was, and remain, far more interested in the meanings my students found in the work (as opposed to whatever meaning the authors may have intended to hide there). It was, ultimately, my students' own purposes and motivations that I hoped they would uncover and understand.
With that in mind, I don't find it strange at all that I would post a pithy quote without fully understanding its particular social context. That understanding wasn't the point. (I quoted Mies van der Rohe on my classroom wall as well, though architecture wasn't a common discussion topic.) The point of the quote was its meaning in the context of our classroom: anti-censorship, pro-openness and pro-discussion and pro-tolerance. Your labeling of the quote as "pithy" is telling here: The quote is meaningful in and of itself, without particular context, and (perhaps most importantly) with any context.
So was my quoting of Gandhi like the 16 year old who finds a way to relate to the quotes in his assignment notebook? Sure. Why not, if the assignment notebook quotes were similarly pithy. I hope so. I hope the quotes on my classroom wall spoke to my students. They were meant to.
your attacker shut up...
sad, a bit.
Post a Comment