The national director of the Anti-Defamation League has criticized the organizers of the U.S. Universities Debating Championship, which took place in Atlanta last weekend, for making student competitors debate the motion “This House Believes That Violence By Palestinians Against Israeli Civilian Targets Is Justified.”
1/3 Pained by #USUDC debate on killing Israeli civilians. Would lives of any other citizens be similarly debated? https://t.co/b0TI9ojExA
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) April 14, 2016
2/3 At time when mothers murdered on their doorsteps or students stabbed in street, this isnt an abstract question. https://t.co/b0TI9ojExA
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) April 14, 2016
3/3 Dehumanizing people and legitimizing homicidal #terrorism *never* permissible. No debate. https://t.co/b0TI9ojExA (h/t @JoshBlockDC)
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) April 14, 2016
The Tower first reported on Wednesday about the controversy surrounding the debate prompt. The motion was believed to be unprecedented because it asked students, who were pre-assigned their roles, to advocate for attacking a specific group of people, rather than debating the morality of terrorism in general. Tower assistant editor Aiden Pink reported that students had “reports of people crying in the middle of their presentations because they were so uncomfortable giving speeches in favor of the motion.”
Some debaters who were assigned the “pro” position tried to turn the debate into a discussion of the morality of terrorism in general, or the acceptability of Palestinian lethal self-defense from Jewish terrorist attacks. But many participants were penalized by judges for not specifically discussing the issue of targeting Israeli civilians, a judge who refused to participate in the debate told The Tower. That judge, who is a college student, asked not to be named because he was concerned that being seen as sympathetic towards Israel would affect his future job prospects.
Ironically, a forum on “safe spaces” was cut short in order to announce the controversial debate prompt. The announcement led to an outcry among some participants, who asked that the debate be postponed and a new prompt given. But at that point, most participants had already headed to their assigned rooms to begin prepping for the debate. The “equity officer,” who was in charge of fair and equitable treatment for all debate participants, agreed that the subject was unacceptable and said that participation in that round should be optional, according to a recounting of events on the tournament’s Facebook page. But the officer added that she did not have the capability to inform participants of that decision so close to the scheduled commencement of the debate. …
[The judge said that there are] people “who would say, ‘You could never have a topic about Ferguson, you could never have a topic about homophobia,’” he added. “These same people who are saying, ‘Yes, this is a terrible argument,’ they say that about everything but the Jews. That’s what really frustrates me, this liberal hypocrisy—a safe space for everybody but the Jews here.”
[Photo: Erik Hersman / Flickr ]