I wish this were about a goofball college kid and his Halloween costume. Then I could write it off as so much BS, or "extremely poor taste," as Lynn does at In Context. I see it differently, though. I see it as so much larger.
First, let's put this incident "in context." It occurs at a time when Jews are being shot and killed in America for being Jews,
when bogus charges -that amorphous groups of Jews and their supporters have too much and the wrong kind of power- are well received,
when illustrious academics proclaim from the pages of the New York Times that Israel is an "anachronism," "bad for the Jews," and "has no place" in the modern world."
This occurs at a time when swastikas are making a comeback,
and the red carpet is rolled out for representatives of regimes that threaten us.
So now then, our college student dresses up like a suicide bomber, to my mind best known for blowing up busloads of Jews. He does it for fun and everyone acts like this is somehow normal.
The president of a major American ivy league university accepts this into her home and even allows herself to be photographed doing so. There is some question as to how this came about.
Here are the two (conflicting) accounts of the major players, as reported in the Daily Pennsylvanian:
Saadi [the "suicide bomber"] told The Daily Pennsylvanian that Gutmann did not seem to take his costume too seriously. He said when he approached her for to the photo, she joked, "'How did they let you through security?'"Gutmann [the university president] released a statement yesterday, saying that she did not realize what Saadi was dressed up as until after she had taken the photo.
Could it really be that a president of a large and prestigious university doesn't know a suicide bomber when she sees one? The rifle, the keffiyeh, the explosives strapped to the chest -- none of that gave her a clue? I find that impossible to believe. We have to conclude, then, that Saadi is telling the truth and Amy's statement is a lie.
I wish she would have told the truth. I wish she had stated clearly that of course she realized immediately that he was dressed in the costume of a suicide bomber, and thus knew it full well when she agreed to pose with him.
This calls into question not only her veracity, but the extent of her moral and political tolerances. I know there is a line somewhere that Amy Gutmann wouldn't cross, and I object to the fact that neither the university nor its president will declare the location of that line for all to know. We know that (symbolic) suicide bombers are on the tolerated side of the line, but we can only guess as to what might she might not allow in her house, even at a "fun" Halloween party.
What would have been Amy Gutmann's reaction if a group of students had arrived dressed as a lynch mob out to hang niggers from the nearest tree? Would she have laughed and joked with students wearing child-rapist costumes? Would she have posed for a photograph with someone dressed as Daniel Pearl, with the Wall Street Journal in one hand and his head in the other?
Is there anything she would consider so grossly wicked that she would not allow it?
For purposes of discusssion, say there is absolutely nothing in this world to which Amy objects. Then certainly she should be removed from her influential position because she exercises no judgement. Or say she objects to one thing but not another. Being an eminent philosopher, she should be able to explain how she makes that distinction. If she is unable to, she's not smart enough for her job and should be fired. If she is unwilling to, then she's highly irresponsible and should be removed. Now let's say she does explain her interior processes, and we come to find that the distinctions that she makes are based on bigotry, rather than some other rationale. Well, if she's a bigot, then ..... you get the picture. I think she should go.
I imagine, however, that unlike Larry Summers, Amy Guttman will have no problem keeping her job. She will not have to answer my questions or anyone else's. It will all blow over quickly, because, after all, it is just BS and bad taste.
I guess I am old. I am old enough to remember a time when NONE of this would have been tolerated. I remember a time when Jew-killers weren't considered amusing, when swastikas weren't ubiquitous and people spoke of the Holocaust in hushed tones because of the sheer magnitude of it. I remember a time when people were repulsed by evil and the symbols of evil, and it was not all that long ago.
Our society is changing right in front of my eyes, and the direction of that change, the trend, is alarming and dangerous.
Suicide bombers are powerful symbols of terrorism, of chaos, murder and hatred. When such a symbol does not trigger a visceral negative reaction in a prominent civic leader, and hardly anyone objects, isn't that a sign that our society has lost its way? The cause of tolerance seems to have subsumed our moral discernment. What do we do now?
A Holocaust survivor once told me that when we see something wrong, we must object. I try to follow that sage advice, but what does it mean when so few see anything wrong?
When (symbolic) suicide bombers are equated with french maids and accepted as part and parcel of a "free and open environment, how should we respond? How do we respond?
Many hold that our 21-year-old trick-or-treat-er is after all, "an immature young person," but so what? Many of the real suicide bombers are too. Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was only 19 when he was abducted and if still alive, spent his 20th birthday in captivity. What does it mean that those who hold him -or his remains- for ransom, look much like our Penn party-goer?
Mark Steyn remarked recently that we must stop fetishizing people who want to kill us.
Levis store - 14th St. Manhatan
Spanish PM Zapatero
We cannot allow this trend to continue, for surely it leads to tolerance of our own extinction. I use the term extinction very specifically, as defined in physiology:
A gradual decrease in the excitability of a nerve to a previously adequate stimulus, usually resulting in total loss of excitability.
Too, I think of this quote from Rick Richman's rabbi:
.... Since human beings are free, all prophecy must be conditional. Change your ways, insist Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Ezekiel, and you will change your future. The stars, affirms the Talmud, do not control our future; it is as Shakespeare’s Caesar insists to Brutus -- the fault is “not in our stars but in ourselves.”Who is wise, asks Pirkei Avot? Haroah et hanolad, which can be translated as one who sees what he brings into being.
In other words, watch the future as it is born of our deeds.
Now I'm no prophet, but I can see that it is time to change our ways... before it really is too late and the lights go out.
Es vert mir finster in di oygen - It's getting dark in my eyes -
and I am much afraid.
And it's not just because of Halloween.
"execution" Halloween style
Comments