Letters to the Editor

MEALAC Defense Illogical And Factually Wrong

To the Editor:

Majid Al-Sadoon’s article (“Administration Should Protect MEALAC Faculty,” Dec. 1) was an outrageous mischaracterization of the debate taking place on this campus vis-à-vis the MEALAC department, specifically, and students’ rights in the classroom, generally.

Without any substantiation, he begins his article with the claim that the Israeli government and Americans who support Israel’s rights are part of a plot to corrupt the media and hold Americans under a veil of ignorance against their better judgment. This conspiratorial claim is the backdrop for the rest of his piece.

He proceeds to describe the pressure on the MEALAC department as alien to the University without accounting for the many students who have testified to feelings of intimidation. In fact, he closed-mindedly disregards these students’ sentiments outright because he has “taken courses with both professors.”

Al-Sadoon claims the goal of these student reformers is to provide balanced views in the classroom. Continuing, he explains through analogy that just as it would be wrong to explain how and why the Nazis thought and acted the way they did because it would undermine the suffering of victims of the Holocaust, it would likewise be wrong to explain how and why supporters of Israel’s rights think and act the way they do.

While I am incensed by his insensitive and unjust comparison, his logic is also flawed.

It is only by fairly and accurately representing other schools of thought that we can appreciate history and politics. By understanding how human the Nazis were, we can appreciate how tragic the Holocaust was and give the victims their due. By analogy, it is the duty of scholars and the MEALAC department to do a better job representing the rationale of Islamists, Zionists, et al.

Al-Sadoon’s overseas study has evidently left him out of touch with the true situation on campus. The current debate is not about taking away professors’ rights to hold and share their beliefs in the classroom. Nobody is demanding that and nobody would want to demand that. In fact, the opposite is true. Students are simply demanding the right to voice their own opinions and engage their professors in scholarly discussions without fear of social or academic repercussions.

Matthew Mandelberg, CC ’05

Dec. 5, 2004

Spectator Terminology for Disabled Students Offensive

To the Editor:

The article “CU’s Disability Services Leave Students Grounded” (Dec. 1) intended to highlight flaws in the way Columbia approaches the needs and interests of disabled students.

Well, perhaps disability education needs to begin with Spectator itself. How did the term “wheelchair-bound” make it through the editing process and appear not once, but twice, in this article?

I assume that other writers as well as Spectator editors looked over this article before it went to press, yet am I to assume that not one of them wondered if referring to students as “wheelchair-bound” would be both inaccurate and potentially offensive?

Considering how many other terms could have been used—“wheelchair user” comes to mind—I would like to hope that at least one person would have voiced a concern.

It would be a good idea to heed student Ansel Lurio’s comment at the end of the article about how the idea of diversity at Columbia has not been extended to cover disabilities.

Spectator would never dream of calling a black student a “Negro” or a Jewish student an “Israelite.” Those terms are just as outdated, and just as offensive, as “wheelchair-bound.”

Julia Kite, CC ’07

Dec. 1, 2004