Commentary from a student writer at UC Irvine:
If the Muslim Student Union is trying to create an accepting and tolerant environment on campus, they need to try a little harder.
Having rallies, demonstrations and speakers that convey anti-Semitic messages and deter reconciliation between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is not a very effective way of attaining peace. Instead, it allows the College Republicans more opportunities to be the College Republicans.
In fact, the College Republicans should join the MSU in a new effort to chill out. This isn’t referring exclusively to the recent conflicts they’ve had, but their agendas as a whole.
Affirmative action isn’t all that bad, and Islam isn’t suffering from a declining membership. Furthermore, perpetual anger and inflammatory comments aren’t very attractive.
So, criticizing affirmative action is equivalent to anti-Semitism?
As long as opinions like this have currency, College (and other) Republicans don’t really need Muslims in order to have “more opportunities to be the College Republicans.”
Well, he’s dead wrong about this: “The MSU should understand that associating Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity is like associating Al-Qaeda and the Anti-Defamation League.”
But overall, I thought it was a pretty good article. I don’t think Beizer is equating antisemitism with AA. He’s talking about the approach that people use when they push their agendas. I think any advocacy group is going to have its in-your-face members who think it’s more important to express their point than to win people over to it and don’t realize what a turnoff that is.
Laura, I agree. I drew out of that quote something different in focus than what John saw (not that John didn’t see something, but the focus was different). But what I drew was equally wrong — The conclusion:
Furthermore, perpetual anger and inflammatory comments aren’t very attractive.
conflates CR opposition to affirmative action as “angry” presumably because the writer perceives anything that objects to AA as angry. But supporters of AA use anger far more and more effectively than CRs. They retaliate against relatively peaceful bake sales (using speech codes). Groups like BAMN threaten and use overt violence to achieve their ends, while we try to use reason. Groups like One United Michigan just plain fabricate what MCRI would do, although they avoid the overt violence threats.
Where’s the anger and ugliness? In a bake sale? No. Its in those who cling to what they know is wrong.