RUTHFULLY YOURS

JOEL FISHMAN: THE BATTLE OF WORDS AND DEFINITIONS ****

Posted By Ruth King on April 27th, 2013

http://spme.net/?utm_source=Faculty+Forum+Opt-In&utm_campaign=a553450f8f-Faculty_Forum_2013_02_21_Unconfirmed_21_2013&utm_medium=email

The central subject of this issue of the Faculty Forum is an event which recently took place in the United Kingdom.  Ronnie Fraser, a freelance mathematics lecturer, brought a claim of harassment before the Employment Tribunal against the University and College Union, the UCU.  As he wrote in his personal statement of March 28, 2013, the issue was one of antisemitism and discrimination.  “I believe,” he wrote “that the many witnesses we called were able to provide evidence to the tribunal of an intolerable atmosphere over a number of years and that the UCU did nothing to stop these intellectually anti-Semitic acts taking place.”  (It should be noted that according to the thinking of modern peace studies, the integration of this type of hostility into a society’s institutions is a form of structural or indirect violence, which paves the way for open violence.)  The distinguished advocate, Anthony Julius of the law firm Mishcon de Reya, represented Mr. Fraser.

In its judgment of March 22, the Employment Tribunal found that “the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded … the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful harassment are … outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction … [and] accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.” This outcome was a setback for Ronnie Fraser and for the Jewish community of the UK. Further, this judgment has international implications which are of great concern.

The tribunal had rejected Fraser’s case “as an attempt to shut down debate on Israel.”  Although it is not immediately apparent, the core issue here is one of definition, the definition of the word: “antisemitism.” It should be noted, for example, that the UCU had posted the claim on a private listserv that millions of dollars from the failed Lehman Brother’s Bank were transferred to Israel.  Effectively, by defining antisemitism down, the Tribunal did not have a problem with this type of statement and took issue with Fraser for even raising it.

For his part, Ronnie Fraser based his position on the “EUMC working Definition of Antisemitism” [European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)] of March 2005 which defined antisemitism as follows: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”  Following this logic, it gave examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.[i]

The essence of the matter is one of words and definitions.  To borrow the expression of the late Patrick Moynihan, the Tribunal defined antisemitism down to such an extent that it ceases to be a crime, or even a minor offense.

This important battle dates back to 1964 when the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities held discussions for the purpose of defining the apartheid regime of South Africa as racist.  During these discussions, the American representative moved to include antisemitism defined as a form of racism.  In response, the Soviets, who were real antisemites, opposed this proposal forcefully, and threatened that if it were not dropped they would move to have Zionism defined as racism.  They did not enter into a debate but ended the discussion using strong-arm tactics.  Later, in 1975, they engineered the passing of UNGA Resolution 3379, “Zionism is Racism.”[ii] There is a good reason why we presently lack a universally accepted definition of the term, “antisemitism.”  The Soviets prevented it.  What happened at the UN half a century ago and what happened recently in the UK brings us to the crucially important observation of the distinguished Princeton Sovietologist, Robert C. Tucker.  Writing in 1971, he explained that, “Of all the monopolies enjoyed by the Soviet state, none would be so crucial as its monopoly on the definition of words.  The ultimate weapon of political control would be the dictionary.”[iii]

Today, we are still fighting over the definitions of words.  Although the Soviet Union has passed into oblivion, the rigidity of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the tyranny of politically correct patterns of expression have persisted.  If the expression of antisemitism ceases to be a crime, then its free expression in all forms becomes acceptable.  Similarly, if terrorism is defined as a legitimate form of resistance, it ceases to be a crime.  If, for example, if a certain terrorist massacre at a US army base is defined as “workplace violence,” then the truth has been denied, and a society experiencing a misperception of reality is denied the means of defending itself.[iv]

What is happening on our campuses may be found in the other articles which we have selected for the present issue of the Faculty Forum.  These, too, reflect the battle of the dictionary.  Apartheid was originally defined in 1964 as a form of racism, but the term has been misused in the context of Israel.  This is distortion of reality which is at the base of the BDS campaign.  The essence of this contest is a battle of words and definitions.  If this battle is lost, our language will be degraded along with the meaning and values which certain critical words represent.

We shall conclude with a quotation which has been attributed  to Albert Camus, “To misname things, is, willingly or not, to add to the misfortune of the world.”  “Mal nommer les choses, c’est, volontairement ou non, ajouter au Malheur du monde.”

Joel Fishman, Editor

A word about this issue of the Faculty Forum:  We have included the key documents and commentary relating to Ronnie Fraser’s claim before the Employment Tribunal.  We are particularly pleased to include David Hirsh’s analysis which we invited him to write for our readers.  We have also included timely and related features dealing with the situation on the American campuses.  At present, our German edition is being reorganized, so we have decided to give our German colleagues’ articles a home in our regular English edition.  Accordingly, we have decided to run our first review in German with an abstract in English.  Your feedback is always welcome.

JSF

Comments are closed.