Dhimmi Dave Drones On (And On) About "Diversity"

How does the president of U of T, the university where the annual hate-fest known as Israel Apartheid Week first got going six years ago, feel about the zesty display of Zionhass at his august institution? Reading into this statement released in the lead up to the 2010 Hate Israel Fortnight, he doesn't really care to deal with it, and prefers to hide, dhimmified weasel that he is, behind empty platitudes about "free speech" and "diversity" (with my bolds, as well as with my snarky rejoinders in brackets):

Dear colleagues, students and friends:

As each of us in the University pursues the daily work of scholarship and administration, it is worthwhile to reflect on the health of our interactions as a diverse community. (The "health" of your interactions? If that's "health," then I'd be interested in knowing your definition of sickness. And re the "diverse" blather--let's count the number of times you use it, shall we? It will give us an idea of how devoted to the cliche and devoid of sincere and serious self-reflection your statement is.)

On the whole, we are very fortunate. In three of the world’s most culturally and racially diverse campuses, members of the University of Toronto set a standard for respect and understanding. Discussions on our campuses continue to deal with some of the most difficult subjects imaginable. And in general, free expression on our campuses has served to build a sense of community. (Here's how "free expression" works on campuses these days. The Zion-haters are freely able to express their contempt for the Jewish state. Those who defend it, however, can count on being shouted down by the devotees of "free expression". In other words, there's no "free expression," there is only the freedom to express hatred toward Israel.)

From time to time, however, we are asked to ban discussion of certain subjects or censor certain presentations. We examine those requests on their merits, but the bar to take such actions is high. Freedom of speech is a core value for any university in a democratic society. Younger members of our community will eventually enter a world in which heated arguments occur and careless or inflammatory rhetoric is not uncommon. We do them no service to shelter them from those realities. (Actually, you are preparing them for life in Pierre's Trudeaupia, where we pay lip service to free speech, but have empowered a bunch of sanctimonious ideologues in various "human rights" bodies to monitor our speech. In that way, the real world is sort of a university campus writ large.)

That said, I want to acknowledge the over-riding imperative of campus safety when controversy bubbles and debates become heated. Thus far, the University of Toronto has been a safe place for vigorous debate on even the most divisive of topics. Looking ahead, we shall not tolerate any actions by any groups that cause threats to the physical safety of members of our community. (Translation: you can spew and seethe all you want to about perfidious Zion, but we draw the line that any actual pogrom. Easier said than done, though, once the "progressives" have been worked up into a right lather--just ask some Jews over at York U., who were forced to barricade themselves in an office when a "heated" mob of debaters tried to have at them before the Jews were finally rescued by police.)

While the usual rule of law applies to any and all utterances on our campuses, there are some other responsibilities that I believe travel along with the exercise of free speech rights. These include decency and civility, avoidance of targeting of individuals and identifiable groups, and respect for diversity of opinion. (Dave is channeling Rodney King here--and just as ineffectually: Please, can't we all just get along? Well, no, actually we can't. Not when the kids are splenetic with rage about Boerish "apartheid" Zionists.)

Occasionally incidents arise that compel us to recall these principles which are at the core of our work and life together. Some years ago, serious events occurred that left members of our Muslim communities feeling targeted; in the past year other incidents have occurred that alienated and dismayed members of our Black and Jewish communities. While these occurrences are rare, any such behaviours are deplorable. (Occasional? Rare? The Blood Libel Fortnight has been going on for six years now, Dave. Or haven't you noticed? And, hey, sorry about your Muslim communites (how many of them are there, exactly?) "feeling targeted," but at least they don't have to worry about being cornered by an angry mob of Zionists.)

I understand that there are strong views on our campuses on a wide variety of issues. We recognize the right of members of our community to exchange views that are discomfiting or even offensive to some. However, passionate advocacy – even righteous anger directed at some perceived injustice – does not preclude civility or generosity of spirit. We ask, therefore, that when arguments veer near or onto themes such as nationality, ethnicity, race or religion, all members of our community make every effort to express the qualifiers and nuances that mitigate the risk that their opinions can be interpreted as discriminatory denigration of individuals and groups. (And we can't have any of the "discriminatory denigration". Zionhass--by all means; "discriminatory denigration," well, it's kind of the same thing, isn't it?)

I also note that there have been incidents in the last year in which speakers were shouted down at public meetings. Faculty members and student leaders have particular responsibilities in this regard. It is central to the values of a university that those with opposing views are granted a chance to be heard without abuse.

Here I want to caution off-campus groups that may be inclined to precipitate confrontations in an attempt to shut down presentations that disturb them. More generally, I urge all recognized campus groups and members of our community to provide constructive outlets for dissenting views when on-campus presentations address controversial issues.

For its part, the administration will continue to protect freedom of expression and promote interchange among persons with different viewpoints on our campuses. We shall not hesitate to intervene if there are concerns about safety, or if speakers migrate from advocacy to hate-promoting speech. As well, if we have reason to believe that an event could be abused to target members of the community, senior University staff will monitor that event in order to ensure that it is conducted in an environment of respect and inclusiveness. Last, when members of our community tell us that events or discussions may have violated University policies, we will assess those complaints quickly and take whatever actions are necessary to restore a safe environment for producing knowledge and discussing ideas. (Yeah, by all means keep tabs on any looming "migration," Dave. We wouldn't want any of that "hate-promoting speech" to defile your pristine campus (even though anyone with half a clue can see it's already knee-deep in Zionhass sludge.)

In summary, as we move through the remainder of this academic year, I ask that members of our community rededicate themselves to maintaining an environment free of discrimination or racism in any form. I also ask that you keep firmly in view the key responsibilities and legal limits that accompany the exercise of free speech on our campuses.

Sincerely,

David Naylor

President

Egad--what an reeking pile of excrement. Requiring a forklift and a platoon of shovellers, at least, to clean up. However, perhaps Dave's "diverse" student body and teaching staff have more respect for such utterances that I do, and will forthwith heed this cri de coeur and expunge every last trace of Zionhass from their campus.

And, by the same token, perhaps I'm the bleeping Queen of Sheba!