Richard Kleer's alleged attempt at Censorship failed
After being a victim of censorship at the UofR myself, I felt a bit of an obligation to show up to Emily Eaton's talk today, which her own dean, Richard Kleer, from what I can tell, had tried to keep from happening.
It was held at "Neutral Ground" on scarth. I'm not sure exactly what "Neutral Ground" is....I thought it was a restaurant but there was food nowhere, no counter anywhere. I thought it could be a bookstore...but there was only one bookcase. I'm going to show up later to this mystery location to see what they cancelled for the event - there was sure enough people but a local business that suspended and packed up operations entirely for the day for this talk to go on should be more than applauded.
The talk in a nutshell was in two parts - why freeom of speech and academic freedom is important, why state-sanctioned israeli research doesn't count and how knowledge isn't neutral, at least in geology and, more close to home, hydrology (and hydroinformatics). The second was (and the boring followup from her helper) on palestine, and how to resist israel by divestment practises.
Her speech was good, but could have been better --- in particular, an ancient israeli? german jew? was in the audience, and proceeded to try to give her a rebuttal -- but due to the venue such a rebuttle was impossible. Unfortunately instead of trying to engage him, she mostly ignored him, to her discredit. But I can understand her doing so --- she was cramped for time because of the censorship issue. I would however be interested in seeing her soundly defeat him in a debate, as his best argument seemed to be 'think of the arab children...if they hadn't stood beside their leaders that they did, they wouldn't be dying'. However he obviously vividly remembered his history, and merely writing him off isn't really responsible, even if it is necessary because of the alleged actions of Richard Kleer.
I'm not sure I agree with Emily's core premis -- I don't necessarily think that knowledge has a moral dimension as say, catarpillar bulldozers do. But it *is* interesting to note that the state sponsored 'Brand Israel' marketing campaign came as close as the UofS.
In general, the talk was aimed at academics -- not the public who undoubtably did show up. So to some extent her message is lost on me and others like me. But If I ever encounter an academic, I just might pose her stance to them.
And of course, the subtle question of how to prevent and deal with post-apartheid refugees, which, this time shouldn't be an afterthought.
It was held at "Neutral Ground" on scarth. I'm not sure exactly what "Neutral Ground" is....I thought it was a restaurant but there was food nowhere, no counter anywhere. I thought it could be a bookstore...but there was only one bookcase. I'm going to show up later to this mystery location to see what they cancelled for the event - there was sure enough people but a local business that suspended and packed up operations entirely for the day for this talk to go on should be more than applauded.
The talk in a nutshell was in two parts - why freeom of speech and academic freedom is important, why state-sanctioned israeli research doesn't count and how knowledge isn't neutral, at least in geology and, more close to home, hydrology (and hydroinformatics). The second was (and the boring followup from her helper) on palestine, and how to resist israel by divestment practises.
Her speech was good, but could have been better --- in particular, an ancient israeli? german jew? was in the audience, and proceeded to try to give her a rebuttal -- but due to the venue such a rebuttle was impossible. Unfortunately instead of trying to engage him, she mostly ignored him, to her discredit. But I can understand her doing so --- she was cramped for time because of the censorship issue. I would however be interested in seeing her soundly defeat him in a debate, as his best argument seemed to be 'think of the arab children...if they hadn't stood beside their leaders that they did, they wouldn't be dying'. However he obviously vividly remembered his history, and merely writing him off isn't really responsible, even if it is necessary because of the alleged actions of Richard Kleer.
I'm not sure I agree with Emily's core premis -- I don't necessarily think that knowledge has a moral dimension as say, catarpillar bulldozers do. But it *is* interesting to note that the state sponsored 'Brand Israel' marketing campaign came as close as the UofS.
In general, the talk was aimed at academics -- not the public who undoubtably did show up. So to some extent her message is lost on me and others like me. But If I ever encounter an academic, I just might pose her stance to them.
And of course, the subtle question of how to prevent and deal with post-apartheid refugees, which, this time shouldn't be an afterthought.