Day of Shame for Constitution Hill - Part 2

Read the background to this in Part 1. Part 3 to appear later in the day.

My request for people to send complaints to Constitution Hill (CH) and Wits University Press (WUP) was quite successful and it’s a strategy I may consider repeating in the future.

CH and WUP received many complaints so a big thank you to everyone that sent POLITE complaints. Some readers cc’d me on their emails and I enjoyed reading what some readers had to say.

I also sent through a complaint but received no initial response. I decided to call CH and spoke to one of the oranisers named Cheryl. I had a productive conversation with Cheryl and explained my position. She seemed to agree that the panel was too one-sided and said I should call WUP and suggest some other panellists. Cheryl also said that they had received a fortune of complaints.

I called WUP and spoke to Eselle Jobson. Estelle refused to discuss the panel with me and said that I need to speak to her boss. She did not mention the name of her boss, but promised that her boss will call me to discuss the debate.

No-one called me but the next day I received the following email.

Dear Steven, In response to your email below and your phone call this morning, I have been briefed to let you know that we are drafting an official response to your email and it will reach you shortly. With regret, we cannot change the panel at this stage. You are most welcome to attend the debate and contribute your views during the portion of the evening that is dedicated to public response, which will be moderated by Denis Beckett. Yours sincerely Estelle Jobson

The next day I received the official response…

Thursday’s public seminar, organised by Wits University Press and Constitution Hill, addresses the question: “Is a South African-type common society feasible, inevitable or preferable to a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?” The debate is based on Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians, authored by Heribert Adam and Kogila Moodley (co-published by Wits University Press and Temple University Press, USA). With the authors visiting Johannesburg, Wits University Press and Constitution Hill thought it a great opportunity to create an open public platform for discussion and debate around key aspects of the book. Seeking Mandela focuses on controversial analogies between two disparate situations and looks at the lessons to be learned from South Africa’s negotiated revolution for peacemaking in divided societies. The panel is as follows: •Moderator - the well-known journalist and author, Denis Beckett •Two co-authors - Heribert Adam, a German-born political sociologist, and Kogila Moodley, South African-born professor of sociology, who have also co-authored South Africa Without Apartheid and The Negotiated Revolution •Steven Friedman - Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and Visiting Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Rhodes University •Na’eem Jeenah - academic, deputy chair of the Freedom of Expression Institute and President of the Muslim Youth Movement of South Africa. •Virginia Tilley - author and Chief Research Specialist in the Democracy and Governance Division at the Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria. The organizers have received complaints about the debate, with criticism centred on the structure of the panel, claiming that the panelists all shared a similar view. Demands have been made that pro-Israeli views, which defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, be represented. Our response to these criticisms is as follows: •Members of the panel have been chosen on the basis of their academic contribution to the topic, not as politicians. They were selected in consultation between Wits University Press, Constitution Hill and the authors, aiming for a wide range of views. Several other potential speakers declined to participate, for various reasons. •In a free society, people are entitled to hold meetings which do not reflect every view on an issue. Those holding a different view to the authors or panelists are welcome to attend the debate and participate – within the usual conventions and deferring to the panel moderator – preferably having read the book. However, we do not believe that others have a right to veto the panel or, indeed, the content of the meeting. •This debate has been organised in the full confidence that it makes a contribution to the principle of freedom of speech, a principle upheld by the University of the Witwatersrand and by Constitution Hill. This is indeed a debate of varying perspectives, with authors whose approach differs substantially from those of the panelists. Labeling the whole panel as anti-Zionist is patently inaccurate. Any organization is free to run a debate and select panelists of their choice. We look forward to seeing South Africans engage with and explore further the parallels and differences between our society and those of Palestine and Israel. Thank you

Interestingly, the unnamed boss did not sign the email with his/her name, position or contact details. The email was sent by Estelle Jobson, in the name of her unnamed boss.

I replied with another email. Here are some excerpts.

I would however like to know who the other academics were that turned down the invite to participate on the panel. Obviously I will respect your right to keep this private - however I would be surprised if information of that nature needed to be private. I certainly can name 3 potential panellists off-hand that have at least equal academic contributions to the topic. They are not people who are Pro Israel or Pro Palestinian. But they do believe in the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Did you perhaps invite Larry Benjamin, Hussein Solomon, or Judge Dennis Davis to participate? If you selected people based on their academic contribution to the topic I find it alarming that these people would be overlooked. All of them are left wing - it's not like I expected the equivalent of a Naeem Jenna to participate. You say that this is a democracy and that you have the right to hold any debate with whoever you want. That is quite right and I support your right. But I can also be disappointed by what you decide to do with that right. I also have a right to expect important institutions that form part of this democracy to consider all groups when hosting a public debate. I expect when a public debate takes place at a place like the Constitution Hill that it will be representative, fair and balanced. I expect a debate in a democracy to showcase diverse views and opinions so that the debate challenges everyone who attends...no matter what opinion they have.

I received no response.

Look out for part 3 which will provide a run down of the debate including the details of the chair criticising the cowardly people who sent complaints and did not attend. I shot up out of my seat and protested “I’m here!!”

Following this confrontation and after the panellists had spoken I was invited to stand at the front and have my Zionist say. I declined. I said that I do not want to give the debate legitimacy by speaking from the front. This would have allowed them to claim that a Zionist did get a chance to speak on the panel. I said I would speak from the floor – just like the other attendees.