|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
|
Letters
A LITTLE LIGHT Some letters are on one’s mind for a long time, but somehow, the time to write them is never to be found. For many years, I have wanted to write a thank you note to Swarthmore. I came to the College almost by accident. Having escaped Nazi Germany, I was making my living as a very untrained housekeeper. After I burned the potatoes and nearly set the house on fire doing some ironing, the man of the house thought I might do better using my brains. He was a wonderful Swarthmore-connected Quaker, and he got me an interview with Dean Brand Blanshard. I was accepted as a junior. The young Jewish woman who wanted to fight for a better world—who, having survived the Holocaust, wanted to prove that her survival was worth it—was on her way. Swarthmore helped me to pull together my ideals. Starting in displaced persons camps in Europe after the war, I spent 46 years as a social worker, helping displaced people. I was young then, and I grew old with them. I am now 87. The little light of life kindled by Swarthmore has kept on burning, literally through hell and high water. I have had a full life—a colorful and fulfilling one—and, in no small way, my thanks go to my alma mater for my two years at Swarthmore College. May your light continue to shine through the present gray days toward a better future. GABI DERENBERG SCHIFF ’41 “PROXY FIGHT” MISSES THE POINT Although ending discrimination against sexual orientation is a worthy goal, I was disappointed to read “Proxy Fight,” in the June Bulletin (“Collection”) about the College’s shareowner proposal for a policy that would protect homosexual employees from discrimination at Lockheed Martin. How can Swarthmore speak of a Quaker heritage and Quaker principles and, at the same time, invest in arms manufacture? The College seems to be ignoring the overriding issue of supporting and profiting from weapons of war and destruction. Broadcasting uncritically Swarthmore’s ownership of Lockheed Martin stock appears to condone investment in such militaristic activities. This spring, College Treasurer Suzanne Welsh told The Phoenix that Swarthmore’s purchase of stock is based on economic return. I cringe to think that this might be the only criterion. Claiming now to be involved in socially responsible investing rings hollow when that investment is in arms manufacture. ELIZABETH MYERS (P’03) AN ASSAULT ON MARRIAGE I was shocked and dismayed by the article “Proxy Fight.” Never would I have thought that my alma mater would take the lead in assaulting the institution of marriage. It is a sad day now that equal employment opportunity is construed to demand not just equal rights but equal outcomes. To me, Swarthmore emphasized the need to discriminate between truth and falsehood. My understanding of the Quaker tradition is that one must discriminate between good and evil. To the Committee for Socially Responsible Investing (CSRI), the Board of Managers, and the executives of the more than half of the Fortune 500 companies [that have adopted policies prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals], I commend a most enlightening book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Let us be thankful for the 95 percent of the [Lockheed-Martin] proxy vote. THOMAS SPENCER ’37 GREAT GIFTS TO SWARTHMORE In the dozen years that Maurice Eldridge ’61 has been an administrator at Swarthmore, one of his greatest contributions has been the simple fact that, after what he experienced as an undergraduate, he returned. No alumni can appreciate this more than those of us who were undergraduates with him in the late 1950s. In “Diversity: Then and Now” (June Bulletin), Eldridge writes of anonymous hate mail he received one spring, reporting that the student who wrote it was discovered and expelled. I never knew who the writer was, nor the punishment. But from the other side, the side of white students who somehow came to know of the letter(s), I remember the incident vividly. What I remember, however, is not merely my deep disgust with my own community—one community whose intellectual and cultural intensity had become the passion of my life. I remember even more the lesson in political dynamics that the hate mail incident taught. For several days and into the nights, a number of students debated what, if any, action we might take. The debate eventually centered on whether or not to prepare an open letter, which we would sign—and for which we would attempt to secure the signatures of as many students (and faculty?) as possible. The letter would state our beliefs about racial integration. (Remember this was only a few years after Brown v. Board of Education.) Maybe we also discussed mentioning the Quaker tradition in race relations or at least the tradition of tolerance. (I think none of us knew that Swarthmore had enrolled its first African-American students less than 20 years earlier.) But practical questions immediately arose: How many people were likely to sign, and what difference would the number of signatures make? We tried out two possible answers: that a huge percentage of students would sign or that an unimpressive or even insignificant percentage would. The first of these answers would be ideal but, for several reasons, seemed improbable. With term papers, finals, and honors exams pending, who among us would actually throw ourselves into the needed effort? What if the student body were made up of self-conscious individualists like ourselves who would willingly take personal positions but might not accept someone else’s tactics and wording? Worst of all, what if our views, no matter how expressed, were those of only a small minority? This left the second possibility as the more likely: that we would gather relatively few signatures. But when we faced this possibility, there arose a common dilemma in the politics of principle. Some of us held that relatively few signatures made no difference. What counted was our own consciences, not social results. Others asserted that if only a few people signed, an important but suppressed truth about Swarthmore as a racist institution would be exposed—an exposure that was probably necessary to arouse others, before there could be any progress. On the other hand, some of us maintained that securing relatively few signatures would cause more grief for Maurice, em-bolden the racist opposition, and leave our cause demoralized. With considerable unease, I argued the second of these positions. In the end, we did nothing, though perhaps as much from exhaustion as conviction. Soon after, Maurice Eldridge took a year off. The memory of the hate mail incident and its lessons and then of Eldridge’s great gifts to the College by twice returning—first as a student and nearly 30 years later as an administrator—have become fixtures of my Swarthmore education. CHARLES MILLER ’59 TRUE FEELINGS? The Bulletin sure set off a storm with the stories in which faculty member Farha Ghannam and alumnus Roger Heacock ’62 were strongly critical of American and Israeli policies (“Peace, Politics, and Justice,” December 2001, and “Professor in Palestine,” March 2002). In the middle of that storm, it was heartening to see the letter in the June edition from Suzanne Fried Singer ’56, who, while taking strong issue with Mr. Heacock’s views, nonetheless did so in a thoughtful, well-reasoned manner, which did credit both to her and, by association, to Swarthmore. By contrast, I was surprised and disappointed by the degree to which some Swarthmore alumni clearly would prefer censorship (or worse) to the publication of views with which they disagree. Rather than emulating Ms. Singer and directing their challenge solely to the substance of such views, they attack the intelligence, professional competence, and/or integrity of the individuals who express them. I can understand and sympathize with the intensity of the views expressed by these writers, but that intensity gives them no claim to superior morality or wisdom. They might wish to do some soul searching on their own “true feeling” both toward freedom of speech and the values of the liberal arts. STEVE PENROSE ’66 THOUGHTFUL PROFILE The profile of Roger Heacock seemed a thoughtful way to show how one Swarthmore alumnus was doing good work in a difficult area. It reminded me of some of the best traditions I learned at the College. In May, I had the chance to visit Bethlehem, Ramallah, and Jerusalem. I saw for myself the devastating effects of the occupation. Like Heacock and many Quakers, I believe that peace and protection cannot be achieved through violent occupation and apartheid. As a Jew, I feel strongly that when Israel denies a people the right to self-determination, it not act in my name or in the interests of Jewish people. Thank you for continuing to emphasize peace and justice. RACHEL NEUMANN ’92 VITUPERATIVE LANGUAGE I was dismayed by the vituperative language of the letters published in the March and June issues. I thought that Swarthmore seeks to imbue in its students critical thinking and the ability to understand the perspectives of people who are different from themselves. Are the writers incapable of thinking critically about Israeli government policies? Are they incapable of empathizing with people whose land has been seized and who are locked in tiny ghettos, unable to get to work or to school? Do they have no concern about the rights of people living under military occupation for a third of a century? Instead of trying to look at both sides of the political situation, they viciously attack two fine scholars, Farha Ghannam and Roger Heacock ’62, making unjustified charges of anti-Jewish attitudes against them. Instead of attacking them, Swarthmoreans should celebrate the presence of Professor Ghannam on the College’s faculty and should praise Professor Heacock for his perseverance in teaching under such difficult conditions. ANN MOSELY LESCH ’66 APPALLING As one of Swarthmore’s first graduates of color, I had the pleasure of receiving an honorary doctorate from the College in 2002. I am writing to express my strong support for the article about Roger Heacock. That some alumni assert the article should not have been published because of Professor Heacock’s pro-Palestinian politics is an appalling example of would-be censorship at an institution committed to freedom of thought and expression. It is especially appalling when we remember Swarthmore’s historic tradition of respect for the individual human conscience. One alumna who denounced the article said she was withdrawing financial support from the College. That is enough to make me send the enclosed check. Though it is small, it is my first contribution in many years. Your editorial integrity in this case is an inspiration. ELIZABETH MARTÍNEZ ’46 SPEAKING OUT A large and growing movement of committed Jews is speaking out against the Israeli occupation of Palestine, opposing all forms of violence by both Israelis and Palestinians and supporting a genuine peace process. As a participant in this movement, I have seen other Jews attack and silence us when we merely try to describe Palestinians as human beings who, like Israeli civilians, are suffering from the violence. These attacks intensify when we criticize Israeli policies or question U.S. military and political support for Israel. The letters in the last issue of the Bulletin illustrate this dynamic. Another example is the growing number of boycotts of mainstream newspapers by right-wing Jews who believe that Palestinians should be portrayed as only terrorists—never as victims of violence or injustice. At a recent counterdemonstration against a boycott of The Philadelphia Inquirer, I was called a Nazi and told that I couldn’t possibly be a Jew. It is unethical by both Jewish and democratic standards to try to silence voices with which you disagree. It is even more unethical to dehumanize other people by refusing to acknowledge their pain, their humanity, and their individuality. The heartbreaking conflict between Israel and Palestine is destroying lives in the Middle East; we who watch from across the ocean need to stop attacking each other when we debate the conflict. ALEXANDRA VOLIN ’96 NO PEACE WITHOUT SECURITY When Roger Heacock complains about the dangers faced by his children in Ramallah, one has about as much sympathy for him as for a parent who deliberately ties his children to the track in the path of an oncoming freight train. While he and his wife are busy “bearing witness” in the name of Quakers, they might want to take a moment to ask why their Palestinian friends, though demanding a state for themselves, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge a similar right for Israelis. There can be no peace until the Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist. There is no rationale for Israel to give up land if it will not gain security by this gesture. No nation is required to commit suicide. Heacock’s friends are deceiving him when they say that all they want is a state. That is part of the truth. The complete truth is that they want their state, not side by side with a Jewish state but in its place. Finally, we are told that because of Professor Heacock’s “delightful humor and congenial outlook,” he looks forward to eventual “peace and the establishment of democracy.” So far, things don’t bode well for the Palestinians’ exercise of democracy. My guess is that given the chance, they will replicate the regimes that exist all over the Arab world. Begin to imagine Birzeit University, Professor Heacock, without its female students. You can also kiss your copy of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales good-bye, as it is unlikely to survive scrutiny by the Islamic morality police. If, in fact, you want to demonstrate your solidarity and commitment to the Palestinians and live your Quaker ideals, persuade them to talk peace, teach peace, negotiate peace, and pray for peace. These are the tactics that they have not yet tried. A Quaker friend of theirs could demand no less. JAN FELDMAN ’76 POSITIVE PEACE Some of the reactions in the June Bulletin are grounded in a zero-sum approach to the Palestinian-Israeli encounter. The United States should move the parties from win-lose perceptions to a win-win scenario. Roger Heacock envisions a positive peace based on democracy and justice—not a negative stalemate based on either the force of Palestinian suicide bombers or of Israel’s permanent occupation of the West Bank. This is entirely in keeping with the Quaker teachings and traditions that Roger brought from his birthright and that one would hope others gained in their Swarthmore education. JOHN CORBIT ’61, Narragansett, R.I.
SOLUTIONS, NOT STEREOTYPES The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is in desperate need of novel solutions and creative negotiation. We, as Swarthmore graduates, students, faculty, and staff are well educated, globally aware, and instilled with the values of peace and justice. How can we fall back on ethnic and religious stereotypes and discount the human dimensions of this conflict? If Swarthmoreans cannot move discussion toward a solution to the conflict in the Middle East, who will? Whether or not we support Roger Heacock’s decisions to live and work in Palestine, learning of his experience exposes those of us who are physically isolated from the conflict to a novel perspective. Alumni profiles remind us of the many and varied paths taken by Swarthmore students and serve to broaden our collective experience. AMANDA FINE ’93 Lansing, Mich. FREEDOM OF IDEAS I have just returned from the Middle East, where I experienced firsthand the political antipathy to the United States and the moral outrage over America’s uncritical support for the Israeli repression of the native Palestinians. It is regretfully clear why we are hated and distrusted. I applaud Roger Heacock for his principled Quaker understanding of the conflict, I deplore those who say they will stop giving to Swarthmore because of an article they don’t like, and I trust that the College will not yield to pressure groups that seek to intimidate the editors of the Bulletin. Freedom of ideas is for everyone. BRICE HARRIS ’53 FAIRNESS BOTH WAYS After reading the letter by Julie Marcus ’87 in the June Bulletin, I looked again at the Heacock article. I cannot see any clear-cut anti-Jewish pattern—only a sense of fairness to the Palestinians. Marcus evidently equates fairness to Palestinians as unfairness to Jews, which leads to her conclusion that the Heacock story (which was not written by Heacock, of course) was anti-Jewish. It appears that the concept of fairness both ways is not possible in her mind. Her effort to induce alumni to discontinue giving to Swarthmore is vicious and petty. The College should not have to consider financial damage every time the Bulletin publishes a stimulating article. Marcus must have missed the “sense of the meeting” when she went through Swarthmore. ROGER KEENAN ’46 JESUS WAS A JEW One quiet little line in Bolton Davidheiser’s otherwise reasonable letter to the Bulletin (June “Letters”) has been a cause of mayhem, violence, and murder for 2,000 years. That statement—so offhand, so casual in its accusation of deicide—was his reference to “the Jews” having crucified Jesus. By “the Jews,” he presumably means all Jews, 2,000 years of Jews, each and every one of us. The irony is that Jesus himself was killed (by the Romans, of course) primarily for being Jewish. He was crucified, as so many Jews were crucified, because he was a potential threat to the power of Rome. He was a threat because he was Jewish and outspoken and because he was a leader in the Jewish community at a time when there were rumblings of the Jewish insurrection that broke out in full force a few years later, leading Rome to destroy the Jewish state entirely. Isn’t it strange that all Jews, in perpetuity, are given the blame for supposedly killing Jesus but not given credit for having produced him? He was one of us, as were Joseph and Mary (and John and Peter and Paul and Matthew and Simon—indeed, most of the Apostles and most of his followers). Jesus lived as a Jew and was killed as a Jew. I have often heard Christians say, “God sacrificed his only begotten son.” If God sacrificed him, then it was God’s choice, wasn’t it? And whoever carried out the sacrifice was doing God’s will? And without this sacrifice, the world would not be saved? So what does it mean to accuse “the Jews” of having done this—and to use this as justification for 2,000 years of persecution and murder of Jews? ALEXIS BAR-LEV
SPIRIT AND HOPE When, in 1970, I chose to resign my teaching position at Colorado College with the declared intention of expatriating myself, a few verbal and written assaults followed from public and private fellow citizens, branding me an enemy of my country. As can be seen, the pattern has now been repeated; only the color of the enemy has changed from red to green. I would like to pay tribute to Jessica Carew Kraft, the young Swarthmore graduate who wrote the portrait of me in the March Bulletin. By making a pilgrimage to West, then East Jerusalem; by going on to Ramallah and Birzeit in the quest for subjective and objective knowledge regarding a complex problem; and by being determined to come to grips with it—she has proven herself to be more representative by far of the spirit and the hopes of our people than are those who would paint their perceived foes in monochrome. ROGER HEACOCK ’62 A PEACEMAKING VENTURE As a Jew living in West Jerusalem, I confidently affirm that the profile I wrote about Roger Heacock ’62 (“Professor in Palestine,” March Bulletin) is not anti-Semitic, nor is it anti-Israel. Perhaps if readers knew that the article was clearly conceived as a peacemaking venture—one that bridged the tremendous gap between the territories and Israel proper as well as the gap between non-Jew and Jew—they might see it differently. I also received criticism from my Jewish community for going to Ramallah and Birzeit University and for writing so glowingly about Roger. Yet I was so pleased to have the opportunity, which turned out to be a life-changing experience. I appreciate the Bulletin’s continued support for the piece. JESSICA CAREW KRAFT ’99 FUNDAMENTALIST RAVINGS Bolton Davidheiser ‘34 writes that Muslims worship a false god and that the Jews will only regain Israel when they “recognize as Savior the One they crucified.” For the Swarthmore Bulletin to publish and, therefore, lend legitimacy to these fundamentalist Christian ravings is a disgrace. This is gross anti-Semitism in the truest sense of the word, being both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. The Bulletin should print differing opinions, but it has no obligation to publish such offensive remarks because in doing so, it declares that these intolerant pronouncements are worthy of serious discussion. Would the Bulletin have included Davidheiser’s letter if it had been as insulting to Quakers? RICHARD KING ’74 DANGEROUSLY WRONG I’m having a lot of trouble with the people writing in to complain about the article about Roger Heacock. Roger is a great guy, and what he’s doing—teaching poor students in an embattled area—seems to be a great thing to do. What has it to do with the government policies of the area? Even if one hates them, one can respect what Roger is doing. How can Swarthmoreans ask for censorship of an article about someone doing something risky and significant in the world? For that matter, how can they ask for censorship of any article? I’m proud to be Jewish and am all for Israel, but I’m not for narrow-minded letter writers lost in their own passion. To cut off contributions to the College because you don’t like one article in the Bulletin seems dangerously wrong. IKE SCHAMBELAN ’61 DEPRESSING How depressing to open the June issue of the Bulletin and find so many letter writers spouting the same Israeli propaganda that we read in the letters column of our daily newspapers. I had hoped for better from Swarthmore alumni. Where are the tolerance, independent thinking, openness, and influence of Quaker principle that is so often referred to in these pages as the legacy of a Swarthmore education? Quaker principle requires that all persons be listened to with an open mind. It is a challenge sometimes to give up one’s conviction, especially when one thinks it has been rationally arrived at, but it is amazing what can come from an honest discourse. The appropriate response to Roger Heacock and Professor Ghannam is to examine what they have to say in an effort to discern truth and to respond in kind. I hope that the members of the Swarthmore community will find ways to support all of those who seek an honest, lasting peace, no matter who they are. DEBORAH GOODYEAR RECTOR ’59 PRIVILEGED I was shocked by the vehement reaction to Roger Heacock’s decision to “bear witness and live in solidarity with the occupied Palestinians.” What in any other part of the world would have been recognized as a courageous and selfless choice was condemned as though Roger and his family approved of the senseless violence that accompanies the struggle of a people displaced, subject to daily humiliations, and facing the overwhelming military force of a far stronger power. The Heacocks moved to Palestine when the fortunes of the Palestinians were at a low ebb—just after Ariel Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon and the massacres of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila. They have stayed there through the first Intifada, watched the changes during the frustrating years of the Oslo process, and refused to run when the Israeli government destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority. As a classmate, I feel privileged to know Roger, Laura, and their children. I visited them in Ramallah three times and saw the respect and affection with which they are held by their neighbors and colleagues. The world needs to understand what is going on in Palestine. Would that there were more witnesses to the realities on the ground like Roger Heacock and his family. RONALD SUNY ’62 CIVILIZED RESPONSE If we want the terrorists—and, more important, their uncommitted sympathizers—to respond in civilized ways, why do we not provide them with some mechanism for doing so? If Osama Bin Laden’s primary complaint was about the desecration of holy places, where could he have sued or lobbied under international law to achieve this rather modest goal? Congratulations to the Bulletin. To suggest that publishing criticism of Israel is reason enough to cut off support for the College is truly pathetic. SHAWN DISNEY ’55 MANNER OF ATHLETICS DECISION WAS CONSISTENT WITH SWARTHMORE’S QUAKER TRADITION As a member of the Board of Managers since 1993, as chair of the Board’s Nominating and Governance Committee, and as secretary of the Swarthmore Corporation with responsibility for the accurate recording of the Board’s proceedings, I feel an obligation to respond to the letter from Cornelia Clarke Schmidt ’46 and Eleanor Schmidt Clark ’71 (“Oaks With Quaker Roots,” June Bulletin). This letter once again attacks the Board’s December 2000 action with respect to the intercollegiate athletics program, characterizing the action as “rushed” and as failing to use the “sense of the meeting” procedure rooted in Quakerism. I must dispute the assertions of Cornelia Schmidt and Courtney Clark, neither of whom participated in the events they so vigorously condemn. The Dec. 2, 2000, Board meeting was the culmination of an extensive period of review of the College’s athletics program by the Board and a specially constituted Athletics Review Committee. The first decision taken at that meeting with respect to the proposal to eliminate football and wrestling from the intercollegiate sports program was, in fact, one that reflected the unanimous view of the managers present that an immediate decision on the proposal to eliminate those sports was necessary. The minutes record that all managers present were in accord that a substantive decision on the proposal “must be made immediately so as to protect recruiting for the coming year and define the future parameters of the intercollegiate athletics program before the admissions office and prospective students made decisions about next year.” The ultimate 21-8 vote (with one manager abstaining) to eliminate these sports must be un-derstood in the context of the unanimous sense of the managers that such a substantive decision could not responsibly be delayed. Moreover, the writers fail entirely to note that a special meeting of the Board was convened, at the request of managers who had voted against the decision, on Jan. 4, 2001, to reconsider the matter. After a full discussion, participated in by 34 of the 38 then-managers and four of the eight then-emeriti managers, the minutes of the Jan. 4, 2001, meeting state that the Board decided “without voting and without objection, to let its decision of Dec. 2, 2000, stand.” The decision taken by the Board of Managers in December 2000 and reaffirmed in January 2001 was, of course, a complex and difficult one, about which members of the Swarthmore community may well continue to have divergent views. However, I submit that when one actually looks at the record, it shows that the decision was taken in a manner entirely consistent with Swarthmore’s Quaker tradition. LILLIAN KRAEMER ’61 ADDITIONAL LETTERS We regret that there was not space to publish all of the letters we received, but offer the following in addition to those that were published in the September Bulletin. THANKS Thanks to Jeffrey Lott for his editorial in the June issue of the Bulletin. I applaud his dedication to the highest standards of a free press and his determination to keep the Bulletin “as open a forum as possible—a place, like Swarthmore itself, where free expression, open debate, and respect for individual conscience are core values.” ELIZABETH DEMPF BARNHART ’46 ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE What a wonderful gift the editors of the Bulletin have given its readers. The opportunity to read the thoughts and perspectives of our friends and enemies is such a gift to help us on the path of understanding and compassion. I found the anti-Jewish sentiments in “Professor in Palestine” to be devastating and unimaginable. But then, the “terrorists” behind the actions of Sept. 11 showed that many people think that the sentiments and actions of Americans are devastating and very wrong. So much hatred in the world is based on misunderstandings. The more open and compassionate to all we can be, the sooner peace will come. Does this sound corny? Too idealistic? Let’s give it a try. Why ask the Bulletin to be any different? I ask you to send thoughts of love and healing to Professor Heacock, the “terrorists,” and anyone else you hate or misunderstand. Perhaps we can use this as an opportunity to practice the teachings of Gandhi and other peace leaders. As Ruben “Hurricane” Carter said about his wrongful conviction: “Hate got me into this place. Love will get me out.” Hate got us into the Israeli-Palestinian battle. Love can get us out. ANDREA GAGNER BURNS ’92 NO MONOPOLY ON PERSECUTION The letters in the latest Bulletin break my heart. In 1968, when I traveled Europe, I remember two things most: the fanaticism of Israeli students and the tearing sorrow when the Soviet Union invaded Prague, while I watched in helpless pain. There is no monopoly on persecution. The article so reviled by Jewish alumni was wonderful—not because it was the only reality but because it made a different reality so poignant. There is not an easy solution, but the diatribes of Jews who cannot see that the Shoah is not the only radical, particular tragedy in history are authentic manifestations of suffering we can neither ignore nor obey. Please continue your complex, plural, and nuanced coverage. EMILY ALBRINK HARTIGAN ’68 SHOCKED I was shocked by the viciousness of the responses to the profile of my brother, Roger Heacock ’62—particularly Bart Teush’s [’64] characterization of Palestinians as “those whose every breath is dedicated to destruction and murder.” Counting those who live in historical Palestine and those living in the Diaspora, there are more than five million Palestinians. Does Mr. Teush really believe that his words describe most of this population? As for Ruth Frieder’s [’60] statement about a place called Palestine not being on maps in the 1980s, I would like to point out that Palestine has been on maps of the world for more than 2,000 years—since Roman times. These and other letters are indicative of the subjectivity and emotionalism with which issues about the Middle East, Muslims, Arabs, and certainly Palestinians are dealt with in the United States. We must gradually learn to approach them with more objectivity and repose. The Bulletin is to be commended for publishing this piece and for making it possible to open these issues for discussion. MARION HEACOCK ’60 STUNNED Thank you for publishing the profile of Roger Heacock ’62. I am proud of him and his family for the work they do in Palestine. I was stunned by the vitriolic reaction of a few of your readers. Perhaps they might follow Heacock’s practice: While waiting at the border, surrounded by violence, take out Chaucer, and read a tale of the Canterbury pilgrims. PETER LINEBAUGH ’64 KNOWING IT ALL The letters in the June Bulletin reflect the great value of a Swarthmore education—not so much the careful analysis of facts, mind you, but the ability to speak confidently for the many. Suzanne Singer ’56 tells us what “the vast majority of Israelis” believe (amazingly close to her own views). Bart Teush ’64 divines what thoughts inspire every breath of all Palestinians. Julie Marcus ’87 knows the “true feeling toward Jews” held by the Bulletin editors. And finally, John Worlock ’53 assumes the burden of speaking for “us all” in his displeasure over the profile of Roger Heacock. In the same spirit, I wish Roger and his family well in solidarity with all humanity, living and dead. JANET DUNN MACKENZIE ’50 DISAPPOINTED I was disappointed by the letters voicing opposition to the Roger Heacock profile in the March Bulletin. I appreciate that those letters presented other sides of the issue, but I was saddened by those that struck me as closed-minded. Others took offense at Heacock’s statement that “the current violence will never end until the occupation ends.” When looking for solutions to the conflict, the occupation cannot be looked at in isolation. Can we truly believe that the violence will end while occupation continues? LORRIN HANNAY NELSON ’00 COLONIAL LEGACY I applaud the Bulletin’s position on representing all student and alumni viewpoints. I have long sensed hypocrisy in Swarthmore’s much-touted diversity, but now it is clear to me that Swarthmore’s is a diversity of views and peoples that all fall within certain “acceptable” bounds. Professor Heacock’s views do not fall within these bounds. Little does it matter that most of the world’s population outside the United States and Israel share Heacock’s views. To the self-proclaimed intelligencia of Swarthmore, these views are heresy. If Swarthmoreans analyzed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a scholarly way, instead of with reflex reactions, they would see the whole situation as just another vestige of European colonialism, a throwback to the time when European powers unilaterally created national boundaries without regard for the peoples that inhabited those lands. LEE RICHMOND ’85 OPPRESSION AND JUSTICE Swarthmore should be proud of Roger Heacock ‘62. He courageously supports the Palestinian people at a moment when they are more egregiously oppressed than at any time since 1948, when they were unjustly expelled from their homeland. He has a better sense of justice and a far better understanding of modern Middle East history than the alumni who attacked him in the June issue. The Bulletin is to be congratulated both for profiling Roger’s accomplishments and views and for refusing to succumb to the pressure from alumni who would deny free debate over one of the most intractable conflicts of modern times. MICHAEL HUDSON ’59 TROUBLED I am very sympathetic to the problems Israelis face and the goals for which they continue to struggle, but I found the reaction to the Roger Heacock profile troubling. My husband has been to Israel many times, starting in 1948 as special assistant to James MacDonald, then the U.S. ambassador. I first went there in 1972. It was our romantic honeymoon, but we were also swept away by the stories of an optimistic and growing nation that was kind to its former enemies, the Palestinians. We returned every year or two, watching country roads become highways, farms become factories, and hillsides explode with housing developments. One of those times, we had a drink with Roger Heacock in Ramallah, who told us about the Israeli occupation. This was long before the Intifada, but even then it was common practice to subject Palestinians to embarrassing searches, to announce arbitrary curfews and work shutdowns, and to bulldoze without warning the homes of suspected troublemakers and their families. Even coming from a friend, we didn’t believe it. During the past few years of hostilities, Roger and his family have chosen to remain in Ramallah. They have chosen to bear witness to dangerous events on the very real assumption that no one will believe Arabs. The Bulletin profile of Roger and his family was about an interesting family in interesting times. I don’t understand the black-and-white reaction it provoked. It seems irrational and dangerous. In today’s international climate of war and retaliation, I find it particularly sorrowful when Swarthmoreans fail to respect people who commit themselves to a humane cause or who seek to remind us that the world is made up of complex ideas and perspectives. MARGARET ANN ROTH ROSENTHAL ‘60 CORRECTION In "Land-use plan looks ahead" (June “Collection"), it was stated that two properties in the block bounded by Chester Road, College Avenue, Cedar Lane, and Elm Avenue are not owned by the College. In fact, there are three such properties. |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Home
| Archives
| Contact
| Features
| Collection
| Profiles
| A Day in the Life
In My Life | Books and the Arts | Alumni Digest | Editor’s Note | Letters | Bulletin Style Guide | “In My Life” submission guidelines All contents copyright 2009, Swarthmore College Bulletin, Swarthmore College |
|
| ||
