Vol. 47, No.2                                                        April 13, 2009

NEW CAUCUS' ORWELLIAN COMMENTS ON ISRAEL RECORD

We recently received a mass e-mail sent out by our Dear Leader, Barbara Bowen, and her New Caucus slate, under the subject heading of "Real Facts About Isreal and the PSC."

We'll eschew comment on the irony of an e-mail, sent by educators, that couldn't manage to spell the name of Israel correctly, and get to the heart of the matter: in its most recent e-mail, as in its previous campaign e-mail on the issue, the New Caucus has tried to obscure its anti-Israel zealotry, which appears to be causing some political blowback in the pending union election.

In several of our previous numbers, TPR has laid bare the New Caucus' anti-Israel record. But a few highlights here:

1.) In October 2001, the Dear Leader was one of 12 "principal officers" who placed her signature on, and her presidential prestige behind, a NYC Labor Anti-War (NYCLAW) Statement that included the following assertion: "The United States and its allies have already inflicted widespread suffering on innocent people in such places as Iraq, Sudan, Israel and the Occupied Territories, the former Yugoslavia and Latin America." The organization was formed to oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan—a conflict, of course, that has earned the strong support of among others, President Obama, but which saw the Dear Leader, alone among all other AFT vice-presidents, vote to oppose.

2.) The Dear Leader appointed as the PSC chief international spokesperson Professor Renate Bridenthal, who as early as 2002 was wildly claiming that Israel was on the verge of "crimes against humanity" and "ethnic cleansing." Bridenthal, obviously, is entitled to her opinions on Israel, no matter how extreme. But how does it help CUNY faculty to have the union's chief international spokesperson a figure of such extremist beliefs on Israel, given the political realities of New York City and state?

3.) In 2004, the Dear Leader conferred upon Michael Letwin, head of NYCLAW, the PSC's top honor, "Friend of CUNY," just after Letwin and NYCLAW proposed that all unions (1) demand "the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land"; (2) "an end to U.S. military and economic support for Israeli Apartheid"; and (3) "divest all labor investments in Israeli Apartheid." As with Bridenthal, Letwin is entitled to his opinions on Israel, no matter how extreme. But how does it help CUNY faculty to have the PSC publicly associated with such extremist beliefs on Israel, given the political realities of New York City and state?

4.) In early 2008, New Caucus activists Ros Petchesky and Sandor John used the official PSC Delegate Assembly listserv to recruit protesters for an event sponsored by JATO, an organization committed to ending all U.S. aid to Israel. Among the slogans at the protest: "YES, WE CAN! BOYCOTT ISRAEL!" and "ZIONISM = RACISM." Petschesky and John are entitled to their opinions on Israel, no matter how extreme. But how does it help CUNY faculty to have official PSC resources used on behalf of such extremist anti-Israel beliefs, given the political realities of New York City and state?

5.) At about the same time, Nancy Romer—running for university-wide officer on the New Caucus slate—described herself as fully "sympathetic" with "a resolution that comes out squarely on one side" on the Gaza conflict, and asserted that on Middle East issues, the New Caucus had "done much more than pass resolutions—we have mobilized our members around our policies." Romer worried, however, that an immediate anti-Israel resolution could harm the New Caucus' chances in the election, and urged her colleagues to form PSC-dominated anti-Israel front organizations instead, an approach that "doesn't implicate the union." Romer is entitled to her opinions on Israel, no matter how extreme and "one-sided." But how does it help CUNY faculty to have the PSC form front organizations to promote such extremist anti-Israel beliefs, given the political realities of New York City and state?

6.) And, finally, in late January, for reasons the Dear Leader still has refused to explain, the New Caucus-dominated Executive Committee approved for debate two radically anti-Israel resolutions. In a highly irregular move, the Dear Leader, again for reasons she has refused to explain, arranged for no transcript of the session to be made, and no roll calls of the votes to be taken. Most New Caucus members in the D.A. spoke in favor of the anti-Israel resolutions; a few called for putting the matter off until after the elections. Non-New Caucus members of the D.A. overwhelmingly opposed both resolutions.

7.) While the AAUP and key labor figures such as Randi Weingarten have rejected the most recent call by Americans for a boycott of Israeli academics, the Dear Leader has stayed mute. Some New Caucus activists have not, however. Does Barbara's silence imply consent?

THE DEAR LEADER'S BRITTLE DEFENSE

To balance all of these items and more, the Dear Leader has cited a measly two items: a resolution that. . . contained a clause(!) recognizing a resolution by another union(!!) condemning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust denials; and --- after strong criticism from the membership (and, we should note, from TPR) --- the PSC passed a resolution rejecting a call from the University and College Union (UK) for a boycott of Israeli universities.

But don't trust us on the issue: the Jewish Press exposed the New Caucus' anti-Israel agenda as well.

In her most recent e-mail, the Dear Leader has claimed that criticizing the New Caucus' anti-Israel zealotry constitutes "stifl[ing] free speech." A claim that free speech entails freedom from criticism is, of course, absurd. In any case, as a faculty member, the Dear Leader is free to criticize any Israeli policy she wants, as vehemently as she wants, and we fully support her right to do so.

But as a union that needs to maintain the support of local politicians and the media, the PSC is ill-served by having the Dear Leader and prominent New Caucus members so often taking extreme anti-Israel positions, given the realities of New York politics and the tangential nature of Middle Eastern affairs to the PSC's central concerns. That the Dear Leader is now sending out e-mails attempting to obscure the extent of the New Caucus' anti-Israel zealotry seems more worthy of the propaganda tactics of Pyongyang than an election contest for a union of academics.

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm

As you know, Susan O'Malley has sought to silence the Patriot by bringing a lawsuit which seeks to limit his free speech and financially bankrupt him. Interested colleagues have weighed in at
www.freespeechcuny.blogspot.com