TO THE EDITOR:
“Hypocritical” would be the operative word when describing Ken Norman’s recent letter to the editor (“‘Wall of Lies’ is a racist attack on Arabs, Muslims, Apr. 25). That, and “absurd.”
Apparently, the periodic anti-Israel propaganda and rhetoric perpetrated by his organization and others are commensurate with the values of “equality, social justice and constructive dialogue,” but the moment someone questions the Palestinian narrative of the Israel-Palestine conflict, “inclusivity” is thrown out the window in favor of ad hominem attacks which don’t respond to any of the points raised.
Dialogue implies two sides, but the kind of dialogue Norman envisions is one where he and others with whom he agrees speak and no response is allowed. That is not “constructive,” nor is it aligned with UNC’s purpose as a liberal arts university — one where truth is supposed to be our goal.
College Republicans agreed to sponsor the Wall because we value the free marketplace of ideas and strive to offer an alternative to the ubiquitous liberalism on our campus. We saw that pro-Palestine ideas were almost universally supported, so we thought it might be a good idea to show there are other, legitimate, points of view.
If Norman finds that reprehensible, that is too bad because we stand by our sponsorship. The Wall was not the disturbing aspect of this episode.
What’s disturbing is that there are students at UNC unwilling to engage in sincere discourse, Norman among them, and instead instantly condemn any deviation from the campus consensus as a “message of fear” and “division.” That is what’s reprehensible.
Greg Steele
Chairman
