A York University (the other one — in the UK) professor posted this photo up on his Facebook page:
The problem? The professor in question is also employed by the school as a “harassment adviser”, someone whom students theoretically can confidentially go to if they feel like they are being discriminated against. If I’m a Jewish student, what does it tell me if the person who is supposedly my advocate against harassment thinks “anti-Semitic” is a magic word wielded by Israeli witches? How can I possibly go to this person if I feel like I’m being harassed on account of being Jewish (particularly if, Heaven forbid, it’s tied up with putatively “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” discourse)?
When I was in college, my instincts told me that in academic settings, claims of anti-Semitism are prone to be dismissed out of hand, and this is something that has been verified by experience. But it’s rarely expressed as bluntly as it is here.
I have to admit I don’t actually see this image in and of itself as problematic. I’m open to hearing why I’m wrong, but to me it seems really clear that it’s aimed at the organizations trying to place severe constraints around what is and isn’t legitimate debate about Israel/Palestine.
I know you said in your first post that we need to give even AIPAC the benefit of the doubt, and I wouldn’t say something is definitively not antisemitic just because they said it is, but they and others have made the accusation almost meaningless, and I don’t see anything wrong with calling that out. A political cartoon is as good a way to do that as an essay.
I can see what you’re saying about a harassment advisor posting this on-line and how that might read to a student, but it’s hard for me to say that I think the image is legitimate political commentary and then turn around and say a particular person shouldn’t post it.
The image is actually a caricature of Israeli Foreign Minister and Kadima Party head Tzipi Livni. Is she particularly reputed to “play the anti-Semitism card” in problematic fashion? I’ve never actually heard her talk about anti-Semitism at all (let alone problematically), which makes me think that this “commentary” is more problematic than it might otherwise appear — any and all Israeli-affiliated speakers get tagged with this “card-playing” stereotype regardless of what they actually say or do. But I admit I haven’t followed Ms. Livni’s career very closely, so I could be wrong about her proclivities.
And while I disagree with you that groups like AIPAC have made allegations of anti-Semitism virtually “meaningless”, even to the extent I do agree we should call out bad accusations, I don’t think it’s problematic to accord special obligations to people in the role of this professor — namely, folks whose job it is to hear these complaints and adjudicate them equitably and sensitively. It is fair to hold people in that position to a higher standard of impartiality than we might otherwise hold out for political commentary.
Hmm. I found a few quotes from Livni recently talking about anti-semitism, but nothing that really jumps out — mostly just saying that there’s been an increase in antisemitic incidents lately, and that this isn’t acceptable. I only looked through the first few google hits, though.
It is irritating that that image image makes Livni much heavier than she is and gives her over-plucked eyebrows and dark lipstick — giving her a kind of “tacky” image that’s common in charicatures of Jewish women, but also often used in other contexts, so I’m not really sure if anything can be read from that — sexist, yes, but I’m not sure if I’d call it antisemitic on top of that.
There is no question about whether or not anti-semitism is present in the photo. The text alone answers that question. The imagery of a Jew as a witch also plays into old anti-semitic stereotypes. There is no mention of Zionism on the placard, only Judaism. This placard (and the intent behind it) frightens me.
Surprisingly, I find myself shocked and disheartened that the first comment on this post is by somebody who sees nothing problematic with the photograph. With one or two commentor exceptions, I really didn’t think that would happen.
I didn’t realize it was supposed to be Livni (lesson: next time click through to the link before commenting). Which means it’s not a very good caricature, and I agree that makes it more problematic because I don’t think she does have a history of “playing the antisemitism card,” at least not that I’m aware of. So much for it being really clear who the target is.
I’m sorry to dishearten you. I don’t think I have a history on these threads of treating antisemitism lightly or of trying hard not to see it where it is. But when I look for antisemitism in a caricature of a Jewish person, there are certain things I expect to see (starting with the nose), and I just didn’t see them in this one. It just didn’t set me off.
That’s a big reason why I was disheartened.
Did the text not strike you as anti-semitic? Did the Jewish woman as witch (complete w/ Star of David tipped wand) not strike you as anti-semitic? The second I find much more understandable than the first.
Well, for one thing, I thought it was a man, like a wizard of some sort. I thought maybe it was a Harry Potter reference that I didn’t get. (I actually considered seriously whether it was tied in with the Harry Potter as Zionist conspiracy video that Richard posted the other day and then decided that was unlikely because while Iranians might buy into that because Harry Potter for them would be part of Western cultural imperialism, that just didn’t make sense in a British context.) I considered the Jew as witch/Judaism as witchcraft trope, but – again, because the character didn’t have really exaggerated Jewish features – I felt like it was just trying to invoke a certain supposed “abracadabra” quality to the words “antisemitism.” I also didn’t think it was clearly aimed at Jews/Judaism as opposed to Zionism, because the Star of David is both a symbol of Judaism and a symbol of the State of Israel, so it’s ambiguous.
If I had realized it was supposed to Livni (and again, I should have read the link), I don’t think I would have responded like I did. I think it is problematic to have her cast as saying those words in a “well, that’s what Jews do” sort of way.
There’s a lot of stuff that gets said, images that get used, that make me really twitchy. I usually try to step away from the twitchiness and examine a thing intellectually before responding (or not) to my twitchiness. But this just didn’t make me twitch. Each piece of imagery it used just lined up in a different way for me, so it didn’t register.
(And to clarify what I meant about AIPAC, I shouldn’t have said they render accusations of antisemitism “meaningless.” What I should have said is that it’s hard to give those accusations a lot of credence when they come from their spokesmen. But given that they aren’t the target here, that’s kind of irrelevant now.)
It’s not important, but I doubt the cartoon is meant to be a caricature of Livni. Because whoever drew that poster can really draw, and it doesn’t even look like a failed attempt at Livni; it doesn’t look like an attempt at drawing Livni at all. The cartoon face has real and specific features, which in no way resemble what someone trying to draw Livni would draw.
I know the linked article said it was Livni, but the reporter didn’t give a source for that, so I don’t think we should take that claim as settled fact.
* * *
I think the poster verges on antisemitic in that it suggests that concerns about antisemitism are never in good faith and can be dismissed without worry.
At the same time, I think the poster comes in a particular context, in which — in my observation, although I suspect David will disagree — people really are criticized, unfairly and frequently, as antisemites just because they harshly criticize Zionism and Israel.
That can’t go on for years and years, without this being the result. The more often antisemitism is used to unfairly dismiss critics of Israel, the more often criticism of antisemitism will be unfairly dismissed in turn.
Both are real problems. But very few people seem willing to acknowlege that both are problems.
You’re the cartooning expert here — to my eye it seems like something that could be the result of trying to make an “evil Livni” — it looks sort of like her, but as Ruchama says, a bunch of exaggerations in various unflattering ways. But I don’t know (I don’t have a clear enough image of Livni in my mind to immediately identify a caricature of her anyway).
In between other things today, I was reading a particularly disheartening thread elsewhere about Israel/Palestine and thinking about all the shit leftist Jewish bloggers take from other Jews and then I read Gar Lipow’s comment at the end of David’s first post, and then I saw this, and so I think I was primed to see it in just that context.
Yes.
I think part of why Jews “cry” anti-Semitism is because legitimate critiques of Israel rarely if ever address Palestinian/Arab/Mslim Jew hatred, or anti-Semitism (or however one wishes to phrase it) . If the Jew hatred is addressed at all it is usually presented as a “legitimate resistance” to oppression and not Jew hatred per se. Or it’s something that the Jews “deserve” (at least the pro-Israel ones) . A person offering a legitimate critique of Israel may say something like, “what do you expect? If you treat people hatefully they will hate you “when talking about Palstinians, but never in order to explain justify or minimize the hateful actions of the “settlers” or other “racist” Jews . To me, any legitimate critique of Israel would not minimize Arab/Muslim/ Palestinian Jew hatred or bigotry in any way.
The image seems open to interpretation including critique of its problematic and potentially racist implications.
I’m less clear about the faculty member who posted it on his Facebook. Is it clear that he posted it in order to endorse it? Sometimes people post images on their blogs or other online photo albums to draw attention to the image’s negative qualities and to invite critique. I mean, the OP has “posted this image” on the blog here.
Hey, I followed some links from the nouse (york uni’s school newspaper) article, and there’s a full response by the accused, if you’re interested:
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2009/02/17/response-from-andrew-collingwood/
I trust all the students at York will get a 100% on this pop quiz:
1. Will the average student who may need the professor’s services know who this Livni character looks like enough to understand its place in the caricature?
2. On the other hand, does the average student know what the Star of David symbolizes? Do they know which group of people is associated with it?
3. Do members of this group often have to confide in someone in the professor’s position?
Frankly, I think anyone who could draw up an image of a witch brandishing a Jewish religious symbol mocking the concept of anti-Semitism, must be harboring a strong prejudice against Jews. It’s like protesting a local ordinance by bombing city hall – the political position is just a cover for an obvious sociopathic streak.
That private Facebook accounts are being used to out people in this manner is disturbing in a general sense. But I didn’t waste time sympathizing with those white college guys who got caught in blackface, and I won’t do it here.
I agree with Jake Squid. To my mind there is no doubt that the placard is anti-semitic, and I find it somewhat frightening that it is not immediately recognizable as such to others.
I also wonder whether people on this thread are familiar with the history of the Jews in York? Are people aware of the Clifford’s Tower massacre? Or the fact that for centuries, British Jews maintained an unofficial blacklist of the city? Because I assure you that any Jews living in York are certainly aware of this black mark on the city’s history.
An anti-semitic placard on display at York University has considerably more power to intimidate and threaten than an anti-semitic placard on display at any other British Uni would, due to York’s particular notoriety vis a vis British anti-semitism.
I didn’t know that history, Elkins. Yes, that does change things for me.
While there can be no doubt that the poster is anti-semitic, I think someone needs to come forward in defence of the individual who posted it to his Facebook. As far as I can tell (and I may be incorrect), it was part of a photo album which he posted, documenting various demonstrations and events. It was not his profile picture, and it was not something which he associated with himself. We may as well accuse those who take videos of police brutality and post them on Facebook of supporting police brutality, rather than simply sharing information. Is it possible that he is anti-semitic, and that this should be a matter of real concern for the University? Certainly, but I see no evidence of that in this event.
As for the anti-semitic history of York, Elkins is right, but I’m not sure it’s relevant here. Jews were especially persecuted not only in York, where the massacre occurred, but across Europe throughout the 13th and 14th centuries (never mind the following centuries). One may as well point out the anti-semitism which occurred in London at the same time, or in northern Spain; though a horrific history which we should all recognise and confront, I don’t think York’s medieval history is more relevant to these events than medieval anti-semitism anywhere else.
That response from the professor is astounding. Basically, ‘I regret that the photo caused offense, but it’s clearly a matter of people looking to discredit me.’
Trust me, it’s relevant. It’s relevant because it’s part of an ongoing history of pogroms throughout the world. It’s easy to dismiss the fear if you haven’t grown up with it. It’s also easy to listen to people in whom this fear is inspired and to realize that it is very real.
Vaulting,
York’s history of anti-Semitism is peculiarly bad for England, to the point that a professor teaching a freshman history class on anti Semitism in 19th and 20th century Europe would put in his syllabus: “Hostility against Jews was, of course, hardly new to Europe, as any resident of York should be aware.”
fyi, York University is in Toronto, Canada… while I grant ‘York’ has a particular resonance when talking about anti-Semitism, very few people from Toronto (including the Jewish students I know in Canada) would think of York, England in relation to York University
KS, there are two York Universities. One is in Toronto; the other one is in the UK. In York, in fact.
It is the latter that is being discussed in this thread. (As is noted in the original post).
I made the same mistake initially. :-)
Growing up in a country with an ugly history of antisemitism, I often heard the expression, “There is nothing better than a Jewess under twenty and nothing worse than a Jewess over thirty.” That expression — and the cartoon being discussed here — highlight the misogynistic aspect of antisemitism and the particular brand of hatred that Jewish women face. Jewish women are doubly Other: they are held as both inferior people and the inferior sex. As such, they are both exoticized and reviled in an intensified fashion. Misogyny, in my opinion, is much more widely held and accepted in modern society than any form of racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry, and thus anyone who believes that Jewish men can be saved from their Jewishness if only “better” women extricate them from the manicured clutches of their Jewesses could argue to the satisfaction of many enlightened people that he is not really an antisemite. The cartoon is clearly antisemitic, however, and it attacks Livni both as a Jew and as a woman. As someone has already pointed out, Livni has no history of making gratuitous accusations of antisemitism, and thus there is no basis for concluding that the cartoon satirizes Livni for being Livni; instead, it satirizes Livni for being a Jewish woman. Even if one does not recognize Livni in this depiction, it is still clearly a caricature of a female, and though it may not exploit “traditional” medieval stereotypes of Jews as old men with hooked noses, it does exploit the stereotype iconic in today’s antisemitic misogyny — of Jewish women (over thirty) as shrill, unattractive, manipulative, unfeminine, fake (notice the dark lipstick and coiffed hair), materialistic (notice the big ring), meddlesome, shrewish, corpulent witches.
As for the professor’s “apology”, it only adds insult to the injury: he does not condemn the people who created and displayed the cartoon for promoting antisemitism and misogyny; he condemns the objects of the hatred depicted in this cartoon for not being silent about it.
Vaulting,
I see your point that the Clifford’s Tower Massacre took place a very long time ago. However, the Rabbinical ban on Jews taking up residence in York was only technically lifted in 1990, after a formal service of Reconciliation and Repentance, which was attended by the Archbishop of York and Chief Rabbi Jacobovits.
The point is, in terms of Jewish oral tradition and memory, York’s notoriety is still very much a living memory. It’s not something that has been relegated to the realm of trivia books and history wonks. It’s still quite current in terms of Jewish awareness of the city as a place of horror and purge, and that makes it extremely relevant to the question of how threatening and upsetting Jews might find the appearance of an anti-semitic protest sign — and particularly one mocking the very idea of the existence of anti-semitism — on the streets of York.
As for the Professor himself, however, my initial thought on the matter was that it was absurd to hold him accountable, as he did not create the placard, but merely included a photo of it in a kind of photo-documentary about the protest; furthermore, he did take it down promptly when people registered their offense. However, having now read his “apology,” complete with whinging about some conspiracy to discredit him, I can’t say that I’m feeling nearly so eager to defend his actions.
Yes, precisely. (And also, thank you for your cogent explanation of the anti-semitism of the placard’s imagery! I was finding that more than a tad frustrating.)
Elkins,
I understand your points, and not having such a history, I am not in a position to question. You hit the nail on the head, though, with your comment about relegating history to History: I am a medieval historian, and thus my perspective is quite different than yours.
Though I still sympathise with the professor, b/c I do suspect the photo was intended as a record of events rather than a statement on them, it’s clear from his apology that he has no idea how to handle sensitive issues, nor should he be in a position to advise others on issues of harassment. Very poorly handled. Victim-blaming is never a good idea.
From EngageOnline:
I think many of us here would critique absolutist defenses of free speech, and I’d argue this is a good example for such a critique. Also, as noted above, the position of a harassment advisor really ought to have a higher bar.