On Oct. 29 Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs hosted a talk by Francesca Albanese, the UN’s “Rapporteur” for Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, in Robertson Auditorium. According to The Daily Princetonian, during her talk there were several outbursts from members of the audience as well as a “contentious exchange” with a representative from a pro-Israel student group, but fortunately no more serious incidents.
Certainly Princeton should not shy away from having speakers on campus who may express controversial or even extreme points of view. And Ms. Albanese, in spite of her UN connection, is just such a speaker. She has a totally one-sided view of the very complicated Palestinian situation and sees Israel as the sole villain and obstacle to peace. Indeed, in a 56-page report released before her Princeton talk, UN Watch, a Geneva-based human-rights organization, documented numerous inflammatory, antisemitic, anti-Israel and false statements Ms. Albanese has made regarding the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and recommended that the UN terminate her employment. And a day after her talk at Princeton Ms. Albanese gave a speech at Barnard College in which she repeated the claim she made at Princeton that Israel’s war against Hamas constituted “genocide” and went on to question Israel’s right to even exist.
The fundamental problem here is that Princeton gave Ms. Albanese an official platform to express her views without providing any mechanism by which those views could be challenged by another subject-matter expert who disagreed with her. An ideal approach would have been a two-person debate between advocates for each side of this conflict moderated by members of the SPIA faculty. Failing that, at a minimum the University should have scheduled a knowledgeable individual with an opposing point of view to speak shortly after (or before) Ms. Albanese’s talk. I am profoundly disappointed that, as far as I know, no such speaker was scheduled.
It seems to me the failure to give its students an opportunity to hear from both sides of an important and controversial issue is not only inconsistent with the core educational mission of the university but also creates an impression the University is endorsing the views of the speaker it did provide a platform for. I very much hope that, going forward, Princeton will have the good sense to structure events so that dissenting voices are given an equal opportunity to be heard.
On Oct. 29 Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs hosted a talk by Francesca Albanese, the UN’s “Rapporteur” for Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, in Robertson Auditorium. According to The Daily Princetonian, during her talk there were several outbursts from members of the audience as well as a “contentious exchange” with a representative from a pro-Israel student group, but fortunately no more serious incidents.
Certainly Princeton should not shy away from having speakers on campus who may express controversial or even extreme points of view. And Ms. Albanese, in spite of her UN connection, is just such a speaker. She has a totally one-sided view of the very complicated Palestinian situation and sees Israel as the sole villain and obstacle to peace. Indeed, in a 56-page report released before her Princeton talk, UN Watch, a Geneva-based human-rights organization, documented numerous inflammatory, antisemitic, anti-Israel and false statements Ms. Albanese has made regarding the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and recommended that the UN terminate her employment. And a day after her talk at Princeton Ms. Albanese gave a speech at Barnard College in which she repeated the claim she made at Princeton that Israel’s war against Hamas constituted “genocide” and went on to question Israel’s right to even exist.
The fundamental problem here is that Princeton gave Ms. Albanese an official platform to express her views without providing any mechanism by which those views could be challenged by another subject-matter expert who disagreed with her. An ideal approach would have been a two-person debate between advocates for each side of this conflict moderated by members of the SPIA faculty. Failing that, at a minimum the University should have scheduled a knowledgeable individual with an opposing point of view to speak shortly after (or before) Ms. Albanese’s talk. I am profoundly disappointed that, as far as I know, no such speaker was scheduled.
It seems to me the failure to give its students an opportunity to hear from both sides of an important and controversial issue is not only inconsistent with the core educational mission of the university but also creates an impression the University is endorsing the views of the speaker it did provide a platform for. I very much hope that, going forward, Princeton will have the good sense to structure events so that dissenting voices are given an equal opportunity to be heard.