1
May 5, 2006
Dear Members of the Brandeis University Community,
Over the past several years, the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public
Life and Brandeis as a whole have developed an increasingly deep and robust set of
connections with Palestinian individuals and institutions. This comes as part of a selfconscious effort to bring a variety of perspectives on the Middle East to our campus, in
order to enrich our intellectual climate and to encourage the Brandeis community to
pursue a goal of mutual understanding. These activities have included:
•
•
•
•
A multi-year, multi-dimensional partnership with Al-Quds University, the
Palestinian university in Jerusalem, involving dozens of faculty members,
students, and administrators from both institutions
Partnerships on coexistence projects with Palestinian NGOs in Nablus, Ramallah,
East Jerusalem, and Bethlehem
Assisting with the development of the Arab-Jewish dialogue group on the
Brandeis campus, as well as developing activities specifically involving Brandeis
students from the Middle East
Dozens of courses, lectures, performances, and discussions, representing a variety
of points of view, on Middle East topics on the Brandeis campus
We have learned many things from this array of projects, but one thing stands out:
Projects focused on the Middle East must be conducted with great care, because
sensitivities are high and opponents of peace on all sides are vigilant for opportunities to
undermine honest attempts at dialogue and understanding.
These projects have received the strong support of President Jehuda Reinharz and
the entire Brandeis administration, even in the face of intense adverse criticism from
members of the Brandeis community and outside groups who oppose building bridges
with Palestinians. The administration’s commitment has extended to other similar efforts
in many other parts of the campus.
Lior Halperin’s exhibit, “Voices of Palestine,” was nurtured in the climate of
openness that the Center and others on the Brandeis campus have sought to create. The
exhibit was a project for a class, “The Arts of Building Peace,” taught under the auspices
of the Center, where students are encouraged to explore the resources and possibilities for
art as a tool in the process of reconciliation. A 27-year-old student from Israel, Lior chose
to put together an exhibit of art by young Palestinians, with the assistance of an art center
in the Aida refugee camp near Bethlehem. Lior completed her project in the class; then
she made arrangements, with the assistance of a professor of a different course, to mount
the exhibit in the Brandeis Library. The exhibit opened on April 26, with an opening
attended by 35 people.
When I first saw the images of “Voices of Palestine,” I considered the exhibit in
the light of questions that I ask about any similar program: Does this activity contribute
2
to the goal of mutual understanding? Are there any ways – deliberate or inadvertent – that
it might actually contribute to misunderstandings that exacerbate conflict? Have we
provided a sufficient context to challenge a viewer or an audience member to think more
openly, more broadly, more deeply?
Certainly Lior created the exhibit with the best of intentions. By bringing the
creative work of young Palestinians to our campus, she hoped to give us a window into
the perspectives of young people who have lived their lives in the shadow of violence.
She hoped to help the Brandeis community challenge one-dimensional perceptions and
see young Palestinians as complex individual human beings.
Despite these excellent intentions, there were troubling aspects to the form and
the content of the exhibit, elements that raised the possibility that the images might not
have the effect that Lior intended. The exhibit consists of images of paintings by young
Palestinians, ages 13-16, accompanied in each case by text expressing political hopes and
dreams. Some of the paintings contain controversial images, alongside text about the
future of a “free Palestine” that some members of our campus community would likely
find troubling.
I became concerned that – in the relative absence of context or explanation – the
exhibit would have for many viewers precisely the opposite effect that Lior intended.
Rather than seeing the full complexity of the ideas and outlook of Palestinian teenagers,
the exhibit might be seen as reducing them to a series of political slogans. My concern
was partly confirmed when some Brandeis students, viewing the exhibit in the days after
the opening, believed that the point of the show was to demonstrate that young
Palestinians were mere instruments of political propaganda. I worried that the small
amount of introductory text that Lior added belatedly to the exhibition was not really
sufficient to provide the context to discourage this interpretation.
If Brandeis students could so quickly jump to these conclusions, then what use
might dedicated critics of dialogue and peace from outside the University make of the
exhibit? I worried that the controversial images and the close linkage between the
paintings and the text made the exhibit a convenient target for individuals and
organizations determined to undermine efforts to understand and build relationships with
Palestinian people. After all, Brandeis had been under steady attack for months for
activities and relationships that were, on the whole, less provocative. Would the exhibit
serve to create understanding, or would its form serve to exacerbate tensions in our
campus community, and prejudice against Palestinian people?
For me, the issue was never that the exhibit was “one-sided,” nor was it a matter,
by itself, of presenting controversial views. The Center (and many others at Brandeis)
have frequently sponsored and will continue to host events and programs on difficult
subjects without resorting to a mechanical process of “balance.” But any of us who are
involved in controversial programs have the responsibility to consider how the
educational value can be maximized, reflection encouraged, and to provide a sufficient
3
framework so that the conversations that ensue are constructive, not potentially
destructive to the fabric of the Brandeis community.
I expressed these questions and concerns in a phone call to Lior on April 29.
Even though the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life was not a
sponsor of the public exhibit, I felt an indirect responsibility to Lior because the original
class project had been done under our auspices. I encouraged her to think about the
possibility that the exhibit had already served a positive purpose, but that this positive
purpose might be undone if the duration of the exhibit were extended. Our discussion was
not about whether Lior had a right to continue the exhibit, but whether it was wise to do
so. Lior indicated that she did not share my concerns, and our phone conversation ended.
There ended, as well, my direct involvement in matters related to the exhibit.
Later that weekend, the senior administration of the University acted to take it down,
following a decision in which I did not participate.
Nevertheless, I have received a considerable amount of commentary about the
exhibit and the University’s actions, principally because Lior wrote and widely
distributed by email a distorted account of our telephone conversation. This commentary,
and conversations that I have had with students, friends, and colleagues, have prompted
the following reflections.
First, I had thought that it was obvious that there is an inherent tension on
American university campuses between freedom of expression, on the one hand, and
efforts to minimize speech that directly or indirectly foments prejudice, hatred, or
violence, on the other. These are important competing values, and the tension between
them frequently puts decision-makers at universities into difficult situations. The vast
majority of the communications I have received on this exhibit, however, seem to treat
the “Voice of Palestine” controversy as a case of “academic freedom,” as though such a
thing is a self-evident absolute. The fact of the matter is that there are limits on
expression at Brandeis and the rest of American higher education. While we might extend
the boundaries of expression further for works of art, there are some forms of creative
work whose presence would do more harm than good to our educational mission. In
universities, our preference is always for more expression rather than for less, but the
particulars do matter, and so does the context in which expression is presented. This is
not to argue that Brandeis made the right or the wrong decision in removing “Voices
from Palestine.” I am wary, however, of the hypocrisy of those who rely on absolute
assertions of “academic freedom” to defend expression they value, while on other
occasions leading a charge on the principle of combating bigotry to restrict speech that
they do not like.
Second, the people who seem to understand best the need for institutional caution
about these matters are my Palestinian friends and colleagues who are working in
educational and civil society institutions in the West Bank. These courageous scholars
and activists weigh with great care each public action they take on behalf of peace and
dialogue, because the opponents of peace are active, visible, and powerful in their
4
communities. This does not mean that my Palestinian friends agree with the actions of the
University in this particular case, nor even that they necessarily shared my concerns
about this particular exhibit. They are, however, acutely aware that institutions like
Brandeis that are building relationships with new partners must try to avoid, when
possible, presenting convenient targets for those who oppose peacebuilding efforts.
Those of us engaged in building relationships across lines of conflict and bringing
new and challenging perspectives to campus are faced, almost daily, with difficult
decisions about how best to pursue goals of peace and mutual understanding. Over the
last ten years, I have made many mistakes and done many things that others have
considered mistakes.
In relation to “Voices of Palestine,” I want to emphasize that any errors of
judgment were my own, and not those of other members of the staff of the International
Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life. Cindy Cohen served admirably in her role as
Lior Halperin’s instructor, with her focus, quite properly, on maximizing the learning
opportunities for her students. It was my responsibility to take into account the
institutional considerations. No other members of the Center’s staff were involved in any
way in this matter.
For our Center, and for Brandeis, the work continues. During the week of the
exhibit controversy, I was spending most of my time as the principal host for a group of
eight Palestinian administrators at Al-Quds University. They spent their time on campus
discussing issues of management, information technology, and financial planning with
their Brandeis counterparts. They also shared their feelings and concerns about the future
of the Middle East with members of our campus community.
Brandeis University has made great strides in the diversity of its community, its
openness to challenging perspectives, and its contributions to a complex understanding of
the conflict in the Middle East. We still have a long way to go. I look forward to working
with students, faculty, and other members of the Brandeis community and beyond in
pursuing our common goals.
Sincerely,
Daniel Terris
Director, International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life