Alison Weir: Setting the record straight
Op-ed for CisternYard

On April 19th I spoke at the College of Charleston at an event sponsored by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and a local organization called Charleston Peace One Day.

The title of my lecture was “Israel-Palestine: What the Media Leave Out,” and in it I documented the extremely flawed nature of US news coverage of this conflict. This material was gleaned from 12 years of researching this subject, eight statistical media studies, independent reporting trips to the region, many dozens of articles on the topic, and an upcoming book.

Sadly, the two articles on my talk by the CofC student newspaper, one before my lecture and one after, exemplify the deeply faulty reporting frequently found in articles concerning Israel. In addition to numerous inaccuracies, they violated some of the basic principles of journalism.

Sarah Sheafer, the newspaper’s editor in chief, wrote both articles. Sheafer’s first article consisted of accusations by Israel-partisans claiming that I was “anti-Semitic” and labeling my talk – in advance – “hate speech.” Sheafer repeated inaccurate claims about me without investigating their veracity, and failed to include my very public rebuttals of these falsehoods. While Sheafer included interviews defending the event in the name of academic freedom and free speech, she did not include any defense of me or response to the terrible accusations about me.

And in violation of the most basic tenet of fair reporting, she never attempted to contact me to respond to the claims. This ignored one of the most fundamental requirements of journalistic ethics: According to the Society of Newspaper Editors, “Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond.”

Her piece similarly failed to quote anyone in favor of my my work, though I have been honored to receive plaudits from diverse sources and have been asked to speak at a multitude of universities and other venues both in the U.S. and abroad. Nor did her very long article contain any information about my multitude of articles describing Palestinian suffering under occupation or those on Israel’s lethal attack on a US Navy ship.

When I discovered Sheafer’s article and emailed and phoned her to discuss it, she did not return my call and did not respond to requests to print a rebuttal. (She did eventually email us back.)

The second article followed my talk. This article again focused on defamatory claims (I am called anti-Semitic in the second paragraph), misquoted me at times, and incompletely depicted what took place, though it included some information from my presentation in the second part of the article (the part least likely to be ready by readers in a hurry).

While Sheafer stated that there was “incivility” during the event, the reality is that a large group of fanatic Israel partisans (perhaps in part stirred up by Sheafer’s first article) attended the event, shouted over my attempts to answer their questions fully and respectfully, and ultimately prevented CofC students from engaging in the kind of extended question-and-answer discussion that normally follows a presentation and that students have a right to expect. Particularly troubling is the fact that apparently some CofC faculty were involved in this behavior.

Several students wrote me after the event apologizing for this group. One said, “This conduct was deeply embarrassing to me as a student. I felt you were treated rudely and disrespected.” The person went on to write, “I respect how calmly you maintained your professional demeanor and continued to be courteous and respectful to the audience.”

Following my presentation, which included a video and numerous slides, Sheafer apologized for not contacting me for her previous story and finally interviewed me. However, she included none of the information I gave her in her second article. Nor did the newspaper print a formal correction or apology.

In the piece, she quoted many of the hostile questions addressed to me by a somewhat organized group that had clearly come to the event to do battle, and then either misquoted my answer, included only a small part of it, or, in most cases, completely left it out.

Perhaps this is because the questioners and allied mob largely shouted over all my answers to their questions; it’s possible that Sheafer often couldn’t hear my full responses. I certainly had trouble hearing myself.

While Sheafer reported on my presentation and included much valuable information, she left out some of the most important points and watered down others.

She failed to report the fact that, in the current uprising, over 12 times more Palestinian children have been killed than Israeli children, and that 91 of them were killed before a single Israeli child was killed. She omitted the fact that US media consistently and erroneously term Israeli actions “retaliation,” and primetime news shows report on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 14 times greater than they report on Palestinian children’s deaths.

Sheafer similarly omitted the information I provided about a 2003 Capital Hill briefing in which a commission that included a four-star admiral, a rear admiral, and the highest-ranking recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor reported that Israeli forces had tried to sink a US Navy ship, had killed 34 American servicemen and injured over 170, and that rescue flights had been recalled because the President of the United States said he “didn’t want to embarrass an ally.”

These extremely grave statements on Capitol Hill by this extraordinarily high-ranking commission can be found in the Congressional Record.

Perhaps Sheafer’s most significant violation of journalistic ethics was to assign herself to cover these events in the first place, rather than sending a neutral reporter.

The fact is, as Sheafer publicly admits, she has a strong emotional attachment to Israel, once writing: Israel is “the country I consider my second home.”

The particular article with this statement was written on Nov. 15th, 2012, the day a 10-month-old Gaza baby was killed by Israeli forces – the fourth Palestinian child killed by Israeli forces that week – though Sheafer mentions none of these deaths.

While Sheafer says that she condemns “some of [Israel’s] controversial decisions (i.e. illegal settlements),” her piece focuses on her intense anguish over Israeli difficulties, her deep empathy with Israelis (at one point she writes she wishes she were there), and, tellingly, her anger at those who criticize Israeli actions.

She wrote this column during an Israeli onslaught in which Israeli forces killed at least 169 Gazan men, women, and children, and Palestinians killed 6 Israelis, none of them children. (During the previous year, Israelis had killed 64 Palestinians in Gaza, while Gazans had killed no Israelis.)

None of these facts are in Sheafer’s column, “Israel At War.”

While Sheafer and the group who disrupted this event consider themselves pro-Israel and brevity requires me to identify them as such, in reality I feel that their actions do not benefit Israelis.

Israel was created through violence and has been maintained through violence, a reality that is not only tragic for the Muslim and Christian victims of this violence, but is also tragic for Israelis themselves.

If Israelis are to live a normal existence free of war and conflict, it is essential that they change their policies and become a nation that treats all people with equality, an approach that many Israelis desire, and that they recognize the historic injustice at the core of the conflict.

Such a policy change, however, is unlikely to occur while American politicians continue to bankroll Israel to the tune of over $8 million per day and to provide diplomatic cover no matter what the Israeli state does. This blind support gives the Israeli government such power that its leaders feel free to ignore Palestinians, other world players, and dissenting Israelis alike.

Given this seemingly blank check of American financial and diplomatic support, Israeli leaders feel no need to negotiate honestly to reach a compromise in which Jews, Muslims, and Christians can share the land that is sacred to all three groups. This won’t change until Americans become sufficiently informed on this issue to demand changes to US policy.

It is essential that Americans learn the facts on this issue. I believe strongly that we have the power to bring peace to the core issue in the Middle East – a conflict that has spawned numerous wars, caused dangerous instability to the region and the world, and has placed Americans increasingly in danger.

It is sad that an event on this urgent issue was in many ways sabotaged. I hope that additional speakers providing factual information will be invited to lecture at the College of Charleston, and that they will not receive the treatment I experienced.

Alison Weir is the president of the Council for the National Interest and executive director of If Americans Knew.

To read the original articles, click here and here. 

*The views in this article represent the opinion of the author, and not those of CisternYard News. 

Peeling Shrimp. Watching birds of prey. Eating coconut cake. What do these three activities have in common?

On Thursday, May 2, Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb hosted the fourth-hour edition of the “Today” show at the College of Charleston. The two drew a crowd with members of the community and students taking a break from final exams. Filming from the Cistern Yard, the show’s program aired live at 10 a.m. as Americans tuned in to watch a day full of food, fun and laughs.

The NBC crew filmed two editions of the “Today” show’s fourth hour with one hour-long program taped for the May 3 broadcast and the second one filmed live. The fourth hour show featured Gifford and Kotb competing in a Charleston trivia contest, music from Spoleto Festival USA performers Abner and Amanda Ramirez and local Charleston food tasting.

Before Thursday’s live broadcast, Gifford and Kotb spent their time in Charleston touring Drayton Hall, eating at Peninsula Grill (multiple times), sightseeing on a horse-drawn carriage ride and buying fancy hats from a shop on King Street. While Kotb said she’s been “fighting this humidity” since Tuesday when they arrived, she said she loves the city and would come again.

“How could you not? This is one of those places that is contagious,” Kotb said. “Like once you come, I can’t imagine not coming again.”

While the two of them both enjoyed the people, Gifford appeared to enjoy Charleston’s scenery and architecture, while Kotb seemed more focused on the food. Gifford commented, “Nobody warned us we would gain five pounds.”

Despite light rain toward the end of filming, students remained in the excited crowd holding signs.

Some of the students present for the filming still had final exams that day or the next. Angela Muhammad said she didn’t have any exams left, but even if she did, she would have came anyway. She said, “I think it’s awesome. Just being here and getting to see the production and all the people is amazing. I used to watch [their show] all the time. It’s really interesting getting to see it.”

Ryan Spraker, another student at the College, said he woke up at 6:45 that morning in order to wait in line. While he had an exam the next day, Spraker stayed for the whole event. Spraker said, “The people with the signs said it best, ‘I don’t even get up this early for class.’”

(Photos by Sarah Sheafer)

New SGA Executive Board officers were sworn in atthe Inauguration Senate on April 16. (Photo courtesty of SGA)

“Raise your right hand, if you would please, and repeat after me…” were the  words spoken to begin the swearing in of our 2013-2014 school year SGA leadership at the Senate meeting on Tuesday, April 16, 2013.

Once normal business at the Senate meeting concluded, newly elected and appointed members formed a line at the front of the room, where they completed their oaths. Applause accompanied the final statements, and newly initiated President Jordan Hensley, Vice President Chris Piedmont, Secretary Ryan Spraker and Treasurer Julia Peyton McGuire, took their seats at the high table.

With closing remarks, Chairperson Ian Moore said, “Y’all get ready,” for next year, which seemed to encompass the feelings of new members. Campus Affairs Chair Lauren O’Grady talked about her recent meeting with Reslife where a new swipe policy, with applause from the senate, and Heather Rapachietta, the  new Communications Chair, spoke of her excitement to work with the committee. “This is going to be a really fun… [focused] committee this year, so get ready,” she said.

Only time will tell what next year will bring, but fresh spirit and focus seems to be moving in with our new leadership.

“It took a while, but I believe its well thought out,” Lieutenant Steve Seirko of the Charleston Police Department said.

The main rules of the ordinance are:

• Footwear shall be worn at all times while operating a skateboard
• A person may not operate a skateboard while intoxicated or consuming alcohol
• A person riding upon a skateboard may not attach it or himself, or any other device which is used or may be used for propulsion
• Skateboarders must be visible from both a minimum distance of 500 feet and a height of at least three feet throught the use of reflective clothing, lights, or other visible gear
• A skateboarder shall use hand signals
• Skateboarders on roadways shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. A skateboarder may ride in a lane other than the right-hand lane if only one lane is available that permits the skateboarder to continue on his intended route.
• A skateboard may not be used to carry more persons than the number for which it is designed and equipped.

As for legal and illegal skateboarding areas, streets within campus limits such at St. Philip are legal while more heavily trafficked streets such as Calhoun, Coming, Market and King street are restricted. Any one caught violating the ordinance will receive a fine of $113.

“Skateboarders are subject to the same laws as all vehicles. The same as bicylcles, etc.” Nestle Grimes, Captain of Operation Services for Public Safety said.

“Safety is the name of the game. It’s not because we don’t like people skateboarding. It really boils down to safety,” Seirko said.

For more information regarding the new skateboard laws, click here.

This semester, we have had the privilege of working with Aramark on a project for Dr. Brian Fisher’s applied sustainability class. Our goal going into this was to work with Aramark to explore a more sustainable mindset when its contract is up next year with our campus’ dining services.

We have had a much better experience, being part of the first student groups to work intimately with this company. This included helping Aramark distribute surveys to students all over campus asking about their satisfaction with Dining Services and participating in various focus groups geared toward different groups of students. Of the students surveyed, less than 10 percent of the entire undergraduate student population participated. If more students were readily available or willing to provide feedback to Aramark, it could have received and collected a more useful set of data.

Our project shows that we are making huge strides toward having more student involvement when it comes to food on campus; however, this does not mean we have our foot completely in the door with Aramark. There is still work to do.

Some things that we heard in focus groups were that many students here at the College only want cheap, fast food. This is understandable, being college students on a tight budget. But many want to know where is our “cheap” food coming from?

Over the past year, Aramark compiled data and produced a “food map,” educating the campus on where our food is coming from. Surprisingly, most of our food comes from the southeastern region of our country, which is great in terms of sustainability and lowering our carbon footprint. But Aramark and college students are stuck on the “cheap food” solution. Many students who participated in Aramark’s focus groups have explained that they want healthier food but the prices to eat at dining halls or food courts are way too expensive.

Several college campuses across the United States employ Aramark for its foodservice. Among these campuses is Yale University. Yale’s student population is comparable to our size here at the College. In the past decade, students at Yale pushed Aramark for more sustainable dining, which now includes 40 percent of campus food being organic and coming from more local farms than ever before. Around 2006, Yale’s branch of Aramark purchased its food from 15 to 20 suppliers. Due to the student demand of more local produce, Aramark at Yale now purchases from over 60 suppliers in its area. If Yale can do it, why can’t we?  

In addition to Yale joining the food revolution, many other students on campuses across the United States are pushing their schools to purchase more local products and to become more sustainable as well. These are colleges with varying numbers of students on campus (from 2,000 to 50,000 students). All it takes is a group of students to get together, possibly in the form of a panel or board, and work with Aramark to move the College into a more sustainable route.

The city of Charleston has expressed interest in becoming more sustainable. They set a goal to become 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. If the College starts to move in a more sustainable direction, we will be advancing and assisting the entire city’s goal.

*The views in this article represent the opinion of the authors, and not those of CisternYard News. 

Preliminary discussions of a possible CofC-MUSC merger are underway. (Photo courtesy of hdes.copeland via Flickr Creative Commons)

President George Benson sent an email out Tuesday April 16 about local media reports on discussions of a possible merger for the College and the Medical University of South Carolina. While these preliminary discussions have been getting a lot of media attention, this is not the first time that a possible merger has been discussed between both schools.

According to Benson’s Chief of Staff and Senior Policy Advisor Brian McGee, the previous discussions from the early 1980s and late 1990s “weren’t recorded in any way,” so we are unable to say for certain what the past reasons against merging were.

McGee said, “Some people appeared to believe that more collaboration between MUSC and the College was a better option than a merger. Others were concerned about the loss of separate identities for two old, beloved and highly regarded universities.”

In a recent article from the Post and Courier, Mayor Joe Riley stated that a new urgency for the College to remain a cutting edge research institution is driving this third round of discussions. Riley is cited as saying, “It moved from a nice thing to have to an imperative.”

At the College’s Spring 2013 Town Hall meeting, Benson agreed with this sentiment. He spoke of the College’s need to stay relevant in Charleston. As a small city that 29 other universities currently have stakes in, Benson said, “If we’re not careful, they’ll end up with many of our donors.”

The College’s provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, George Hynd, said these changes were for the good of the College. “The College is moving away from an insular academic program to an academic program that is engaged in the community,” he said.

Keeping with this idea, the College has made strides in the last few years to capitalize on the school’s existing relationships around Charleston, as well as strengthen new ones. In addition to the work that the College has done with MUSC, Boeing and the College have teamed up to provide scholarship money to students in the School of Business. The College is part of Boeing’s University Relations program.

Merger would be beneficial for undergraduate researchers.

CofC junior Darius Becker-Krail is looking forward to more discussion about the merger. Becker-Krail is a Biology major, Chemistry and Neuroscience minor who has done research with MUSC Dr. Antonieta Lavin in the Neuroscience department for the last year and a half.

When asked about the possibility of merging with MUSC, Becker-Krail said, “I think that it’s a great idea! While a good portion of the science graduates from [the College] probably end up matriculating into a graduate program at MUSC already (whether medical, graduate, pharmacy, dental, etc.), I think merging the institutions would just increase the opportunity of this transition for an even greater portion of the student body. As an undergraduate researcher, the opportunities and experiences that MUSC is able to provide me are just invaluable.”

In Benson’s email, he states that both CofC and MUSC benefit from the collaborative relationship, and that he meets with MUSC President Ray Greenberg regularly “for the purpose of continuing to grow and strengthen the collaboration,” between the two schools.

He also stated that a merger was only one possibility at this point to create a more intimate relationship between the universities. The same Post and Courier article mentioned previously says that Greenberg “cited a collaboration between Indiana University and Purdue University.” Both are well know institutions in their own right, and they have come to share a campus in Indianapolis that grants graduate and undergraduate degrees to students under both University’s names.

Whatever the outcome of these discussions, Benson said, “MUSC is certainly a friend, and we are going to stay as close to them as we can.”

 Additional reporting by Olivia Cohen.

Alison Weir speaks at her lecture called "Israel-Palestine: What the Media Leaves Out" on Friday, April 19. (Photo by Sarah Sheafer)

The room was packed. There weren’t enough chairs to accomodate everyone in one of the building’s larger rooms, so people were turning to the Education Center’s lobby for additional chairs. Before Alison Weir began her lecture, people could feel the tension in the room. While some of the attendees did not know what to expect, a few came prepared to question Weir’s stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict. After the conclusion of her lecture, during the question and answer portion, the room erupted.

At one point, someone yelled out, “Classic anti-Semitism.” At several moments, some of the attendees exited the room upset. After being told to stop interrupting the speaker, one woman was escorted out of the room for being “disruptive.”

Why did incivility erupt at Friday’s lecture “Israel-Palestine: What the Media Leaves Out” presented by alleged anti-Semite Weir? This question can only be answered by taking a closer look at the events leading up to the lecture.

Circumstances Surrounding the Lecture

While the event was publicized like any other lecture at the College, it reached the radar of the President’s Office. The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the Office of Institutional Diversity and an outside organization called Charleston Peace One Day initially sponsored the event. Controversy first arose when senior David Lappin contacted the department and office, asking for them to withdraw support of the event, which he said constituted hate speech. While the office ultimately decided to take back its sponsorship, the department continued its support. According to the department’s director Heath Hoffmann, withdrawing support would have gone against the principle of academic freedom.

Unsatisfied with Hoffmann’s response, Lappin contacted the President’s Office. Chief of Staff Brian McGee responded by informing Lappin that the College was officially withdrawing all monetary support of the event.

Traveling Israeli professor Naomi Gale and Marty Perlmutter, Director of the Jewish Studies Program, also expressed concern about the lecture leading up to Friday. At one point, Perlmutter asked to see an outline of the lecture in order to provide a potential respondent, but Weir declined. Lappin, Gale and Perlmutter all said that they wished departmental sponsorship was withdrawn, but wanted the event to go on, supporting free speech.

(To read about what went on prior to the lecture, click here.)

Alison Weir’s Lecture

While students, faculty and members of the community had concerns about the lecture, many of them still attended the event. Before Weir’s critics spoke up, she gave her much anticipated lecture. Weir started off by explaining her background. She told the audience that she didn’t know anything about the conflict until she started researching it 13 years ago. She remembered thinking “the Middle East seemed distant and irrelevant.”

It wasn’t until her first trip to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza during the second intifada as a freelance journalist when she “noticed the coverage appeared one-sided.”

“The more I looked into it, the more shocked I became,” Weir said. “Even though the media consistently calls Israel’s actions as retaliatory, it is not.”

Weir focused on the lack of accurate media coverage done by Americans. She discussed how while the media reports on deaths from both sides, much more of their attention is directed toward Israeli causalities. However, she noted that most deaths occur on the Palestinian side.

In addition to focusing more on Israeli deaths as opposed to Palestinian, she noted that the American media tends to omit certain coverage. “There is dissent in Israel with young soldiers refusing to take part,” Weir said. “We rarely hear about this important aspect.”

Why should Americans care? Weir noted that the United States gives over $8 million per day to Israel. As a result, Americans are directly connected to the region.

“That’s off the charts of our expenditures abroad,” Weir said. “So we are directly connected to what Israel does and therefore it is important to know what it is doing.”

Weir also discussed the history behind the conflict. She said it was important to note because it is often portrayed inaccurately. She called the history “fairly simple” and “not complex.” During the Ottoman Empire, the region was multicultural with Jews and Arabs living peacefully together. However, when political Zionism was on the rise, there was the discussion of a home for the Jewish people to escape persecution. Weir said Palestine was chosen because of its Biblical connections. However, she noted that “it was not a land without a people.”

The region was predominately Arab until Jewish people began to immigrate there. In addition, Weir claimed that the Jewish people ethnically cleansed certain areas leading up to the creation of the state of Israel.

Weir also discussed her first trip to Israel where she saw entire residential areas destroyed. She noted that at one point in her trip, she heard gunfire while visiting Gaza. She assumed at the time it was coincidental, but looking back, she thought the Israelis were trying to send her a message to not go there.

“I saw a people and land being destroyed through the use of American tax dollars,” Weir said. “This is what I saw.”

Traveling Israeli professor Naomi Gale asks Alison Weir to define the borders of Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, specifically noting Transjordan. Weir responded, "There's lots of maps. Let them figure it out." (Photo by Sarah Sheafer)

The Audience’s Response

After Weir’s lecture, Lappin was the first attendee to ask a question. He first thanked her for coming and then asked her whether she recognized the contributions made by Israelis. Before finishing his question, Weir asked that he keep his response short and said, “Don’t give a speech.” From that moment on, matters only seemed to get worse.

Several audience members yelled out, “You’re distorting the facts.” Others interrupted her by saying, “It’s not true.” At one point, Weir said, “I will ask security to escort people out who interrupt.”

An audience member asked Weir if she recognized the state of Israel. She responded, “Recognizing Israel as it stands would mean we recognize that it was okay that they ethnically cleansed the place.” Several audience members challenged Weir, asking her to define the term and cite her sources. When an attendee asked her to give specific examples, the audience clapped. While she mainly told the audience that all her citations were heavily noted on her website, she said she read books, some written by Israelis, that “documented that criteria.”

At one point, a student who said he was not Jewish, asked Weir to comment on the Boston Marathon explosions. He wanted to know how the American population should react to terrorism. While Weir said the event was tragic, she also said she would not “answer questions that [were] shallow.”

Another student asked Weir if she was aware that terrorists in Gaza launched rockets from hospitals and schools, and as a result, this is why there are more Palestinian deaths. The student also informed Weir that the Israelis send leaflets before targeting the source of rocket launches. Weir responded, “This is one of Israel’s propaganda talking points that is untrue.” Many audience members were upset by Weir’s response, and several of them left the lecture as a result.

While the loudest voices came from attendees upset by Weir’s comments, there were a few audience members in support of Weir. One said, “I think you are a hero.”

Several students were upset by how the event unfolded. While sophomore Matt Ramsey said he didn’t know much more than most people about the subject, he did not appreciate the incivility of the room. “I was getting more ticked off by the moment,” Ramsey said. “After being here, I’m worried. If this is the American community, I’m worried.”

Weir also was not pleased by the audience’s response. “I felt that this disruptive behavior hijacked the event,” Weir said. “Students were here to hear me. This was a chance for them to hear what I have to say and instead, these people demanded to get all the attention.”

Weir even noted, “This is the worst event I’ve taken part in.”

While Weir was not pleased by the incivility of the room, she said she did not feel negatively toward the College. Weir said, “I’d be very happy to come to this college again, but in a more normal situation.”

To read the preview of the event, click here.

To read Alison Weir’s response, click here.

Campus Bellhops is a unique moving company that is specifically designed for college students that need helping moving out. However, they only hire student movers. Employees make their own schedule, and are paid $15 an hour. For their moving services, Campus Bellhops charges a flat rate of $95 for dorms and $70 an hour for off-campus moving.

“We explicitly hire well reputable, solid guys that are involved on campus to work for us,” said co-founder Cameron Doody. Campus Bellhops are expected to be able to lift 60 pounds to chest-level. They are looking to hire between 50 and 80 students at the college and interested students looking to apply can find more information at campusbellhops.com.

Campus Bellhops is innovative because it allows for customers to build a relationship with their bellhop before move-in day. Once a bellhop chooses a specific job, information about the bellhop such as their picture, name, major and campus involvement is then sent to the customer. The bellhop can then call and introduce themselves. The customer and the bellhop interact multiple times before moving day.

“We just provide a really simple solution to the hassle of college moving…something that our customers need. All you need is just two extra guys to be there to say, “Hey lets get this done!” Our bellhops actually will rent your truck, pick it up, and help with move out. Just a really simple way for parents to not worry about the hassle,” Doody said.

Elizabeth Colbert-Busch (Democratic Party, and Working Families candidate)

Eugene Platt (Green Party candidate)

Former Governor Mark Sanford (Republican Party candidate)