Letter: The state of debate
The recent column criticizing Alan Dershowitz’s talk on campus sends a dangerous message about the integrity of debate at Yale (“Just rude or talking truth?” Oct. 9).
Just recently, the News covered Queen Rania Al Abdullah’s speech on campus (“Queen of Jordan promotes peace,” Sept. 23). What the flattering article did not reveal was that not only were all questions screened and selected by President Levin, but they were also submitted before she even gave her talk. This rule effectively prevented students from challenging the substance of her speech, which included heavy, and often...
This letter is a series of straw man arguments. The authors ask us to compare Queen Rania to Alan Dershowitz, and to conclude that Dershowitz offers a format that is more conducive to questions. However, whether or not Dershowitz is "better" than Queen Rania does not negate the possibility (and in my opinion the fact) that both are pretty useless and counter-productive; nor does it negate the fact that both are on the side of oppression in the Middle East, the one (Dershowitz) for being the chief apologist of every Israeli crime; and the other (Rania) for whitewashing the Jordanian government's anti-democratic repression. So, kudos to Sassoon and Dessaeunur for making the brave claim that a standing monarch was less receptive to questions than a professor of law and published author. But strange that their interest should be so aroused to defend a defender of human rights violators.
You guys are right that Dershowitz's event was more conducive to dialogue than Queen Rania's (which was terrible) but there has to be a happy medium.