Just when I thought the Mary Robinson episode couldn’t get any uglier – it did. On Friday, my colleague Gershon Hundert cc-ed me a letter he sent to the McGill Reporter objecting to a letter printed in its May 27th issue, which is distributed at Convocation. After three weeks of ignoring the raging debate about Mary Robinson – because modern universities – not just McGill, not just on this issue – often define vigorous debate as “embarrassing,” the official news organ – published by the university’s PR department – published an ugly anti-Semitic screed, filled with code words. Professor Hundert wrote: "I would have thought that personal attacks and immaterial smears would not be published in a newspaper with the imprimatur of McGill University. Provocative name calling such as "opportunists," "small and mean personalities", and, reference to "the forces of money and greed" have no place in such a publication. I am, by profession, a historian of Jews and I am very familiar with the kind of language used in Poplawski's letter."

In the editor’s "defense" – although it may be even more damning – she edited the letter and thought she had removed most of the offensive language (the original diatribe, which was circulated on McGill’s email system, was even more blatantly anti-Semitic and more libelous, calling me a "medieval terrorist" and other insane things). Also, in a pathologically Quebecian twist, this crank had taken the university to the Press Relations Council, which chided the Reporter for not publishing his rants against the administration – despite the fact that many were filled with anti-Semitic attacks on various McGill administrators over the years. So apparently, this one was published to show "good faith." Nice…

After intensive negotiations over the weekend – but not on Shabbat – the university agreed to insert the following Special Insert into every remaining Reporter in the bins throughout campus. I ask anyone who is on campus this week, and especially anyone attending any convocation, to PLEASE CHECK and make sure that an insert is placed in every single copy of the Reporter you see – if not, please e-mail me at gil.troy@mcgill.ca with exact time and place. You’ll note that my language is pretty restrained – I was accommodating on the language because I knew that the insert itself was a huge effort, and we had a looming deadline of Monday morning considering the first Convocation is at 10 AM. Still, I think the point was made, and I was able to throw in a couple of elbows on the Mary Robinson debate as well…

Below, the university statement and my letter; the Poplawski letter, and the original text I proposed -- which, to be clear, McGill’s representative did not agree to, so it should not be seen as representing McGill’s point of view…

gt

final version

The Reporter - Special Insert – May 31, 2004

To our Readers :

In the pursuit of fairness and balance, and as The Reporter does not publish again until September, we have decided to insert this letter from Professor Gil Troy in response to one signed by Slawomir Poplawski that appears on page 2 of the May 27, 2004, edition of The Reporter.

The Reporter welcomes Letters to the Editor and publishes a selection of letters on issues of interest and relevance to the McGill community. Letters must be concise and free of inappropriate language and expressions of intolerance or hatred. Our goal is to provide a forum for open and constructive debate, ideas and opinion. Letters to the Editor reflect the views of the writer and do not represent the views of the University.

Have a great summer.

Maeve Haldane
Editor, The Reporter

For a reasoned and respectful debate

I thank the McGill Reporter for giving me this opportunity to respond to some of the inaccuracies contained in Slawomir Poplawksi’s letter (Reporter, May 27).

My arguments – with which reasonable people can disagree -- were not “speculative insinuations,” as Mr. Poplawski charges, but considered assessments, backed by eyewitness accounts from the Durban conference and its preliminaries. I raised legitimate issues questioning the decision to award Mary Robinson an honorary doctorate. My arguments have been distorted by this letter writer and others.

To state categorically that “scores of readers” protested my views is absurd, for The Gazette does not reveal these totals –the fact that more letters published by The Gazette were critical of McGill’s decision suggests that many share my views. I also want to emphasize that I never accused Dr. Robinson of holding anti-Semitic views. Instead, I questioned what I and many others believe was her lack of moral leadership in combating the anti-Semitism that festered at a conference convened to fight racism.

Even worse than these inaccuracies, this letter spends more time attacking me than presenting reasoned arguments.

The language used in this letter is offensive to many. Statements like “the forces of money and greed that dominate our world” have a long and ugly pedigree. Not-so-subtle code words, along with the prejudice and hate that inspire them, should be buried in the dustbins of Europe’s disgraceful history of anti-Semitism.

I urge everyone, as we celebrate our graduates, to adhere to the published words of our Principal and the Dean of the Faculty of Law, who welcome provocative ideas and reasoned debate.

We can disagree intelligently, respectfully and substantively, focusing on the issues rather than casting aspersions and making inaccurate and personal accusations.

Professor Gil Troy, Department of History

THE FOLLOWING LETTER APPEARS IN THE MCGILL REPORTER OF MAY 27, TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO ONE AND ALL DURING CONVOCATION – It has been removed from the McGill Website…

To the Editor:

Mary Robinson has been nominated by the McGill Senate for an honorary degree, to be awarded at the June 4 convocation. However, The Gazette provided a platform to a McGill history professor to present provocative comments on Mrs. Robinson (Insight, May 2, "Degree of dishonour"). Prof. Gil Troy's speculative insinuations caused scores of readers to write letters of protest, which far outnumbered the few opinions supporting Troy. The majority of the authors were connected with McGill, but the local university press and official website have totally ignored this issue.

On May 5, Mr. Troy used "new arguments" in the letters section about an old-fashioned anti-Semitism that supposedly needs attention. The next day, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel, Mr. Spector, joined them with the same accusation. They say Mrs. Robinson failed "to do enough to condemn anti-Semitism." This sort of easy accusation is as old as the hills.

Deep down, it is not about the historian's attack on this honourable woman for her allegedly anti-Semitic views, but about politically correct rhetoric from opportunists putting down others for personal reasons.

This is the light in which we must analyze the "problems" that really small and mean personalities have created around Mrs. Robinson. She is a role model for many people trying to recover a taste of a true freedom in a world full of traps. People like Mrs. Robinson are not liked by the forces of money and greed that dominate our world: she poses a danger to their single-minded cynicism.

I remember from former communist Poland the manipulators (not only among the party members) who accused others of being anti-socialist. This was used to settle private accounts or to boost their own importance as powerful individuals able to break recognized social authorities, for reasons really unrelated to the "sacred" communist ideology.

Let's hope that the June 4 convocation will see some calm among the more destructive elements around us.

Slawomir Poplawski

NOTE THE FOLLOWING WAS MY INITIAL PROPOSAL WHICH WAS EDITED DOWN INTO THE FINAL LETTER

Letter from the editor (or from someone in the Administration) saying:

Letters to the editor do not reflect the views of the university. Nevertheless, we acknowledge our responsibility to print only selected letters and to edit the letters so that they contribute to productive debate and avoid personal invective. We strongly condemn anti-Semitism and the use of anti-Semitic code words which have a long and sorry history and cause pain to all of us committed to human rights. We regret the distress Mr. Poplawski’s Letter of May 27 has caused. Considering that we will not publish again until September, to demonstrate our commitment to balance and a full and fair debate, we have asked Professor Troy to respond.

I thank the McGill Reporter for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to respond to some of the many inaccuracies and distortions contained in the May 27 letters’ column. Without rehashing the debate, I raised substantive issues questioning the controversial decision to award Mary Robinson an honorary doctorate. My attempt to raise these important issues has been met with a wave of ugliness, of which this letter is a prime example. My argument has been distorted by this letter writer and others and I have been demonized in a way that only embarrasses my attackers. I have also received a great deal of support from many who were equally distressed about the decision – and the university’s apparent lack of due diligence in even realizing that the choice was controversial.

My arguments – with which reasonable people can disagree -- were not “speculative insinuations,” as Mr. Poplawski charges, but considered assessments, backed by multiple eyewitness accounts from the Durban conference and its preliminaries. To state categorically that “scores of readers” protested one way or another is absurd, for the Gazette does not announce those totals – although the fact that at the end probably more letters were published critical of McGill’s decision suggests that the letters were split, or perhaps even mostly critical. I also repeat that I never accused Mary Robinson of holding “anti-Semitic views,” I questioned her lack of moral leadership in combating the anti-Semitism that festered at a conference supposedly convened to fight racism.

Even worse than these and many other inaccuracies, this letter – like too many others – spends more time attacking me than defending Mrs. Robinson. I remain mystified why a debate about the merits of this decision has been deemed illegitimate, and why anyone would waste precious editorial space attacking me and my motives in outrageous ways, lacking balance or evidence.

Most unfortunate of all, the language used in this letter is offensive, not just to me, but to many. Phrases like “the forces of money and greed that dominate our world” have a long and ugly pedigree. They should be buried in the dustbins of Europe’s disgraceful history of anti-Semitism and not revived here in Canada. Even as I criticize the McGill Reporter’s decision to print this screed, I hope that visitors to our community will note that I understand that McGill University does not endorse anti-Semitism or any form of bigotry – through blatant prejudice or not-so-subtle code words.

I urge everyone, as we celebrate our graduates, to adhere to the words of our Principal and the Law School Dean, who welcomed provocative ideas and reasoned debate. I urge everyone to demonstrate to our students and their parents, that we can disagree intelligently, respectfully and substantively, focusing on the issues rather than casting aspersions and making wild, inaccurate and personal accusations, let alone using offensive conspiratorial language more reminiscent of the failed conference at Durban than suited to McGill University’s official news organ.