Alessandro van den Brink | Suggestions wanted

Small Talk | Why movements today must be able to criticize themselves

By Alessandro van den Brink 10/11/16 10:13pm

In June, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York signed into law an executive order that created a blacklist of entities that have boycotted or divested from Israel (commonly associated with the boycott, divest and sanction, or “BDS,” movement), banning them from receiving taxpayer funding. In an opinion piece that Cuomo wrote for the Washington Post, he claims that the policy is justified due to the fact that BDS is “an insidious economic attack that is exclusively anti-Israel.”

Many others have pushed the notion that BDS is an anti-Semitic movement and because of this, it is extremely difficult to have a productive dialogue about how the United States should support Israel. I personally do not have an opinion on the matter, but dismissing anybody who believes in divesting from Israel as anti-Semitic and then passing legislation to economically hurt people with those positions is simply antithetical to freedom of expression. It is inarguable that many BDS supporters hate Jews and are anti-Zionist, but you don’t have to be hateful of Jews or even of Israel to disapprove of its actions and not want the U.S. to continue funding Israel.

This is symptomatic of a larger problem in the world today: We can’t accept criticism. As soon as someone presents issues he or she may have with a given facet of modern society, there is usually an instant feedback attempting to delegitimize these complaints. This has created a “hater” complex where opposing viewpoints are chalked up as bigotry, and criticisms that could potentially make the world better are either ignored — or at worst silenced.

While the Israel example may seem to be more of a conservative issue (the Republican platform specifically labels the BDS movement as anti-Semitic), let me prove that lack of being open to criticism is an issue on both sides of the aisle.

Last year, an opinion piece in The Wesleyan Argus made a fair criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying that it succumbs at times to extremists within the movement who have espoused an anti-police rhetoric that does their cause no justice. Many students, however, immediately began to destroy copies of the newspaper, accused the writer of racism and demanded a revocation of funds for the Argus — which was eventually passed. Eventually, the Argus’ funds were halved in a resolution passed by the Wesleyan Student Assembly.

My colleague Alec Ward wrote an excellent column last year, explaining that by silencing diversity of opinion the students at Wesleyan failed to adequately promote any justice they were seeking. An activist group’s success is measured in whether or not it can cause the change it seeks in society, which is almost exclusively done by converting a majority of people to sympathize with the cause. By rejecting any criticism and labeling the column as racist, Black Lives Matter did itself a disservice by making it harder to connect with those who are on the fence about the movement and whose support the movement needs most.

There are two types of criticism. One type attempts solely to anger its subject through hatred and mocking of the subject with no intention of making the situation any better for anyone involved. This kind of criticism helps no one, but it is very different from the concept of being critical in order to improve or benefit a system that suffers from flaws.

When a member of a movement like Black Lives Matter or a member of the Israeli government critiques his or her institution, it means that he or she is looking to find ways to make it function better. Understandably, though, it’s difficult to separate oneself from the situation and become impartial. This is why we must be able to accept measured and logical criticism from outside sources, as they often can contain valuable insight for improving a cause. These analyses are not always clear to those most associated with the cause.

I am sure that Cuomo and the students of Wesleyan respectively deeply care about Israel and the Black Lives Matter movement, but when they reject intellectual debate as bigotry they are not entertaining the notion that there may be valid solutions to their problems in those critiques. Even if the criticisms aren’t useful, those who silence opposing viewpoints — no matter how offensive or hateful they may be — are just as intolerant as the people whose ideas they condemn.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.