Point of view: Is democracy dying in Riverdale?
After the Riverdale-Yonkers Ethical Culture Society cancelled a talk by New York University Professor Tony Judt, at left, a trio of Riverdalians questions whether some are trying to suppress dialogue on a controversial topic: the right of Israel to exist.
By Florence Gold,
Samuel Goldman
and Steve Siegelbaum
There is a sore and festering wound in Riverdale. Its toxicity endangers us all and thus immediate treatment is called for. It is the infection wrought by a group of self-appointed gatekeepers demanding ideological conformity on the subject of the Middle East. Its intended and immediate results, both direct and indirect, are a stifling of free and open discourse and the restriction of the exchange of ideas. It is, in short, a cynical affront to democracy itself. The only antidote for such a societal disease is, therefore, more free speech, more democracy.
About a year and a half ago The Riverdale Press ran a story which elicited a number of highly contentious responses. The topic, it should come as no surprise to anyone, was New York University Professor Tony Judt's withdrawal from his speaking engagement at Manhattan College's Holocaust Resource Center.
This action followed by several months an appearance by Mr. Judt at the Fieldston School which brought out in a few of Riverdale's self-appointed guardians of the party line on Israel, such as rabbis Avi Weiss and Steven Burton, in protest. Mr. Judt, you see, had dared to violate the 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not criticize Israeli government policy."
In a Point of View column in The Riverdale Press, Andrew Meyers, chairman of the Fieldston School history department, stated that Mr. Judt's appearance was part of "one of the most impressive days of learning I have seen in 20 years of teaching." He went on to write, "Take my word for it - I was there. No one could oppose Professor Judt's appearance at (Manhattan College) on the basis of what he said at Fieldston last spring."
Mr. Judt's stated reason for deciding against speaking at the Holocaust Resource Center was that he was made to feel unwelcome as a guest presenter.
Not only had his participation at Fieldston drawn out the usual gang of thought police, but astoundingly, it also drew the following from Frederick M. Schweitzer, then director of the center, and Jeff Horn, then associate director, "... as part of our response to criticism from a part of the Riverdale Jewish community, we indicated to Dr. Judt that we strongly disagree with his views on Israel and think them aberrant. He rejected our view that he is qualified and acceptable to speak on one subject, but not on another (i.e. Israel)."
This is truly a shocking statement coming as it does from two professed educators and scholars, for it betrays the basest form of anti-scholarship, not to mention a profound degree of political and intellectual cowardice. When Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, felt it necessary to publicly berate Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom he had invited to speak, he was justifiably criticized for being a graceless and boorish host. Mr. Schweitzer and Mr. Horn's statements to Mr. Judt are no less inappropriate for having been expressed (presumably) privately.
Now, we are in no way objecting to the Israel apologists' right to express their views or to protest. Nor are we saying that the Holocaust Resource Center cannot exercise its prerogative to invite anyone it wishes. What concerns us, and ought to concern anyone who professes belief in a free democratic society, is the decidedly chilling effect on open discourse, debate and inquiry that their actions have produced.
This is not a hollow fear. There is much more to the story. Desiring to hear Mr. Judt's views, and firmly committed to the ideals of freedom of speech that our nation's founders so cherished, we invited him to speak in Riverdale. Happily, he readily agreed. What followed has been a most frustrating, dismaying and frankly, as longtime Riverdale residents, embarrassing experience. Having extremely limited funds, we approached synagogues, churches, educational and other institutions to find a suitable venue.
Alas, in each case we were met with every sort of negative excuse imaginable. So patently contrived were these rejections that it was obvious that the real reason was the desire to avoid association with Mr. Judt's "controversial" views. (Interestingly, we did receive offers to host the event from churches and a synagogue in Westchester.)
Finally, after many months and with the approval of Curt Collier, leader of the Riverdale-Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture and its governing board, we did manage to secure the facilities of the ECS.
Tellingly, permission was not granted without a few limiting conditions. For one, it was stipulated that the word "Mideast" must not appear in the title of the lecture, nor should Mr. Judt elaborate on the situation there in his talk. Second was the requirement that Mr. Collier moderate and control questions from the audience. Despite the clear intent of ECS to pre-censor the presentation, so accommodating was Mr. Judt that he actually agreed to the conditions and announced the title of his talk to be, "Why Do They Hate Us? Some Reflections on the New Anti-Americanism." This title along with the press release announcement of the event was given to Mr. Collier and published in the ECS publication Concern.
We then proceeded to place advertisements and press releases in various media, including local college newspapers, e-mail and The Riverdale Press. Enthusiastic response to news of the lecture poured in from Mr. Meyers of the Fieldston School, members of the Benjamin Franklin Reform Democratic Club, groups in Westchester and individuals all anxious to attend.
What followed can only be described as duplicitous, dishonest and unethical behavior of the grossest sort. After the publication of Concern, and only two weeks before the date of the event, Mr. Collier phoned Riverdalians for Free Inquiry to say that he was not aware of the title change and had been deceived.
He insisted that unless yet another title and topic emphasis be used, the event would be cancelled. We then called, Manny Neuhaus, president of the ECS board, who confirmed Mr. Collier's new demands.
With that, we decided that we would no longer submit to the increasingly restrictive and censorial conditions of the ECS. We declined to use the Ethical Culture facility.
Remarkably, considering the extremely short notice, we were able to obtain a new venue in a church in Westchester. However, Mr. Judt declined, saying, and rightly so, that he had no shortage of invitations for speaking engagements in the New York metropolitan area and that the main idea was to speak specifically in Riverdale.
Our purpose in relating this sorry tale is to lay bare the assault on democracy in Riverdale and beyond. That a subject of such importance to Americans and the world at large is considered "too hot to handle;" that it is considered to be the sole province of those who hew to a single view; and that there are reputable and respected institutions in our community that, fearful of a small but politically connected group, would sacrifice our cherished democratic heritage rather than honor the tradition of free and open discussion is an ominous sign that we are headed down a most dangerous road.
Our belief, however, is that Riverdalians do not wish to be dictated to - that they would prefer to have the opportunity to hear a variety of viewpoints and to engage in rational discourse on this vital topic. Thus, based on that belief, and on our firm conviction that stifling expression, especially on matters of such great importance to us all, our invitation to Mr. Judt stands. And he stands ready to speak. The life of democracy here in Riverdale demands it.
Florence Gold, Samuel Goldman and Steve Siegelbaum, Riverdale residents, formed the group, Riverdalians for Free Inquiry.
This is part of the April 17, 2008 online edition of The Riverdale Press.
Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you. Click here.





