Reactionary column hurts discussion

In his Oct. 18 column, “The Jews,” Philip Kurian asserts that “Jews must own up to their privilege […] and use it more wisely” but forgets that as a columnist he too occupies a privileged position that merits responsibility. While supposedly a proponent of “complete academic freedom,” so long as “it is couched within the framework of serious discussion,” he repeatedly resorts to the same “one-dimensional conversation” that has been the hallmark of the debate surrounding the Palestine Solidarity Movement conference.

I wish to defend the type of speech and discussion defiled by Kurian’s argumentation; the type that should be commonplace at a university of this stature but has been sadly absent. I write hoping that the polemics might end and fearing that his irresponsible column will fuel another round of close-minded debate.

Recent ads, columns and letters have often contained distortions, generalizations, and other misrepresentations of opposing arguments. If representative of Duke’s population they could lead to unsettling conclusions about the intellectual capacities of Duke students—namely their abilities to read and listen. But I doubt these arguments represent anything but the views of the authors or of their small but vocal interest groups.

I congratulate warmly those who have constructed “straw men”— that is created nonexistent arguments—and successfully knocked them down. But the general interest would be better served if you would please stop. Discussion and debate are good but purely reactionary arguments accomplish nothing. Before submitting something into the public forum stop yelling and start listening. Assess your stake and bias in an issue and be as charitable as possible when considering the other side.

Conflicts do arise out of valid differences of opinion and opposing views should be brought to light. But productive dialogue and discussion requires fair argumentation. In its absence no progress can be made.

Unfortunately, Kurian failed to recognize this before writing his column. While many of his points are reasonable and could merit discussion his flawed argumentation will likely render that impossible.

Sam Swartz