Post-script on the York U false anti-Semitism accusation

Cameron Johnston is NOT an anti-Semite. 

That is generally understood by people familiar with the now-viral story of the York University professor who used "all Jews should be sterilized" as an example of an unacceptable opinion and was erroneously accused of it being his own. 

But the matter does raise some interesting questions and to examine them, it helps to trace the story from its beginning. It first broke publicly on the blog Sassy Wire and it was picked up by the popular political blog Blazing Cat Fur, from which it turned into an electronic tsunami. 

Not only is Professor Johnston not an anti-Semite, but there is absolutely nothing in his history that suggests he is either anti-Jewish or anti-Israel, which made the initial accusation of the  opinion expressed about Jewish sterilization being his own sound somewhat fishy. Professor Johnston was very quick to set the record straight and replied almost immediately to an email inquiry with the following:

This was not my own opinion but rather an example of a reprehensible opinion that someone might have.

I discussed that the course focuses on the texts and not "opinions". In fact, I stated that for this course opinions are not relevant and I questioned the common idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I pointed out that everyone is not entitled to their opinion by giving the example of someone having an anti-semitic opinion which is clearly not acceptable. This was an example of the fact that opinions can be dangerous and that none of us really do believe that all opinions are acceptable.  

For the record, I am also Jewish.

 

Regards,
Cameron Johnston

The media, including the mainstream international media, leaped on this story. The fall-out has pitted Jewish organizations and members of the Jewish community against each other and the whole matter poses some interesting practical and philosophical questions.

The most obvious problem is that a university student named Sarah Grunfeld made a very serious and potentially devastating accusation without ascertaining the facts. But what compounded that is that a major Jewish organization, B'nai Brith, seemed to endorse that accusation without doing due diligence. There have been a number of very serious incidents of anti-Semitism at York University, and publicizing an allegation without substantiating it has very damaging repercussions. Aside from the foremost concern of the potential to harm the reputation of an innocent person, this incident will very likely make students who are already intimidated about making complaints about anti-Semitic behaviour by professors less likely to come forward in the future.

There are other questions that arise from the incident. Why is it that when an example of horrible opinions are provided, they have to involve Jews, particularly at a place like York U with its reputation for hostility towards them? A number of people have noted that it might be because York has an environment where criticism of Jews is so de rigeur that it is no longer controversial, and that there would have been detrimental consequnces for a professor if he or she had used Muslims as such an example, even in the context of what should not be acceptable.

B'nai Brith insists there were other students who were also not clear that Professor Johnston's example was not intended to be his own opinion. While Professor Johnston's honesty is not in question, his wisdom in the choice of his example and his ability to effectively communicate are. Professor Johnston points out that he is Jewish and that is what led him to use Jews as the example in this situation, probably leading him to think it would immunize him from accusations of Jew hate. Despite Johnston's honest intent, there are enough cases of anti-Semitic Jews to make such a belief naive in today's academic environment.

What is also very telling is that the media were so very anxious to publicize this story, but when there was a shocking recent incident of actual anti-Semitism promoted by a professor at the University of Toronto, the mainstream media, which were well aware of it, decided to neglect it completely. On one hand, it could be that the Johnston story was more newsworthy since it is a novelty, while academic Jew hate is becoming a typical facet of university life. But it could also point to an agenda that wants to minimize anti-Semitism, an insidious hatred that has become re-fashionable along with neo-Marxist anti-Israel fanaticism.

In what can only be seen as ironic retribution by the fates, Sarah Grunfeld, who brought forward the accusation against Professor Johnston, is believed to be alleging that she has been misquoted and her words taken out of context by the Toronto Star reporter who interviewed her and wrote about the incident. She now is reportedly suffering from severe stress and depression as a result of the ridicule she is facing and the possibility of permanent damage to her reputation. But Professor Johnston could have been the victim of the same fate if Ms Grunfeld had been taken at her word, and neither need have undergone this unwanted attention if she had been more careful to check her facts.