Last Saturday, the Hindu Student Committee and Interfaith Alliance hosted Arun Gandhi to speak at SLU’s campus and discussed the importance of service through nonviolence.
On Friday, Oct. 17, Gandhi is expected to return to campus to give another talk during the School of Social Work’s Social Justice Night.
At first glance, one can’t help but be excited that SLU was able to bring in the grandson of the Mohandas Gandhi, a man that seeks to continue spreading the words of nonviolence that his grandfather championed so effectively in his native India. We, as an editorial board staff, are a little skeptical of a man who’s greatest credentials are “grandson of Gandhi,” but we all acknowledge that the name is extremely important to bringing in students.
However, there is also a cause for concern that Arun Gandhi was allowed to come to SLU twice in two weeks in the first place. The reason for our concern surrounded comments that he made denigrating an entire ethnic group six years ago. In 2008, Gandhi resigned from a New York peace center that he helped found after making demeaning comments about Israel and Jews more generally, stating that Israel and the Jews are the biggest players in a global culture of violence on a Washington Post forum.
So again we ask, why would SLU bring in a man that stated that Jews were responsible for a “global culture of violence?” We thought perhaps he, with his past statements, was able to slip through the cracks amidst a new administration; if that’s true, we’d recommend that SLU Google its prospective speakers before extending invitations.
Gandhi later apologized for his comments, stating he shouldn’t have implied that Israeli government policies reflected the views of all Jewish people. So now he is only criticizing the Israeli government for inciting violence. That isn’t denigrating or demeaning to the Jewish people, it’s just one man criticizing the actions of a government.
However, this still makes us ask: “Why was this man allowed to come to SLU?” SLU Solidarity with Palestine, a student group at SLU whose official status is often in a state of flux, has had a multitude of difficulties in bringing in speakers that have criticized Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or the actions of Israel’s government.
At the very least, we’re concerned that the University is extremely inconsistent when making decisions on who can and can’t come to SLU to speak.
While talking about the topic of which people (and what ideas) are generally allowed and not allowed to speak on this campus, we began talking about this University’s troubling history of not allowing people with openly pro-choice beliefs to speak on campus. Many of us, in our experiences, could recall a potential speaker being taken off the list by SLU because of their pro-choice beliefs. We find this blatant censorship frustrating. One can still be a University that espouses the right to life without stifling the voices of others that have opposing viewpoints.
We think the University could improve their handling of speakers with unpopular or contentious viewpoints by following new standards. Are the claims made by a potential speaker inciting violence or deemed hateful? If not, bring them in. For greater transparency too, this University should disclose to the student body who is not being allowed to speak at SLU and why. Some transparency on future decisions could help end similar speculations and grievances against the University. Can a new administration bring consistency and transparency to this process? We hope so.
