The Dive is a free weekly newsletter jointly published by WHQR and The Assembly. You can find more information and subscribe here.
Aspirational Neutrality
Earlier this month, the UNCW Department of History and the Hannah and Charles Block Fund for Jewish Studies hosted Norman Goda to present his lecture, “The Genocide Libel: How the World Charges Israel with the Crime of Crimes.”
Goda is a respected Holocaust scholar, whose has written and spoken extensively on the legal definition of genocide. Goda’s argument is that many who accuse Israel of genocide—in Gaza, but also Lebanon, and elsewhere—fail to meet the legal threshold for the “crime of crimes.” He’s also argued about the political motivations of using the term anyway.
Goda’s UNCW lecture was met with a petition with several hundred signatures sponsored by local pro-Palestinian and Democratic Socialists of America groups, calling for UNCW to cancel the event, or at least “invite pro-Palestinian speakers to provide students and the public with an opposing viewpoint.”
My colleague Kelly Kenoyer covered the lecture for The Dive.
“It was a silent protest until very near the end of the lecture, when pro-Palestinian activists—including some students—interrupted the event, with some Palestinians emotionally speaking about the deaths of their families. The confrontation then became a very tense Q&A session. While emotional, the lecture remained mostly civil and ended with additional calls on the history department and UNCW to provide a Palestinian point of view,” she reported.
But, so far, there are no plans to do that.
Department Chair W. Taylor Fain told me the Charles and Hannah Block fund has “not expressed an interest” in a follow-up event, and the history department has already committed its public programming funding for the year. Fain “strongly encouraged” other campus organizations to host a speaker with a “perspective on events in Gaza different than Dr. Goda’s.”
“The History Department would certainly help promote it, and I know that many of our students, my colleagues, and I would attend,” Fain wrote, adding that ongoing civil dialogue was important.
The lack of a counterpoint surprised me, given the UNC system’s relatively new “institutional neutrality” policy. The contentious overhaul removed DEI and diversity offices, restructured student “identity centers,” banned compelled speech, and prohibited universities from weighing in on “political issues of the day.” Notably, it also apparently required universities to provide balance regarding public speakers and forums.
Last summer, in an interview with UNCW Vice Chancellor Christine Reed Davis, I asked how the university would handle a controversial guest lecturer under the new policy.
“I think from an administration perspective, we’ll be like, ‘Okay, let’s think about, are there other opportunities for us to provide another point of view?’” she said. “And so a speaker or a program may come and students may be unhappy with that. And so we take that feedback from our community and say, ‘Ok, so let’s provide the alternative point of view.’”
A few months later, Chancellor Aswani Volety’s inaugural Dare to Learn Lecture embodied a preemptive approach, with dual keynote speakers right out of a classic Crossfire episode: political strategists Karl Rove and Donna Brazil. Like mixing vinegar and baking soda, we got a little pop and fizz as opposites canceled each other out. Neutrality, achieved.
But this month, Reed Davis tried to reframe her statements from August.
“I believe that the intent of my response back in the summer was that the university would take into consideration how to address alternative viewpoints if/when students expressed concern over a topic or speaker. My response did not state that there would be a 100% proactive approach to planning for opposing viewpoints, because we don’t always know what students will be upset about,” she wrote in an email, relayed by UNCW’s communications office.
It’s true that campus politics can be mercurial, but if you had to gamble on a topic that would cause friction, Israeli-Palestinian relations seems like a safe bet. And it’s hard to ignore the gap between last summer’s “let’s provide the alternative point of view,” and this month’s “willing to consider other scholarly viewpoints,” as a spokesperson put it. It’s understandable that many want UNCW and other public universities to avoid lurching in response to each new cause célèbre and instead provide a civil and balanced forum for our toughest contemporary debates. But it seems UNCW’s ideals have slipped a bit, from an active, responsive role to something more aspirational. Neutrality, encouraged?
–Benjamin Schachtman
Where's Rouzer?
As the sun set over the Cape Fear River on Friday evening, a couple of dozen people lingered outside Cape Fear Community College’s Union Station Auditorium on Front Street.
It was about 10 minutes before the liberal-organized “Where’s Rouzer?” town hall event for U.S. Congressman David Rouzer was set to begin, which he unsurprisingly wouldn’t attend. (I say unsurprisingly, not to speak to his level of community engagement, which progressives accuse him of absconding from, but rather to a lion’s den most politicians would avoid willingly entering.)
I assumed the crowd outside represented the bulk of the folks who’d be showing for the evening. But I soon realized this crowd represented people organizers had turned away after reaching capacity limits inside.
Organizers with Indivisible Wilmington, a national nonprofit with a new local branch that hosted the event, said they had to turn away 150 people and the venue’s capacity was 300.
That kind of political turnout–outside of official big-name national campaign events—is almost unheard of in Wilmington. It probably helped that the event was more entertainment-tailored than actual protesting, and the mostly retiree-age crowd got to attend a free two-hour comedy show. Still, I was surprised.
Local comedian Cliff Cash and his brother, Wiley, a best-selling author, took to the stage wearing massive Rouzer and Sen. Thom Tillis cardboard head cutouts. They answered questions from a moderator, hamming up Southern drawls and policy inconsistencies. All the while, a somewhat uncanny, stuffed Rouzer dummy sat on a couch nearby with popcorn, beer and pizza boxes within reach.
“As far as this DEI stuff, I don’t know if you have ever tried to pretend to not be racist or misogynistic for years and years,” Rouzer’s fake cutout said to the fake Tillis cutout, “But it is such a relief to not have to pretend.”
Some audience members‚—who either didn’t get or didn’t agree with the brothers’ satirical shtick—were audibly put off by their deliberately offensive commentary.
“Thank you for the laser beams of hatred,” Cliff Cash said after the bit was over. “It was intense. They deserve it. It was weird to be pretending to be them.”
Cash then launched into a mostly serious speech on national politics that riled up the crowd. He repeatedly claimed Trump is a Russian asset and encouraged people to protest and fight the administration.
Now, Trump’s a lot of things. I wouldn’t feel comfortable claiming he’s a Russian asset, but it was noteworthy that Cash lingered on that theme.
Rep. Deb Butler, a state lawmaker who represents New Hanover County, took to the stage shortly after and had a far tamer take. She focused on local bills and statewide politics and only once poked fun at the night’s star: “This might be the first town hall that I have attended where even the fake David Rouzer shows up. It’s actually the most responsive I’ve ever seen him be.”
The real Rouzer didn’t respond to press inquiries. It’s not clear where he was Friday, but it’s hard to blame him for skipping an event held in his dishonor. Recent town halls across the country featuring Republican politicians and angry crowds have gone awry, and rarely have the lawmakers walked away looking any better.
Still, public relations aside, it’s important (in principle anyway) for politicians to engage with their constituents, whether they elected them or not.
– Johanna F. Still
