Listed below are the closing paragraphs of yesterday’s NBC Information article, “Columbia College protesters resume demonstrations after mass arrests“:
Is that this actually a good and goal abstract of what occurred on the Chemerinsky dinner? “Confronted a Muslim pupil,” with no additional rationalization, strongly implies that the scholar was confronted for being a Muslim, moderately than that for attempting to present a speech in the course of a social event. I do know of no proof that Dean Chemerinsky or Professor Fisk (they’re married) focused the scholar for her faith, versus her disruptive conduct.
If you would like an analogy, think about there was an argument in regards to the police arresting somebody who occurred to be Catholic for blocking an abortion clinic entrance, and the incident was characterised (with no point out of the particular person’s misconduct) as “Final week, Berkeley officers confronted a Catholic on a metropolis sidewalk.” Would that be a good journalistic abstract?
I believe even the USC dialogue should have been framed in another way: The scholar’s speech was canceled, I believe, as a result of she had prior to now expressed help for sharply anti-Israel views, and I count on there would have been comparable outrage in opposition to her if she had been a non-Muslim expressing such views. Probably the most correct technique to describe the incident could be to explain her as an individual who had expressed anti-Israel views. (Likewise, if pro-Israel Jewish college students are focused for being pro-Israel, I believe protection of that incident ought to precisely characterize them as pro-Israel college students, not as Jews.) However the Berkeley state of affairs appears to me much more clearly misdescribed.