The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
John McWhorter on the Columbia Protests
An excerpt from his column in yesterday's N.Y. Times:
Last Thursday, in the music humanities class I teach at Columbia University, two students were giving an in-class presentation on the composer John Cage. His most famous piece is "4'33"," which directs us to listen in silence to surrounding noise for exactly that amount of time.
I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building. Lately that noise has been almost continuous during the day and into the evening, including lusty chanting of "From the river to the sea." Two students in my class are Israeli; three others, to my knowledge, are American Jews. I couldn't see making them sit and listen to this as if it were background music.
I thought about what would have happened if protesters were instead chanting anti-Black slogans or even something like "D.E.I. has got to die," to the same "Sound Off" tune that "From the river to the sea" has been adapted to. They would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence. I'd wager that most of the student protesters against the Gaza war would view them that way. Why do so many people think that weekslong campus protests against not just the war in Gaza but Israel's very existence are nevertheless permissible? …
Today's protesters don't hate Israel's government any more than yesterday's hated South Africa's. But they have pursued their goals with a markedly different tenor — in part because of the single-mindedness of antiracist academic culture and in part because of the influence of iPhones and social media, which inherently encourage a more heightened degree of performance. It is part of the warp and woof of today's protests that they are being recorded from many angles for the world to see. One speaks up.
But these changes in moral history and technology can hardly be expected to comfort Jewish students in the here and now. What began as intelligent protest has become, in its uncompromising fury and its ceaselessness, a form of abuse.
As our readers may gather from my past posts, I don't think that the protests should be viewed as not "permissible" based on their viewpoint, though I do think that a university can reasonably limit extended loud protests audible from classrooms, whether what's being chanted is "from the river to the sea" or "abortion is genocide" or "Hare Krishna" or "Go Bruins!" But in any case, McWhorter's perspective, which is more about campus culture rather than law, struck me as worth noting.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"directs us to listen in silence to surrounding noise for exactly that amount of time"
I'm sorry, I can't get past this to discuss his main points. A song with no words or music! It even has "movements" of various lengths.!
Did Cage get paid for this? It might be the greatest con of all time!
People paid to listen to it, so yes. Lots of expensive virtue signalling.
I read (New York Times, aboard an airplane) about a guy whose contribution to modern art (the part that focuses on weird entrepreneurs taking money from gullible heirs) was a series of canvases painted red, blue, or white (as I recall). One group plain red, another group plain blue, another group plain white. Blue period, white period, red period; different sizes, painted by brush. A ten-year-old could do it. The guy apparently made a fortune. Some collectors apparently strove to collect a set -- one of each color, or one of each size, etc.
I thought this was so dumb I clipped the article to show some of my friends.
I encountered one of those paintings -- a huge one -- a few years later, prominently hung with special lighting in a home at which I attended a meeting and event. I stared at it for some time. Eventually, a woman spoke from behind me. "I'd love to know what you are thinking."
"I think that if this is what I think it is, somebody paid a lot of money for a plain piece of canvas some guy painted, like a housepainter, in about 15 minutes."
"Anything else?"
"Yeah, I think there might be a few more of these things around here somewhere. Apparently, people who buy one of these buy a number of them. I can't even imagine why anyone would buy one."
"Well, at first I just liked it," she said, "but now I enjoy hearing how it makes people think," as I came to recognize I was speaking with the home's owner.
Turned out she had several more.
Glad to know you hang out with people as vapid as your posts.
I like interacting with different people. I have had a number of clients and friends who are billionaires; I also have had destitute or even homeless clients and friends. I have clients and friends at some of the finest addresses in America and in desolate communities. I have friends and clients with multiple advanced degrees, others with little education. Musicians, beer distributors, police officers, athletes, engineers, elected officials, restaurateurs, developers, professors, retail clerks, reporters, bankers, nuns, university presidents, authors, unemployed people. I consider myself fortunate in that regard.
I'm just pleased that your comment contained none of the usual insults and was constrained to the topic at hand. Enough so that I logged in and unmuted you so that I could add this comment. (A huge effort, I know ;<)
Given your intelligence I wish you would do so more often.
Check out Cage's musical composition, As Slow as Possible, which is being played now at the Halberstadt Cathedral in Germany. They started playing it in 2001, and it’s scheduled to finish playing in 2640. The next note will be played on August 5, 2026.
Like many artists, he’s got more story, and shtick, than genuine aesthetic.
"They started playing it in 2001, and it’s scheduled to finish playing in 2640."
That's hardly as slow as possible. I think rushing through it like that completely wrecks the mood and disrespects the artist.
You could try to petition the composer to slow it down. Unfortunately, he died 9 years before the first note played. But you could email your suggestion to him anyway, and in the scheme of things, still expect a timely response.
Well, it IS a dance tune.
Next you'll tell us your kindergartener could do it.
"I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building."
To the extent that 4'33" has a point, this is completely missing it.
My thought as well. Cage didn't direct that people listen to birds; he directed that they listen to the absence of music. Hearing the chants would be part of that.
To the extent the OP had a point, you missed it.
The (quoted) OP is coming directly at speech the author doesn't like, Brett.
You not liking the point doesn't mean he didn't miss it.
Maybe you're missing the point that 4'33", in that place and time, wasn't worth the listen? (No...the point of the "composition" didn't save it.)
If it wasn't worth a listen "because the surrounding noise would have been not birds" then he missed the point of the piece.
When you just want to listen to birds chirping, you can find plenty of that on YouTube.
When the ambient sound is the same hateful chants of condemnation all day every day, and you can't tune the sound out, it's a pretty dumb exercise to take a few minutes to listen to ambient sound.
Can you set your personal agenda aside for a moment and consider why this wasn't a good time to do 4'33"? Or are you just intellectually moronic?
The entire point, which you keep missing, is NOT to tune out the ambient sounds that you don’t like.
John Cage himself performed 4’33” in front of a busy intersection surrounded by traffic noise. Was that also a “bad time to do 4’33”?
No, that doesn't sound like a bad time to do 4'33". In my interpretation, any time in which one might hear what one isn't hearing could be considered an opportune time to listen to 4'33".
Why, as a teacher, would you stand in front of a class that had been exposed to repetitive canned malicious chants for weeks or months in that very classroom, and think, "This is a good time for us to listen to 4'33". Everybody...let's be silent for the next 4 minutes and 33 seconds while we listen to the ambient sounds here in this classroom at Columbia U."
You may think that's a good opportunity to listen and learn. But when I consider how much they've already heard and studied that particular kind of ambient sound, I ask myself, "What is the value of studying that again? What is the value of listening to 4'33" in this space and time?" I am inclined to think there is some fixation there that compels you to be SO BLATANTLY LACKING IN EMPATHY for students who have attentively listened to your proposed version of 4'33" many, many times before. What is it that those students have not already accomplished, to your satisfaction, dear teacher?
Are you seriously suggesting that when John Cage performed 4’33” surrounded by traffic noise, it was opportune because nobody in the audience had heard traffic noise before?
Because I can assure you that everyone in the audience, including Cage himself, already had far more experience with traffic noise than these students have with political chants. Do you conclude that Cage was SO BLATANTLY LACKING IN EMPATHY?
What is it that those students have not already accomplished, to your satisfaction, dear teacher?
What did you accomplish the second time you listened to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9? What about the fiftieth time?
Different people will answer that in different ways. Music can arouse new reactions even when listening to something very familiar.
But to announce that there is no point in listening to 4′ 33″ because students have “already accomplished” listening to it misses the point of music.
Some day, you should apply your intellect to helping others instead of yourself. Undoubtedly, you see this as helping others. The very people you’d be trying to teach would disagree. (Their opinions are not determinative to me, but are indicative.)
Would you consider issuing a “trigger warning” in advance of you directing your students to listen to more repetitive political chants including expressions of hatred for Jews? Would you mind if some students chose to leave the room rather than listen to 4’33”?
Two additional questions:
1) Do you consider yourself to be anti-Zionist?
2) In a 10 point U.S. political scale of extreme left (1) to extreme right (10), with 5 in the center, where would you place yourself in terms of your own political beliefs?
On the contrary, I think this teacher did a disservice to the very people he was trying to teach. It’s the equivalent of a teacher who is considering a trip to the Holocaust Museum or Native American Museum, but decides against it because it might make his students sad. He has missed the point of the museum, and of teaching. Those museums are not meant to make visitors feel comfortable, and neither is 4’33”.
As for the students: they are ultimately responsible for their education. If they don’t want to participate in an activity, that’s their decision. If they want a “trigger warning” or a synopsis beforehand, that’s their decision too. And why not? I generally prefer some sort of summary before spending time on an educational activity.
But of course this teacher isn’t even allowing them to make their own decisions, he has decided for them that they will not find value in this activity. I think many of the very people he is trying to teach would disagree.
I personally have little experience with John Cage. I did however, room in San Francisco in the 60s with a graduate student in music, Martin Bartlett, who was studying with Cage and Darius Milhaud—while also jamming with the Grateful Dead before they made their first album. Bartlett went on to become a somewhat noted academic musicologist and composer in Canada. He taught at Simon Fraser University.
Bartlett remained fascinated with Cage. I have no doubt at all, based on what Bartlett told me about Cage, and the way Cage thought about his musical experiments, that, politics aside, Cage would have been delighted had McWhorter let his students feature the Cage piece during the protests.
As I understood it from Bartlett, one of the themes Cage intended to develop had to do with what it meant musically that ambient noise was always audible. His various experiments with programmed silences were intended to present that insight in context of musicological discovery.
I doubt Cage would have welcomed McWhorter’s anodyne interpretation, except as an objectively interesting—and perhaps crazy—variation on the theme of the piece. Cage’s various musical engagements with silence certainly contemplated no special place for birdsong, or any other particular audible occurrence.
I’m just imagining a psychedelic montage of your time in that room. The go go 1990s montage would unfortunately feature a lot of OJ Simpson and Jerry Springer. 😉
Yeah, McWhorter completely misunderstands the point of Cage's piece. I feel sorry for his students - non even accounting for the piece of tripe he spread on the NYTimes pages.
The point of the piece is "Ha, ha, I can get paid for not composing music. What rubes!"
The philistinism goes with the anti-intellectualism and the assault on higher learning.
I actually LIKE good music, I have an extensive collection of classical music, and I'm not averse to modern stuff, either, like Kronos Quartet. I'm in awe of the skill and work that goes into this stuff. I only wish that I were gifted in that area, the way my son, (A pianist and composer.) is.
But silent music, like a blank canvas, or an empty plate, isn't clever or thought provoking, nor does it require any artistic skill. It's just a scam, the latest edition of the Emperor's new robes, which is a classic because the phenomenon it recounts is always with us.
John Cage did some really good work. But silence will never be music.
More hypothetical counterfactuals.
That this king of substanceless grievance gathering is such a go-to says a lot about how reflexive much of this discourse is.
"More hypothetical counterfactuals."
Or what most people refer to as analogies.
Analogies are susceptible to holes.
The hole here is that neither Blacks nor DEI are affirmatively affiliated with a regime being accused of ongoing war crimes in the ICJ.
Given the relevance of that hole to the topic, I'd say it's a pretty crap analogy.
The inaptness of the analogies is why they're not leaning on analogy nearly as hard as a hypothetical.
"Analogies are susceptible to holes.
The hole here is that..."
See how easy that was?
“More hypothetical counterfactuals.”
Don’t blame him. The Word-a-Day calendar he bought at that yard sale only had with two dates left on it.
I remember when you used to discuss the substance of issues, lately you just seem to be a scold...
I remember when the Conspirators used to post about substantive issues, lately they just seem to be posting vapid culture war clickbait...
If you're a Jew on a college campus, "culture war" can get you killed these days...
Oh really? Which campus Jews have been killed?
https://apnews.com/article/shooting-burlington-vermont-palestinian-students-suspect-dd781a57f5d96cf591a1840db890b4ed
It shouldn't matter, but McWater is black -- and I believe studies Ebonics as a dialect. This was not some right-wing neo-nazi writing this.
It shouldn't matter, and it doesn't matter, Ed. Reverse ad hominem is pretty silly.
I'd say it tells us stuff about you and race, but nothing you don't already shout to the rooftops.
You apply ad hominem all the time. What changed this time? Oh, that's right, it wasn't in favor of the result you want.
I don’t apply ad hominem, you’re just bad at distinguishing opinions or arguments from factual assertions.
Ad hominem being a fallacy does not mean be credulous to known liars.
Mcwhorter has an opinion. It is a bad one. Even though he's black!
McWhorter's opinion is a bad one? Care to say why in your opinion it is a bad one? Or are we just to take it on your authority, argumentum ad verecundiam?
And as it happens, neurodoc's thinks McWhorter is absolutely brilliant, impressively reasonable, and always worth reading. Furthermore, neurodoc's opinions are as a rule trump (not DJT trump either) over sarcastro's opinions.
More hypothetical counterfactuals, which do not really support much of anything but the writers' own self-confidence.
Also, his thesis appears to be that some speech counts as violence and should be regulated.
Which I do not agree with.
But also not a music professor.
Why do so many people think that weekslong campus protests against not just the war in Gaza but Israel’s very existence are nevertheless permissible?
Oh, well let me explain it to you.
Israel’s prosecuting a war against Palestine that’s been going on for 50 or 75 years… maybe more, depending on how you count. It’s flared up recently.
Neither side appears willing to live side-by-side with the other. So, if you take the combatants at their word — not a requirement, but certainly a reasonable stance — one of them has to be ethnically cleansed (or at minimum, live in subjugation by the other, as the Palestinians have lived for decades).
I think we can agree that endless subjugation is a bad outcome. (Please feel free to argue otherwise, but it seems difficult to justify.) Given all of that… I’m not sure it matters much, morally, which side you think ought to be cleansed. Some people think the Jews should be driven out, some people think the Palestinians should be driven out.
Israel has, for 50 years, been defending itself in a war prosecuted against it by the Palestinians. The fact that most of the time they're not very effective in prosecuting doesn't mean they're not the aggressors.
I didn't mean to imply that one or the other is "the aggressor."
But many people find the asymmetry that I mentioned to be relevant. Namely, the Palestinians are the ones who've been subjegated by the Israelis that whole time, not the other way around.
I find it relevant only to the extent that it prevents Israel from claiming (credibly) that its hands are clean.
In the West Bank the aggressor seems relatively easy to identify and dislike.
Many people are idiots. What defines an aggressor is that they started it, and kept it going, not that they were the stronger side. If you start a war with a much stronger opponent, you're still an aggressor, you're just a STUPID aggressor.
So, Don Knotts comes after Arnold Schwarzenegger with a dull pen knife, and tries to gut him with it. Arnie puts him in a half Nelson, and every time he lets him go Knotts scrounges up a bigger knife, and comes at him again. The fact that Knotts is spending a lot of time tied in a pretzel doesn't make Arnie the bad guy in this picture.
To some people it does. Especially if Knotts had been living in the only house on the island, which Arnie came and moved in to, pushing Knotts out.
Yeah, I get that part of the Palestinians' excuse for their genocide is pretending that Jews weren't already living in the area.
The Middle East used to be full of Jews. Christians, too. I won't say everything was dandy between them and the Muslims, but they were managing to coexist for the most part. Maybe they still would be, if Hitler hadn't come along, or if de-Nazification had extended to the Middle East.
But Hitler did come along, and was pretty popular with Middle Eastern Muslims, and they didn't stop with their genocides just because Hitler got his ass handed to him. And at this point except for Israel the Middle East is nearly judenrein, and they're just doing mop up operations on the Christians.
The Palestinians want to finish the job, before moving onto the rest of the world. Screw them.
"But Hitler did come along, and was pretty popular with Middle Eastern Muslims, and they didn’t stop with their genocides just because Hitler got his ass handed to him."
I'm not deep into Middle East history, but my sense is that the idea of a Jews migrating to Palestine and setting up a Jewish state goes back pretty far - the early 1800's if the wiki is right (see 'Early British and American support for a Jewish state in Palestine').
Earl on there weren't a lot of Jews there: "In 1890, Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire, was inhabited by about half a million people, mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs, but also some dozens of thousands Jews."
That number rose rapidly through the first half of the 1900's.
The resident Arabs/Palestinians viewed that about like people in New Hampshire viewed the planned libertarian influx a few years ago, or the 'Don't Californicate Montana' types view Californian newcomers, or you view illegal immigrants today.
This isn't to say the Palestinians get Palestine back any more than the Sioux get Montana back - at some point you have to just accept the status quo - but don't pretend that there has always been a sizeable Jewish population living in harmony until the Palestinians went all Third Reich in WWII just because they hated Jews.
(Various European countries, of course, did crap on their long resident Jewish populations for no reason at all, before and of course during WWII)
Your summary account of the respective populations wouldn't be all that misinformed if it weren't more than 50% wrong on its face.
Over 50% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews, that is Jews who lived for millenia for the most part in predominantly Muslim countries and emigrated to Israel (again for the most part) when life became untenable in those predominantly Muslim countries.
If you care to educate yourself further with some reading, and put yourself ahead of so many who are less informed and fair-minded than you (e.g., our faux Reverend) seem to be, then maybe you will push past the 50% correct mark.
Cheers
"Over 50% of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews, that is Jews who lived for millenia for the most part in predominantly Muslim countries and emigrated to Israel (again for the most part) when life became untenable in those predominantly Muslim countries."
From the POV of a Palestinian living in a predominantly Palestinian country, it doesn't matter if the newcomers came from the same region or how compelling their reasons were. Israel wouldn't be very happy if over the next half century Arabs with good reasons to flee Iraq or Libya immigrated into Israel until they became a majority.
The statements A)lotsa countries crapped on the Jews and B)the Jews all going to Palestine kinda crapped on the existing Palestinians can both be true.
At this point it's water under the bridge, but it happened. All us honkies coming to North America kinda crapped on the existing residents. We're not going to give it back, but we should recognize what happened.
But Hitler did come along, and was pretty popular with Middle Eastern Muslims, and they didn’t stop with their genocides just because Hitler got his ass handed to him.
This is a shallow and Euro-centric way to see the middle east, holy shit.
We can't credit you with analysis of the immediately relevant background to the conflict, but your simple summary of the conflict is an imminently reasonable and helpful one.
Randal : “I think we can agree that endless subjugation is a bad outcome”
Some Points :
1. There is no pure “aggressor” and “victim” in this long ugly history. Honest historians on both sides have shot down the fairy tales advanced by Palestinians & Israelis over the country’s founding.
2. “Endless subjugation” isn’t even the worse of it. Right now the Israeli government wants the West Bank and is slowly stealing it, piece by piece. But they refuse to give the people living there citizenship, leaving them stateless. In an act something like a self-performed lobotomy, Israelis and their supporters in this country all pretend this isn’t happening – or refuse to think about where it will end – or think the Palestinians will somehow magically disappear. Needless to say, the Palestinian supporters are equally blind, short-sighted, and self-destructive.
3. I can’t imagine the vacuity of someone doing the “River to the Sea” chant. You’re going to take the injustice done to the Palestinians and imagine it done to the Israelis? Either way, slogans don’t make millions of people vanish as an inconvenience.
4. I have harshly criticized the Israeli government – but that is my target : A government and its policies. Anyone who criticizes the “Jews” has a serious problem in his skull.
5. Kevin Drum decided to look at Israel thru young eyes, and the result is worth reading. The twenty-year-olds protesting? They’ve seen ugly brutal oppression by the Israeli government their entire lives. To be fair, he followed the next day with the opposite take, but the point still remains.
https://jabberwocking.com/seeing-israel-through-young-eyes/
https://jabberwocking.com/a-brief-history-of-modern-palestine/
Yes, the status quo is unconscionable, as are all the solutions except Two States. But for 50 years, hoping for Two States has actually just resulted in the unconscionable status quo.
At what point do we stop making the sunk cost fallacy and realize that we’re not going to win the Two States jackpot? If Two States is an impossible dream, what’s the next best, achievable outcome?
I have to think "River to the Sea" is in the top two. Or three, if you think the Three State solution is viable.
Once again we see Western leftists trying to impose their own framework on the conflict. What on earth makes you think the people living there want Israeli citizenship? After Israel liberated East Jerusalem it allowed Palestinians living there to obtain Israeli citizenship, and only a tiny percentage of them ever took Israel up on that. (And I'm not just talking about the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War; it continues to the present.) To accept citizenship is seen as legitimizing Israel's control over the area,
It doesn’t matter whether they are happy with Israeli citizenship or not. If you conquer a territory, the people living there become your responsibility. If you rule over land, you rule over the people living there. What you don’t do is take land and pretend its people don’t exist.
In one of those recent international court cases, the Israeli government rejected the charge of apartheid by saying negotiations were still underway over final borders and status. That was true twenty years ago, and the Palestinians themselves bear much of the blame that peace went nowhere during the window where it was possible.
But the Israeli response has been a transparent fiction for the better part of two decades. They’ve been happy to slowly steal the West Bank with no discernable hint of any long-term vision. They've been happy to undercut the PA even while it cooperated with Israel and Israeli security. Thet've been happy to sabotage every possible move towards talks. I personally have no clue where Netanyahu thinks he’s taking the country, the behind-the-scenes support for Hamas as a go-to excuse against negotiations being just one example. As far as I’m concerned, he’s another Orban or Modi – A toxic popularist hack who’s been a blight on his country’s future.
Randal,
What you say is reasonable as a description, but like most commentary it does not suggest a realizable solution. No, I don't have one to offer except a single secular state when Jews and Palestinians can live together peacefully.
Yeah, that's not realizable either.
Brett Bellmore : “Yeah, that’s not realizable either”
True enough, but that’s exactly why Don Nico said it. It’s like all those Republicans who would absolutely be fiscally responsible if only pigs had wings but – gosh darn’t – they don’t, so they can’t.
It’s an evasion. A faux-utopia he piously intones to evade real choices. As I note above, it’s like Israel’s supporters in this country have self-administered a lobotomy on the subject. They’ll walk a zillion mile trek just to pretend/avoid the country’s three obvious choices:
1. Apartheid.
2. No Jewish state; one country with a Palestinian majority.
3. Two states.
I don’t trust either side to rule the other’s minority population. Israel’s rule over millions of stateless Palestinians has been vicious, ugly and brutal. There’s no reason to expect the Palestinians wouldn’t be worse. A responsible Israel leader would build towards the only long-term open to his country, not do everything possible to destroy & sabotage it. That’s what Israeli leadership has done these past two decades.
Obviously, there’s nothing any Israeli leader can do to magically solve this mess short-term. Palestinian leaders are more blind, short-sighted, and corrupt than their Israeli counterparts. But this isn’t about the Palestinians, or what they are owed, or what they merit.
This is 100% about what. is. best. for. Israel. (full stop).
What if #3 is also an evasive faux-utopia, so we strike it as well.
1. Apartheid and/or ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.
2. No Jewish state; one country with a Palestinian majority.
Suddenly “from the river to the sea” doesn’t seem so crazy, given the alternative
(s).Randal : "What if #3 is also an evasive faux-utopia, so we strike it as well"
Why? I know why the Palestinians want to destroy the Israeli state, whether its name presists or not. They hate their enemies. And I know why the college kiddies chant their slogans. They're afire with revolutionary theatrics and garish slogans of oppressed & oppressor. They can't see beyond their nose. But I can't penetrate your reasoning without help.
Option #2 is what “from the river to the sea” represents. So if you don’t like option #1, which I can see why they don’t, then that’s what you're left with.
Or are you wondering why Two States could be considered a faux-utopia? Well, both sides reject it and are working against it, and we haven’t made any progress on our attempt to impose it externally for decades.
So you take the only solution that doesn’t destroy the Jewish state and leave a (surely) worse human rights disaster than currently exists, and reject it. Why? Because it’s hard. Because it hasn’t happened yet.
Good to know, even if not persuasive. I could bring up other intractable problems from recent international history – the Irish and South Africans, for instance – but doubt it would sway you. That’s partially because I’m still not sure what your reasoning is.
My reasoning is as stated. Two State doesn’t appear to be happening, and almost nobody who actually could make it happen wants it to happen. That’s never a good sign.
Given that, at minimum I think it’s reasonable to believe about the Two State solution what you believe about DN’s One State solution: it’s no more than evasive rhetoric.
Consider also the consequences of pursuing the Two State solution for the past N decades: the actual, de facto solution that whole time has been #1. That’s what Two State collapses into as long as it’s always the goal but never the reality. So if you prefer #1 to #2 anyway, then sure, might as well go along with the Two State fantasy.
But if you prefer #2 to #1, then Two State has been a total loss so far. Even given that such a reasonable person would prefer Two State overall, how many hundreds of years should they allow #1 to persist in fact before getting mad about it and pushing for #2 instead?
"YaWeeWee has spoken. California is Ours!" Is that an acceptable chant?
What makes YaWeeWee an his followers less significant than the head of the Mason Family? Or the head of the Hitler Family? Or The Netanyahu Family?
Shouldn't YaWeeWee and his family -- just his rightful descendants, mind you... not those who are not part of his chosen flock -- have as much right to evict (or murder) all California residents as the "rightful children of Abraham" have to do so in Palestine? Or is YahWeeWee less of a god? Or is there a god to which we are all subject? Or are all Israelis nothing more than murderers following their own song.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_LmRcr8Mm4 ?
It is not even clever.
I believe this is an information operation, bought and paid for. What we used to call “astroturfing”. It is not organic. The students are useful idiots, cosplaying people with actual purpose because they themselves have none.
These sheep are the real “white supremacists”: a white, rich, urban, privileged, woke, faux-leftist, unthinking mob. They yell death to capitalism from one side of their mouths while ordering Starbucks via Door Dash out of the other.
They deserve mockery and, when disrupting others, arrest and one phone call to Mommy to please have Dadums pick them up in the family Prius in time for the next streaming series on Disney+.
Personally, I'm kind of surprised that the "We demand highly specific concessions or the tent city stays" tactic hasn't resulted in students being arrested for some combination of civil trespass/unlawful presence combined with blackmail/extortion.
Oddly enough, the students might actually have a better defense if they DIDN'T make specific, actionable demands.
"I had to tell the students we could not listen to that piece that afternoon because the surrounding noise would have been not birds or people walking by in the hallway but infuriated chanting from protesters outside the building."
The point of 4'33" is not to listen to pretty sounds of nature, it's to listen to WHATEVER sounds are occurring around you. Professor doesn't understand the piece he's teaching.
Or maybe he does, but I am not a musician.
Why do you think that your interpretation rules?
The point of 4’33” is not to listen to pretty sounds of nature, it’s to listen to WHATEVER sounds are occurring around you.
Actually, according to the "composer", the point was to experience relative silence (with ambient background sounds "contributing" to the experience) for the duration, based at least partly on his studies in Zen Buddhism. In his own words to an audience, his goal was:
"to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be three or four-and-a-half minutes long—those being the standard lengths of "canned" music and its title will be Silent Prayer. It will open with a single idea which I will attempt to make as seductive as the color and shape and fragrance of a flower. The ending will approach imperceptibility."
Of course he ended up going with a different title, but the central theme of "uninterrupted silence" remained.
Professor doesn’t understand the piece he’s teaching.
Given that he didn't say anything about teaching that or any other piece ("two students were giving an in-class presentation on the composer John Cage"), it would appear that you don't understand what it is that you're commenting on.
Reports that the culture is antiracist are greatly exaggerated.
Prof. Volokh,
Surely you have not forgotten that the First Amendment's protection for free speech applies only to governments and governmental institutions. Columbia is a private university. The students who attend Columbia have no constitutionally protected freedom of speech, and Columbia is free to ban whatever speech it wishes.
Marc Susselman, J.D., M.P.H.