For all of the recent media controversy, the educational and civic ideas behind the Khalil Gibran International Academy [KGIA], a public school with a dual language Arabic theme, are sound and worthy.
There are already a number of dual language schools in the New York City public school system, combining English with Spanish, Chinese Mandarin or Haitian Creole as a medium of instruction. Like these schools, KGIA would teach its students in both English and the second language of Arabic, and educate them as global citizens with an understanding of and appreciation for different world cultures. In an increasingly interdependent global society, improved American understanding of different world languages and cultures has become more and more a national imperative.
Named after the Lebanese-American Christian poet and artist Khalil Gibran, KGIA was envisioned as a school which would share and promote Gibran’s life-long dedication to peace, tolerance and religious and ethnic pluralism. This is an especially important civic commitment, given the bitter conflicts which have imprisoned the peoples of the Middle East in cycles of violence and intolerance for generations. KGIA’s promise was that it embodied a different future, one of religious and ethnic understanding and cooperation.
For these reasons, the UFT supported the founding of KGIA. We believe that the educational and civic principles upon which the school was founded are central to American democracy and to our own vision of democratic American education. As a union, we understand ourselves to be in the non-violent social justice tradition of Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez, and this tradition demands of us that we oppose hate, intolerance and violence wherever it appears. Here at Edwize, we spoke out months ago against those attacks on the school which seemed to us to be inspired by ethnic and religious intolerance.
Precisely because of our commitment to the democratic educational and civic principles upon which KGIA was founded, we were both surprised and dismayed by the recent incident in which the principal-to-be of the school initially failed to separate herself and the school from the ‘intifada,’ well-known for its use of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians and its promotion of ethnic and religious hatred and intolerance. In our view, well-expressed by President Randi Weingarten’s public comments, educators have a clear moral responsibility to oppose violence and intolerance of this sort from any quarter.
With the apology and resignation of the principal-to-be, that incident has been put to rest. It is now important that the vital work of building KGIA on its founding educational and civic principles go forward. The leadership, staff and families of the new school have our support in that important effort.
25 Comments:
1 mklonsky
· Aug 17, 2007 at 3:38 pm
You lost me there Leo. Would you allow a teacher be fired over the definition of a word or over a political loyalty oath? Principal Almontaser’s resignation was a concession to racism and bigotry, and attempt to try and salvage her school. She was guilty of nothing more than sharing an office with a group that made a tee-shirt with a sensitive word on it. She didn’t violate any laws or ethical standards. By all accounts, she was a fine educator. Please don’t invoke the name of Dr. King in this latest example of racial intolerance, dual standards and the assault on academic freedom.
2 Steve Perez
· Aug 17, 2007 at 4:53 pm
mklonsky, this isn’t about an English quiz word definition. And I give you the credit to know that.
Leaving out the very real meaning and subtext of the term “intifada” leaves out the core concern. Educators should denounce violence – not just explain it. Criticism from the UFT was for the failure to do that, not on who she shared an office with.
3 phyllis c. murray
· Aug 17, 2007 at 7:13 pm
What would Martin Luther King say about Civil Rights and Civil Wrongs today?
First he would say, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”
Next, “You deplore the demonstrations taking place … But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.”
Then, he would say “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action.”
And add, “Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.”
Today, as we examine the words of Martin Luther King from a Brimingham Jail, we can find answers to serious concerns regarding who we are as individuals and what we must be. “So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice.”
Therefore in King’s words, “Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”
Yours also “for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,”
Phyllis C. Murray
4 MichaelB
· Aug 17, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Exactly what “sort” of violence do we have a “clear moral responsibility” to oppose? Is there any possible use of force by the Israeli government that could fall under this category (theoretically speaking, of course)? Please enlighten us, Leo.
If Weingarten wasn’t going to stand up for our right to hear lectures from Khalid Rashidi, head of Columbia’s Middle East Institute, when the DOE blacklisted him, could anyone be surprised she would kick Almontaser when she was down?
Though I don’t blame Randi for being afraid of the AIPAC crowd – no sane union leader in this city would mess with them – it turns my stomach to read these phony, moralistic justifications for her sucking up to them. Jeez, even Ed Koch said Almontaser’s apology was sufficient.
5 Leo Casey
· Aug 17, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Michael Klonsky:
“Sensitive word” is a very poor euphemism to describe the intifada. It is the term used to describe a long, multi-year campaign of systematic violence which has included the repeated use of suicide bombers who target masses of civilians in such settings as restuarants and buses. It is the term employed by the authors of this campaign.
We need to be honest and frank about what we are discussing, or we do a great disservice to the real dialogue that is needed over some difficult, deeply felt issues. This is not a case of political correctness gone wild, or of political loyalty tests. It is a case of a genuine and serious error in judgment which did some real damage to a good cause, by failing to make completely clear that KGIA would be dedicated to civic values of peace, religious and ethnic tolerance and pluralism. The fact that there are those who want to prevent KGIA’s opening for reasons of prejudice and intolerance, and are only too happy to seize upon such an error to proclaim that it is really a school that supports violence and terrorism, does not excuse such an error. If anything, one needs to be extra-vigilant in such a situation.
There is no question in my mind that a Martin Luther King would have been sympathetic to and supportive of the Palestinian quest for their own independent nation-state, and deeply critical of the intifada campaign of indiscriminate violence conducted in the name of that quest. There is also no question for me that educators and unionists who adhere to King’s non-violent social justice tradition should have the same posture. If educators equivocate not just about the use of violence, but about the use of violence which indiscriminately targets innocent people as they eat and as they travel home, we have truly lost our moral compass.
Three months ago, when our voice was one of the very few speaking out, the UFT was supporting KGIA. There is a public record of that support here at Edwize. We did so not out of blind loyalty to a project or to the individuals associated with it, but out of a deep commitment to the principles of nonviolence, tolerance and pluralism it promoted. We are steadfast in our support of those principles.
6 jd2718
· Aug 18, 2007 at 1:19 am
I haven’t read as much of what he wrote and said as you have, but I don’t recall much (anything?) critical of how oppressed people fought back, even if he perhaps privately disagreed.
Is there some deep record of publically critical remarks I am unaware of?
Jonathan
7 phyllis c. murray
· Aug 18, 2007 at 6:30 am
From Martin Luther King’s 1963 book, Strength to Love
8 Leo Casey
· Aug 18, 2007 at 9:07 am
Jonathan:
I am not at home, and so my books are unavailable, but a quick google search brings up quotes like…
“In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives.”
9 jd2718
· Aug 18, 2007 at 11:54 am
Thanks, Leo, and that seems to be what I asked for. But I asked badly. Did he criticize individuals or groups directly?
My (admittedly quick) internet searches revealed no criticism of the Algerians or the Vietnamese, but maybe these are the wrong examples, or maybe you’ll best be able to find them when you are at home with your books.
Jonathan
10 MichaelB
· Aug 18, 2007 at 11:56 am
When Rashid Khalidi (forgive my previous misspelling), was banned from DOE courses, Randi Weingarten remained silent. Apparently, she either has no problem with Joel Klein’s determining what political views are acceptable to teachers (Khalidi happens to be a Palestinian moderate) or she feels she must defer to the power of the Israel lobby.
Because I see the latter explanation as the more likely one, I see Randi’s outrage in the t-shirt incident as being a bit calculated, and certainly overdone.
11 Principal’s firing is nuts. « PREA Prez
· Aug 18, 2007 at 3:43 pm
[...] word “intifada” in historical context, is nuts. And the attempt to defend her firing by those who should know better is disappointing. Filed under: Free Speech [...]
12 Peter Goodman
· Aug 18, 2007 at 5:17 pm
While the debate over KGIA has concentrated on the Principal many of us believe that the core of all schools are the teachers. I served as a UFT member of the Personnel Committee at KGIA …and found the pool of applicants fascinating. Some had followed the creation of the school closely … they were an extremely disparate group … and we constantly reminded applicants about teaching in the harsh spotlight of the media.
We think we selected a wonderful, caring staff … a team that will be embarking a difficult journey … that will have the full support of their union.
13 jd2718
· Aug 18, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Peter,
did UFT Central consult with any of the members in the school before issuing the statement?
Jonathan
14 Steve Perez
· Aug 18, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Jonathan, do you really mean to question Martin Luther King Jr’s commitment to nonviolence?
I think it misses the forest for the trees to read what King says and wonder if it applies to Vietnam or Algeria or the Middle East simply because those places aren’t explicitly referenced.
Jonathan, why not read King’s Beyond Vietnam speech, and in particular this quote:
Even as he opposes US involvement in Vietnam, King is critical of the use of violence by both sides. And later in the speech, he addresses your question directly:
15 jd2718
· Aug 19, 2007 at 2:24 am
Steve, please reread what I wrote. Your comments are neither fair, nor accurate.
I find this implied misquote:
to be entirely unacceptable.
Jonathan
16 Steve
· Aug 19, 2007 at 8:23 am
“This was a high-tech lynching.” That’s how Rabbi Michael Paley, scholar-in-residence at UJA-Federation* (and father of Naamah Paley, who’s in charge of enrollment at KGIA) described what was done to Debbie Almontaser. He is quoted in the The Jewish Week (“Jewish Shootout Over Arab School, August 17), in an excellent article that details the blatantly islamophobic roots of the campaign against Ms. Almontaser and KGIA, and the dirty tricks used by the Post to spark the “intifada” controversy. Rabbi Paley recounts how Ms. Almontaser is active in We Are All Brooklyn, an inter-ethnic initiative supported by the Jewish Community Relations Council, and has trained with A World of Difference, the anti-bias program of the Anti-Defamation League. Rabbi Paley thinks the message to the Arab-American community of this whole sorry episode is: “You’re a fool to think they’ll accept you.”
I urge Edwize readers to listen to what Arab-Americans themselves have to say about this affair. Look at the website of Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media (AWAAM), the group that produced the offending T-shirt. Read the transcript of the August 13 broadcast at the website of Democracy Now. Read the piece in The Jewish Week online to see all of what Ms. Almontaser said, not just excerpts. Come out to Tweed at 6PM on Monday for a community mobilization called by Arab, Muslim, and Jewish groups, among others.
It was a lynching alright. The UFT didn’t string up the noose—that was done by the anti-teacher, anti-labor Murdoch media and hate-mongering websites. We just kicked away the stool.
Steve Quester
UFT chapter leader
P372/418K The Children’s School*
*Rabbi Paley speak for himself, not his organization. Same with me.
17 Would Martin Luther King, Jr. fire the principal? « PREA Prez
· Aug 19, 2007 at 8:57 am
[...] what has to be the one of the most bizarre discussions on the web, there is actually a quotation war going on at Edwize over whether Martin Luther King [...]
18 Steve Perez
· Aug 19, 2007 at 11:14 am
Jonathan, sorry if I misunderstood you when you asked
To me, King was always speaking out about the means of fighting back, and was always clear about his support for nonviolence.
What did you think of King’s Beyond Vietnam speech?
19 mklonsky
· Aug 19, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Leo Casey: “With the apology and resignation of the principal-to-be, that incident has been put to rest.”
Judging from the responses on your and other’s sites, I’m afraid, not quite yet, Leo.
As for you lectures on non-violence (I’ll be watching to make sure you protest every expression of violence, especially the ones more grievous than the word on a t-shirt) are you saying that Principal Almontaser was an advocate of, a condoner of, or a participant in violence?
20 Crazy Dave
· Aug 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm
History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.–Dr. King, “Letter From a Birhingham Jail.”
21 JokersWildNYC
· Aug 23, 2007 at 12:36 am
Why would Randi run to the post, of all papers? She has proven herself little better than the anti-Muslim racists who have attacked this school from the beginning.
22 mevans212
· Aug 23, 2007 at 11:06 am
Hey…
The Almontaser interview was in the Post, so of course Weingarten would respond in the Post as well.
23 JokersWildNYC
· Aug 23, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Mevans – the post does nothing but attack teachers, the UFT, and organized labor in general. She might have well gone to “Jihad-Watch” or some other reich-wing institution. Does she think by flexing her Zionist credentials the NYPost will give her a free-pass in the future? I remember a few years ago there was an anti-Bush button/bumper sticker – “NOT MY PRESIDENT.” Thats how I feel about Randi. So very out-of-touch with the rank-and-file teachers.
24 SOC ST TEACHER
· Aug 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Martin Luther King:
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.”
from “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel” by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24.
25 mevans212
· Aug 23, 2007 at 2:14 pm
JokersWild – Almontaser talked to the Post and then Weingarten talked to the Post. So when you criticize someone for talking to the Post, are you criticizing both of them?
It sounds like you’re looking for an excuse to critize Weingarten, so don’t let what happened stand in your way. People who talk to the Post hate America! Flame on!
Leave a Comment