The role of the university is unquestionably to provide a forum for the exposure and exchange of ideas. The university is equally designed, and at least in the case of Rutgers, also funded by society, as an institution to teach substantive knowledge and values. It is the clash of these different and, at times, contradictory missions that is at the heart of the debate over Rutgers and the Pro-Palestinian conference this coming October.
 
The catalogue at Rutgers does not list any courses on how to plan and implement genocide, even though it was an actual policy carried out by many governments during the 20th century. They do not have workshops on how to build bombs or torture people. These are all ideas that have considerable popularity, at least judged by empirical behavior of a great many countries, throughout the world and are clearly in public debate. It is precisely because of the value basis of the institution that certain subjects are deemed not worthy of university sponsorship, even if, as is self-evident, people are talking about them and "doing" them.
 
It is precisely in the area of ideas that are "out there" but may well be beyond the acceptable values of American society that the October conference at Rutgers falls. What is clear is that the people who are sponsoring the Pro-Palestinian gathering have a particular point of view or perspective. They have every right to hold this view and the freedom to demonstrate to advocate their view. If they were to hold a demonstration on the Rutgers campus, it would be the absolute responsibility of the police to protect them. But that does not mean their ideas are legitimate or belong under university sponsorship.
 
What does New Jersey Solidarity advocate? A Star-Ledger editorial rather disingenuously avoids the written record and notes that a group spokeswoman denounces violence. More telling, one should read what the organization calls for in its mission statement and what it advocates as public policy. The reality then is very different.

Solidaryt members say they "are opposed to the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of Israel." They write that they "unconditionally support Palestinians' human right to resist occupation and oppression by any means necessary." Many similar quotes could be cited, and those who wish should explore the organization's Web site to gain a full picture of the organization's goals.
 
The basic policy positions supported by Solidarity, in addition to calling for the liberation of Palestine, are the elimination of the existence of Israel and the unconditional endorsement of any means of doing this. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that includes the use of suicide bombers to murder innocent civilians wherever they live in Israel.

This organization does not focus its advocacy on the establishment of a Palestinian state, a goal accepted by the Israeli government and endorsed by the Bush administration. Rather it endorses an extremely militant position that includes the use of violence against innocent civilians and calls for the elimination of a democratic state in the Middle East.

This is not a benign policy prescription or a generally pro-Palestinians perspective on the conflict, as some Solidarity leaders have led the public to believe.
 
Rutgers cannot cover itself in platitudes about "free speech" and "academic freedom" and dismiss any knowledge of the goals of the sponsoring organization. It is precisely the purpose of the organization's program that must be taken into consideration in deciding the appropriateness of providing it with university facilities. The university should be willing to acknowledge that it recognizes the goal of the Solidarity conference is not simply to support the creation of a Palestinian state but the destruction of Israel and the delegitimization of the right of the Jewish people to a homeland.
 
A debate on the real nature of the sponsoring organization and the goals of the conference should be taking place at Rutgers if the university wishes to promote intellectual inquiry and an understanding by students of political reality. Is the university a proper venue for those whose goals are destructive, who support the killing of innocent civilians, and who do not recognize the rights of others?

It is that discussion that must take place before an informed decision can be made as to whether the gathering belongs on the Rutgers campus. Once a serious examination of the organization and its views take place, it will be clear that the values and policies it espouses are antithetical to the very concept of a university.

This conference will neither further understanding of the conflict in the Middle East nor serve legitimate political debate and exploration of policy options for our country. It will further bigotry and intolerance. It does not belong in one of our state's universities.