by Wits Concerned Staff and Students
Some, including the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, were quick to respond to an abridged version of Advocate Budlender's investigations into the Limmud saga, claiming it vindicated Limmud (SAJR, 13 Nov 2009). On the contrary, however, the complete report, released yesterday, clearly reveals the SAJBD’s reading to be incorrect. The report unequivocally condemns Limmud’s actions.
Specifically, Adv. Budlender identified the security-marshals appointed by Limmud, most of whom were from the Community Service Organization (CSO), a voluntary Jewish community organization which provides security at Jewish community events, as a main cause of the tensions on the day. These security men were severely criticized in the report:
“The behavior of the security guards was, to put it at its lowest, inappropriate.” Further, the report states:“It is troubling that some of them, at least, did not appreciate the consequences of what they were doing, even when this was raised with them.” The report asserted that “it is likely that this insensitivity to the political and racial context, taken together with the aggressive conduct of some of the marshals, was a toxic mixture.”
Underscoring this are the testimonials of several independent members of the Wits community, for example one Wits staff member who was neither party to the conference nor the protest, who stated that the conduct of Limmud-hired security officials “made her think of the apartheid days.” As a result of Limmud's security's actions - which were correctly perceived as racist according to the report - Adv. Budlender recommends that Wits does not allow such external security onto its campus again.
Also, Limmud was criticized for not informing the university that accused Israeli war criminal, Lt-Col. Benjamin (http://universityofwitwatersrand.blogspot.com/2009/08/request-to-file-charges-in-south-africa.html) would be speaking; for overstepping the agreed arrangements with Wits and for the heavy-handed way in which its security dealt with people, including attendees of the conference who merely engaged with protestors.
The protestors inside were vindicated for their discipline and for exercising their freedom of expression, which Adv. Budlender stresses the University should have been at pains to protect and encourage. Interestingly, while Limmud has consistently used the principle of “freedom of expression” to justify the platform given to Lt-Col. Benjamin, Adv. Budlender makes it clear that disallowing a speaker who is regarded as highly offensive, would not, in fact violate the University’s commitment to this principle.
A representative of SAJBD erroneously stated: "those protesting against Limmud resorted to baseless charges of racial profiling in order to smear our community.” (SAJR, 13 Nov 2009.) Far from this, however, the report found that “differential treatment [of people based on race] did take place.” The report confirms that even though Limmud may not have had a policy of racial discrimination, the behavior of the marshals and the factual accounts presented, support that such differential treatment did, in fact, occur. While the report found that some attendees may have been subjected to slurs by protesters at the outside gate, it is very possible that emotions were heightened as a result of the treatment at the hands of the Limmud security.
The SAJBD and Limmud should carefully reflect on their consistent denialism around the various concerns that have been raised and consider, given the damning nature of the report, an apology for the offensive treatment that occurred and for the continued attacks on the integrity of the complaints that have indeed been confirmed.
