Article on dialogue was about opinions, not news

What happens when a Daily Bruin reporter, working on his own
assumptions, pursues a story, interviews “experts” and
students who support his assumptions, and then writes the story?
You might think the product would be a well-written essay in the
Viewpoint section. But on Nov. 3, it ran as a front-page news story
entitled “Does open discussion really exist at UCLA?”
The article that ran was filled with assumptions and opinions about
the Muslim Student Association-UCLA and the relationship between
Muslims and Jews on campus.

The article tries to create a crisis on campus in an environment
where one simply does not exist. This type of manipulation should
have no place within the news section of the Daily Bruin. The
article began by saying how UCLA, unlike many other universities,
does not have a group “of students from different
backgrounds” that consistently talks about the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

The outcomes of “dialogues” are vague, and
organizations such as MSA-UCLA do not have the resources to program
events without clear and achievable outcomes.

Implicit in the article is an incredulous assumption: that the
Israeli-Palestinian issue is an ethnic conflict that cannot be
solved unless Muslims and Jews, Arabs and Israelis get along,
including those within UCLA. That is an opinion, not a fact.

MSA-UCLA sees the problems between Israel and Palestine as an
issue of colonialism. Based on this belief, if we were to have a
dialogue, wouldn’t it make sense to have a similar dialogue
with American Indian students or with Pacific Islander students who
also have tried to combat issues of colonialism?

Moreover, the notion that Muslims and Jews don’t get along
within UCLA is unfounded, and there is no evidence to suggest that
they hold personal animosity towards each other. Although many
Muslims and Jews disagree strongly about the issue of Palestine, it
does not follow that the populations bear ill feelings towards each
other. MSA has co-sponsored events with Jewish organizations and is
currently working on various projects, such as solidarity work with
the grocery store workers, and with the Progressive Jewish Students
Association.

Action and talk can bring two peoples together.

A third assumption in the article is that a “Dialogue
“¦ is essential for a college campus to increase student
awareness.” Programs, workshops, rallies, pamphlets, street
theater, concerts, art exhibits and countless strategies exist to
educate students who are not informed about issues. Dialogue is
merely one strategy and, in my opinion, not necessarily the best
one.

According to the article, the reason why there is no
“dialogue” on campus is due to “a failure of
leadership.” This claim is supported by Rabbi Chaim
Seidler-Feller and Professor David Myers, who, judging by their
comments, obviously know very little about the Muslim Student
Association, the work that the organization does, and how it
functions. Furthermore, no attempt is made within the article to
investigate how the various organizations come up with their
decisions.

For example, within the Muslim Student Association, programming
decisions are made and ideas for programs are discussed within our
general body meetings where all of the membership decides what
programs to put together. There is no traditional
“leadership” governing the types of events MSA holds
and thus, no failure of such leadership.

The Muslim Student Association does not exist solely to deal
with the issue of Palestine and Israel. The organization also
facilitates a newsmagazine, four community service projects, is
involved with coalitions, and organizes a variety of different
programs and events. Decisions to organize events are based on the
needs of the Muslim community, on and off campus, the capacity of
the organization, and the relevance of the topics to students.

In this case, the Bruin article attempts to show that there are
problems with the Jewish-Muslim dynamic on campus, namely the lack
of organized communication. It attempts to define
“dialogue” very narrowly as people gathered around a
table arguing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, painting a
picture in which organizations having dialogues are somehow helping
the situation, while organizations not doing this are somehow
impeding the progress towards peace.

These claims are based on fallacious assumptions as I have shown
above. If the Daily Bruin believes this is true and feels so
strongly about “dialogue,” then I suggest they call it
an editorial. By including this story in the news section, the
Bruin is adding unwarranted credibility to the story.

Tajsar is the MSA external vice president.