Happy New Year 2011! Yes it is late to say this, but earlier this year is a very involved, both for Lina for me, obviously. Between theory, research, courses, partial activity schedules and Other Life, it is not easy to take time for everything.
But still, that since mid-January is suddenly talking a lot of ENS in the media. You probably already know why: the cancellation by the Director of the School, Monique Canto-Sperber, a conference by Stéphane Hessel. Cancellation welcomed by the CRIF (and former ENS), booed by many others (including other former ENS), referred sometimes as an act of "courage" and sometimes as a "censor" dangerous proving that the SLA would be under the influence. That's the kind of debate that swells rapidly, carrying charges of violent side, and is taken everywhere. Everything was for the debate swells and skids: the sensitive issue (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), a serious issue (the charge of censorship), the high-profile personalities, Great School, potentially corrupt elites, theories of conspiracy, finally, everything.
I feel obliged to talk about this, because in such an environment, and a reheating of nerves as inappropriate asked to think we would be able to see in the silence of this blog (currently held by two former ENS) a kind of guilty silence, or accomplice, or Zeus knows what else. It's like the law of Solon which included hitting with infamy every citizen who would not take part in a civil war ( yes, j'instrumentalise news items to cram course, I assume ). This is the kind of debate, once again, where the repetition of the event is not so much about thinking that eventually obey logics outliers where it is absolutely necessary for or against something, one camp or the other, in short, be on the side of the Gentiles (Lecturer censored or maligned director) and define the other as the bad guys (lobbyists seeking to change the ENS in pro-Palestinian political platform, or censorship of the Directorate gained CRIF).
So the conference by Stéphane Hessel was it censored or not? Was that a conference on freedom of speech or a meeting of pro-Palestinian bias in advance, or not? Canto-Sperber she acted under the influence, or not? What should we think, or not? The oupalgite, to paraphrase Frederick Pommier, threat. So how the hell to navigate in this story?
Well ... I have no idea. I read about each other, and I have no way of knowing what really happened. Having been schooled in Ulm gives me no particular light on the issue. My conclusion (so maybe a bit pretentious) that if I have no way to decide such a question, while I know this school and I'm still going to work very often, there Perhaps no magic way to instantly know what happened.
Before making an opinion, therefore, appears to be the wisest to simply recall items debate with some links:
that on this specific topic, the arguments of the Directorate and Ms. Canto-Sperber concerning safety are not completely absurd. As all students of the School, I saw in my inbox during my school years, thousands of emails announcing conferences, debates, symposia, workshops, screenings, etc.. and many others sent by the many seminars, courses, clubs, associations, journals, etc.. present at the school. However, I happened to go see that related to conferences and debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I was struck by the extreme violence of their style, which did not really want to look at relevant conferences (there were even messages written in all caps, what every good surfer knows that it is useless, except to the unpleasant reading). I do not know if these emails were from the Collective ENS Palestine or to any entity of the opposite side (I did unfortunately not preserved: we see spend tens, as I said, and even amateur archivists fiercest like me do not keep everything).
I also remember a previous conference on the subject, some time ago, had resulted in insults members of the public to stakeholders, which had provoked passionate writing of each other (this should be in the jar, leaf news of the school). Talk about security risks in connection with a conference-debate on the subject is not an excuse to conceal an awkward censorship seen in the broader context of conferences on the matter already organized at ENS, c is a real problem.
That does not mean that there was no pressure on the ENS. I have on my side, no way slicing. What seems unfortunate, regardless of the immediate issue of the cancellation of the conference is that stakeholders, both from side than the other, seem unable, for so long to discuss in terms of a so slightly raised, without unduly swell if the terms of debate. In doing so, they are likely to flee their potential public interest instead of the issues they want to talk.
I am also surprised that former ENS take positions so quickly to so radical an SLA which has changed significantly since the end of their education ... and they can just, if they had been educated More recently, we do not routinely practice censorship, and that everything is not all black, even if everything is not all white.
No way to decide, therefore, but links to the remarks of the parties involved and to some articles on the topic so that everyone is forging his own opinion, calmly, taking a minimum distance to the reactions and cons -burning reactions.
But still, that since mid-January is suddenly talking a lot of ENS in the media. You probably already know why: the cancellation by the Director of the School, Monique Canto-Sperber, a conference by Stéphane Hessel. Cancellation welcomed by the CRIF (and former ENS), booed by many others (including other former ENS), referred sometimes as an act of "courage" and sometimes as a "censor" dangerous proving that the SLA would be under the influence. That's the kind of debate that swells rapidly, carrying charges of violent side, and is taken everywhere. Everything was for the debate swells and skids: the sensitive issue (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), a serious issue (the charge of censorship), the high-profile personalities, Great School, potentially corrupt elites, theories of conspiracy, finally, everything.
I feel obliged to talk about this, because in such an environment, and a reheating of nerves as inappropriate asked to think we would be able to see in the silence of this blog (currently held by two former ENS) a kind of guilty silence, or accomplice, or Zeus knows what else. It's like the law of Solon which included hitting with infamy every citizen who would not take part in a civil war ( yes, j'instrumentalise news items to cram course, I assume ). This is the kind of debate, once again, where the repetition of the event is not so much about thinking that eventually obey logics outliers where it is absolutely necessary for or against something, one camp or the other, in short, be on the side of the Gentiles (Lecturer censored or maligned director) and define the other as the bad guys (lobbyists seeking to change the ENS in pro-Palestinian political platform, or censorship of the Directorate gained CRIF).
So the conference by Stéphane Hessel was it censored or not? Was that a conference on freedom of speech or a meeting of pro-Palestinian bias in advance, or not? Canto-Sperber she acted under the influence, or not? What should we think, or not? The oupalgite, to paraphrase Frederick Pommier, threat. So how the hell to navigate in this story?
Well ... I have no idea. I read about each other, and I have no way of knowing what really happened. Having been schooled in Ulm gives me no particular light on the issue. My conclusion (so maybe a bit pretentious) that if I have no way to decide such a question, while I know this school and I'm still going to work very often, there Perhaps no magic way to instantly know what happened.
Before making an opinion, therefore, appears to be the wisest to simply recall items debate with some links:
- January 8: Mediapart article announcing the conference and debate "Solidarity with Hessel" at the ENS, for January 18 (you can see the poster of the conference)
- January 13: Article on the site of the CRIF mentioning the cancellation of the conference
- January 15, reaction at the site of the Collective Palestine: "The Directorate of ENS Stéphane Hessel censorship demand CRIF! "
- On 20 January, the site of the ENS news Directorate explaining the cancellation of the conference
- January 21, forum de Benoist and Patrick Hurel Henriot in the newspaper Liberation : "What we wanted to tell Normale Sup '
- The same day, in Liberation, Richard Prasquier response (president of CRIF) "Mr. Hessel is obsessed with Israel"
- January 25, gallery and Stéphane Hessel Regis Debray in Le Monde newspaper against censorship at ENS (only the first page appears briefly available on the site of the World)
- January 27, viewpoint Monique Canto-Sperber in World (dated 28): "Why I canceled a meeting pro-Palestinian"
that on this specific topic, the arguments of the Directorate and Ms. Canto-Sperber concerning safety are not completely absurd. As all students of the School, I saw in my inbox during my school years, thousands of emails announcing conferences, debates, symposia, workshops, screenings, etc.. and many others sent by the many seminars, courses, clubs, associations, journals, etc.. present at the school. However, I happened to go see that related to conferences and debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I was struck by the extreme violence of their style, which did not really want to look at relevant conferences (there were even messages written in all caps, what every good surfer knows that it is useless, except to the unpleasant reading). I do not know if these emails were from the Collective ENS Palestine or to any entity of the opposite side (I did unfortunately not preserved: we see spend tens, as I said, and even amateur archivists fiercest like me do not keep everything).
I also remember a previous conference on the subject, some time ago, had resulted in insults members of the public to stakeholders, which had provoked passionate writing of each other (this should be in the jar, leaf news of the school). Talk about security risks in connection with a conference-debate on the subject is not an excuse to conceal an awkward censorship seen in the broader context of conferences on the matter already organized at ENS, c is a real problem.
That does not mean that there was no pressure on the ENS. I have on my side, no way slicing. What seems unfortunate, regardless of the immediate issue of the cancellation of the conference is that stakeholders, both from side than the other, seem unable, for so long to discuss in terms of a so slightly raised, without unduly swell if the terms of debate. In doing so, they are likely to flee their potential public interest instead of the issues they want to talk.
I am also surprised that former ENS take positions so quickly to so radical an SLA which has changed significantly since the end of their education ... and they can just, if they had been educated More recently, we do not routinely practice censorship, and that everything is not all black, even if everything is not all white.
No way to decide, therefore, but links to the remarks of the parties involved and to some articles on the topic so that everyone is forging his own opinion, calmly, taking a minimum distance to the reactions and cons -burning reactions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment