President Jimmy Carter addresses his audience at George Washington University in John Shinkle’s photograph.
Reporter Samantha Slater, Brandeis ‘05, attended the GW lecture and describes it for the Politico Web site.

While waiting for him to take the stage, I was surprised that most students seemed to be going about their normal business. Grabbing a cup of coffee, I heard one student remark to another, “Did you know Jimmy Carter was coming to campus today?”
GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet, gave only moderate coverage to Carter’s visit — three articles and one editorial. The Brandeis student newspaper, The Justice, had printed a six-page pull-out section after his talk. And while Carter’s Brandeis visit came amid tight security, there was little in sight at GW, save for the small Secret Service contingent that surrounds all former presidents.
In his GW speech, Carter justified his refusal to debate Dershowitz and reflected on his experiences negotiating the Camp David Accords, which brought about the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in 1979. Overall, though, Carter’s remarks at GW were considerably milder than would have been expected, based on his book’s inflammatory title and content.
I would like to think the former president’s Brandeis appearance taught him how hurtful and evocative words can be, particularly when seeming to minimize the pain and suffering of innocent Israelis who are constantly threatened by Palestinian terrorists.
Moreover, Carter’s “campus tour” has reduced opposition to his book to a civilized, and barely audible, level of disagreement among college students. Even GW freshman Harry Baumgarten, one of the few students to protest Carter’s appearance, said of Carter’s progression of campus visits: “He’s gotten more open. He’s learning as he goes.”

The subject, of course, was his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.
Jessica Calefati covered the event for the GW Hatchet.

“Apartheid is defined as forced segregation of one people inside territory to keep two peoples apart and as oppression of one people by another. That is exactly what is taking place inside the West Bank,” Carter said, clarifying that his use of “apartheid” only refers to circumstances in Palestinian land.
[…]
“I’ve never been afraid to debate. (However) I do not see a reason to debate a man from Harvard who knows very little about the present circumstances in the West Bank,” Carter said, referring to Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz’s claim that he invited Carter to debate him at Brandeis.
During his 25-minute speech, Carter did not shy away from addressing other criticisms of his book, one of which is that it includes factual inaccuracies.
Carter said he considers the book “absolutely accurate.” He added that, “No one has found any error of any substance in the book.”
[…]
Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, of the National Synagogue in Northwest, brought a group of about six “local activists” together to protest the event. He said that the book unfairly portrays Israel.
“I think they were malicious lies in that book,” Herzfeld said. “He has brought great shame to the office of the presidency. He is a person who - with his malicious and evil rhetoric - encourages terrorism.”
Those on H Sreet who supported Carter’s views said he is a humanitarian and a promoter of world peace.
“He’s not against a race of people, he’s against an ideology,” said Farrah Farley, a recent Georgetown graduate, referring to Carter’s opposition of apartheid. Farley, who is affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine, related Carter to “a modern day Gandhi.”
After the event, more than 100 students and protesters waited on H Street for Carter to exit from the back of Lisner auditorium. After 45 minutes, Carter left from the front door instead.

And Hillel wants to do something about it. From JTA:

Hillel is urging petitioners to make noise over Purim about the threat from Iran.
The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life launched an online petition urging the U.S. government to work with allies in tightening sanctions against Iran. Timed to coincide with Sunday’s Purim holiday, the petition, available at www.hillel.org/grogger, recalls the holiday’s celebration of Jewish triumph over an ancient Persian threat.
“Today, the Jewish people and the State of Israel again face a threat from Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,” says an explanation on the Web site. “He has denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel — while pursuing nuclear ambitions.”
The Web site’s name, grogger, refers to the noisemakers used on Purim to drown out the name of the ancient Persian villain, Haman.

A controversial York University professor is waging a court battle with the school over his claim of libel. Sarah Millar has the story for the Excalibur:

[David] Noble has filed the lawsuit for $25 million against the Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region, Hillel of Greater Toronto, the United Jewish Appeal of Greater Toronto, as well as the YUF and its president Lorna Marsden. He claims that they suggested that he was anti-Semitic after he passed out protest pamphlets in 2004.
Three years ago, Noble distributed flyers around campus, which made claims that directors and YUF members had ties with pro-Israel groups. The pamphlets also claimed that the university was biased and favoured Israeli groups.
After the distribution of the flyers, a fax was sent by Hillel of Greater Toronto to the university with their concern that the flyers insinuated that “Jews control York University.” Noble denies this was in the material he distributed.
In response, a press release was shortly issued by the university, in which Marsden condemned the literature. The press release did not name Noble individually, but did quote Dori Borshiov, the former president of Hillel at York, who expressed concern with the material that was handed out stating, “It is unacceptable for any students to be exposed to this type of bigotry.”

The case revolves around what type of libel this is. Noble says it’s personal libel, which would give him two years to file a claim. But since the aforementioned press release was posted on the Internet, the York University Foundation says Noble should’ve filed a broadcast label claim, which would have given him six weeks to make his complaint. Read the article for a discussion of the repercussions this could have for Canadian law.

We’ve posted a few op-eds about the decision to take down the cross from Wren Chapel. Today, William and Mary President Gene Nichol addresses the controversy in the Daily Press. His lead: “I may be the only person left in America who hasn’t written an op-ed about the Wren cross.”
Nichol includes a letter from faculty member Marc Raphael:

I had an interesting experience Thursday. A Jewish family from Richmond made an appointment with me as the son is trying to decide between U.Va. and W&M. Since my office is in the Wren, I showed them around and for the first time in 19 years as director of Judaic Studies, a Jewish family did not ask me to explain the presence of the cross in a non-denominational chapel at a public college.
I do not know about every case, but from the letters I have received over these nearly two decades following my tour, it is certain that a great many of the Virginia Jewish families that have come and asked about the cross have decided to send their children elsewhere.
That same day, a husband and wife who were visiting the College stopped by to tell me what they thought of the cross matter. They did so because they saw a sign that indicated I was chair of religious studies. The husband blamed the increasing number of non-Christian students accepted since his graduation for everything wrong with the college.

Nichol continues with his reaction:

I know the statements reflected in the last paragraph of Raphael’s letter don’t represent the sentiments of our alumni. The William and Mary community is generous and embracing - it touches, it entwines, it reaches past barriers to form loves and friendships that endure. These bonds are the best part of the life of the college, old and new. Polarization is not our way. We’re a Tribe.
But most alumni would be saddened to read the first two paragraphs of the missive. In embracing our own religious practices, we have perhaps thought less of the impact on others. We have not understood, I think, that some don’t come here, or feel less welcome here, because they hail from different religious traditions. What has sometimes been true for Jewish students is now increasingly replicated by Muslim, Hindu and other non-Christians - from across the globe.
So, for me, the cross decision wasn’t about political correctness, or the ACLU, or the secular liberal left. It was, first and last, my reaction to these daily, destructive, quiet costs. Is it acceptable, as an aspiring public university, to open our doors less fully to some because of their religious affiliations? As strongly as we value our own beliefs, will we make others less welcome because of their own?