To answer Drew Long’s question [in “Anti-Semitism or taboo scholarship?” May 2] – "Is it possible to safely speak out against Israel in the U.S. today?" – yes, certainly, it’s possible to safely speak out against Israel in the U.S.; it’s also possible in Israel, and happens on a daily basis. When the criticism is legitimate, it certainly isn’t anti-Semitic. But when it’s the common sort of factless bashing as spewed by Walt and Mearsheimer, whose paper, contrary to Drew Long’s guess, was not at all "well researched" or "properly supported" – then, yes, it’s anti-Semitism. It’s particularly indicative of anti-Semitism when such spew receives the enthusiastic accolade of David Duke.

Deborah Sharavi

Drew Long himself practices McCarthyism when he dismisses the use of the term "anti-Semitism" by those who object to the pernicious Mearsheimer-Walt attack on American Jews, who, they allege, operate as foreign agents intent on dictating American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel and against the interests of the United States.

Drew Long’s fear that the Jews are crying "anti-Semitism" to suppress free speech and inquiry is laughable. If memory still serves us, it is the murderous Nazis who destroyed democracy and free speech using vicious anti-Semitic propaganda.

The fact that six million Jews were murdered does not mean that the survivors can do no wrong or that one cannot legitimately criticize Israeli policies (as the Israelis themselves are wont to do). But Nazis and the Nazi mentality have also survived. And those who still

accuse the Jews as a people of "undue influence," financial and political manipulations, and world domination are, in fact, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis, and should be dealt with as such.

One wonders how Drew Long, who doesn’t know how to evaluate research impartially, is qualified to write op-ed pieces for this student newspaper.

G., student
Portland, Ore.

SFC Woes

It is the fault of the Judicial Board and the SFC that the budget is now in limbo. Of course you can complain about the timing of the administration’s response, however, it was ASPSU that failed to follow the process. There are two key pieces of the process that they failed to follow:

1. There is a specific timeline to make any changes to the guidelines. If the Judicial Board felt any part of the guidelines violated the constitution or any law, they had a chance to remove it before the guidelines were considered “approved” by ASPSU, when the senate approved them.

Obviously, if new law or policy went into effect, which the guidelines violated, ASPSU and the PSU president would have to revise that specific conflict. Given the Judicial Board found nothing illegal with the guidelines when they were approved, they missed their chance to raise concern about an interpretation of a then-three-year-old case.

2. Oregon law, in its creation of the student fee, requires the guidelines be created in cooperation with the university president. Any changes to the guidelines require the president’s approval prior to implementation. The fact that both the Judicial Board and the SFC failed to notify the president of their intention to change the guidelines not only violates the guidelines and ASPSU constitution, it violates Oregon law.

Teal Smith, student