On Oct. 7, Marc Ellis came to speak as a part of the Difficult Dialogues Symposium. While this presentation was difficult, it was certainly not a dialogue. A dialogue is defined as “an exchange of ideas or opinions.” What happened that night neglected to fulfill that definition. Instead, audience members were treated to an extraordinarily biased, and at many times offensive, presentation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The first, and perhaps most important, problem with the event was the lack of balance, both in presentation times and in opinion. Ellis spoke for 45 minutes, while the person chosen to respond to Ellis, Sanford Gutman, had only ten minutes to speak. Gutman also was not truly an expert regarding the Middle East. According to an Intercom announcement (as well as the SUNY-Cortland Web site), though Gutman has an interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict, his scholarship lies in the French Revolution and Jews in France. Gutman also stated that he did not receive a copy of Ellis’ speech in advance and was inadequately prepared to speak. Many of his comments were not spent critiquing Ellis’ speech but instead stating he “admired and agreed with” Ellis. What took place, then, was not an “exchange of ideas or opinions” but a powerhouse presentation by Ellis followed by a short, awkward agreement from Gutman.

The second major problem is Ithaca College’s and Ellis’ emphasis on Jews, as opposed to Israelis. Posters for the event asked if there was a “future for Jews and Palestinians.” This question — if the goal was in fact to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — is inaccurate. For the record, Judaism is a religion while Palestinian refers to a nationality. Israeli, which would have been the correct term to use, does not mean Jewish: There are approximately one million Israeli-Arabs (people of Arab ethnicity who are Israeli citizens) living in Israel. However, a person attending the event would never have known that: The speakers did not refer to “Israelis” but rather“Jews” or occasionally “Jewish Israelis.”

The final problem is one that was truly frightening to see on a college campus. During the question-and-answer session, members of the audience asked Ellis thoughtful questions that in many cases challenged his comments from earlier in the evening. Instead of providing equally thoughtful answers, Ellis refused to answer the questions and instead deflected them, making jokes and finally, insulting the people in attendance when he said the discussion had become “silly.” The questions asked were not silly, though they often differed in opinion from Ellis’ beliefs. The fact that a speaker brought in by the college would respond in such a hostile way is offensive and a sad reflection on the administration.

It is wonderful that the college is attempting to have dialogue about difficult topics in today’s world. However, in order to have a true dialogue, the college must make an effort to allow for “active, open inquiry” as the Intercom announcement stated Oct. 1. This means people presenting should be experts on the actual topic discussed, should actually differ in opinion on the topic and should both be given enough time to thoroughly present their opinion. This also means that just as the speakers should be shown respect, members of the audience who ask questions should not be brushed off as “silly” and should be provided with thoughtful answers. Hopefully, the college will make improvements to the program and the next “Difficult Dialogue” will actually involve dialogue.

Morgan Goldstein is public relations chair for Student Alliance for Israel. E-mail her at ic.safi@gmail.com.