EDITORIAL:

This week a task force investigating allegations of anti-Semitism at UCI found many targets for criticism with its long-awaited report.

Group members blamed administration officials and campus Jewish groups for not doing more to condemn what they felt were anti-Semitic attacks.

What is the crux of the problem? It involves controversial speakers the Muslim Student Union has invited on campus, some of whom critics say have called for the destruction of Israel.

Chancellor Michael Drake has long argued that while he and the university condemns harassment, racism and bigotry, he can do nothing to censor it. He must uphold the 1st Amendment.

Obviously, we appreciate that argument. You can’t define “hate speech” as anything that upsets you. Legally, it applies to a specific physical threat against an individual who is clearly racially motivated. Advocating the eradication of Israel would not fall into that category.

But while the task force members say they recognize 1st Amendment rights and argue they are not advocating censorship, they want the “university to take a moral stance with American values,” according to task force member Jesse Rosenblum.

We’re not sure how you get there without chilling free speech. Let’s say university officials singled out some Muslim Student Union speakers for condemnation, even though they have not broken the law. Would that discourage or bully the students from inviting those speakers back? One could argue that would amount to a sort of harassment itself.

We don’t think it’s the job of the Jewish organizations on campus to push the university to condemn the speakers either.

Rather, we would like to see everyone on campus start an ongoing dialogue on the issues that divide them. Clearly, there’s a problem with anti-Semitism on campus, and it would be destructive to ignore it.

Have we gotten so cynical that we would rather traffic in hostile fist-shaking and recriminations than discussions? That’s not how you settle differences with your friends and family. You sit down and talk it over. This is a community, and we should work out our differences the same way.

But stop demanding that university officials solve the problem. Take initiative. It can start with a kind word to a political opponent and build to larger forums of students and educators. And if you still don’t agree then, keep talking.

As the old saw goes, you can at least agree to disagree without being disagreeable. When it comes to most conflicts, peace is most easily achieved when each side feels their opponent is at least listening. Ask any diplomat, and they’ll tell you that’s the first step toward peace.

We hope the UC Irvine community can take that first step soon.