President Corrigan’s decision not to approve the proposed Palestinian mural of Edward Said as submitted represents an act of both conviction and courage –– setting an example of true leadership.

In guiding San Francisco State University, President Corrigan has consistently insisted upon maintaining a commitment to serving all the students on campus. He has sought to maintain an inclusive environment that engages the difficult issues of our day in an intellectually rigorous and civil environment. From time to time he has taken actions that detractors have labeled mistakenly as infringement upon free speech but, in fact, have safeguarded both the right of free speech and the sense of well-being for the entire campus community.

That is the case once again with respect to the proposed Palestinian student mural. The Jewish Community Relations Council, Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee submitted a letter to him in May 2006, which echoed the concerns of Hillel and Jewish students who had contacted us regarding the mural.

In the letter, we supported the position of students who were concerned that specific symbols contained on the artists’ drawings would create an exceptionally divisive and less safe environment on campus by delegitimizing and implicitly calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Of the nearly 20 symbols in the mural, we focused on two that we found particularly problematic: the house key and the Handala character. They represent a small portion of the mural in size, but their symbolism is very real and profoundly troubling.

The house key was identified by the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) as being the symbol of the “Palestinian Right of Return” which, if enacted, would result in the elimination of the State of Israel.

The Handala character has historically been used to depict violent resistance against Israel. For example, Handala sometimes brandishes an AK-47 assault rifle, and on a previous GUPS Web site is depicted as participating in the violent destruction of Israel.

These are symbols of hate, not expressions of cultural pride. These are symbols of violence, not peace. These are symbols of division, not inclusion. These are not symbols that belong in a permanent mural on the side of the Student Union.

Significantly, the president has not prevented GUPS from using these symbols in its literature, at rallies, or in an art exhibit. Students can educate themselves about their true meaning and the intentions behind them. But the proposed mural is different. It would be a permanent display on a public building thats murals are intended to celebrate cultural pride, not to denigrate or threaten another campus group.

The murals, even on the side of the Student Union building, are a statement about the university’s values and its commitment to maintain a welcoming environment for all students. Unfortunately, these symbols send just the opposite message.

There are, to be sure, some questions to be answered. For example, why is it that the mural proponents are so inflexible about removing explicitly offensive symbols in order to be able to proceed? Why is the focus on President Corrigan’s supposed limitation on free speech –– which it is not –– instead of on the prospect that incorporation of hateful symbols into a permanent university display will alienate an entire segment of the university population?

Why, when the editor of The Golden Gate [X]press asks for consistency in addressing issues on campus, is so little credit accorded to President Corrigan for consistently asserting his leadership to model an inclusive and civil environment in an extraordinarily diverse university?

We are confident that our appreciation of President Corrigan’s leadership is echoed by a large number of students on campus who have thrived in an atmosphere of inclusiveness and civility, and who do not seek a return to tension-filled, divisive days.