According to Wikipedia:

- Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) collapsed and died on Inauguration Day.

- Former Assistant Attorney General John Seigenthaler masterminded the assassinations of both John and Bobby Kennedy.

- Sarah Palin is “a politician of eye-popping integrity.”

One usually doesn’t need a reminder that Wikipedia, as great as it is, contains false, biased and misleading information. That is why many students were shocked when Prof. Nic van de Walle read information directly from a Wikipedia article on the Arab-Israeli conflict when moderating last Wednesday’s “Gaza in Crisis” panel because he lacked fundamental knowledge of the situation.

Sadly, Prof. van de Walle is the Associate Dean of International Studies. Shouldn’t he know some basic information about Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip? Would he even let a student cite Wikipedia in an essay?

This newspaper previously reported that members of the Gaza panel presented ignorant, radical and one-sided opinions that slammed Israel and its government. In addition, at the panel Prof. Richard Miller minimized the Holocaust by saying “I think actually [the Palestinians] have more history to live with, in terms of deportation, oppression, expulsion and ethnic cleansing than the Jews of Israel have.” Dr. Mossaad Abdel-Ghany assessed that “England said to the Jew, we’ll give you Palestine to use it as the homeland.”

These ludicrous examples cause one to question why organizations such as the College Democrats, College Republicans, the Department of Government and the Office of the Vice President of Communications would even consider co-sponsoring such an event.

The College Republicans and College Democrats represent two national mainstream political parties on this campus. Both of those parties’ platforms explicitly support the State of Israel and its right to defend itself. The Democratic platform calls for the U.S. to “isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism [and] recognizes Israel’s right to exist.” The Republican platform even calls for the U.S. embassy to move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a politically contentious issue during peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

College Republicans President Ray Mensah ’11 seemed duped by the organizer of the panel. Program organizer Wasif Syed grad told him that the event would be a good opportunity for the Cornell Community to engage in constructive dialogue over the Gaza crisis. But Mensah was surprised that the panelists “seemed to support one point of view over another.” In addition to co-sponsoring the event, the Republicans donated $80 to help fund it.

The reaction from the College Democrats was even more muted. President Michael Mouton ’10 said that Syed also approached him about a co-sponsorship and Mouton said, “given his assurance and after consulting with my executive board, we decided to co-sponsor the panel with the hope that it would lead to a constructive discourse on campus.”

While Mouton and Mensah may have been hoodwinked or just confused about the organizer’s intentions, they had the obligation to look into the event further before lending their name (and in the Republicans’ case) money to the event. Why not further examine the speakers’ backgrounds or the mission statements of other co-sponsors?

Sponsorship implies that an organization takes responsibility for the content and purpose of an event. Despite their explanations, the reality is that two mainstream political groups endorsed a panel that expressed pro-Palestinian radical views at best and anti-Semitic views at worst. And unsurprisingly, the panelists and the organizers ignored any pretension of fostering dialogue.

Throughout the Gaza controversies on campus, the administration has clumsily attempted to bolster student dialogue, constantly overstepping its bounds. Again, they made the same mistakes regarding the Gaza panel. Vice President of University Communication Tommy Bruce’s office nor the government department had any role in sponsoring such an event unless they were also planning on funding a panel discussion entitled: “Greater Israel: The Case for More Settlements” or “Reducing America’s Humanitarian Assistance to Palestinian Refugees: A Discussion.”

Last week, President Skorton claimed that the University would take a neutral stance pertaining to political issues debated on campus. His subordinates, however, have continually undermined his call for neutrality, whether it was Bruce’s decision to sponsor this “panel” or Dean of Students Kent Hubbell’s ’67 choice to co-sponsor the black flag exhibit that contained false and misleading information.

One must question the University’s policy regarding funding for political events; just because administrators have given money to them in the past doesn’t mean they should continue to do so in the future. The Gaza debate has proven that it is nearly impossible for the University to simultaneously provide funding and remain neutral on the issues. And in light of the University’s fiscal crisis, it would probably be wise to spend more money on hiring faculty or plowing the sidewalks on the Arts Quad.

Any contentious debate can challenge people’s convictions and hurt their feelings, especially when religion and culture are involved. This has certainly proven to be the case during our campus’ foray into the Gaza conflict. But that doesn’t absolve the aforementioned groups from being accountable for exercising extremely poor judgment over the past two weeks.

Every student and student group has the right to publicly speak their mind on any subject no matter how controversial it is. Nevertheless, organizations that are supposedly neutral or pro-Israel should have never played a role in fostering a hostile climate for the vast multitude of pro-Israel students on campus. Their leaders had better get to work, because they have many tough questions to answer.