The traveling panel pilot project began on October 2 and ended on October 5, 2011. While originally we had intended to go to eight campuses in four days we were only able to go to five campuses in two and a half days. In the end we went to San Diego State and had an audience of 54 students faculty and community people; UC San Diego had an audience of 48 students, community people and a few faculty on Monday, October 3. October 4 we went to CSU Long Beach with an audience of 50 students, faculty and community people and then on to USC with an audience of 15 students and two community people. October 5, we traveled to UC Santa Barbara where the panel met with over 54 students, faculty and community people at Hillel.
The pilot project was affected by the Jewish holidays and the late start of the University of California campuses so publicity and arrangements were done at the last minute. Nevertheless, they were done and we had wonderful audiences. I cannot say enough about the cooperation we received from the Hillel’s at UC SD, San Diego State, CSU Long Beach, USC and UCSB as well as the cooperation and support of Stand With Us and faculty at all of the campuses we appeared at. It really was both amazing and encouraging to see such a willingness to work together.
One of the panelists provided me with her observations of the panels. I think it gives a very comprehensive picture of what happened.
My Observations on the ‘Traveling Panels’
I thought it might be useful to offer some observations on what we have been calling the traveling panels. I just returned from California this morning so the experience is quite fresh. My overall impression is that we made a difference and that we were positively received. We had some impressive numbers of students, faculty, and community leaders at some of the talks. The event at University of Southern California had only about a dozen students [the others from 40 to over 50], but the USC students more than compensated for numbers by the depth of their knowledge. We had to be pulled away from discussions with them because of the late hour. Most of the people who came to hear us were well-informed and raised important issues. Each campus provided a different configuration of sponsors: sometimes, Jewish Studies Programs; other times, Hillel. Generally, sponsorship also came from a variety of student groups associated with Stand With Us or the campus affiliate of AIPAC. [Not knowing much about sports, I was often not entirely certain if the acronyms referred to campus organizations or to teams: Lionpacs versus Trojans, for example.] There were, in fact, students and faculty who wandered in just to learn. We heard no single line from the people who commented or presented challenging questions after our own formal presentations. The careful listener would have discerned–and did–substantial differences in our analyses. The discourse was civil–as Ken put it–we intended to present a model of the academic discussions of such personally felt issues. We all learned from one another and on the very many hours driving from campus to campus had very exciting and stimulating discussions. We all agreed that two members for a panel of this sort is sufficient. Although the schedule was put together quickly, it must have taken a fairly long time to work with and through these several campus groups. For this, Sam deserves a great deal of credit. Moreover, he not only made this event happen, he also insured that it would run smoothly. He drove us to each event and more spectacularly, negotiated the parking rules on each campus. [no two were the same] He made certain we were fed, and he facilitated the presentations. He also opened each presentation with a short history of SPME which stressed the organization’s mission. Hopefully, the benefactors were as pleased as the faculty.
