Three presidents of distinguished universities (Harvard, M.I.T, and the University of Pennsylvania) failed to provide convincing, acceptable answer to congressional questions concerning the growth of antisemitic rhetoric on their campuses. Their main problem stemmed from failure to speak as representatives of educational institutions where the primary goals include teaching and learning, often through civil discussion of contentious issues.
Teaching and learning are inhibited when any member of the campus community feels threatened or demeaned, except when the perception of threat or denigration stems primarily from emotional reactions to intellectual disagreement.
Here's an example from my own experience. I was teaching a class on moral issues in New Zealand in 2010. I encouraged class participation, which the students seemed to enjoy. One student, a very bright young man named Dan, preceded his first comment by suggesting that those who spoke before him were idiots.
I quickly interjected, “Do you mean to say, ‘I beg to differ’?” The class laughed, which didn’t seem to affect Dan at all. He continued to preface his remarks with disparaging references to the views of others. Within a couple of weeks, the whole class recited in unison what I continued to interject: “You mean to say, ‘I beg to differ’?” In this way, the potentially inhibiting denigration of other speakers was neutralized while Dan’s otherwise very competent participation continued.
The considerations of threat and denigration make it easy to see that demeaning a whole group of people in the campus community or, more seriously, advocating their death is entirely inappropriate on a university campus, regardless of any interpretation of the First Amendment. The University presidents who referenced context as a matter for consideration should have answered that the primary context in these cases is the university. It’s inappropriate to call for the death of any member of the campus community. That’s a no-brainer.
This doesn’t exclude making members of the campus community feel uncomfortable when their discomfort stems from intellectual disagreement. A religious student who believes that God controls the universe may feel uncomfortable in a class on quantum mechanics that insists on the random nature of some subatomic events which could affect macrocosmic outcomes, such as the course of evolution. (Radiation can alter germ cells.)
In other words, it's entirely inappropriate at a university to prohibit “micro-aggressions” and require “trigger warnings” to protect people from the emotional distress that may accompany learning. What’s appropriate is giving those people the chance (without threat or denigration) to present their own views along with the evidence and reasoning that they find convincing. If they don’t have evidence tied together by logical inference, they should reconsider their views.
It's distressing that universities in recent years have failed to live up to this conception of their mission. Conservative pundit Ann Coulter had her invitation to speak at UC Berkeley in 2017 cancelled as a result of threatened violence. Dorian Abbott, a geophysicist, had his 2021 lecture at M.I.T. cancelled because he objects to affirmative action. In 2023, a conservative sitting judge, Stuart Kyle Duncan, was prevented from speaking at Stanford by hecklers who took issue with his views about transgender rights.
Closer to issues related to Israel, consider the boycott, disinvest, and sanction (BDS) movement designed to pressure Israel through peaceful economic means to embrace a two-state solution rather than continue its occupation of the West Bank. In Arkansas and elsewhere supporters of BDS cannot legally receive state money for their work. As a result, a Jerusalem-based journalist, Nathan Thrall, was legally debarred from speaking at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville because he refused to sign a pledge that he would not boycott Israel. (For more, see my post “Real Zionists Support BDS” (June 1, 2021, at peterswenz.com).
In general, we shouldn’t equate Zionism with Judaism, as many Jews reject Zionism. Many other Jews favor the existence of Israel, but prefer a greater separation of synagogue and state. Still others accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, but reject the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and quarantine of Gaza. Such views among Jews indicate that anti- or qualified-Zionism cannot be equated with antisemitic calls for genocide, and should be allowed on campus.
Explicit antisemitism, such as “Jews will not replace us” and displays of Nazi symbols should be banned. But some chants may have a history unknown to young chanters. Many who chant “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” don’t know that this was originally a call to kill all Israeli Jews, nor do they know which river or sea is at issue. They think that freeing Palestine involves no more than a two-state solution. Their chanting creates an educable moment. Universities should organize structured dialog to facilitate communication and education, which are inhibited by the suppression of their speech. At a university, the First Amendment shouldn’t dominate.
Comments