BY JOHN K. WILSON
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has issued a new report today, “Campus Free Speech, Academic Freedom, and the Problem of the BDS Movement.” It opens with a preposterous claim: “One of the greatest threats to academic freedom in the United States today is the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.”
ACTA offers some specific examples where BDS supporters endanger academic freedom, while ignoring the attacks on the freedom of BDS advocates. And ACTA mentions legislation aimed at targeting the free speech of BDS supporters only to support such repression.
ACTA also attacks academic associations that express support for BDS: “Such resolutions raise disquieting questions about the role and purpose of these academic associations, as well as the appropriateness of such bodies taking political positions when they enjoy tax-exempt status as academic associations.” Of course, numerous tax-exempt organizations take political positions about BDS, including most notably the tax-exempt group called ACTA which is vociferously opposed to BDS.
ACTA reports, “A college campus is a place for education, not indoctrination, and it is appropriate for college leadership to insist on responsible academic procedures and the intellectual openness and objectivity expected of members of the academy.” No, it is not appropriate for college trustees to insist on “objectivity” from professors, whatever they think that means.
According to ACTA, “Disorderly conduct (such as interrupting a lecture or blocking access to a sidewalk or roadway or using a bullhorn in proximity to a scheduled presentation) is not protected by the First Amendment, and when it targets Jewish events, it arguably does violate the Civil Rights Act. An institution that winks at such behavior not only compromises its values as a place open to the free exchange of ideas, but may well be in violation of the law.”
This is a breathtaking repression of free speech. It is astonishing that anyone would claim that any interruption of a lecture by heckling or booing a speaker, no matter how brief, is a criminal act. (If interrupting a lecture is indeed disorderly conduct, then anyone who applauds something a speaker says during a speech should also be arrested.) But ACTA goes even further in misrepresenting what the law is. ACTA actually claims that any interruption of a speaker, if it is a “Jewish” event (whatever that means), is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Then ACTA warns, “Failure by federally-funded colleges and universities to correct a hostile environment created by BDS activists indeed exposes the institution to legal liability.”
So, according to ACTA, a university can be sued for violating civil rights unless it severely punishes any BDS activist who boos or heckles a speaker at a “Jewish” event. ACTA is spreading misinformation for the purpose of persuading universities to punish BDS activists. As a result, ACTA advises universities that they must “establish severe sanctions for heckling invited speakers.”
ACTA uses its distortions of the law to argue for disturbing action against pro-BDS student organizations: “Groups with a history of disruptive behavior and that are connected with activities in violation of federal law, however, make it imperative, at the very least, for universities to apply heightened levels of oversight and monitoring of the activities of such organizations.” The term for “heightened levels of oversight and monitoring” is spying and repression. Donald Trump might call it “extreme vetting.” It is extremely disturbing to call for double standards to target certain groups ACTA dislikes. In general, the kind of action ACTA calls for is not a defense, but an attack, on academic freedom.
It’s really odd to me that the argument about censoring critiques of the Israeli military state under the alibi of censoring “anti-Semitism” has had so little effect. This cogent article by Judith Butler is now 14 years old.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n16/judith-butler/no-its-not-anti-semitic
What do you think are some of the causes of this unending institutional support for censorship of anyone criticizing war crimes by the Israeli state? And what can be done? Time to call in the ACLU?
There is no one supporting censorship of criticism of “war crimes” by the Israeli state. That’s not what’s happening on campuses and that’s not what the debate is about. Reports are published all the time that critique various activities of the Israeli state and there are no calls for censorship of these reports.
What the calls are concerned about is the formation of anti-Jewish hate groups being organized by faculty, and academic curriculum supporting these hate groups designed expose students to classic Antisemetic memes. Gangs of students and faculty attack speakers with violent overtones (and sometimes overt violence) in an attempt to effectively prohibit any Jewish gathering. That’s not a critique of Israeli war crimes that’s a full frontal assault on Jewish existence in the mainstream Western academic system.
This is what is being discussed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkiGUBAM7g
The question is whether that doesn’t look one step removed from a lynch mob and shouldn’t be treated as such. Let’s not pretend that sort of unambiguous hatred is merely a critique of Israeli policy.
Just to add to my comment. There are groups like “If not now” that have the same politics that BDS claims to have and also conduct demonstrations. Yet they don’t get accused of regularly engaging in hate crimes, being threatening, suppressing free speech…. The reason being they don’t regularly engage in hate crimes, threaten people or suppress other groups. They hold large demonstrations but when they do they go out of their way to make sure the demonstration is non threatening. They never move to block people’s passage. They never scream at someone close by. They always pick non-threatening themes. They prohibit any signs other than their own (i.e. message discipline). All demonstrators are strongly encouraged to take their training in how to demonstrate peacefully prior to events….
Contrast this demonstration with the one above: https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FIfNotNowOrg%2Fvideos%2F1024311994322435%2F
Same message as the one BDS pretends to preach but notice the difference the tone. The reason BDS gets treated like a hate group is because they are one. Not because they critique Israel.
@John
This is a breathtaking repression of free speech. It is astonishing that anyone would claim that any interruption of a lecture by heckling or booing a speaker, no matter how brief, is a criminal act. (If interrupting a lecture is indeed disorderly conduct, then anyone who applauds something a speaker says during a speech should also be arrested.)
I think your logic falls down here. There is a huge difference between participating in an event in a way consistent with the organizer’s intentions and participating in a way inconsistent with the organizer’s intentions. Expected behavior is a social norm and organizers have a right (and arguably an obligation) to control how a participants are allowed to interact. For example in a participatory art event organized at a museum participants may be encouraged to paint on top of a started painting. In the main hall that sort of behavior would lead to serious criminal prosecution. In a classical music concert participants are expected to remain deathly silent and non reactive, in a rock concert such behavior is considered rude and often attacking at the very least. In a public fireworks display people are encouraged to come lay a blanket on the ground and eat their own food, at a restaurant that behavior will get you arrested.
Obviously political speech has much stronger protections in law than commercial speech. But those protections cut both ways. The state permits more dialogue against political ideas and at the same time has a stronger burden to make sure that political ideas can be heard. Applauding is participating in the event not disrupting the event (mass clapping for an hour to drown out a speaker is not applauding). Heckling and disrupting is acting contrary to the intend interaction model at an event.
The law in many areas has to determine the intent of an actor. Many of the same physical acts that might be involuntary manslaughter would be murder with intent. Many of the same physical acts that would be merely breach of contract become felony fraud with intent. It has been part of western law for millenia that mens rea, intent gets evaluated in determining criminal conduct.
There is nothing wrong that I can see with Universities prohibiting impolite engagement in their events. For example a University hosting a classical music concert can very much silence while a University hosting a rock concert can very much expect dancing, singing along, applauding… same as a commercial venue. Universities can require engagement in a positive constructive manner in a way consistent with the performers / speakers intentions or non engagement not allowing negative engagement. I don’t see how that interferes with learning at all. People who want to express disagreement can find forums to express disagreement where such engagement would be positive constructive engagement: forming their own events, editorials in the student newspaper…
No, what you’re describing is viewpoint discrimination. You’re saying that it’s okay to applaud a speaker but not to boo or heckle them for an equal period of time because that’s impolite. And that’s exactly what I say is wrong. Expected behavior cannot be the same as prohibited behavior. You are correct to say that context matters. Noise at a rock concert or a speech might be different from noise at a play, a classical music concert, or a funeral. But what’s key is that you cannot regulate the noise based on viewpoint or motive. Instead, the only issue can be whether noise substantially affects the integral qualities of the event (for example, by shouting down a speaker or making it impossible to hear the entirety of a musical piece) and is not merely annoying.
@John
OK we got to the heart of the disagreement. I don’t agree with your definition of viewpoint discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination to my mind is the government unequally applying law to prohibit viewpoints from being expressed. It doesn’t prohibit the government for equally applying law in specific situations to allow a particular viewpoint from being expressed in a particular place and time. So for example if a University banned disruption by BDSers at Israeli / Jewish events and equally banned disruption by Zionists at BDS events that’s not viewpoint discrimination.
The two classic examples are obscenity and religious gathering. The government does have right to prohibit religious gatherings in certain places and certain times. It does not have the right to allow some religious gathering while not allowing others. Many states and municipalities have laws against disrupting religious gatherings. What constitutes disruption is context dependent, that is depends on the group hosting the event not the disrupter’s opinion. For example in Orthodox Judaism, getting up during prayer walking around and even engaging in casual conversation is considered acceptable. They want shul to feel like a second home. In just about every other religious gathering that behavior is unacceptable disruption. In Pentecostal churches screaming about gibberish language (speaking in tongues) to express enthusiasm is acceptable, in just about any other religious gathering that behavior is unacceptable disruption.
The government is most certainly allowed to look at intent. There are strong rules against slamming my fists into a person’s chest. If someone believes another needs CPR those activities become legal. If the intent is to disrupt or hinder functioning they have right to prohibit. If the intent is to participate they have every right to encourage the behavior.
Obscenity law is even a better case in point. The government has extensive rights to regulate how obscene materials are discussed and heavily regulate open expression. They don’t have the right to prohibit. And moreover in places that meet regulations expressions of obscene viewpoints have wide latitude but it is limited to those places. There are few places outside a strip club where grabbing a women’s breast is perfectly acceptable behavior as long as you are also placing dollars in her brassiere. It would be viewpoint discrimination to ban this everywhere. It is not viewpoint discrimination to limit that activity to a small number of places.