BY JOHN K. WILSON
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst is hosting an interesting event on May 4 called “Not Backing Down: Israel, Free Speech, and the Battle for Palestinian Human Rights.” The event will feature Roger Waters, Linda Sarsour, Patrisse Cullors, Marc Lamont Hill, Dave Zirin, and Vijay Prashad, and is being organized by UMass professor Sut Jhally and sponsored by the Media Education Foundation that he runs. Although no money is coming from the university, the event is being co-sponsored by numerous organizations and three campus programs, including the Department of Communications that Jhally chairs.
The Massachusetts Republican Party and the Massachusetts Jewish Republican Committee called for the event to be banned on campus. Massachusetts Republican Jewish Committee Vice Chairman Marty Lamb.declared, “Such hatred should not have a home at UMass Amherst.” According to their statement, this event should be illegal: “By hosting this event, the University of Massachusetts state-financed network of schools, its President Marty Meehan, and UMass Amherst Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy are also in violation of the federal government’s guidelines regarding anti-Semitism…”
The Massachusetts Republicans were not the only ones demanding repression of free speech by UMass. A group of 80 pro-Israel organizations wrote a letter to the UMass administration demanding action. They denounce this event by calling virtually all of the speakers antisemitic and claiming that the event’s “apparent goal is to incite animosity towards supporters of Israel, including Jewish and pro-Israel students on your campus.” Actually, the event’s apparent goal is to call for the defense of free speech against those who want to silence criticism of Israel on campus, which is the clear goal of this letter. According to the letter:
“departmental sponsorship constitutes an unacceptable violation of the university’s academic mission, will encourage acts of politically motivated aggression and violence on your campus, and is a fundamental breach of the public trust.”
It makes no sense to claim that having an event on campus will not cause violence, but that sponsorship by a department will. Do violent antisemites decide their targets based on department sponsorships? It is equally wrong to claim that sponsorship by a department violates the university’s academic mission or is a breach of the public trust. To the contrary, a university’s academic mission requires it to allow (and encourage) departments to sponsor controversial events.
The letter claims that because it is not demanding a ban on the event, it is not censorship. But the demands issued are a clear form of repression:
“We call on you to rescind all university sponsorship of this event and to assure us that in the future, UMass faculty will not be permitted to use the university’s name or resources to promote their personal political agendas at the expense of academic integrity and the safety and well-being of UMass students.”
A ban on university sponsorship of controversial events (which would apply to any departments and student organizations as well, since they are part of the university) puts substantial restrictions on free speech. Most faculty and students do not have access to independent groups to fund and organize events, so a ban on university sponsorship is effectively a ban on most controversial campus events, leaving only well-financed outside organizations to determine what controversial ideas are allowed for campus events.
The letter’s demands go even further than a ban on department sponsorships. It includes a ban on UMass faculty using the “the university’s name or resources” for “personal political agendas.” That’s dangerous because free speech includes personal political agendas. Indeed, arguing for free speech (as this event does) is also a personal political agenda.
According to the letter, a campus discussion about free speech is not really educational: “As described in the press release, this is not an educational event but a political rally. Rather than aiming to promote an understanding of a highly contentious and polarizing issue by including speakers with a variety of perspectives, this event includes speakers with only one extremely partisan perspective and clearly aims to promote a political cause and encourage political action.”
The signers of this letter don’t seem to understand what a political rally is, or the fact that free speech protects political opinions. I have no doubt that most if not all of the 80 groups that signed this letter have participated in educational events that promote a particular perspective. Do their events about antisemitism always include invitations to speakers they believe are antisemitic? Do they never encourage political action such as opposing antisemitism?
I’m a big believer in debates between speakers with different perspectives, but it is extremely dangerous to impose that as the sole standard for educational events. It is perfectly normal and acceptable to have “one-sided” events on college campuses.
The letter even declares that event organizer Sut Jhally is “in violation of the UMass Amherst Principles of Employee Conduct, which state that ‘University employees are entrusted with public resources and are expected to understand their responsibilities with respect to conflicts of interest…and to conduct themselves in ways that foster… tolerance for the view of others.’”
It is absurd to think that sponsoring an event is a conflict of interest, or that taking a stand on something violates “tolerance for the view of others.” The letter seems to urge that Jhally should be punished for daring to organize a controversial event, since it ends by asking the university this:
“Provide us with assurances, highlighting relevant university policies and procedures, that UMass faculty will not be permitted to use their academic position or the university’s name or resources to promote a personal, political agenda that compromises the university’s academic mission and imperils the safety and well-being of UMass students.”
Since the “tolerance” policy is the primary one mentioned in the letter, it appears to be the grounds they hope will be used to ban “political” speech by professors—a ban that could apply not merely to campus events, but to what they say in the classroom and even their own political opinions. This is a serious threat to academic freedom, when even a discussion about free speech is deemed too “political” to be sponsored on a college campus, and demands are made to threaten professors with punishment for expressing political views.
Thank you for your continued clear thinking concerning campus speech and assembly freedoms. I do wonder what sources of agitation are causal to the kind of university institutional reactions you describe? Are universities under assault by very specialized interests that effectively blackmail administrations and Trustees? UChicago’s Mersheimer and his book “The Israel Lobby” come to mind, and not just from ethno-religious perspectives that may be lobbied but because fundamentally to attack Israel is to attack US foreign policy: there is an identity that is not always clearly appreciated and with it, the kind of political and effective State pressure you describe. The Lobby is also the reason why anti-BDS legislation has been ratified in several states, and why anti-semitism has been or seeks to be institutionally codified as a tort or crime and as well protected under the various Titles of the CRA. There are other conflicts of interest however and they are of course financial. The University of Chicago’s Trustee Chairman is among the single largest financial contributors to Israel weapons corporations (in the public domain in his foundation tax returns) and with that, a very active propagation of Israel interests on campus including even College courses taught by the IDF (literally: see The Maroon reports and letters by the SJP), and also why SJP interests are either ignored, quietly suppressed or institutionally marginalized. This may represent an effective Constitutional crisis on US campuses, including the active reinterpretation of speech and privacy rights by law schools for example, that are sympathetic to the GWOT program and susceptible to government co-option. The Global War on Terror is causal to the domestic institutional bias you describe; and it is the “Mother” of modern academic cognitive distortion in part from Academy passivity. Vietnam has been a State lesson well learned. Thank you and Regards.
Pingback: Controversial Conferences and Academic Freedom | ACADEME BLOG