BY JOHN K. WILSON
Steven Thrasher, a student graduation speaker who received his Ph.D. from New York University last week, sparked enormous controversy with his speech.
Thrasher expressed support for “the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against the Apartheid State Government in Israel” and declared, “We must stand together to vanquish racism and Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and injustice and attacks on women and attacks on abortion rights in Tel Aviv, in Shanghai, in Abu Dhabi, in New York City, Atlanta, Washington.”
It is possible to be anti-Semitic while explicitly denouncing anti-Semitism, but it’s hard to see anything like that in Thrasher’s speech, unless you accept the nonsense that anyone who supports BDS is inherently anti-Semitic.
Then blogger Aussie Dave examined Thrasher’s tweets, and claimed that Thrasher is anti-Semitic because in one tweet, “he compares Israel to the Nazis, which falls under the IHRA working definition of antisemitism “ No, comparisons to Nazi do not mean someone is automatically anti-Semitic, even though I find Nazi analogies generally annoying and stupid.
NYU President Andrew Hamilton declared about Thrasher, “I found it quite objectionable that the student speaker chose to make use of the Graduate School of Arts and Science doctoral graduation to express his personal viewpoints on BDS and related matters, language he excluded from the version of the speech he had submitted before the ceremony. We are sorry that the audience had to experience these inappropriate remarks. A graduation should be a shared, inclusive event; the speaker’s words – one-sided and tendentious – indefensibly made some in the audience feel unwelcome and excluded.”
In this statement, Hamilton confessed to some appalling violations of the principles of academic freedom and free speech on campus.
First, he admits that NYU compels prior review of speeches on campus. Prior review is deplorable when imposed at a grade school. To have it happening at one of the world’s leading universities is scandalous.
Second, Hamilton confesses that if Thrasher had submitted his speech, he would not have been allowed to give it.
Third, Hamilton claims that one-sided, political comments are indefensible because they might make “some in the audience feel unwelcome and excluded.” This is an extraordinarily dangerous standard for a university to declare. I assume that Hamilton believes many aspects of NYU’s education should be “inclusive,” not just commencement ceremonies. If this standard of feeling unwelcome due to political speech is applied to the classroom, campus speakers, or any aspect of campus life, it would impose severe censorship on campus.
Since this condemnation of Thrasher came three days after the speech (which Hamilton applauded at the time), it appears that part of the backlash against Thrasher was sparked by the controversial tweets that were uncovered.
Hamilton declared, “We were shocked when we were made aware of these undoubtedly vile and anti-Semitic tweets. Steven Thrasher should never have been a speaker for the doctoral convocation.”
Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Dean Phillip Harper (who was also on Thrasher’s dissertation committee) called Thrasher’s tweets “breathtakingly wrongheaded. Had we known of these posts earlier, Steven Thrasher would not have been a speaker at our Convocation ceremony.”
This is a shocking betrayal of academic freedom. To declare that someone’s tweets would ban them from being a speaker at Convocation ceremony is a direct violation of the basic principles of a university. I don’t see anything anti-Semitic in those tweets. When harsh criticism of Israel is defined as anti-Semitism, it silences critiques. When the president of a university announces that such criticism is grounds for being banned as a speaker at a ceremony on campus, it sends a clear message of repression.
Fortunately for Thrasher (who might otherwise have faced an academic blacklist of the kind Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein have encountered), he was already hired to teach at Northwestern University, where he begins this week.
However, even that job was put under threat by Thrasher’s views. In a highly unusual move, Northwestern’s President Morton Shapiro and Provost Jonathan Holloway issued a statement denouncing Thrasher’s views but declaring that his job was secure because of academic freedom.
Northwestern’s response to the controversy was disappointing. There was no reason to condemn Thrasher’s personal views expressed on another campus, unless the president and provost plan to publicly denounce every Northwestern professor who expresses an opinion off-campus that they personally disagree with. Their assertion that political views have no place at a commencement sends a chilling message that no one speaking at a Northwestern commencement (or other official ceremonies) will be allowed to express controversial ideas. Indeed, one suspects that Northwestern will be very careful to avoid any commencement speakers with strongly held views based on this public statement.
When administrators publicly declare that a commencement ceremony (perhaps the most important event on campus symbolizing what a university represents) is off limits to controversial speech, it sends to a chilling effect across the entire campus. If commencement speakers with controversial ideas are to be no-platformed at these events, what’s to stop the administration from applying the same standards to allowing speakers on campus, or hiring faculty, or admitting students? If the principle of inclusion demands censorship at a commencement, why doesn’t the principle also apply to every other decision made on campus?
Ironically, Thrasher’s job might have been saved by Satoshi Kanazawa. If the leftists who demanded that Kanazawa be banned from Northwestern for his offensive views had succeeded, it would have increased the pressure on the administration to also get rid of Thrasher for offending people. Instead, the administration’s defense of academic freedom in the Kanazawa case made it almost impossible for them to do anything to Thrasher.
As misguided as Northwestern’s attack on one of its own professors was, it still defended academic freedom while NYU failed to do so.
NYU must end its requirement for prior review of any speech on campus. NYU must declare that extramural utterances are not used (and will not be used) to ban speakers at commencements or anywhere else. And NYU should assert that commencement ceremonies represent the core values of a university—including the willingness to hear opposing viewpoints.
Dean Harper and President Hamilton owe an apology to Thrasher for viciously and publicly attacking him in order to appease NYU’s critics. They owe an apology for everyone who attended the ceremony for infantilizing them by claiming that mentally incapable of listening to an idea they disagree with. And they owe an apology to the entire NYU community for endangering academic freedom by imposing prior review of speeches and asserting that people with controversial ideas should be banned from speaking at NYU.
This is an excellent post, as it comprehensively captures the core thematic challenges facing free speech latitudes on American (or UK) campuses. I would add one causal factor however, which I don’t think is addressed here, and in my experience, is central to understanding why such contentions and sensitivities exist in the first place. Even if one accepts the presence of certain ethno-religious solidarity (which partly explains the Northwestern president’s remarks), the overwhelming element that drives such intense sensitivity and caution concerning speech acts addressing Israel, is because of fear; fear generated by highly organized, special-interest lobbying by several key groups including AIPAC. Some of the lobbying extends beyond traditional means to include outright extortion, effective blackmail, personal threats and especially, the threat of professional career disruption. David Horowitz and ‘Canary Mission’ is an example. It is the “guerilla marketing” of radicalized Israel political activism, that makes up the larger context within which we observe these intense reactions to criticism. Moreover, it is extended into codified legislation in several states, such as Illinois, that expressly dampens, through threat of sanction, any organized attempt to engage in activities deemed withing the BDS thematic boundaries, and, as well, specific legislation that seeks to target and sanction thought and speech directed at a nearly unbounded definitional latitude of what can be interpreted as prejudice. The “Anti Semitism Awareness Act” introduced into Congress is an example: https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20170103/discuss/170109966/. Perhaps the great irony is that criticism of Israel over settlement expansion, which criticism is centered in many ways on college campuses, is a pure human rights problem that transcends identitarianism; yet is instead make into one, strictly for such special interests, including economic (for example, the University of Chicago’s Trustee Chairman is one of the single largest investors in Israel technology and weapons corporations, disclosed in his public foundation filings, and that is central to that higher educational institution’s conflicts of interest in programmatic promotion of Israel, including its specific efforts in anti-BDS legislation and policy, and most centrally, the promotion of the Global War on Terror program, now in its 18th year). Thank you and regards.
AIPAC has nothing to do with “lobbying” university officials. I realize Israel-haters like to bash AIPAC, but be accurate in your bashing
University of Chicago Political Science professor John Mearsheimer’s and Harvard University International Affairs professor Stephen Walt’s “The Israel Lobby”(2007), among others, outlines such lobbying which is managed through several channels including intermediation. The IDF is also facilitated directly on several campuses, including their invitation to teach college courses. See in this regard: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/1/10/opposing-israeli-defense-forces-classrooms/. There is otherwise no ‘hatred’ or ‘bashing” but rather statement of fact. Thank you and Regards.
Isn’t one of the main tenets of BDS to obstruct the free academic exchange of ideas and boycott Israeli universities?
If you are going to defend the right to endorse a movement that is against everything academic institutions represent, I think that should be part of the discussion. It is a bit hypocritical that no one brings up the BDS assault on academic freedom.
And no one is going to apologize to Thrasher. No matter where you stand on these issues, he came off as a simmering pot of narcissism who finally got his choir solo. You could tell he practiced in front of the mirror – a lot.
As for the breadth of “academic freedom” at a graduation ceremony, I’m guessing that if a speaker called for full annexation of the West Bank and the end of the prospect of Palestinian statehood (which is what BDS calls for – the destuction of Israel), then I guess your premise would protect them as well.
I have never seen the destruction of Israel listed as one of the demands for BDS. But you are correct; academic freedom does protect someone who calls for annexation of the West Bank and the end of Palestinian statehood. That’s exactly what Jason Hill of DePaul argues for, and why I defended his academic freedom. Unlike Thrasher, who has many demand his firing and was denounced by two universities including one who openly announced that his views would have been banned, DePaul’s administration refused to punish Hill (and critics did not ask for that) or even criticize him.
You have not commented on BDS’s aim to obstruct academic freedom by boycotting Israeli universities. If you believe in academic freedom, why would you support anyone who made a very public endorsemement of an academic boycott?
Thrasher also made that assinine speech to support his departments resolution to end an NYU program in Tel Aviv – again – suppressing free exchange of ideas in academia.
Do you support this? Do you support cutting off academics because of their nation of birth? Where they reside?
Did you even know the BDS mission aims to cut off Israeli academics?
Its founder, Omar Barghouti, loves to use the word, “apartheid” – meanwhile he’s living in Acre and studied at Tel Aviv University. Kind of hypocritcal, don’t you think? There was a petition to have him expelled, but an Israeli university refused – to protect academic freedom.
He also talks of a one state “solution” (same as Tlaib and many others) that allows Palestinians right of return and “inalienable rights” while Israeli Jews could stay with their “acquired rights.” That is the unequivocal destruction of Israel. He can euphemize it by calling for a secular democratic state – and he knows thats impossible for both Palestinians and Israelis. But if says apartheid and ethnic cleansing enough (and there is neither – 1.8 million Arab Israeli citizens) the naive masses will follow.
I oppose academic boycotts (as does the AAUP). But I strongly support the academic freedom of people even if I think they embrace some idea that opposes academic freedom. And I don’t see any obligation to denounce the views of every person whose academic freedom is threatened. But the BDS approach to academic freedom is complicated. Sometimes, a boycott in response to violations of academic freedom can, in the long run, help promote academic freedom. It is reasonable for a university to refuse to partner with a foreign country (or withdrawal a partnership) that threatens academic freedom. However, generally I think that engagement is more effective at bringing social change than a boycott, and without the hazards to academic freedom involved in an academic boycott.
Very nicely stated, John. May I weigh in with one perhaps helpful distinction. Writer Rose asks a fair question, however in addition to your thoughtful clarification I would add that any political or ideological criticism from BDS that may be directed at or include by implication, the university complex ipso facto, is addressing educational institutions; not “academia” per se, and certainly not the rights of various freedoms of its members. It is a criticism of such universities, if any, as corporations or bureaucracies tied, as in the US, to State policy. Universities are part of any nations economy. Moreover, as Israel is more unified than, or at least equal to our MIC, perhaps even theocratic in some regards, (not unusual in the Middle East generally), its higher education institutions naturally are drawn into larger state policy debate. That has nothing to do with suppressing free speech or academic freedoms of any individuals, who are free to act outside (or within) the walls of the institutions they occupy. Btw, at the University of Chicago, students are protesting the presence of IDF officers teaching Middle East policy in the College. https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/1/10/opposing-israeli-defense-forces-classrooms/. Is such protest as well, discriminatory or suppressive of any rights? I don’t think so. Thank you and Regards.
The NYU AAUP today published a well-written, and well-reasoned position Statement, concerning this issue. They appear to disagree with your argument, as it may be understood. They moreover call for an official apology. That one will not likely be forthcoming, I may concur.
https://academeblog.org/2019/05/30/nyu-aaup-statement-on-steven-thrasher-case/
You really don’t seem to understand the BDS stance on academic freedom, and assert Morton Shapiro’s comments regarding Thrasher were because of Jewish loyalties. So I don’t know what’s worse – but I can guess.
Oddly I can’t reply direct to either of your posts. The issue with your allegations is that your reasoning is presumptive, and not based on facts or examples, when in fact Israeli universities have both Jewish and Arab students, and employ affirmative action for Arab students. If anything, there has been a sharp uptick in Arabs enrolled in universities as part of an government initiative in attracting Palestinians and Bedouins to higher education (I believe this is what BDS refers to as apartheid).
Neither of your arguments reflect the reality in Israeli academic institutions – institutitions that permitted the likes of Omar Barghouti to enroll as a student. MInd you, the majority of these decision-makers were at one point IDF soldiers. So Mr. Andersson’s extraordinarily uninformed and myopic points regarding IDF soldiers as well as the president of Northwestern – that somehow the judgment of Jews is impaired by “theocratic” beliefs and loyalties – is one of the oldest tropes going.
My guess is that neither of you know very much about Israeli society, demographics, or laws surrounding their academic institutions. The complexities on the ground there are not black and white. By boycotting institutions where both Israelis and Arabs share classrooms (which is where peace and mutual empathy is most likely to occur), I’m not sure I see how “a boycott in response to violations of academic freedom can, in the long run, help promote academic freedom” applies. If anything, it’s divisive.
Propaganda is not academia. The likes of Barghouti, Tlaib and Sarsour hope you don’t figure that out.
“blogger Aussie Dave examined Thrasher’s tweets, and claimed that Thrasher is anti-Semitic because in one tweet, ‘he compares Israel to the Nazis, which falls under the IHRA working definition of antisemitism ‘ No, comparisons to Nazi do not mean someone is automatically anti-Semitic,”
i wish you’d pause over this some more. the IHRA is the *only* international definition of anti-semitism. It is roundly attacked by people whose motives I don’t find entirely above board. further, those who attack it rarely if ever can point to an alternative definition. you just dismiss it out of hand. Imagine if the NAACP had a definition of antiblack racism and you just said “it’s wrong.” that would appear dismissive of deep and important historical concerns. I don’t personally agree with everything in the IHRA definition, but it deserves to be treated with more respect than simply dismissing it by asserting that it is incorrect.
there is real reason to worry about Nazi/Israel analogies, and most of the scholarship I know on anti-semitism also does not dismiss them. so what is your basis, besides gut instinct, to dismiss them?
I think the IHRA definition is pretty good, except for the Nazi analogy and double standard for Israel parts. I can reject parts of the definition without dismissing it out of hand.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/full-text-ihra-s-working-definition-anti-semitism
Nazi analogies and double standards can be wrong without necessarily being anti-Semitic.
And if the NAACP defined antiblack racism to include comparing any black-run countries to apartheid South Africa, I would say about that definition, “it’s wrong.”