POSTED BY HANK REICHMAN
The following statement in support of fired Associated Press reporter Emily Wilder (Stanford ’20), signed by over 500 Stanford University students, faculty, staff and alums, was published May 24 in the Stanford Daily. A link to the petition form is here. To see the full list of signatories go here.
As students, alumni, faculty, and staff of Stanford University, we write to express our disappointment, outrage, and concern regarding the recent attacks on Emily Wilder ‘20 and other students by the Stanford College Republicans (SCR), and to demand that the University issue a strong and unequivocal statement on community standards as well as initiate an investigation to determine whether SCR’s actions constitute a violation of the Fundamental Standard.
Beginning on May 17, and following Ms. Wilder’s April 10 announcement on Twitter that she had been hired by the Associated Press (AP) to cover local news in Arizona, SCR took to Twitter and Facebook to publish years-old screenshots of social media posts and Stanford Daily articles that Ms. Wilder published while an undergraduate at Stanford. These posts, which related to Ms. Wilder’s opinions on the Israeli occupation of Palestine, falsely accused her, a Jewish woman who attended an Orthodox Jewish high school for girls, of promoting “blood libel”, of “fomenting” anti-Semitic violence by “leftist-Islamist thugs,” and of “[defending] students who threatened violence against Jews.” In addition to describing Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) as a “terrorist-affiliated” organization, SCR described Ms. Wilder as “unhinged,” as a “Marxist agitator,” and as a “militant anti-Israel agitator.” Finally, the organization retweeted posts that described her as part of a cadre of “hate-filled terrorists” and as indicative of the AP’s “Hamas connection” and levied attacks against Stanford professors who defended her on Twitter. SCR presented this libelous and defamatory campaign against Ms. Wilder as an effort to “expose” the Associated Press and to “[hold] the media accountable” for what SCR deemed its “egregious anti-Israel bias,” thereby taking direct aim at Emily’s new job. As part of this presentation, SCR promoted the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the AP has collaborated with Hamas.
SCR’s social media posts were amplified and re-posted by prominent right-wing politicians and commentators. Before long, The Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist, both conservative publications, had posted articles about Ms. Wilder’s hiring by the AP, and she was besieged by vicious online harassment and bullying. The AP initially expressed support for her, offered to help her manage the harassment and bullying she was experiencing, and assured her that she would not be fired for her past campus activism. On May 19, however, the AP fired Emily for purported violations of the news agency’s social media policy between the time of her hiring and May 19, refused to tell her which posts had been in violation of this policy, and acknowledged that the news agency’s review of her social media accounts was precipitated by SCR’s campaign. Many prominent journalists, politicians, academics, and activists on both sides of the political spectrum have since expressed support for Ms. Wilder, argued that none of her tweets in that three-week period merited dismissal, criticized the double standard to which media organizations are held regarding alleged conflicts of interest on the issue of Israel and Palestine, and noted that Ms. Wilder would not have been contributing in any way to the AP’s coverage of the Israeli occupation of Palestine in her capacity as an Arizona-based news associate. SCR, meanwhile, has celebrated Ms. Wilder’s firing and publicly claimed credit for her dismissal from the AP.
The campaign targeting Emily leaves us, as members of the Stanford community, with the task of reckoning with how SCR’s actions reflect upon our university, our community, and our campus culture. It is transparent that SCR’s campaign was made in bad faith and was rooted in malicious intent: The aim of this campaign was not to engage in debate or to voice disagreement with something Ms. Wilder had written or said, but rather, to defame her and derail her career. These types of actions by SCR, which are designed to intimidate and suppress campus activists with whom SCR disagrees, are fundamentally antithetical to a campus culture grounded in the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech. How are we to feel safe expressing a range of different opinions on controversial and polemical topics if we fear retaliation by our own peers? How are we to trust Stanford as a forum for public debate if our own university implicitly condones the activities of Voluntary Student Organizations (VSOs) that systematically target fellow students’ reputations and livelihoods on the basis of their political opinions? Ultimately, SCR’s actions foster a vicious, violent campus culture that is far from the welcoming, convivial, and collegial atmosphere to which we, the undersigned, aspire.
On this subject, current Stanford student Maxwell Meyer asserts in a recent article in the Stanford Review, “Free exchange of ideas without reprisal? I call BS. SCR’s words in their ‘vision statement’ say one thing, but their actions when they encounter another student with strong disagreements say another,” noting that SCR’s attack on Ms. Wilder crosses a line and has compelled him, a fellow conservative and a supporter of Israel, to speak out against the organization. Thus we see that SCR’s smear campaigns misrepresent the views of conservative students at Stanford, and that the organization’s pattern of behavior also reflects poorly on the state of civil discourse at our university. In the end, SCR functions less as a representative student organization than as a feeder for the right-wing media.
The University’s failure to hold SCR accountable for past actions, furthermore, has created a culture of mistrust in Stanford’s commitment to uphold its own community standards and stated ideals of diversity and inclusion. Many students fundamentally do not trust the Organization Conduct Board (OCB) and other relevant authorities to uphold community values, given the historical impunity of SCR from disciplinary processes. The smear campaign against Ms. Wilder, after all, forms part of a larger and deeply disturbing pattern of behavior by SCR. While this may be one of the most high-profile instances of efforts by SCR to destroy particular students’ reputations and academic as well as professional pursuits, it is not the first. In fact, SCR has launched smear campaigns against individual students several times in the past year alone, exposing these students to vicious and dangerous online harassment and bullying. SCR’s campaigns disproportionately impact women and people of color, thereby exacerbating racial and gender inequities at Stanford. These campaigns have also increased in ferocity and sophistication, particularly in this academic year, and Stanford’s reticence in holding the group accountable has given SCR license to intensify its attacks.
We want to be clear: Though we, the undersigned, may hold differing opinions on a range of issues, including that of Israel and Palestine, we condemn SCR’s tactics and support Ms. Wilder as well as every other Stanford community member who has been victim to attacks by SCR. We oppose a campus culture in which students intentionally undermine each other’s careers, subject each other to violent harassment, and intimidate each other over differences of political opinion. We have been gratified to witness the wave of support for Emily from Stanford students, alumni, and faculty, including many who disagree with her stance on the Israeli occupation of Palestine and who have still spoken up about their respect for her and for her work. We urge the Stanford community to continue showing support for Ms. Wilder and the other community members who have been attacked by SCR in recent months and years. Though unacknowledged by the university at large, the group’s pattern of abuse has not gone unnoticed.
In light of SCR’s actions, we demand that Stanford:
- Immediately issue an unambiguous, strongly worded statement reiterating the community standards to which Stanford students are held and affirming the University’s commitment to enforcing these standards.
- Initiate an investigation of SCR’s attacks on Emily Wilder and other community members with respect to the Fundamental Standard. If SCR is found to have violated the Fundamental Standard, which we believe it has, we demand that SCR face disciplinary action and receive, at minimum, a strong warning explaining expectations for future activities sponsored by the organization and outlining the consequences for not meeting these expectations.
SCR’s behavior is unconscionable, shameful, and dangerous. The University is responsible for ensuring our safety and our academic freedom at Stanford, and we expect the University to fulfill this obligation to its community.
What the Stanford College Republicans did was awful and deserves condemnation, but it must not be punished. Indeed, condemning those College Republicans could be regarded as “harassing” under the vague definition offered in this petition. Stanford’s Fundamental Standard (“Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University”) is terrible and should have been repealed long ago. The idea that a college can expel students for lack of “respect for order” or “morality” is a horrible limit on free speech. (This rule is also clearly illegal under the state’s Leonard Law, although I oppose that law as a restriction on private colleges.) It should be noted that the very worst behavior in this case came from the bosses at the Associated Press, who made the decision to fire Wilder for her social media postings. By contrast, criticizing someone for their views is a legitimate activity, even if calling for punishment is morally wrong.
John, Extreme misrepresentations and decontextualized quotations designed to stoke outrage are more and more clearly quite distinct from anything that resembles “criticism” as we understood “criticism” before Twitter, the Big Lie, etc.
I’m still hoping to hear from you on Hank’s other post about Boise. You say there need to be reforms to make sure that something like that hoax don’t happen again. What do you imagine those reforms might look like?
Is there any way to de-incentivize the partisan rampant misrepresentations that lead to harassment and other serious consequences? Don’t we have to think about how to address the bad-faith use of some platforms within the university community that lead to harassment and then, in fact, chill academic freedom by making people afraid to speak on important issues?
It is obvious that the “very worst behavior in this case” came from the AP and many have objected vigorously to that behavior. What made this statement interesting to me was the campus connection (this is a blog about higher education, after all). Moreover, I posted this statement without comment — even the title was that of the statement’s authors — and by doing so indicated neither approval nor disapproval of its content. That said, it should be noted that the statement does not demand punishment as John suggests, but simply calls on Stanford to issue a statement affirming community standards and to initiate an investigation into whether these have been violated. Such a call is itself an exercise in free expression.
Moreover, whatever one may think of Stanford’s “fundamental standard,” a university is entitled to enforce codes of conduct and behavior for approved student organizations so long as these do not abridge the group’s other rights. Otherwise a university would be powerless to respond to, say, fraternity hazings. There is, however, often a hazy line between speech and conduct. If I walk down a street and encounter the ravings of a sidewalk preacher I should have no right to compel his silence. But should that speaker single me out, follow me down the street at close distance, yelling and screaming obscenities at me and informing passersby that I am a murderer (something like this actually once happened to me) that is not simply expression; it is dangerous and frightening harassment. I submit that this may be in effect what the SCR did to Wilder (and others), or at least that is what the statement alleges, providing, by the way, plenty of links to evidence. Perhaps an investigation might determine that, unpleasant as it was, this sort of behavior must be accepted. But perhaps not. In either event there is nothing wrong with calling it out.
Great analogy, Hank.
Yes, these questions need to be asked. Does a university bear any responsibility when the speech of some of its members employs misrepresentations/distortions (sometimes, outright lies) that knowingly create extremely distressing and potentially dangerous consequences for another member of the university community? There is a pattern here, it is becoming predictable, and it has the effect of silencing not the bad-faith but the good-faith actors. Can/should a university do anything?
I have to agree in the sense that IF universities are going to have any kind of student conduct policies then there is no point of not enforcing them or even worse-and this goes on all the time-enforcing them “unevenly.” Student organizations that are “pro-Israel” and as “right wing” as this one (I get that they’re College Republicans, but their behavior in this case is somewhat out of place at Stanford-although maybe not, there’s the Hoover Institute, etc.) to be more feared on the part of administrations. This is due to the fact that they often have some political or financial relationship to outside political organizations, donors, politicians, etc. The external political resources and power of “leftist” student groups tends to be far less.
In my experience, administrators play key roles in pushing the uneven consequences of political speech on campus. They tend to put their finger up to the wind to measure such things, not so much among their faculty and students, but to external organization. They react accordingly.
In my mind, this is the biggest problem with student conduct codes, etc. They are written in seemingly neutral, often unobjectionable language. But they are interpreted and read in political ways. Administrators cannot be counted on to be “fair” in their application. We have plenty of evidence to support my claim.
The line between conduct and speech is ambiguous. The question becomes when the action of a student group is as heavily involved in a student’s or former student’s career prospects. For me, this isn’t about decontextualized speech or falsehoods, so much as the outcome of an alumni losing a position as a result of the College Republican’s decision to go after Wilder in the way they did.
Because clearly, they played a role, albeit certainly not the one that AP played-an how stupid was the AP to actually fire one of their own to the taken-for-granted, obvious, non-controversial tweet about language and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and to do so a the time when their offices in Gaza had just been destroyed. Did the AP executives who did this really expect there would be no blowback? Can they not see the discursive shifts going on as a direct result of the recent events on the ground in Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and most importantly, inside 1948 among Israel’s Palestinian citizens?
I get that this is not an “easy call.” But I don’t think the College Republicans behavior should be ignored. I just don’t have an answer as to what the exact consequences should be. The petition calls for a “warning,” which, in my view, is not punishment.
It will be interesting to see how the Stanford administration responds to this incident, because unlike others, I don’t think they’ll be able to ignore it.
Excellent points. Thank you for this helpful comment.
It depends on what you mean by “punished.”
Talk about a “double standard”!!! if those SCRs were inaccurate in their statements, exaggerated in their views, or even committed libel (not “blood libel”) against the reporter, isn’t it their Free Speech right to be wrong (within the bounds of libel laws).
I therefore agree with John K. Wilson that it is hardly “harassment” (legally or colloquially). Most university codes are either too vague or too prone to partisan interpretation. Why can’t they rely on the U.S. Constitution, decisions of the SCOTUS, and prevailing case law to monitor Freedom of Speech on campus?
Yes, John K., “Criticizing someone for their views is a legitimate activity, even if calling for punishment is morally wrong.”
I agree with John and Frank. I find this post to be puzzling. If the signatories are angered by Wilder’s firing, they might consider directing their ire toward the Associated Press (who, after all, fired her). By calling for the College Republicans to be punished for expressing their views, they are behaving no better than the College Republicans.
Don, my friend, I did a word search of this entire document: the verb “punish” or any of its derivatives (e.g., punishment) appear nowhere in it. So I am a bit baffled that you (as well as John and Frank) can so blithely charge that this is a call for the SCR “to be punished.” To the contrary, the statement, while of course critical of the SCR’s actions, makes two demands of Stanford: first, for a reaffirmation of the university’s previously stated principles (with which you may disagree, but it is, after all, a private institution that has enforced those principles in other instances) and, second, for an INVESTIGATION into whether or not the SCR violated those principles, which, of course, the signatories believe they did (offering reasons, by the way). It is even more baffling that you apparently conceive of the SCR’s repeated calls for the firing from a paid position of a recent graduate (and their bragging about that effort’s success) as an exercise of free expression, but view a call merely to investigate the actions of that group as somehow equivalent behavior, but perhaps less deserving of free expression protection because it countenances the possibility of university discipline? In short, your call for the signatories to direct their ire at the AP and not Stanford might well be matched by a call on you to direct your ire at the SCR and not at this statement.
Thanks, Hank. I can’t speak for John or Frank, but I interpret the last three sentences of the petition as calling for SCR to be punished for expressing its views. While the petition may not use the word “punish,” it states that “if SCR is found to have violated the Fundamental Standard, which we believe it has, we demand that SCR face disciplinary action,” then further demands that “at minimum” SCR be advised (should it be found guilty, as the signatories believe it is) of the dire consequences of continuing to express its “unconscionable, shameful and dangerous” views, and concludes by calling upon the University to “fulfill its obligation to its community” by taking action. I’m not sure how to interpret that other than as a call for punishment.
Both the signatories and the SCR are engaging in the “free expression” of their views. In so doing, both are calling for others to be punished for expressing their views. The actions of the signatories and of the SCR may not be equivalent in every context, but from an AAUP standpoint, at least as I understand AAUP philosophy, calling upon others to be punished for expressing their political views is anathema. From that perspective, the behavior of the signatories is as despicable as that of the SCR. That’s why I am puzzled that you posted this petition.
A call for an investigation, even by those who believe it should result in punishment, is not in and of itself a call for punishment. AAUP has always supported the right of people to call for an appropriate investigation of those — faculty, staff, or students — who are charged with violating university rules. We demand, however, that such investigations, should they be warranted, be conducted with appropriate due process. In this case, the signatories of the above statement have called for an investigation, a call that to date Stanford has, to my knowledge, completely ignored. The SCR, however, called for Wilder’s dismissal and cheered when the AP yielded to the group’s campaign of harassment without any provision of due process for Wilder. I don’t see how these are equivalent. But even if they were, I can’t see why we should assume that the SCR was exercising its free expression rights via a vitriolic and ugly campaign of harassment (read the tweets!), but its campus critics were somehow calling for the violation of free expression by exercising their own expressive right to call that campaign out and request a university investigation that hasn’t even taken place, much less reached the verdict desired by the signatories of this statement. And lastly, do you really think that “a strong warning explaining expectations for future activities,” which is what the statement calls for, is the same as getting a 22-year-old woman fired from her first job and possibly jeopardizing her entire career? A little perspective, please.
Sorry, Hank. I thought that providing perspective is what I was doing. I will try to be clearer.
Yes, there are (in my view) many levels on which the behavior of the SCR is more appalling than the behavior of the signatories. I doubt that too many readers of this blog would disagree. However, we are an AAUP blog site. Among the things we do in the AAUP is demand that faculty who have been punished in the absence of their rights to due process be given due process. To my knowledge, at least, we do not demand, or countenance demands, that faculty (or students, in this case) who have not been punished be given due process in the express hope that they will be punished. Such does not encourage either academic freedom or the free exchange of ideas.
You obviously view the petition as much more benign than I see it.
We clearly do have a different take on this petition. That said, however, let me reiterate what I wrote in a previous comment: “I posted this statement without comment — even the title was that of the statement’s authors — and by doing so indicated neither approval nor disapproval of its content.”
I also should note that the deeply troubling and widespread phenomenon of online harassment, often of faculty and students (in this case, of course, of an alum), coming more from the Right than the Left, but by no means limited to that side of the spectrum, has undoubtedly created a significant “chilling effect” on both free speech and academic freedom. There’s not a whole lot we can do to stop it beyond aiding and supporting its victims and pushing college and university admins to grow spines and not cave into outside pressures. However, when the source of the harassment can be directly traced back to members of the university community we need to be careful that we don’t become like the police unions, declining to regulate, restrain, and where necessary discipline our own when they egregiously violate the norms of our profession and community. It’s not an easy issue and opinions will and should differ (and due process is essential), but this is a challenge I don’t think academia can avoid without cost.
Except, as I read the letter and petition, one option they’re calling for is a “warning.” That’s not exactly a “punishment.”
I agree with Don Eron, esp. when “THEY” 🙂 say, “By calling for the College Republicans to be punished for expressing their views, they are behaving no better than the College Republicans.”
I would go further and say that calling for the College Republicans to be punished (in ANY way, including intimidation or “investigation”) for expressing their views, they are behaving no better than the “investigations” of “thought crimes” by the HUAC Committees or the Stalinist show trials.
“Investigations” are not always as innocent as my buddy Hank R. claims, esp. when SPEECH is involved, not ACTIONS, which are clearly and correctly differentiated by Hank.
I don’t know if anyone will scroll down this far in these proliferating comment exchanges, but I do want to call attention to one of the pieces to which the above statement linked, written by a conservative student in the conservative Stanford Review. I just got around to reading it and it’s well worth more attention; I probably disagree with its author on many things, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I’m heartened by his willingness to stand up for not only the form but the spirit of tolerance and the free and open exchange of ideas. If you have a few minutes, give it a read: https://stanfordreview.org/when-conservatives-support-cancel-culture/
Pingback: A Double Standard at Stanford? | ACADEME BLOG