BY JONATHAN GRAUBART
The horrifying violence in the Hamas-Israel war has aroused great passions across the United States. Both Hamas and Israel have plenty of blood on their hands. What concerns me here is the restricted space for discussion. Almost all politicians restrict their condemnations to Hamas and have little tolerance for those who address Israeli complicity. This unhinged mood has grave implications for free speech and academic freedom at US universities and colleges, which I have experienced firsthand at San Diego State University.
One concern is the resurgence in efforts by pro-Israel advocacy groups to shut down Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). They are now seeking a regulation from the US Education Department that would compel universities to investigate Palestinian-advocacy events as possible antisemitic incidents subject to sanctions. Numerous advocacy groups have also written to five hundred–plus university presidents demanding they withdraw recognition and funding of their SJP chapters because of allegedly pro-Hamas content expressed at recent rallies. To be sure some comments could be construed as an endorsement, but the aim of these protests have been to highlight the severe injustices faced by Palestinians. Moreover, rallies for Israel are demanding harsh retaliation, which has inflicted mass suffering, and have not condemned the bloodthirsty, racist comments of high Israeli officials.
The other major threat is led by well-endowed Israel studies programs. Most were created in the past two decades to counter a perceived anti-Israel orientation among scholars of the Middle East. Strapped for funding, universities welcome the support for teaching and research. Yet this funding comes with subtle and not-so-subtle pressure as discovered by Liora Halperin, the former endowed chair of the University of Washington’s Israel Studies Program. Because she signed a joint letter critiquing the “settler-colonial” influence on Zionism, the primary donor for the chair insisted that her grant be returned after Halperin rejected the demand to refrain from making further statements “derogatory of Israel.”
In San Diego, the Murray Galinson San Diego–Israel Initiative (MGSDII) funds visiting Israeli scholars for local universities, including SDSU, with the aim of improving the “image of Israel that is different to, but on par with or exceeding, results of pro-Israel advocacy organizations.” This past week, the program targeted me because of a critical op-ed I wrote, complaints from other faculty about my supposed stance as an anti-Zionist Jew, and because I was co-organizing a teach-in on the recent events.
My co-organizer and I actually invited SDSU’s visiting Israeli scholar on Middle Eastern history to join us in the teach-in. Rather than replying to both of us, the latter emailed just my co-organizer and asked to meet him individually. There he told my colleague that he understood I was an anti-Zionist Jew and proposed removing me. Alternatively, the visiting scholar suggested a fourth person from Jewish studies, with little scholarly background on the topic, who could further “balance” me and disabuse the audience from the impression that many Jews shared my views on Israel-Palestine. The two of them eventually worked out a tentative deal, pending the agreement of me and the people advising the visiting scholar, that the latter would have double the time allotted to each co-organizer and speak last.
I was not happy about this treatment. Despite being a co-organizer who invited the scholar to take part, and one of only two permanent scholars at SDSU with academic expertise on Israel-Palestine, the visiting scholar had called for my removal. But I wanted him to participate and agreed to the conditions. It didn’t matter. The visiting scholar informed my co-organizer that he had been urged not to take part. I later learned that the director of the MGSDII had applied a heavy hand, which included appeals to the dean and to the president’s office. In her latest email to MGSDII subscribers, she has the chutzpah to write, “There are very few academic opportunities for students to learn about the modern state of Israel on campus beyond our visiting professors. At the same time, we know of a number of academics who perpetuate misinformation without credible academic basis about Israel inside and outside of their classrooms.”
Fortunately, the pressure did not work. We found other participants and are proceeding with the teach-in. Despite the attacks on me, I have a secure position and am at an university that respects academic freedom. What worries me are the students and untenured professors and lecturers who lack these protections. Even tenured faculty, especially those looking to placate donors, are vulnerable to pressures. For example, my planned talk to the Israel studies program at Oxford University on my book, Jewish Self-Determination Beyond Zionism: Lessons from Hannah Arendt and other Pariahs was just cancelled due to outside pressure.
In sum, Israel-Palestine has become a canary in the coal mine for a new wave of censorship across college campuses. It is urgent, then, that those with more security defend the most vulnerable, including members of SJP, regardless of any discomfort with certain sentiments.
Jonathan Graubart is a professor of political science at San Diego State University who specializes in the areas of international relations, international law, Zionism and Jewish dissent, Israel-Palestine, the United Nations, normative theory, and resistance politics. In 2022–23, Graubart organized a lecture series entitled “Is Academic Freedom in Crisis? Can it be Saved?” Graubart’s recent book is Jewish Self-Determination beyond Zionism: Lessons from Hannah Arendt and other Pariahs (Temple University Press 2023).
The home page featured photo, taken in the Palestinian city of Nablus in1967 at the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, was provided by Dana Sajdi, daughter of the photographer, for a previous Academe Blog post.
Professor Graubart makes a sweeping generalization that free speech and academic freedom are at risk.
He apparently does so because his particular view of the Israel-Palestine conflict is not getting the respect that he believes it deserves.
What is his view? In a nutshell, he believes that the Palestinian side of the Israel-Palestine issue is not being adequately heard. He notes that politicians have “little tolerance” for the Palestinian position and therefore are “unhinged.” He does not explain why the politicians’ alleged view is “unhinged” or why they are “intolerant.” He just name calls.
It should be difficult for educated readers of this blog to give any credibility to or otherwise draw any logical conclusions from an argument that starts with a premise that one’s opponent is “unhinged.” Resorting to such an ad hominem fallacy usually means that one lacks a meritorious argument.
Having now name-called and labelled opinions he does not like as “unhinged,” Professor Graubart goes on to fallaciously reason that there is an impending demise of free speech and academic freedom.
Unfortunately, Professor Graubart”s unsupported assertions do not stop there. Somehow – in defiance of reality – he asserts that members of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) are among the “most vulnerable” and need to be defended.
It would seem – judging from this post – that Professor Graubart has not seen the protests organized by the SJP calling for the eradication of Israel and the extermination of Jews. Otherwise, how could he possibly worry about the “vulnerability” of the SJP or their speech rights? They clearly are having no trouble whatsoever in getting their hate-infused message out.
Still, to support his bizarre claim about the impending demise of free speech and academic freedom, Professor Graubart states that pro-Israel advocacy groups are trying to “shut down” the SJP. He defines “shut down” as efforts to have the SJP investigated as an anti-Semitic (hate) organization. Apparently, to Professor Graubart, the mere act of seeking an investigation is the same as shutting down.
Professor Graubart also offers his personal experience at San Diego State University as some sort of evidence that free speech and academic freedom are imperiled. He notes that the organization that funds the teach-in that he co-organized did not want him as a speaker. He notes that he was unhappy, but nonetheless, was able to satisfactorily proceed with the program.
From these two above cited examples, Professor Graubart wants this blog’s readers to jump to some seriously unwarranted conclusions about the viability of free speech and academic freedom.
Not only does one have to wonder about the non-probative examples he offers, but also, the microscopic sample size upon which Professor Graubart bases his conclusion.
More disturbingly, however, one has to wonder about his apparent belief that there is somehow a moral equivalency in the Israel-Palestine conflict that is not being heard.
Protection of free speech and academic freedom is paramount to the Academe blog’s readers.
For Professor Graubart to “cry wolf” about losing these coveted rights in order to make known his support for SJP, an organization that endorses the unspeakable evil committed by Hamas is, regrettably, beyond shameful.
You open with criticizing a “sweeping generalization” and close by claiming SJP endorses attacks by Hamas.
Are you familiar with the concept of mirrors? Have you ever looked in one?
dsyphers1
You really need to do some research before posting inaccurate sarcasm.
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/students-justice-palestine-endorses-terrorism-and-dismantling-zionism-plans-day
“In the days following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel, the national leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and many of the organization’s campus chapters have explicitly endorsed the actions of Hamas and their armed attacks on Israeli civilians and voiced an increasingly radical call for confronting and “dismantling” Zionism on U.S. college campuses.”