BY JOHN K. WILSON

It’s always distressing during contentious times when neutral statements for free speech are twisted beyond recognition with false smears of bias and bigotry. In a November 27 essay in The Hill, Northwestern law professor Steven Lubet denounced the American Association of University Professors for a November 15 statement, “Polarizing Times Demand Robust Academic Freedom,” claiming that it has “a distressing anti-Israel bias.” I don’t work for the AAUP, and I don’t speak for the AAUP, but I think Lubet’s charge is completely incorrect and unsupported by any evidence.

Lubet’s attack on the AAUP statement is unfair, often erroneous, and full of false assumptions. Lubet even denounces the AAUP statement for using the term “events” to describe Hamas’ mass murder on October 7, 2023: “only the AAUP has refrained from calling it at least an attack or even a raid.” It is common for AAUP statements to refer to terrible terrorist attacks as “events” (as did the committee on the aftermath of 9/11 terrorism, which referred to the “tragic events” of September 11). There is no need for a statement on academic freedom to compete in a contest to describe terrible attacks in the most lurid way possible, and it is not anti-Israel bias to use accurate, neutral language.

Consider Lubet’s most serious charge of bias in the AAUP statement: “It is deeply objectionable, as the AAUP statement points out, that pro-Palestinian faculty have been ‘investigated, suspended, or fired.’ But the same is true of the Jewish professors who have been suspended — as at Johns Hopkins, Southern California, and NYU — for anti-Hamas statements, and others who have been isolated or threatened, never mentioned by the AAUP.” In fact, the AAUP statement referred to the punishment of “outspoken faculty and staff members who expressed unpopular views,” not “pro-Palestinian faculty,” and no specific cases of either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel faculty or students were mentioned by the AAUP. There was no biased omission of “Jewish professors” being targeted because no specific cases were detailed in the statement.

The only one-sided claim in the AAUP statement is one-sided in reality: “The AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.” Since no one is claiming that speech critical of Hamas is anti-Palestinian or invariably bigoted, the AAUP statement did not address it. But there are definitely claims that criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

Lubet asserts this is a “straw person” argument and claims that “virtually every widely published definition of antisemitism provides that critiques of Israel are not inherently antisemitic.” Lubet cites the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism because it “specifically states that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’” But that line shows the AAUP statement is right, because that assertion defines criticism of Israel as potentially antisemitic unless it is “similar” to someone’s critiques of other countries, meaning that criticism of Israel standing by itself can be defined as antisemitism.

Lubet says, “it would be wrong to assert that all opposition to Israel is antisemitic, but it is dangerous to insist that none of it is.” The AAUP statement never says this, and it is wrong for Lubet to suggest this is the AAUP position without any evidence. Rejecting the view that criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic is absolutely not the same thing as asserting that no criticism of Israel is ever motivated by antisemitic animus. 

Lubet contends that the AAUP statement refused to “defend or even acknowledge the rights of Jewish students.” This is false. The AAUP statement defends the rights of all students (which includes Jewish students) and never suggests infringement of any student rights are acceptable. Lubet seems to call for severe restrictions on free speech because he notes that Jewish students “have been insulted and marginalized on many campuses,” as if that would justify censorship. Palestinian students have also been insulted and marginalized, but colleges should not impose prohibitions on anyone’s public speech about war and peace, even if it might be regarded as insulting or marginalizing. Unlike Lubet’s essay, the AAUP statement is a clear defense of academic freedom and free speech for all.

I should note that Lubet has previously accused me of “normalizing anti-Semitism” because I argued that accusations of bigotry should have substantial evidence to support them. As I argued in response, I think accusations of bias and hatred are important to make, but we need to show careful proof and avoid presuming bad motives without good reason to do so. Unfortunately, Lubet makes similar accusations of “anti-Israel bias” against the AAUP by inaccurately assuming the worst interpretations of nearly everything in this statement.

Lubet concludes, “the AAUP’s recent statement has disappointingly compromised its own status as a neutral defender of ‘robust academic freedom.’” No, it hasn’t. The AAUP’s statement confirms that it defends academic freedom for all, even if some biased advocates wish that the AAUP had adopted their preferred positions instead of the neutral stand that the AAUP in fact took.

Lubet repeatedly misreads and distorts the AAUP statement to convey an utterly false impression of what it actually says. The AAUP statement reveals absolutely no “anti-Israel bias” at all. Instead, the AAUP statement is a principled, unbiased defense of academic freedom and free speech that should serve as a model of thoughtful and rational discourse and a guide for all colleges to follow in dealing with campus conflicts.

John K. Wilson is the author of eight books, including “Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies” and the forthcoming book, “The Attack on Academia.”