BY MARJORIE HEINS
The disastrous December 5 congressional hearing in which three university presidents were lambasted for allegedly not dealing with antisemitism on campus was a political ambush from the start, and the presidents, instead of blandly acquiescing in some outrageously inappropriate questioning, needed to respond with righteous indignation.
The tone was set early on with a question from Rep. Virginia Foxx: “Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?” All three presidents meekly answered “yes,” and that was all. The right answer should have been along these lines:
“If you want my personal opinion, yes, but it’s a highly improper question. We’ve learned—or should have learned—from the legislative witch hunts of the 1950s that interrogating anyone, and especially teachers or professors, about their political views, and demanding statements of political orthodoxy, threatens freedom of thought and therefore threatens democracy. Your proper scope of inquiry is antisemitism on campus, not a political inquisition, so let’s stick to the topic.
“And while we’re at it, let’s be clear: protests against the government of Israel are not the same as antisemitism, and your conflating of the two simply amounts to an attempt to silence those protests. Shouts of ‘intifada,’ however interpreted, are targeted at the state of Israel, not at Jewish people worldwide.”
The presidents, of course, would have had to reiterate these points throughout the hearing. For example, repeated questioning about the percentages of “conservatives” and “liberals” on college faculties provided an opportunity to explain why legislators should keep their hands off university governance, and especially the evaluation and hiring of scholars, which can’t be subject to political litmus tests lest the whole enterprise of scholarship get lost in the mire of partisan politics.
When it came to the $64,000 question, which Rep. Elise Stefanik had undoubtedly prepared in advance (“does calling for the genocide of Jews” violate university policy?), MIT president Sally Kornbluth had the beginning of the right answer (“I haven’t heard calling for genocide of Jews on our campus”), but didn’t reiterate, in response to Stefanik’s “you’ve heard chants for intifada,” a reply like this:
“You’re once again conflating protest against Israel with antisemitism; they are decidedly not the same thing. But in answer to your hypothetical question: yes, I think a call for genocide of Jews, or any other religious or ethnic group, would amount to punishable harassment on a college campus. You might be interested to learn that such hate speech is, according to our Supreme Court, protected under our Constitution, but on a college campus, I think it is intolerable and should be severely punished.”
Of course, you may say: it’s easy to think of the right answers after the fact. But a college president should be able to think on her proverbial feet, and to articulate resistance to political inquisitions with pride, conviction, and hopefully a dose of eloquence.
Marjorie Heins is a former ACLU lawyer, a former member of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and the author of Priests of Our Democracy: The Supreme Court, Academic Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge.
Actually, “globalize the intifada” does indeed target Jews worldwide and not the Israeli government. It involves targeting Jewish institutions as in the notorious Mapping Project, vandalizing synagogues, Jewish cemeteries, Hillel centers on campuses, and Jewish owned shops–along with physical attacks on visibly Jewish individuals and counter-protestors at anti-Israel demonstrations. The Republicans set a trap, but responding here by denying reality won’t whitewash the calls to globalize the intifada.
Many thanks for pointing this out. Certainly, “intifada” means different things to different people, but it’s not an explicit call for genocide. Once we get into interpretations of possible implicit rather than explicit messages, I think we do run the risk of censoring political speech. – Marjorie Heins
I’m surprised to see that a former ACLU lawyer and former member of Committee A is suggesting that a college president ought to say “. . . hate speech is, according to our Supreme Court, protected under our Constitution, but on a college campus, I think it is INTOLERABLE and SHOULD BE SEVERELY PUNISHED” (my emphasis). It’s naive to think that such a statement would not also get a university president criticized or fired–especially a president of any public university.
Retired Prof,
“It’s naive to think that such a statement (punishing hate speech) would not also get a university president criticized or fired–especially a president of any public university.”
Not so.
The former ACLU lawyer is mostly correct about punishing hate speech by students on a college campus, but she should have explained her reasons. Please see Bob’s comments below for a better understanding of this issue.
I agree that the hearing was a political ambush but disagree with the conclusion that colleges may punish speech that would elsewhere be protected by the First Amendment and should pledge to use this power. Punishing objectionable viewpoints, even viewpoints advocating genocide, undermines intellectual freedom for everyone and promising to do so would not have satisfied right-wing critics of campus censorship. I think the presidents responded correctly that advocacy of genocide cannot be banned but can be punished in certain contexts (such as harassment of particular individuals, true threats, and incitement of imminent violence).
Very few people explicitly advocate genocide, but many people who talk about Israel and Palestine advocate actions that many others deem genocidal. If I proclaim my support for the Palestinian intifada following the Hamas massacre of 1200 Israelis, am I advocating genocide? If I say “I Stand with Israel” at a time when Israel is killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, displacing 85% of the Gazan population, leveling buildings, and destroying hospitals and cultural institutions, am I advocating genocide?
Maybe so, in both cases, but not necessarily. “Intifada” refers to a struggle against oppression, which may consist of nonviolent tactics such as boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. “I stand with Israel” may be a statement of support for the nation of Israel, not necessarily for its present government or current actions. Even if I endorse or advocate violence, not all violence is genocide. Of course there’s much more to be said. The point is that we cannot discuss these matters seriously if expression is chilled by worries about what those in power may deem genocidal.
Marjorie Heins
Your advice that hate speech by students on a college campus may be punished is correct although your post did not explain why.
Despite claims of First Amendment protection, hate speech on a college campus that creates demonstrably unsafe conditions or hostilities for other students may still subject the offending speakers to discipline.
Here is the reason: Every university has some form of behavioral guidelines (or codes) that are designed to ensure that all students can enjoy a safe environment conducive to learning and free from harassment, intimidation, and bullying.
In addition, every student, by accepting admission to a school, voluntarily agrees to abide by these codes. And harmful behavior that violates the code – even though it takes the form of speech – can still be punishable without offending the First Amendment.
Simply put, the mere fact that speech is involved in wrongful behavior does not render that behavior immune from discipline.
Accordingly, it would not be difficult for a school’s disciplinary board to take notice that a frenzied mob of pro-Palestinian students – chanting words (“Intifada”) and phrases (“From the river to the sea”) whose well-accepted meanings call for terrorism/genocide of Jews – has created a hostile and dangerously unsafe environment for its Jewish students.
Such a correct and easy disciplinary board finding would place the offending students squarely in contravention of the school’s code of conduct or at the very least, its spirit. It would be no different than if a mob of students were calling for the extermination or terrorism against, LGBTQ members, Blacks, Asians, or any other minority group.
Most importantly, such outrageous behavior by students against an above cited minority would never be tolerated by a university – nor should it – and those offending students would be swiftly and rightfully disciplined, notwithstanding the First Amendment.
It should then go without saying that the same protection from hostilities applies to the minority Jewish students.
Regrettably, the three presidents who refused to recognize these glaring facts have placed a mark of shame on their respective institutions.
I largely agree, Bob, but I think you make the same error as those demagogic politicians when you equate “intifada“ with advocacy of genocide.
Marjorie Heins.
We are on the same page, with one small exception.
I do not equate “intifada” with advocacy of genocide as you assert. If you re-read my comment and look at the sentence structure where the word “intifada” is mentioned – and follow its parallelism – you will see that I equate that term with terrorism. I do so because that is the way in which the word “intifada” is most commonly defined based on its recent history.