BY DON ERON
The AAUP’s recent statement On Title VI, Discrimination, and Academic Freedom is a potentially useful report that self-destructs with the use of a single quote, on which the report—and the organization as a whole—wages its credibility. As a result, nobody who doesn’t already agree with everything the report says is likely to take it, or the AAUP, seriously.
Since 1915, the AAUP has created, developed, and sought to protect two staples: tenure (as the protection for a particular definition of academic freedom) and faculty control of the educational product. The existence of these two staples has always been tentative and at the mercy of public perception. Indeed, there’s surprisingly little legal or constitutional backing for either, beyond what may be written in an employment contract. They exist as academic norms far more than as legal mandates. And today they are under siege as never before.
While there have always been significant segments of the public opposed to these two staples, they have survived, if not prospered, because enough of the public has understood that it is in their self-interest that there be a sector more driven by the “unselfish and disinterested pursuit of knowledge” than in monetary profit or political and ideological posturing. It has been understood by enough people that we need a sector more dedicated to curing cancer than to getting rich or defeating and discrediting perceived enemies.
The understanding that at least a degree of public support for higher education is necessary is why the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure and 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure are replete with “responsibility clauses” designed to assuage and reassure a skeptical public who might be inclined to distrust academics. These clauses offer assurance that professors will be moderate in their expressions, won’t exaggerate, will be respectful of the opinions of others, will remember that their students are immature, and will always make it clear that they are speaking for themselves and not their institutions (as the public will be quick to assume that the rantings of one professor represent the opinions of all professors). This understanding is why the 1915 Declaration is rhetorically superlative.
Circumstances are always changing. Groups must adapt to survive. But it is difficult to fathom that the Title VI statement was issued by the same organization that produced the 1915 and 1940 statements. It is overtly political and seemingly designed to alienate a significant segment of the public that has long supported the Association’s ideals.
As a strategy to discredit the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism for (in the view of Committee A) conflating antisemitism with antizionism, the report relies on a claim by Rashid Khalidi that the IHRA definition of antisemitism “absurdly conflates criticism of a nation-state, Israel, and a political ideology, Zionism, with the ancient evil of Jew-hatred.”
No one can dispute that, technically speaking, antisemitism and antizionism are different things. No doubt Khalidi, a renowned scholar, speaks from a place of deep moral conviction, to say nothing of frustration at the corrupt tactics of the Trump administration. But outside of academia, left wing circles, and certain Hasidic sects, in the experience of a great many Jews, there is a one-to-one ratio between antisemitism and antizionism. By now most antisemites understand that it is impolitic to go on about the Jews, the Jews, the Jews. They now shield their antisemitism behind the ever dependable condemnation of “Zionists.” Today antizionism is the classic coded language of antisemites.
That this does not seem to be known, or respected, in this report suggests that the AAUP has no idea what it’s talking about. By extension, the report is an indirect argument that professors are mere ideologues, therefore with no special claim to formulate the educational product.
There are many sound arguments that could be made to justify the importance of studying Zionism from a critical perspective. Unfortunately, the authors of this report calculated that a different tack would be more useful.
Today, antisemitism is akin to a low-level but constant and ubiquitous droning. That someone, even if they are Jewish, might be insensitive to the droning, does not give them standing to dismiss as “absurd” the perceptions of those with different sensibilities. By doing so, the statement forfeits credibility. To use this statement as part of a “toolkit” to advance AAUP ideals will only be destructive to the rich rhetorical tradition of the Association.
Don Eron is a retired senior instructor at the University of Colorado Boulder, a long-time academic labor activist, and a former member of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. His most recent novel, Killer Kowalski Takes the Mat, was published this month by Contingency Street Press LLC.
Don Eron makes the absurd claim that “there is a one-to-one ratio between antisemitism and antizionism.” This is like saying that there is a one-to-one ratio between racism and opposing affirmative action; even if there is a correlation, it is not a 1:1 ratio, and disfavored political views do not automatically translate to guilt of discrimination. This is precisely the point of the AAUP’s report, that political views cannot be automatically presumed to constitute punishable discrimination. Eron is wrong, and the AAUP report is clearly right on this point.
While your general point that there is not a “one-to-one ratio between antisemitism and antizionism” may be correct, your assertion that Don Eron himself makes that claim is incorrect.
If you re-read the sentence from which your assertion flows, you will note that it begins with a critical qualifier. To wit: “But outside academia…in the experience of a great many Jews.” This beginning clearly attributes the one-to-one ratio point that you condemn, not to Don Eron as you wrongly assert, but rather to the “experience of many great Jews.”
John Wilson puts it very well in his comment. I’ll just add that this post makes some odd moves, starting with the opening attempt to suggest that the report and the organization as a whole “wages its credibility” on one quote. I don’t understand that. I find Rashid Khalidi an excellent scholarly source to cite so I’d invest a lot in that quote myself but I don’t understand on what grounds anyone can claim that everything is won or lost on one quote. I take the point that the word “absurdly” feels harsh but when we’re witnessing right-wing politicians like Virginia Foxx, Elise Stefanik, and Trump-sycophants like Leo Terrell constantly and aggressively conflate antisemitism and antizionism and witnessing people lose their livelihoods and worse as a result, it does feel very absurd and the word feels warranted. The other move that bothers me is the warning or admonishment about public perception and opinion — so, the idea that AAUP needs to be careful about losing the public. (I do not speak for the AAUP here or elsewhere, I should note.) The AAUP has bowed to public pressure repeatedly over the years — the McCarthy period being one egregious example, the refusal to take up the Palestine exception to academic freedom and free speech for so many years being another — but these are the moments about which the AAUP should be ashamed. Defending the academic freedom of faculty arguing against Jim Crow, defending the academic freedom of people being accused of antisemitism for politically protected, non-discriminatory speech–these are the moments the AAUP should be proud of, regardless of whether it finds its positions popular among the general public or not.
While it is true that many Jews hear antisemitism when they hear the term antizionism, what Mr Eron ignores is how many of us who use the latter term, or even identify as antizionist, are Jews (not to mention the authors/endorsers of this report). This is increasingly so as many discover that antizionism is not a “coded language”, it’s part of a grand Jewish tradition.
To accuse the AAUP of “den[ying] reality” in their recent report on the weaponization of Title VI to stifle free speech and academic freedom is an interesting move in Mr. Eron’s attempt to discredit the report and the organization which authored it. This move speaks to the “realities” that Mr. Eron finds worthy of comment, and those that he does not. Ceding for a moment the “reality” that some AAUP members might find Mr. Khalidi’s characterization of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism as “absurd[…]” offensive (and to cede this point, one must ignore or erase the views and identities of other AAUP members including Jewish ones who indeed find the IHRA Working Definition absurd), what, we might ask, are the “realities” that the IHRA Working Definition is itself designed to obscure? By conflating Jewish with Zionist identity, also in my view absurdly, the IHRA Working Definition is designed to render criticism of the policies and practices of Israeli state by definition “antisemitic.” The IHRA Working Definition therefore renders criticism of the Israeli state’s mass murder of more than 70,000 people including more than 20,000 children in Gaza alone in the last two years “antisemitic,” and therefore disqualifies such criticism from the public sphere. The IHRA Working Definition renders criticism of the Israeli state’s systematic destruction of schools, universities, libraries, museums, bakeries, hospitals, roads, homes, sewage facilities, power plants, and corpses in Gaza alone in the last two years “antisemitic,” and therefore disqualifies such criticism from the public sphere. The IHRA Working Definition renders criticism of the Israeli state’s stated attempt to ethnically cleanse 2.3 million people in Gaza alone in the last two year “antisemitic,” and therefore disqualifies such criticism from the public sphere. And the IHRA Working Definition renders criticism of what the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the land, has called the Israeli state’s “plausible” acts of genocide in Gaza alone in the last two years “antisemitic,” and therefore disqualifies such criticism from the public sphere. I would suggest that by accusing the AAUP of “den[ying] reality,” Mr. Eron’s intention–like that of the IHRA Working Definition–is to facilitate the denial of the reality of the mass murder of more than 70,000 people including more than 20,000 children; the reality of the systematic destruction of schools, universities, libraries, museums, bakeries, hospitals, roads, homes, sewage facilities, power plants, and corpses; the reality of the attempt to ethnically cleanse 2.3 million people; and the reality of genocide, to say the very least about the reality of Palestine since 1948. It is unfortunate that for Mr. Eron some realities are more worthy of comment than others.
Whatever the validity of Khalidi’s words, like Jennifer I fail to see how they discredit the entire Title VI report, which is not about antisemitism or antizionism at all. It’s about the use and abuse of Title VI, especially by the Trump regime. And Howie Swerdloff is right: many antizionists are themselves Jewish and critiques of Zionism (especially of its virulent racialist form now dominating the current Israeli government) are central to the Jewish tradition. One such current critic is the brilliant scholar/theologian Shaul Magid. Just minutes after reading Don’s post I read Magid’s latest Substack post, “Pay No Attention to the War Behind the Curtain,” which is very much worth your time. Here are three paragraphs:
Read the whole piece here: https://shaulmagid.substack.com/p/pay-no-attention-to-the-war-behind
Longtime Jewish anti-Zionist AAUP member here. Thanks, Hank Reichman, Magid hits it on the head. The Zionist establishment is desperate to draw attention away from eight decades of (U.S. enabled) Israeli racism and violence, from the ongoing Nakba to the Gaza genocide. That means smearing anyone who dares “pull back the curtain” (in Magid’s words) as anti-Jewish. It’s no coincidence Eron intercedes on behalf of the bogus IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is being weaponized around the country, in legislatures and universities, to make sure the curtain stays forever closed. Such tactics will ultimately fail, but only if we keep pulling.
Longtime Jewish anti-Zionist AAUP member here. Thanks, Henry Reichman, Magid hits it on the head. The Zionist establishment is desperate to draw attention away from decades of Israeli racism and violence, from the ongoing Nakba to the Gaza genocide. That means smearing anyone who dares “pull back the curtain” (in Magid’s words) as anti-Jewish. It’s no coincidence that Eron intercedes on behalf of the bogus IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is being weaponized around the country, in legislatures and universities, to make sure the curtain stays forever closed. Such tactics will ultimately fail, but only if we keep pulling.
The following is incontrovertible:
– Not all anti-Zionists are antisemites, and not all antisemites are anti-Zionists. Ergo, there is no perfect or near-perfect identity between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. There is, however, substantial overlap between the two.
– Assertions that lack both supporting evidence and persuasive logic amount to mere ipse dixit, and they do not become more than mere ipse dixit by citing any individuals’ names with or against the assertions they make. [(e.g., “Kenneth Stern…has objected to what he has called the ‘weaponizing’ of the definition…”) Stern makes a proprietary claim with regard to the IHRA, though others contributed substantially to the effort too and have vigorously disputed his “weaponization” claim and that the IHRA has in application been in any way perverted.]
– It is the very opposite of “conflation” to recognize the embrace by Jews of Jewish peoplehood implicit through the Judaism observed and reaffirmed repeatedly by them since Biblical times in their Holy Land, that roughly corresponding to the modern state of Israel. That is comparable, though much longer in duration, to the way in which Muslims have held Mecca to be their religious epicenter of faith.
[“Rashid Khalidi…explains…the IHRA definition,…absurdly conflates criticism of a nation-state, Israel, and a political ideology, Zionism, with the ancient evil of Jew-hatred…” (italics added) But let Professor Khalidi try propounding a definition of “Islamophobia” that avoids entirely any conflation, absurd or otherwise, of the Muslim religion with Islamism, the nation-state of Saudi Arabia, and Mecca.]
– Between this essay’s title (“The AAUP’s Title VI Statement Denies Reality”), its opening sentence, and word choices (“wages”[sic], not “wagers”?), it is hard to be certain what point(s) it wishes to make. [“The AAUP’s recent statement On Title VI, Discrimination, and Academic Freedom is a potentially useful report that self-destructs with the use of a single quote, on which the report—and the organization as a whole—wages its credibility.”] A single quote, which one? (Two individuals, Ken Stern and Rhashid Khalidi are quoted by name, both largely to the same effect, but there were “Dear Colleague” letters, court rulings, and other documents quoted too.)
Might Don Enron, the author of this essay, seen the fatally flawed single quote as the one pronouncing the IHRA definition of antisemitism unacceptable [“Administrations and governing boards must reject overly broad definitions of antisemitism, including the IHRA definition…”], which could be since it is a conclusion minimally and never convincingly argued? What examples would those who voiced it point to in support of their conviction that the IHRA is likely to produce undesirable results, and do they contend that “anti-Zionism” is never an expression of “antisemitism,” which can’t be accepted as a serious contention?
– Finally, the AAUP’s Title VI, Discrimination, and Academic Freedom statement insists upon an untrue conceit, that being that Anti-Zionism and antisemitism share little or nothing in common. But insisting on that untrue conceit does not make it so no matter how many times it is repeated or how insistently it is repeated. Indeed, the opposite is true, and it shows how much many anti-Zionists wish and need it to be true and though clearly so in actual practice, for example when more than half of the Nations General Assembly voted 50 years with Resolution 3379 (adopted on 10 November 1975) to hold that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination, only to recant by a still greater majority that malignant canard on December 16, 1991 by Resolution 46/86.
It is striking that the report holds the IHRA so grievously misguided to be unserviceable as a working definition of antisemitism, especially in the academe. and yet it doesn’t go into the IHRA’s particulars, while recommending a very different, and equally controversial definition of antisemitism, the Jerusalem Declaration, which effectively denies the possibility of anti-Zionism being an expression of antisemitism. This suggests the report’s conclusion in this regard was a predetermined one.
“Today antizionism is the classic coded language of antisemites,” is an assertion not backed up by evidence. The revulsion with which many view the actions of the Israeli state and its army could lead to anti-Jewish hatred. Those desperately trying to see an end to the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank are careful not to conflate the two, however. It is evidently not true that antizionism is automatically anti-Jewish hatred. What is clear is that antisemitism has been weaponised to such an extent that is losing meaning. If you are in any doubt, read “Good Jew, Bad Jew” by South African academic Professor Steven Friedman.
Dr. Offen,
Clear and succinct. Especially the challenge laid out in front of Kahlid Rashidi.