Karen Levy’s Post

The Conflation of Anti-Semitism with Anti-Zionism on College Campuses: A Complex Issue Affecting Jewish Students and Free Speech The merging of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism on college campuses, such as Rutgers University, presents a multifaceted and contentious problem. Jewish students are facing increased tensions, feeling compelled to guard against harassment when the criticism of Israel intensifies. This not only affects their safety but also stirs debate on the true essence of free speech versus academic freedom. One critical aspect of this debate is the distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out that while the First Amendment safeguards potentially offensive speech, it doesn’t extend to behaviors that constitute targeted harassment or foster a hostile environment, especially for vulnerable students. Interestingly, some Jewish students are uncomfortable with the conflation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, fearing it may unintentionally exacerbate anti-Semitism. They advocate for solidarity with other oppressed groups as a more effective response to anti-Semitism. The broader conversation around free speech on campuses isn’t new but continues to evolve. There’s a noticeable generational divide, with younger students less inclined to view the First Amendment as crucial. Furthermore, the intertwining of claims of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is sparking intense debates about the limits of free speech. In summary, the overlapping of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism on campuses is leading to a more complex and challenging environment for Jewish students. It underscores the need to balance free speech rights with the creation of a safe, inclusive academic environment for all students.

There is a difference between freedom of speech, and academic freedom. The First Amendment is not absolute, and does not protect all forms of speech, or conduct, notwithstanding the efforts of some to extend its reach to cover everything. There are certain principles and parameters that apply to academic freedom as well, and some people and groups seem to have an overly expansive definition and understanding of what this means in practice. Individual students and student groups (and faculty and staff, for that matter) do not have a license to behave as they please, and to ignore campus policies, articulated expectations and boundaries. Moreover, bad ‘behavior’ is not protected by either the First Amendment, or any reasonable and rational definition of academic freedom. Universities have every right, and responsibility, to take appropriate action when the conduct of individuals and groups violates their policies. This includes conduct and speech that reasonably falls outside of the protections of the First Amendment, and that violates campus policies. They also have the right to limit and restrict approved student clubs from associating with outside groups that have a track record of bad conduct that violates their campus policies. People of good will may have different views and opinions when it comes to what constitutes conduct and speech that is over the line and not protected, and we are allowed to disagree, but ultimately this requires sound judgement on the part of University leaders, and more than a little effort and courage.

PEN America's advice on handling rising antisemitism on campus (3 posts). A wave of antisemitic rhetoric, harassment, threats, vandalism and violence has rocked campuses across the U.S. as the Israel-Hamas war escalates. At Cornell University, law enforcement was called in to investigate what the university president called “a series of horrendous, antisemitic messages threatening violence” against the campus’s Jewish community that forced students into lockdown. Drexel University, a women’s restroom was reportedly defaced with antisemitic graffiti and a Jewish student’s dormitory door was set on fire. At Bates College, a swastika was drawn in a public restroom and at American University a swastika and Nazi slogan were graffitied in a student dorm.  At Columbia an Israeli student was beaten with a stick after confronting an individual who was ripping down posters of hostages held by Hamas. Jewish students have reported feeling fear, alienation and intimidation following anti-Israel protests, social media posts, and letters from student groups. Others have expressed their dismay at college leaders’ equivocal responses that seem to contrast with more robust reactions to other forms of bigoted speech. After violence erupted at Tulane University and someone attempted to light an Israeli flag on fire, one student criticized the university’s response as “slow,” adding, “This is not okay. I expect more, we expect more. Protect your Jewish students is all I can say.” As an organization dedicated to the protection of free speech, PEN America is well aware of how the spread of hatred can impair open discourse and poison a healthy learning environment. Amid an increasingly menacing climate, campus leaders have an obligation to be responsive to threats, intimidation, and students’ encounters with overt antisemitism and discrimination, and to ensure that they address students’ concerns through approaches that adhere to laws and campus policies protecting academic freedom and free speech. Assertive campus leadership is imperative to nurturing a learning environment where all feel welcomed and fully free to participate in the exchange of ideas and opinions, without fear. In a time of increased incidents of hateful speech and hate crimes both nationally and around the world, the potency of individual instances of hateful speech on campus can be heightened, increasing the psychological harm that such speech can cause and underscoring the imperative of effective institutional responses. CONTINUED

This IHE article provides useful insights about how the general public is conflicted and confused about how challenging, controversial, and fraught social and political topics should be handled in higher education. The survey data is useful, albeit contradictory, but I think this article could be enriched with a more thoughtful analysis of power. The free expression discourse too often assumes that speech occurs in a neutral and flat context in which it doesn’t or shouldn’t matter whose body the speech comes from or who it’s directed towards. For example, teaching Judith Butler’s critique of #alllivesmatter may bring up difficult emotions for white students who are in a state of racial and political underdevelopment. These students hold power and privilege, which is obfuscated by their ignorance and naïveté about those very issues. Microaggressions are everyday slights that convey derogatory, hostile, and prejudicial attitudes. Microaggressions are deleterious to the educational environment because they undermine belongingness by ostracizing and marginalizing minoritized learners. Here’s a quote that sums up the contradictory nature of the survey findings but doesn’t unpack politically complicated words, like “offensive.” “Yet asked about the key purpose of higher education, the vast majority of respondents—90 percent—said they see campuses as places where disparate ideas and values can and should be discussed. At the same time, 55 percent said students should not be allowed to invite speakers to campus who have said something offensive.” In the American context, in which there is pervasive denial of racism and climate change—to name a couple of examples—the pursuit of truth is hindered by efforts to make teaching ideologically balanced. Good college teaching does not include right-wing disinformation.

"The various bills and laws insisting on 'intellectual diversity,' and banning critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion, in Florida and a number of other states, reinforce the mistaken view that indoctrination by professors is the biggest problem in higher education today. This perspective entirely misses the mark on what’s ailing American higher education. It’s not that students’ ability to think for themselves is at risk from what professors do or say in the classroom. The biggest threat to free inquiry at colleges and universities currently comes from censorship and political interference in academia. From campus administrations curtailing student protests, to trustees and politicians imposing an ideological litmus test on professors in the guise of 'intellectual diversity,' while dictating our curricula and our campus programming, censorship has come to academia. And its flanks are advancing from the right and the left, led by politicians, donors, alumni, administrators and trustees—not professors." #highered #academia #politics #education

"During the 2021, 2022, and 2023 state legislative sessions more than one hundred and fifty bills were introduced seeking to actively undermine academic freedom and university autonomy. This includes nearly one hundred academic gag orders affecting higher education, such as those restricting the teaching of 'critical race theory' (CRT) and other so-called 'divisive concepts.' These academic gag orders were shortly followed by efforts to undermine campus diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), bills weakening tenure and accreditation, and legislation mandating 'viewpoint diversity' and academic programming, often in ways that circumvented faculty governance over the curriculum. This legislative onslaught has been understood as simply an effect of America’s highly polarized politics. However, as this white paper demonstrates, this legislation has been pushed by a network of right-wing and libertarian think tanks, working closely with Republican politicians, to manufacture a culture war backlash against educators and academic institutions." https://lnkd.in/eJWcSPZS

An academic argument and defense. There seems to be a few flaws in this argument, however. Many colleges and universities long ago abandoned a position of neutrality, and have commented on any number of social and current issues in recent years. Whether this was a wise strategy or not is not the point, the train has left the station. The running commentary coming out of higher education for some time now has often been selective, partisan and inconsistent, and college leaders have picked and chosen those moments when they have used their voice to amplify a matter, as well as those they will come to the defense of and those they will not. It has unfortunately not always been about the pursuit of truth. At times it has been little more than progressive virtue signaling, with more than a little hypocrisy detected. The same could be said for the selective support of free expression that exists in many academic corners. It was only a matter of time before a day of reckoning would come.  Various surveys and studies document the higher education demographics in an unsurprising way; roughly speaking, more than 80% of academic professionals lean left, some far left; fewer than 20% lean right. While not surprising, these figures do not align with the composition of the American public, and maybe with some other professions, hence the tension. Viewpoint diversity and respect has not always been a prominent feature in higher education in recent years.  Left leaning academic professionals and institutions have at times in the past engaged in certain partisan behaviors, and they are chafing and protesting now as it comes back to them in ways that they object to, from right leaning critics. While some of this critique comes off as outrageous partisan public grandstanding and posturing (and it is), at least some of it is valid criticism nonetheless.    There was a time when the noble profession of higher education had greater respect and trust from the outside, precisely because of the balanced and careful way that academic professionals conducted themselves.  That trust seems to be in diminishing supply now, and it is too easy for some to write this off to external critics perceived to be wrongheaded. The way we conduct ourselves has changed, and become less balanced, and those in higher education would do well to acknowledge this. Academics have the capacity to deal with complicated issues with insight and care. They also have the capacity to make certain situations more complicated than they need to be, and can spend endless time in analysis and avoidance of decisions and action. Some things are worthy of comment. And some things are simply wrong and deserve condemnation, without equivocation and parsing. Moral clarity matters in some instances. Leaders lead, they find their voice when it matters most, and can distinguish the moments that require principle and clarity, mindful of the need for bipartisan, objective and fair consistency.

Communiqué de la Middle Eastern Studies Association (MESA) sur les menaces qui pèsent sur les libertés académiques dans les universités américaines. " The two public hearings with university presidents held so far reflect these motivations and the threats they pose to the First Amendment. During both hearings, various committee members repeatedly characterized pro-Palestine advocacy as inherently antisemitic and smeared pro-Palestine students en masse as antisemites and even terrorists. Specific professors were attacked by name for protected pro-Palestinian speech acts. Some committee members demanded that university presidents offer courses and events that present Israel in a favorable light; review academic course offerings and university events to eliminate perspectives critical of Israel; and commit to adopting specific disciplinary measures against professors and students who express support for Palestinian rights, including terminations and suspensions. It goes without saying that these kinds of inquires do nothing to remedy antisemitism. Instead, they erode and stifle academic freedom, free speech and freedom of assembly by exerting and normalizing political control over higher education and subverting the bedrock principle that universities are autonomous sites of critical debate and free inquiry. The committee’s actions have also significantly contributed to ongoing insecurity on campuses across the United States. During the hearings, members of the committee demanded that universities quash all pro-Palestine protests. Only a few days after the committee hearing with Columbia University’s president, Representative Virginia Foxx – the committee’s chair – participated in a press conference at Columbia with other members of Congress at which House Speaker Mike Johnson demanded that the National Guard be called in to suppress the university’s student protest movement. In the ensuing days, Columbia and other universities, including institutions that have yet to be investigated but may fear investigation by the committee, succumbed to this pressure, unleashing militarized police forces against unarmed and peacefully protesting students, faculty, and staff. Instead of making Jewish students safer, which the committee claims is its goal, its pronouncements and actions have made countless students, staff, and faculty at college campuses across the country far less safe." #ceasefire

Controversy Over #IvyLeague Presidents' Congressional Hearing on Antisemitism and Free Speech The auditions of Ivy League university presidents before the U.S. Congress were controversial for several reasons, primarily centered around allegations of antisemitism on their campuses and issues relating to free speech. 1. **Allegations of Antisemitism**: The congressional hearing, titled "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Anti-Semitism," scrutinized the responses of these university leaders to incidents of alleged antisemitism following the Israel-Hamas conflict. There was specific concern about whether these universities allowed antisemitism to proliferate on their campuses. For instance, Harvard is under federal investigation for allegedly ignoring acts of antisemitism. 2. **Free Speech and Hypocrisy**: The presidents from Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT faced tough questions about their commitment to free speech. Lawmakers criticized these institutions for suddenly discovering the value of free speech in the context of defending Hamas, while previously denouncing, disinviting, and punishing professors for airing conservative views. This was seen as hypocritical, as these institutions have suppressed certain types of speech while claiming to uphold academic freedom. 3. **Responses to Specific Questions**: During the hearing, university presidents were asked if "calling for the genocide of Jews" breaks their universities’ code of conduct rules. The responses varied, with some presidents saying that such actions would be context-dependent or investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe. This ambiguity in responses led to criticism from various quarters, including diplomats and academics. 4. **Impact on University Funding and Reputation**: Some congress members, including Reps. Bob Good and Joe Wilson, questioned why these universities should continue receiving federal funds in light of these issues. Additionally, there were concerns about the impact of these incidents and the universities' responses on their reputation and relationship with donors. Overall, the controversy reflects broader concerns about how elite universities are handling issues of antisemitism, free speech, and the balance between protecting students and upholding academic freedom.

A tense congressional hearing this week put Ivy League university presidents in the hot seat around a vital question: does rampant antisemitic harassment violate student conduct codes? Their failure to clearly answer reveals a moral crisis facing higher education today. Numerous disturbing incidents have unfolded across Ivy campuses recently involving the open intimidation and bullying of Jewish students. From viciously harassing rhetoric to calls for violence, behavior that would never be tolerated towards other minority groups has been allowed to continue unabated. When directly asked by representatives whether hypothetically chanting violent antisemitic slurs was harassment, presidents dodged the question. They hid behind empty appeals to “academic freedom” despite not upholding such standards for non-Jewish groups. Their hypocrisy and verbally gymnastics to avoid confronting naked bigotry face-on demonstrates a pervasive double standard growing under misguided “woke ideology”. By embracing an ideological framing splitting racial groups into “oppressors” and the “oppressed”, fringe theories have sanctioned open season on Jewish students by incorrectly labeling them as “white adjacent” within this hierarchy. Other minority groups receive protection when attacked over their identity. Meanwhile Jews stand defenseless against the same hatred simply for being who they are. University leaders must find the moral clarity and courage to state unambiguously that no speech promoting prejudice, intimidation, or violence targeting any race, ethnicity or religion will be tolerated. Either conduct codes apply equally to protect all, or they are fundamentally unjust. Elite schools ostensibly hoping to nurture future leaders should lead by example upholding ethical standards, not cowering from difficult decisions. Jewish alumni and donors contributing billions must demand accountable action beyond empty PR platitudes. Until concrete change comes protecting all student bodies, those funding these institutions should walk with their wallets. With antisemitism rising globally, our college campuses must not become breeding grounds for further dangerous escalation. University presidents still have a chance to send a firm message that no student should face harassment over their identity. But it will require moral leadership largely absent from their recent testimony. Only through moral clarity, impartial accountability and unified rejection of all racial double standards can we hope to confront rising tides of hate.