Antisemitism and free speech on college campus

[Jayhawker Soule]

"... the point of college is to keep you physically safe but intellectually unsafe, to force you to confront ideas that you disagree with passionately." - CNN's Van Jones

This quote is found in today's Fareed Zakaria's Opinion: Why university presidents are under fire which begins:

When one thinks of America’s greatest strengths, the kind of assets the world looks at with admiration and envy, America’s elite universities would have long been at the top of that list. But the American public has been losing faith in these universities – and with good reason.​

​

Three university presidents came under fire this week for their vague and indecisive answers when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institution’s code of conduct. But to understand their performance we have to understand the shift that has taken place at elite universities, which have gone from centers of excellence to institutions pushing political agendas.​

I'm interested in your views.

 

[Orbit]

I think the hysteria surrounding this is just like the hysteria after 9/11, just as McCarthy-esque, and just as wrongheaded.

No one on a college campus has called for Jewish genocide---it's a red herring.

What is happening is that critics are inferring meanings for words they don't understand (intifada, jihad) and phrases they don't like ("from the river to the sea") as calls for genocide. I find the whole thing ridiculous and sad.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the hysteria surrounding this is just like the hysteria after 9/11, just as McCarthy-esque, and just as wrongheaded.

No one on a college campus has called for Jewish genocide---it's a red herring.

What is happening is that critics are inferring meanings for words they don't understand (intifada, jihad) and phrases they don't like ("from the river to the sea") as calls for genocide. I find the whole thing ridiculous and sad.

Also troubling is that Congress cares only
if Jews are offended by speech. All while
they're killing Palestinians at a 10:1 ratio.
This with USA financial & military support.
Congress hates Muslims it seems, & they
deserve whatever harm they suffer.

 

[rosends]

I am most annoyed that the presidents answered "it depends on context" but not because I think that that is wrong. I know it is right -- everything we say acquires meaning based on context, so "duh" of course it depends on context. If I am using it as dialogue in a short story, that's one thing. If I am advocating the position and endorsing violence, that's another thing. The problem is that in this case, the "context" is all skewed as it depends on whether (from what I gathered from the hearings) it actually rises to action, or if it is a call to harm a specific individual as opposed to a nebulous group. Neither of those variables should be what makes the context upon which the meaning and question of inclusion depend.

So saying "depends on context" is fine, but deciding that that context can allow sincere mass calls for violence is wrong. The forms of speech not protected by the first amendment include advocating the violent overthrowing of the government. I would suggest that the calls for the violent overthrowing of any group falls also under the unprotected "hate speech" ("consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.")

 

[rosends]

Also troubling is that Congress cares only
if Jews are offended by speech.

Really?

 

[Orbit]

Really?

It barely passed the House, but I suppose it's something. It was also from 2021.

12/14/2021-11:31pm

On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 448). (text: CR H7815-7816) Action By: House of Representatives

 

[Debater Slayer]

I believe that calls for genocide shouldn't be allowed on college campuses and should be outlawed as hate speech, but 1) I know that federal law doesn't outlaw even neo-Nazi expression, and I find it too lax for not doing so, and 2) I simply don't trust the Republican extremist who grilled the university presidents to be accurately representing what students have actually said.

I think the university presidents and others in charge of private institutions should do their utmost to ensure that genocidal rhetoric and other hate speech is prohibited on campus. These are private institutions, so they shouldn't, as far as I know, be bound by the First Amendment.

I have to note, however, that much of this outrage is coming from some of the same people who have long complained about "censorship" and "cancel culture" because some private entities, including academic institutions, have refused to provide them a platform for their hate speech. Which is it? Do they support banning hate speech on campus—which I do whether it targets Jews or any other group—or do they only support the concept of hate speech when it suits their views?

Also, from a purely logical and ethical standpoint (rather than practical one), I don't think supporting the IDF on campus should be treated differently from supporting Hamas, and I know that many people feel the same way, including many who have lost someone to Israeli strikes. The IDF has killed more than 11 times as many people as Hamas did on October 7. The IDF has detained people without charges in the West Bank. The IDF is the apparatus through which Israel has sustained its illegal occupation, administrative detention, and violence against civilians for decades. Does Congress acknowledge this? Does it care about how safe Palestinian and other Arab students feel, especially after the shooting that targeted three Arab students and left one paralyzed?

The way the US government has handled this war and issues resulting from it, including this hearing, has largely been riddled with double standards, obscurantism, selective outrage, and political posturing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A university president ought to have the linguistic ability to say "Yes. Literally calling for the genocide of the Jews does go against university policy....and the exceptions if any are such and such." Its not a janitor. Its not the guy washing windows. Its a university president, and they ought to have enough brains to articulate their thoughts. Can they not? Then fire them. They will be Ok. Move them to some appropriate post stamping papers or greeting visitors. Its not an execution.

 

[Orbit]

A university president ought to have the linguistic ability to say "Yes. Literally calling for the genocide of the Jews does go against university policy....and the exceptions if any are such and such." Its not a janitor. Its not the guy washing windows. Its a university president, and they ought to have enough brains to articulate their thoughts. Can they not? Then fire them. They will be Ok. Move them to some appropriate post stamping papers or greeting visitors. Its not an execution.

The problem was with the way the question was asked, as a "yes or no" question where the asker had a particular definition of what constitutes "calling for genocide" in mind, a definition not shared by university policy. It was a loaded question that assumed the answer in its asking. It was a "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.

It was a ridiculous question, in that nobody's policy anywhere prohibits "calls for genocide" specifically.

 

[Quagmire]

From CBS news:

 

[Twilight Hue]

I like that quote from CNNs Van Jones.

It's amazingly applicable and explains much of a typical campuses mission in regards to free speech and activism.

Still, unless you're in a major or political science or related field, I would find such activism to be detrimental to a student's reason being there in the first place , and that is to do their studies as well as they can and graduate.

 

[sun rise]

Three university presidents came under fire this week for their vague and indecisive answers when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institution’s code of conduct.

This thread does not list or link to the code of conduct. I know what a code of conduct should say but does it say that?

 

[Quagmire]

Apparently all of the University Presidents involved are'walking back' on their responses and one has resigned:

Why did Liz Magill resign? Will Harvard President Claudine Gay step down? Here's what we know.

Here’s what to know about Liz Magill’s testimony, the criticism she faces and what the fallout means for universities across the country.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The following should be kept in mind:

A chant used at anti-Israel protests on two college campuses does not call for 'Jewish genocide'.​

This does not in my opinion make the college presidents' testimony any less of a painfully sad dance, but it should serve as a warning. The chant referenced in the AP article must be seen as protected speech.

 

[PureX]

Being against the state of Israel's actions and stance does not mean one is being "antisemitic" because the objections have nothing to do with anyone's Jewishness.

Admitedly, not everyone is willing or able to differentiate in this way, especially if they are young and brash as many college students are. So there is bound to be some overstepping happening on all sides. But it would be unwise to begin labeling passionate criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitism simply because doing it tends to render that term meaningless.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This thread does not list or link to the code of conduct. I know what a code of conduct should say but does it say that?

I do not know.

 

[sun rise]

Apparently all of the University Presidents involved are'walking back' on their responses and one has resigned:

Why did Liz Magill resign? Will Harvard President Claudine Gay step down? Here's what we know.

Here’s what to know about Liz Magill’s testimony, the criticism she faces and what the fallout means for universities across the country.

www.usatoday.com

That clarifies the situation for me. The eternal question is about the limits of freedom of speech. Along with that is a judgement about when speech can be "bullying and harassment". And we have the question of when speech itself should be not permitted.

And we also have the right-wing hypocrisy ignoring Trump's bullying and harassment of everyone who dares to not kiss his butt and even some that do which extends to incitement and covering up criminal behavior (blurring pictures of criminals so they can't be prosecuted).

 

[sun rise]

NB: Personally I consider direct calls for genocide to be over the line and such speech should not be allowed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

NB: Personally I consider direct calls for genocide to be over the line and such speech should not be allowed.

Same. For example, I support the bans on Nazi speech and symbols in multiple European countries.

Exactly what examples of campus speech the Republican congresswoman had in mind when asking the question during the hearing is a different story. She hasn't clarified that either, as far as I know.

 

[George Washington]

I don't think supporting the IDF on campus should be treated differently from supporting Hamas

it really *should* be treated differently on campus though after reading their "covenant":

https://embassies.gov.il/holysee/AboutIsrael/the-middle-east/Pages/The%20Hamas-Covenant.aspx#:~:text=The%20Hamas%20charter%20is%20the,18%20years%20of%20its%20existence.