In U.S. Universities, debates on “freedom of expression” persist in the face of the labeling of protests in favor of Palestine against Israel’s attacks on Gaza as “antisemitism” and the subsequent pressure from pro-Israel factions to suppress them.
In U.S. Universities, debates on “freedom of expression” persist in the face of the labeling of protests in favor of Palestine against Israel’s attacks on Gaza as “antisemitism” and the subsequent pressure from pro-Israel factions to suppress them.”
Eugene Volokh, a free speech expert and law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, says he is deeply concerned about the fallout over demonstrations on the Israel-Hamas war.
“I’m worried that there is pro-Palestinian speech being suppressed. I’m worried that there’s some pro-Israeli speech being suppressed,” he said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. “I also think that there are some things that are being too much tolerated.”
“When there are demonstrations where people take over some school building or something like that, that’s not protected speech. I think that should be quickly stopped and punished. And that’s true whether it’s pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel.”
“College leaders are stuck playing referee”
Lawmakers have slammed university officials over their responses, with Republicans taking aim at the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania at a House Education Committee The Biden administration, meanwhile, has launched more than a dozen investigations into incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia in schools since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks roiled campuses across the country.
Protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on college campuses are nothing new, but the war has clearly heightened the long-simmering tension. And now college leaders are stuck playing referee over what might be considered legitimate pro-Palestinian advocacy and what’s discrimination against Jewish people.
During the December 5th session in the U.S. Congress titled “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism,” criticism arose as the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were called to testify and questioned by politicians.
Republican senators argued that the slogans “intifada” and “from the river to the sea” amounted to a call for genocide against Jews. In response to whether such expressions have a place in the university, Harvard President Claudine Gay stated, “It may contradict Harvard’s values, but even if the views are inappropriate, aggressive, and hateful, we uphold our commitment to freedom of expression.” This response sparked anger among Republicans and prominent figures in the American Jewish community.
Gay also added that if such expressions were to turn into behavior that promotes violence or threatens security, action would be taken. She emphasized the existence of robust disciplinary processes that could hold individuals accountable in such cases.
“Universities have a duty to protect its students from violence”
To what extent are university presidents able to claim First Amendment protections for allowing demonstrations on campus in support of Palestinian people that lawmakers and Jewish students have found objectionable? Is this different for private universities?
Volokh says the following:
“Private universities are not bound by the First Amendment because the First Amendment only applies to government action. Now, a lot of private universities have essentially said we protect the free speech of our students, even though we don’t have to.
Public institutions are directly constrained by the First Amendment. If a public university wants to punish a student because of his support for Hamas, let’s say speech saying “Hamas was right, Hamas is justified in killing Israeli civilians.” That would be unconstitutional. It can’t punish students for their viewpoints, whether those viewpoints are seen as hateful or pro-murder or otherwise.
On the other hand, a university does have a duty to protect its students from violence. For example, if the university has allowed antisemitic violence or antisemitic vandalism while coming down hard on other kinds, then in that case, that might be discrimination based on their being Jewish — that they’re not being protected where other students are being protected.”
Source: POLITICO, AA