.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Opinion: To combat antisemitism, start by following the law
Opinion by David Schizer
Updated:
9:36 AM EDT, Thu April 18, 2024
Source: CNN
In 26 years as a faculty member at Columbia University, I have never
seen the ugly face of antisemitism expose itself as it has this year.
Universities must now reckon with how hate has manifested in
environments dedicated to education and the exchange of ideas. As a
co-chair of the university’s task force on antisemitism, I welcomed
the opportunity to share what my university has learned as one of the
witnesses at Wednesday’s .
We are making progress in reversing the antisemitic tide, but there is
still more to do. Indeed, we saw the vitriol on display just last
month, when online an unauthorized speaker who made the outrageous
statement that “there is nothing wrong with … being a fighter in
Hamas.” Never mind that the US and European Union have . Is there
really “nothing wrong” with the mass the group carried out on
October 7?
There have also been direct attacks on students. In the fall, one of my
students who wears a kippah told me he was approached by a fellow
student who said, “F–k the Jews.” Another told me of being spat
upon at a protest. A student wearing a shirt with an Israeli flag was
surrounded by protesters, and told to “keep f–king running” when
he broke free.
have also felt unwelcome in student groups having nothing to do with
the Middle East. Why should they have to disavow Zionism to be in or an
affinity group for LGBTQ students? This sort of pressure – signaling
that Jews are accepted only if they reject a – sounds like
old-fashioned bigotry from long ago. It is simply unacceptable.
At the same time, I have been inspired to see many non-Jewish Columbia
students, professors and administrators going the extra mile to
champion a welcoming environment for Jews, Israelis and everyone else.
It was very moving when the leader of the law school’s student senate
posted a statement in October urging that “every single student in
our law school deserves to feel safe and know that they belong.”
This is a central value of our university. Indeed, it is a moral
imperative. But unfortunately, some faculty, staff and students have
fanned the flames. Others have tried to stay out of what they consider
a mere political disagreement about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
even when this mistreatment of Jews and Israelis rises to the level of
harassment and discrimination.
For those who are not motivated by principle to stop this misconduct, I
have a simple message for you: You have to do it anyway because you
need to follow the law. By following four legal principles,
universities can prevent discrimination against Jews and others while
also protecting free speech and academic freedom.
Free speech is not a free lunch. Everyone must have the right to
express their views, regardless of their viewpoint. State universities
are obligated to follow the First Amendment, while private universities
like Columbia typically choose to follow it. But under these free
speech principles, people are not free to express themselves at any
place, at any time and in a way that limits others from expressing
their views or from exercising their rights as students to engage in
the university’s main mission of teaching, learning and research.
So although protests are important, they cannot disrupt classes or
other activities. When one of the schools at Columbia, a student I know
had to endure heckling for her pro-Israel views as she walked through
them just to get to class. Likewise, pro-Palestinian protesters made it
harder to hear the speakers – at an event promoting constructive
conversations about the war in Gaza, no less!
To protect everyone’s right to speak and learn, a “speakers’
corner” approach, which allows protests in designated locations but
bans them in academic buildings, dorms, libraries and dining halls.
Violators first get a warning that will not remain on their record, and
then the penalties become more severe.
Thou shall not discriminate. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, learning and work environment for Jews, Israelis or any other
protected class. This rule is not supposed to shield students from
opinions they do not share – that would impede the university’s
educational mission – but it should protect them from ethnic slurs
(like “F–k the Jews”), as well as stereotyping and calls to
violence.
Unfortunately, some Columbia faculty and students asserted that are
dangerous and should be barred from campus. Since most Israelis are
required to serve in the military, this blatant stereotyping slings mud
at nearly all Israeli students, faculty and staff.
Calls for violence against a protected class are also problematic,
although deciding what actually is a call for violence can be hard.
“” (a chant that reportedly was heard at another university)
clearly is, while “free Palestine” clearly is not. But what about
“globalize the intifada” or “from the river to the sea”? Many
Jewish students hear these chants as calls for violence (as I do),
while many who use them say they are not.
Under federal antidiscrimination rules, the answer can turn on the
audience’s reaction or the speaker’s intent. So which is it? In
recent years, as the task force noted in our report, , for instance,
when Black, female or transgender students registered concerns in
discussions of, for instance, policing, affirmative action, sexual
assault and transgender rights. In other words, language is considered
a call for violence when those audiences reasonably say that they hear
it that way.
But since October 7, when Jewish and Israeli students have lodged
similar complaints, the focus has largely shifted from the . While
there are policy justifications for either approach – that is, to
prioritize either impact or intent – inconsistency is not
justifiable. Universities cannot use one approach for Jews and another
for other identity groups.
Be consistent. Indeed, Title VI does not just ban discriminatory
harassment and a hostile environment; it also bans inconsistent
treatment of different identity groups. The statute does not authorize
an “oppression Olympics,” in which identity groups jockey for a
favored position. The statute guarantees them the same rights.
This principle is also why it’s problematic to add a definition of
antisemitism to a university’s antidiscrimination rules and then
consider whether acts fit that definition or not. criticized our task
force for not doing this, but it would have been a legal misstep.
“antisemitism,” but a concepts that apply to all protected classes.
Developing bespoke versions just for Jews – for instance,
establishing an act as hostile only when it violates a particular
definition of antisemitism – isn’t acceptable.
Rules are not made to be broken. To protect speech and stop
discrimination, universities need more than just the right words on a
page. Their rules need to be enforced. Unfortunately, Columbia
initially fell short in this effort after October 7.
For example, at first the staff charged with managing protests did not
try to stop ones that were not authorized. Instead, the goal was . This
hands-off approach made more sense in the past when protests targeted
university administrators. When I was a law school dean years ago, I
knew that being the target of protests came with the job. But protests
this year have been different, affecting not just administrators but
other students, who are in a very different position.
So the response to unauthorized protests has become more proactive.
Students are told that they are breaking the rules and given a chance
to stop. If they don’t, their names are taken and .
Our task force has also recommended about rule violations, additional
time to investigate them and the release of aggregate information about
our disciplinary processes (to show that the university is taking
infractions seriously). The university has worked to implement these
and other ideas.
Of course, the mission of a university is not merely enforcing rules
but providing an education. Over time, opening minds with facts and
analysis is the best defense against antisemitism and other bigotry.
But to allow this educational process to flourish, we need to build it
on a foundation of laws that are respected and enforced.
DIR <- back to index