[ad_1]
BY MARJORIE HEINS
The disastrous December 5 congressional listening to during which three college presidents have been lambasted for allegedly not coping with antisemitism on campus was a political ambush from the beginning, and the presidents, as an alternative of blandly acquiescing in some outrageously inappropriate questioning, wanted to reply with righteous indignation.
The tone was set early on with a query from Rep. Virginia Foxx: “Do you consider Israel has a proper to exist?” All three presidents meekly answered “sure,” and that was all. The correct reply ought to have been alongside these strains:
“In order for you my private opinion, sure, however it’s a extremely improper query. We’ve discovered—or ought to have discovered—from the legislative witch hunts of the Nineteen Fifties that interrogating anybody, and particularly academics or professors, about their political opinions, and demanding statements of political orthodoxy, threatens freedom of thought and subsequently threatens democracy. Your correct scope of inquiry is antisemitism on campus, not a political inquisition, so let’s persist with the subject.
“And whereas we’re at it, let’s be clear: protests towards the federal government of Israel will not be the identical as antisemitism, and your conflating of the 2 merely quantities to an try and silence these protests. Shouts of ‘intifada,’ nonetheless interpreted, are focused on the state of Israel, not at Jewish folks worldwide.”
The presidents, in fact, would have needed to reiterate these factors all through the listening to. For instance, repeated questioning in regards to the percentages of “conservatives” and “liberals” on school schools offered a possibility to clarify why legislators ought to hold their palms off college governance, and particularly the analysis and hiring of students, which may’t be topic to political litmus exams lest the entire enterprise of scholarship get misplaced within the mire of partisan politics.
When it got here to the $64,000 query, which Rep. Elise Stefanik had undoubtedly ready upfront (“does calling for the genocide of Jews” violate college coverage?), MIT president Sally Kornbluth had the start of the proper reply (“I haven’t heard calling for genocide of Jews on our campus”), however didn’t reiterate, in response to Stefanik’s “you’ve heard chants for intifada,” a reply like this:
“You’re as soon as once more conflating protest towards Israel with antisemitism; they’re decidedly not the identical factor. However in reply to your hypothetical query: sure, I feel a name for genocide of Jews, or another non secular or ethnic group, would quantity to punishable harassment on a university campus. You is perhaps to be taught that such hate speech is, based on our Supreme Court docket, protected underneath our Structure, however on a university campus, I feel it’s insupportable and needs to be severely punished.”
In fact, chances are you’ll say: it’s simple to think about the proper solutions after the actual fact. However a university president ought to be capable of assume on her proverbial toes, and to articulate resistance to political inquisitions with pleasure, conviction, and hopefully a dose of eloquence.
Marjorie Heins is a former ACLU lawyer, a former member of the AAUP’s Committee A on Educational Freedom and Tenure, and the creator of Monks of Our Democracy: The Supreme Court docket, Educational Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge.
[ad_2]
Source link
