Don’t suppress anti-Semitism by suppressing free speech
An unfortunate symbiosis has developed between pro-Israel culture warriors and the most self- indulgent fringe of pro-Palestinian campus protesters. Together they are shifting attention from the urgent emergency in the Gaza Strip to the much smaller problem of campus antisemitism.
Some pro-Palestinian demonstrators seem to believe, given the moral enormity of mass death, displacement and starvation in Gaza, that deferring to mainstream Jewish sensitivities means buckling to so-called respectability politics, which whitewash horror in the name of civility.
Signs of commitment
“To the Jewish students, faculty and trustees blocking divestment and urging the violent crackdowns on campus: You threaten everyone’s safety,” said a recent communiqué from the Columbia Law chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing group that’s been providing legal support to the protesters.
The statement disdains the ethos of nonviolence, quoting Black Panther leader Kwame Ture, formerly Stokely Carmichael: “In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Within the movement, I imagine such rhetoric functions as a sign of total commitment, a no-goingback rejection of hollow liberal pieties.
Outside of it, to the extent that anyone takes this language seriously, it serves to stoke a raging panic about the protests that both distracts from the war and feeds a growing backlash that threatens academic freedom.
That panic is the backdrop for a dangerous piece of legislation that recently passed the House overwhelmingly and could soon be taken up by the Senate. The Anti- Semitism Awareness Act would codify, for the purpose of enforcing federal civil rights law in higher education, a definition of antisemitism that includes rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.
The bill relies on a definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016,. It lists several examples that could, accounting for “overall context,” constitute antisemitism. Among them are “applying double standards to Israel” and claiming that the country’s existence “is a racist endeavor.”
First Amendment problems
Even if you agree that all these things are signs of antiJewish animus, there are serious
First Amendment problems with trying to classify them that way legally. One of the lead drafters behind the IHRA definition of antisemitism, Ken Stern, explains that the document was meant as a research tool, not a basis for legislation. The law is supposed to address conduct, not ideas, which is why federal civil rights law doesn’t define racism, sexism or homophobia.
“Once you start defining what speech is OK for teaching, for funding, for all sorts of things, how does that differ from what we were doing in the McCarthy era?” Stern asked.
Donald Trump issued an executive order, never rescinded, directing the government to use the IHRA definition when enforcing civil rights law on college campuses. But Stern argues that writing the definition into law, with broad liberal assent, serves to cement it.
So far, a lot of the opposition to the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act has come from the Christian right, which wants to be able to continue saying that Jews killed Jesus, as well as from those who want to abolish diversity, equity and inclusion programs, rather than expand their protections to Jews. The bill, said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”
That’s not quite right; the legislation is civil, not criminal, and couldn’t be used to “convict” anyone. But she’s not wrong that the law, could, theoretically, be used against those promoting the classically antisemitic idea of deicide, a belief at once hateful and constitutionally protected.
Of course, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act isn’t intended to target conservative Christians. It’s meant to quash
anti-Israel activism. “There are not two legitimate sides to this issue,” Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-N.Y., said in arguing for the bill. “The erection of encampments on college campuses isn’t an expression of speech; it is a direct threat to Jewish students.”
We’ve already seen administrators such as Columbia University’s Minouche Shafik crack down on protesters in response to congressional coercion, which only inflamed the movement, leading to the spread of encampments nationwide. As disturbed as I am by mounting left-wing illiberalism, it’s hard to demand that pro-Palestinian activists submit to the rigors of open dialogue while the government is decreeing their views verboten.
Republicans and radicals
Should the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act become law, there’s no reason to believe that only those views that liberals find most objectionable will be targeted.
Elise Stefanik and her allies, after all, are currently attacking Harvard for having heroic Filipina journalist Maria Ressa, winner of the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize, as a commencement speaker, because Ressa’s publication called for a cease-fire in Gaza and because she signed an open letter about the killing of journalists in Gaza. As the war in Israel moves into a brutal new phase, so do efforts to stifle those speaking out against it.
The Republican Party and the radical edge of the pro-Palestinian left both share an interest in discrediting the modern liberal university by making it look at once hypocritical and ineffectual. Liberals shouldn’t help them.