On antisemitism, university presidents needed moral clarity, not legal ambiguity
‘Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your campus’s code of conduct?” In a moment that cried out for moral clarity, the presidents of Harvard University, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania instead leaned into legal ambiguity in a cringeworthy exchange that has sparked criticism from the White House, a congressional investigation, and calls for the presidents’ resignations.
During Tuesday’s congressional hearing on antisemitism, Representative Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican, asked Harvard President Claudine Gay, MIT President Sally Kornbluth, and University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated campus policies. Each responded with a version of “it depends on the context.”
Stefanik’s line of questioning was bullying and posturing. It was based on the debatable premise that chants like “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea” — phrases that can certainly be understood as calls for violence — are equivalent to calling for the genocide of Jews, a crime with a specific definition in international law.
The responses of Gay, Kornbluth, and Magill may even be legally defensible. University commitment to free speech requires wide latitude for odious speech, and the line where odious speech turns into harassment, threats, or bullying may depend on factors like whether it is directed at an individual student or group of students and where, when, and how the speech occurs.
But the responses fell far short of the kind of educational leadership required during these tense times. They represented a missed opportunity to state clearly that antisemitism is an unacceptable scourge on civil society and Jewish students on campus should not feel threatened or harassed. The leaders could have made clear that calling for the genocide of Jews — a phrase seeped in the history of the Holocaust and pogroms — is anathema.
They should have publicly accepted responsibility as educators to teach the next generation of students the history and context that demonstrates why language so suggestive of violence, even if not necessarily calling for genocide, is wrong. They should have made a public mea culpa, taking responsibility for their roles leading campuses where Jewish students are reconsidering whether to wear accessories that identify them as Jews. They might have showed an awareness of the generational trauma affecting the great-grandchildren of Holocaust survivors who populate their campuses, for whom genocide of Jews is an intrinsic part of their family history.
Instead, the presidents’ answers came out as a soup of muddled thinking, an illustration of the misplaced priorities of higher education.
MIT’s own guidelines on freedom of expression state, “It is usually easier to deal with issues of free expression and harassment when members of the community think in terms of interests rather than rights. It may be ‘legal’ to do many things that are not in one’s interests or in the interests of members of a diverse community.” Kornbluth and her colleagues focused on rights, losing sight of the interests of healthy college communities.
The presidents’ testimony also raised questions about double standards, leaving some Jews wondering whether the answers would have been the same had offensive language targeted Black people, Hispanic people, women, or any other group. Harvard in 2021 reportedly asked a student to remove a flag of bikini-clad rapper Nicki Minaj saluting an American flag from their window, while Harvard staff in 2016 prevented a student from posting signs that equated an anti-racist group at Harvard Law School with Donald Trump. On other campuses, two white University of Connecticut students were arrested in 2019 for shouting a racist slur outside student apartments, while Syracuse University suspended 15 fraternity members in 2018 for appearing in racist, ableist, and offensive videos.
Since Oct. 7, many Jews have felt they are being held to a different standard. For example, the hashtag #MeTooUnlessYourAJew questioned why women’s rights organizations hesitated to condemn the rape and sexual assaults committed by Hamas against Israeli women. The presidents’ hesitancy reinforced those perceptions.
The presidents’ follow-up statements appeared to recognize their mistakes. “Let me be clear: Calls
These university presidents should not be judged solely on their immediate responses to hostile questioning before a national audience. They should instead be judged on how they move their campuses forward through this divisive time.
for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account,” Gay said. She apologized explicitly for her remarks in an interview published Friday in The Harvard Crimson student newspaper. Harvard just announced the appointment of a “senior adviser for civic discourse,” in addition to initiatives to combat antisemitism. Magill said calls for genocide against Jews are “evil, plain and simple” and “threatening, deeply so.” Even during the hearing, Kornbluth, who is Jewish, said clearly in her opening statement that campus efforts are underway to combat antisemitism and ensure student safety.
These university presidents should not be judged solely on their immediate responses to hostile questioning before a national audience. They should instead be judged on how they move their campuses forward through this divisive time.
Do they apply their campus speech codes evenly so antisemitic rhetoric is treated the same as racist or homophobic language? Do time, place, and manner restrictions on protests ensure free speech is protected in a way that does not impede the rights of other students to move freely around campus? Policies should be clear on where the line is when legally protected speech turns into conduct, recognizing that screaming threats in an opponent’s face might be punishable even when shouting the same words during a demonstration may not be.
The presidents should be judged on whether they create an environment on campus that models and teaches civic dialogue, with safe spaces where people on opposing sides of the issue can talk, and where faculty avoid letting their own biases influence interactions with students. They must ensure that all students feel safe from threats, bullying, and harassment.
The solution to the hatred being spewed on campuses today is not publicly shaming students, nor is it flying a plane with the message “Harvard hates Jews.” Rather, it is doing the hard work of admitting a diverse student body, then creating a culture where diverse voices are respected and encouraged, challenging issues are discussed, and all students feel safe. That is where Congress, university leaders, donors, parents, and students should focus.
Judge the presidents not on a viral on-camera moment but on whether they successfully create a campus environment where students can freely wear their kippah — or their keffiyeh — to class.