Should Universities Speak Out on the Gaza War?

A Current Events Interlude*

The non-stop slaughter that erupted between Israel and Hamas three weeks ago is likely to change the world. Its horror renders me speechless — the children killed, the women tortured, the wholesale destruction of homes, families and worlds, and most of all the poisonous dynamic of revenge that will linger. Yet most people in the U.S. don’t seem speechless; to the contrary, it seems everyone needs to get on record with an article, a petition, a lawn sign.

It’s not easy to find nuanced remarks for this immensely painful conflict. All the moral, legal and political considerations are in severe tension — what is legal may feel very wrong (it can be legal, for example, to kill lots of civilians in war, just not to target them), and the moral perspective does not translate into strategic reality or political security. It’s easy to say that ending hostilities will save lives, but does anyone really think that signing a letter to that effect will change the political calculus on either side? That doesn’t deter people in academia from pronouncements — except perhaps a few tongue-tied university presidents who can do no right, however hard they try to craft the perfect message.

My first reaction to the furor on U.S. campuses was much like Daniel Drezner’s — perhaps the media should not pay so much attention to the spontaneous pronouncements of our youngest adults on international affairs. Of course, there are many ironies and lessons we can draw from front-and-centering the campus reaction. For one, a lot of Jewish leftists have been startled to learn that American anti-racism has an ugly exception for anti-Semitism, but that’s not really news. Intersectional solidarity really finds its limit here, when trans advocates for Palestine would no doubt be punished in a Hamas-run state. And certainly a one-sided and politically opportunistic focus on condemning Hamas obscures the responsibility of Israeli leaders for inflicting suffering on Palestinian civilians. But the media’s endless rehashing of what universities do or don’t say seems like another self-referential culture war distraction. That’s why I prefer the voices of people from Israel (see here and here) and from Gaza, (see here and here) who are far more able to convey the awful reality of the present moment, or even shine a ray of hope out of this darkness.

However, three weeks into the war, campus protests and tensions are high. Large, nationally-coordinated pro-Palestinian demonstrations are taking place at US universities, and pro-Israel protests at well, with harassment and threats on the rise against both Muslims and Jews. Even the White House has started to condemn anti-Semitism on campus and Islamophobic hate crimes. In the end, I decided we better pay attention because these protests give us a window into the socialization of the next governing class. The issue, of course, is not the students — many of whom don’t begin to understand the complex implications of slogans like “from the river to the sea” or even the debate about whether Zionism has anything to do with colonialism. Acting out your beliefs is what college years are for, but it is mature adults run and shape these institutions, be they administrators or faculty or even donors. So how well are these leaders doing? And what is their mission, beyond promoting the school’s reputation and statistics?

Some argue that universities have a duty to be activists for social justice — this, anyway, is a claim that has been made strongly by activist faculty at times of crisis, be it the Vietnam War, the murder of George Floyd, or this one. Others have argued for a strict neutrality on political issues, such as the influential 1967 Kalven Committee Report from the University of Chicago. Brian Rosenberg, the former president of Macalester College (situated a few miles from where George Floyd was murdered) considers a duty to speak out when public issues relate directly to the educational mission of the university. That mission, he argues, can extend to “preparation for public participation in democracy and civic life.” Well and good, unless dissenting voices are chilled by the university’s position — a very real prospect.

The most basic ethical duty for teachers and administrators is to inculcate tolerance and curiosity for expression and discussion of views that are controversial or even repugnant. Every idea of consequence upended someone’s world view. Tolerance, curiosity, and with them the skill of civil, suasive debate are central to both education and a resilient polity. Without them a democratic society founders, as we are seeing in the present politically polarized environment.

Under U.S. law, public universities must abide by the First Amendment. Private universities can censor all they want to, but most profess to uphold free speech standards. The First Amendment sets the bar for state censorship is very high — incitement to violence or unlawful acts — but it’s not that vastly different than international human rights law’s standard, which is incitement to violence, discrimination, or hatred that is manifest as hostility. In practice, following either standard would mean most speakers and protests should be allowed, even when they promote emotionally distressing or even false perspectives. So New York University should not be investigating anyone claiming that Israel bears full responsibility for the slaughter, rape and abduction of its citizens by Hamas. Nor should it condone one set of students tearing down the posters of victims of Hamas attacks that a different set of students put up. Donors to these universities should not demand that they silence either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine voices, and administrators who put free expression as a paramount value should not bend to such improper demands.

But what about an affirmative moral duty to speak up — should universities comment on perfectly legal but false or hurtful speech by faculty or students? That’s the view of Harvard’s former president, Larry Summers. Campuses are full of radical, inaccurate or offensive speech even when no Mideast war rages, so that could keep administrators quite busy. When and whether to comment on global atrocities is a difficult call. Should the Gaza war take precedence over the current hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh? Or Ukraine? Or Sudan? How would you decide?

In my view, universities have responsibilities to the extent their operations or community is affected and involved in a given disaster or controversy. There are many Israeli and Palestinian faculty and students in US campuses, and even more with family and religious ties to the region. Eighteen U.S. citizens were kidnapped and are held in Gaza. Many schools have programs in Israel. The distress on campuses makes the case for addressing the Gaza conflict strong. So what should the university say?

The very first message should be to emphasize a commitment to free expression and tolerance. Don’t shout others down, intimidate them into silence or scare them off peaceful protests, however awful you think their views are. If you strenuously disagree with someone, talk to them. People say things in the heat of the moment, or under the influence of disinformation, that they regret, revise or explain upon more reflection. That’s called learning.

Next, emphasize how you will keep the community safe. Here, I don’t mean safe from feeling hurt or outrage — that understanding of safe as in ‘safe spaces.’ This is a nanny function that students have come to demand from universities, despite or because the world outside the gates is hardly a safe space. But do you really want teachers who reinforce your sense of vulnerability in trying times? I’d prefer those who remind me I’m smart and resilient and capable of handling difficult situations. Universities have dug themselves into a hole with this supposedly therapeutic solicitude, catering to faculty and student arousal on issues of the day by issuing righteous commentary on disturbing events in the greater world along with an invitation to the therapist’s office hours. That just encourages everyone to think about disagreement as damaging.

Safety can be another way of saying your basic rights and freedoms will be protected in an educational environment. That would mean freedom from discrimination or threats of violence or reprisal, or safety from silencing, doxxing** or stalking. It is wrong that visibly Jewish students at Cooper Union had to sequester in a library while pro-Palestinian demonstrators banged on the doors, or that Jewish students at Cornell huddled in their rooms after being told to avoid a kosher dining hall because of threats of violence on social media. Muslim and pro-Palestinian students have also reported verbal and physical assaults and faulted university responses. Universities must provide hotlines, fair complaint procedures, robust campus security measures, enforced rules on protests, and above all, training in modeling civil disagreement and mediating campus conflict. And these measures should be publicized.

Third, leaders have a responsibility to model and articulate their institution’s core commitments, to not only academic freedom and free expression, but to truth, transparency, non-discrimination, the rule of law. Institutions of higher education affirm the integrity of their research and information; they should educate against disinformation and call out deliberate falsehoods that could amount to incitement to unlawful acts or a hostile educational environment for particular groups. Where issues are highly contested, such as whether a war is “just,” that should be left to the symposia of relevant departments.

What if members of the community advocate, praise or trivialize atrocities, crimes or discrimination? Rule of law is also an institutional value. To avoid being associated with those positions, a school might speak out, particularly if the speakers are seen as influential or representing the institution. But rather than issue rote condemnation, universities should use troubling speech as an educational moment, to expose, air and inform the community on both the issues in play and human rights. That doesn’t mean responding to every hyperbolic, biased, false or insulting student broadsheet or faculty letter. But silence in response to demonization or malicious falsehoods about particular persons or groups can be misread as a tacit invitation to hostile behavior or even violence.

Many might find my prescriptions irritatingly neutral and circumscribed. A non-profit university’s mission is by law non-partisan, and its mission is education, not catering to or debating with all who strong opinions. It also is against the Constitution to require universities that take government funds to support government positions — forced speech is also a violation of free speech, a point that perhaps should be made to more private gazillionaire donors.

Recommendations such as mine will not stop students/faculty/donors from roaring at the doors, demanding more. A student at my daughter’s school, Pitzer, went on Fox News to condemn the school’s president for failing to condemn terrorism in his admirably brief statement of condolence to all affected by the conflict. Does she think he should also condemn Israel’s siege of Gaza, which is creating a humanitarian nightmare? the apparent use of white phosphorus by the IDF? University presidents know they are in a no-win situation. It’s time for them to row back their drift into endlessly affirming student and faculty concerns. The right to education in a democracy is not about confirming anyone’s world view — and frankly, outside the campus gates, few care about what any university administration thinks about external events. If they don’t want endless demands for statements, they must do the unpopular work of explaining why sticking to their mission and not “blowing in the wind” is valuable. Wars are terrifying, and force us into uncomfortable confrontations with our beliefs and the beliefs of others. The best educators can do is to help us interrogate and grow from those confrontations, not evade them.

*Personal note: This summer was a season of illness, travel and recovery, requiring a pause in blogging. Although I will return to the issues of how to focus human rights on the global and structural dangers that threaten our future, for right now I will get things going with a few current events posts.

**By “doxxing,” I mean the practice of publicizing authorship or identity of a speaker when that person had a reasonable expectation of anonymity or privacy. The purpose of doxxing is often to invite reprisal. Obviously, those who express repugnant views on Facebook or in street protests have little expectation of anonymity and should be prepared for public reaction to their views. The practice has come into focus when student groups sign onto hastily-drafted letters — without consulting their respective members. Then others publicize the members of the group on websites and on trucks displaying their names and faces, accusing them of anti-Semitism. Several law firms have withdrawn job offers to students who were members of groups joining statements that blamed Israel for the Hamas attacks.