David, I think there is a broader context that informs this issue. At one time, certainly when you were there, Jews represented a quarter of the student population at Harvard. My understanding is that it is now down to 5%. What is happening at Harvard is not simply students expressing their views. Antisemitism has become so pervasive amo…
David, I think there is a broader context that informs this issue. At one time, certainly when you were there, Jews represented a quarter of the student population at Harvard. My understanding is that it is now down to 5%. What is happening at Harvard is not simply students expressing their views. Antisemitism has become so pervasive among segments of the student body that there is now an atmosphere of hatred directed at Jewish students.
I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and I supported the right of Nazis to march through Skokie. But there was no danger of Nazis taking over Skokie. At some point the expression of hatred, even if it does not involve shouting in someone's face or physical conduct, becomes so widespread, that it constitutes harassment (or something worse). In the case of private institutions that are not constrained by the First Amendment, they have an obligation to prevent hatred in all its forms from taking over the institution.
Now I am not arguing for creating "safe spaces." No topic should be off the table in class, even antisemitism, but if taking action against widespread expressions of hatred is inconsistent with First Amendment restrictions on the government, it is nevertheless necessary for an entity dedicated to teaching students from all backgrounds. I am Jewish. I would recommend Jewish parents not send their children to Harvard (no offense, David, but I think there are a lot better schools out there anyway--but that is a different discussion). Harvard's President has made it crystal clear that it will take no real action to protect Jewish students. So Harvard steps back 100 years. We did just fine without it.
Thanks for these insights, Jon—and I actually think we agree on a lot. I don't dispute your overall point about context. (And I have discussed, with other parents of Jewish kids, the diminishing percentage of Jewish students at elite schools like Harvard.)
I guess my question is what would you specifically propose, in terms of "taking action against widespread expressions of hatred"?
We all agree that students who threaten individual Jewish students, to say nothing of students who physically accost them, should be disciplined. But what about students who peacefully attend a pro-Palestine rally where people have signs that say "from the river to the sea"? Should those students be punished?
And going to Nadine Strossen's point, if the students from the pro-Palestine rally are punished for endorsing genocide, what about students who go to a pro-Israel rally that defends Israel's military response? The folks on the other side call that "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing." Should the students at the pro-Israel rally get punished too?
I'm open to university speech policies that are content-neutral or go to time, place, and manner. If Jewish students are afraid because pro-Palestine rallies are too large or noisy, we can talk about regulating crowd size or noise. If they are afraid because people are hiding their faces with keffiyehs, we can talk about anti-masking rules. If the timing is troubling—e.g., late at night—we can have set hours for protesting. (I'm not saying I endorse any of these steps, since I haven't thought about them enough, but I'm saying we can talk about them.)
But I'm very uncomfortable with giving university administrators—or government officials, or any other authority—the power to police the substance of speech or pick a side in a hotly contested issue. We might like it when the power is used to shut down "from the river to the sea," but we don't know when and where it will be used next.
David, I don’t see this as a hard problem for the schools to remedy consistent with the First Amendment and the safety of students.
If I were in charge, this is what I would do.
(1) have a zero tolerance policy for any student involved in a violent act against another student subject to a due process determination of guilt. My guess is that these schools have such a policy already.
(2) require that any student found to have defaced or destroyed property, such as painting a swastika on a dorm room door or someone’s car will be suspended for the following semester.
(3)The school will provide a space where students can gather to protest anything so long as there is no effort to incite violence.
(4) At a different location on campus, at some distance from the first location, students will be permitted to conduct a counter demonstration
(5) Before students are permitted to demonstrate at either location, they must provide notice to the school so that appropriate security arrangements can be made.
(6) students can discuss any topic, but any student who directs hate speech against another student will receive a warning that if such conduct occurs again they will be suspended.
(7) And finally, any student who prevents another student from walking away from any speech, or is followed while attempting to break away from that speech, will be suspended for the semester.
If students believe that they must protest something immediately, TOUGH. All students will be required to sign a statement that they are aware of school policy on speech and if they are unwilling to agree to abide with this policy, they should go elsewhere.
Of course there are other sanctions that can be used to achieve the same result, and regardless of what scheme is chosen, it should be revised if something doesn’t work.
Of course, this policy only applies to hate speech. Students can still conduct a sit-in in the President’s office. They can burn their draft cards anywhere on campus. They can protest any government policy. We don’t want to interfere with tradition.
I don't disagree with most of your proposals. But points (1), (2), (6), and (7) are already in place at most of these schools, and the presidents all testified that harassing or violent actions directed at individuals, like the ones you describe, are subject to discipline.
What is at issue instead are protests where no words or actions are directed at individual students, but people hold up signs or chant slogans like "globalize the Intifada" or "from the river to the sea." Stefanik wants to make participating in such protests subject to university discipline. I disagree.
Regarding your proposal of free-speech zones, the concept sounds reasonable, but historically the implementation has been problematic. See this discussion from FIRE:
The problem is that at this point the universities are in a catch 22. In the past they've systematically been willing to violate norms of freedom of expression to protect students from racism, sexism etc etc.
So now if at this point they fail to do the same to protect Jewish students that will be treating Jewish students worse than other similarly situated students. It's analagous to some very racist town having a procedure to elect some official and then suddenly deciding that position is unecessary the moment a black canidate gets elected. Even if the position was something obviously bad, eg, judging the morality of all proposed buisnesses, abolishing it now evidences a different standard for blacks and whites.
This is a hard problem and I don't know what can be done to fix it. I obviously don't think we should support continued violations of free speech norms but there is a message sent when this is the point universities decided to jettison their previous approach.
David, I think there is a broader context that informs this issue. At one time, certainly when you were there, Jews represented a quarter of the student population at Harvard. My understanding is that it is now down to 5%. What is happening at Harvard is not simply students expressing their views. Antisemitism has become so pervasive among segments of the student body that there is now an atmosphere of hatred directed at Jewish students.
I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU and I supported the right of Nazis to march through Skokie. But there was no danger of Nazis taking over Skokie. At some point the expression of hatred, even if it does not involve shouting in someone's face or physical conduct, becomes so widespread, that it constitutes harassment (or something worse). In the case of private institutions that are not constrained by the First Amendment, they have an obligation to prevent hatred in all its forms from taking over the institution.
Now I am not arguing for creating "safe spaces." No topic should be off the table in class, even antisemitism, but if taking action against widespread expressions of hatred is inconsistent with First Amendment restrictions on the government, it is nevertheless necessary for an entity dedicated to teaching students from all backgrounds. I am Jewish. I would recommend Jewish parents not send their children to Harvard (no offense, David, but I think there are a lot better schools out there anyway--but that is a different discussion). Harvard's President has made it crystal clear that it will take no real action to protect Jewish students. So Harvard steps back 100 years. We did just fine without it.
Thanks for these insights, Jon—and I actually think we agree on a lot. I don't dispute your overall point about context. (And I have discussed, with other parents of Jewish kids, the diminishing percentage of Jewish students at elite schools like Harvard.)
I guess my question is what would you specifically propose, in terms of "taking action against widespread expressions of hatred"?
We all agree that students who threaten individual Jewish students, to say nothing of students who physically accost them, should be disciplined. But what about students who peacefully attend a pro-Palestine rally where people have signs that say "from the river to the sea"? Should those students be punished?
And going to Nadine Strossen's point, if the students from the pro-Palestine rally are punished for endorsing genocide, what about students who go to a pro-Israel rally that defends Israel's military response? The folks on the other side call that "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing." Should the students at the pro-Israel rally get punished too?
I'm open to university speech policies that are content-neutral or go to time, place, and manner. If Jewish students are afraid because pro-Palestine rallies are too large or noisy, we can talk about regulating crowd size or noise. If they are afraid because people are hiding their faces with keffiyehs, we can talk about anti-masking rules. If the timing is troubling—e.g., late at night—we can have set hours for protesting. (I'm not saying I endorse any of these steps, since I haven't thought about them enough, but I'm saying we can talk about them.)
But I'm very uncomfortable with giving university administrators—or government officials, or any other authority—the power to police the substance of speech or pick a side in a hotly contested issue. We might like it when the power is used to shut down "from the river to the sea," but we don't know when and where it will be used next.
David, I don’t see this as a hard problem for the schools to remedy consistent with the First Amendment and the safety of students.
If I were in charge, this is what I would do.
(1) have a zero tolerance policy for any student involved in a violent act against another student subject to a due process determination of guilt. My guess is that these schools have such a policy already.
(2) require that any student found to have defaced or destroyed property, such as painting a swastika on a dorm room door or someone’s car will be suspended for the following semester.
(3)The school will provide a space where students can gather to protest anything so long as there is no effort to incite violence.
(4) At a different location on campus, at some distance from the first location, students will be permitted to conduct a counter demonstration
(5) Before students are permitted to demonstrate at either location, they must provide notice to the school so that appropriate security arrangements can be made.
(6) students can discuss any topic, but any student who directs hate speech against another student will receive a warning that if such conduct occurs again they will be suspended.
(7) And finally, any student who prevents another student from walking away from any speech, or is followed while attempting to break away from that speech, will be suspended for the semester.
If students believe that they must protest something immediately, TOUGH. All students will be required to sign a statement that they are aware of school policy on speech and if they are unwilling to agree to abide with this policy, they should go elsewhere.
Of course there are other sanctions that can be used to achieve the same result, and regardless of what scheme is chosen, it should be revised if something doesn’t work.
Of course, this policy only applies to hate speech. Students can still conduct a sit-in in the President’s office. They can burn their draft cards anywhere on campus. They can protest any government policy. We don’t want to interfere with tradition.
I don't disagree with most of your proposals. But points (1), (2), (6), and (7) are already in place at most of these schools, and the presidents all testified that harassing or violent actions directed at individuals, like the ones you describe, are subject to discipline.
What is at issue instead are protests where no words or actions are directed at individual students, but people hold up signs or chant slogans like "globalize the Intifada" or "from the river to the sea." Stefanik wants to make participating in such protests subject to university discipline. I disagree.
Regarding your proposal of free-speech zones, the concept sounds reasonable, but historically the implementation has been problematic. See this discussion from FIRE:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/free-speech-zones
The problem is that at this point the universities are in a catch 22. In the past they've systematically been willing to violate norms of freedom of expression to protect students from racism, sexism etc etc.
So now if at this point they fail to do the same to protect Jewish students that will be treating Jewish students worse than other similarly situated students. It's analagous to some very racist town having a procedure to elect some official and then suddenly deciding that position is unecessary the moment a black canidate gets elected. Even if the position was something obviously bad, eg, judging the morality of all proposed buisnesses, abolishing it now evidences a different standard for blacks and whites.
This is a hard problem and I don't know what can be done to fix it. I obviously don't think we should support continued violations of free speech norms but there is a message sent when this is the point universities decided to jettison their previous approach.