An important debate
10/12/23 02:50
I think that there is an important debate behind the debates that are being held on US university campuses in recent months. On the surface it appears as if there is a great deal of polarization among students over the war in Israel and Gaza. Students are using the usual campus forums to debate. Reactions to the brutal Hamas attack and Israel’s uncompromising response have been intense. Jewish students have reported many incidents of antisemitism. Muslim students have reported Isalamophobia. The University of Pennsylvania’s president has resigned after criticism of her testimony to Congress about antisemitism on campus.
It is a difficult time to get to the debate behind the debate, however.
The stakes on the surface are so high. Even prior to the attacks, the leaders of Hamas have spoken directly of their desire to destroy the modern state of Israel. Innocent civilians, including women and children, were killed, tortured, and taken captive simply because they were Jewish. Israel’s response has been the almost total destruction of much of Gaza with weapons that are indiscriminate about the age, gender, or status of the victims. Food and fuel supplies have been cut off to the citizens of Gaza. People have been forced to flee without access to food and medical care. Hospitals and schools have been destroyed.
Real people are dying. That is what happens in every war.
In the face of this great human tragedy it is difficult to remain objective. It is hard to define the rules of conversation and debate.
To be clear, the Constitution of the United States protects free speech. People are not supposed to be punished for speech alone. That does not mean that there are no responses to anything that is said at any time. Words are powerful. The distinction between speech and behavior is impossible to draw in some circumstances. The example that is often used is that free speech does not entitle one to cry “fire!” in a crowded theatre, where such an utterance would cause panic and the possible injury of people in a rush to evacuate the room. While there are limits to that particular example, it is clear that hate speech has often been directly related to acts of violence.
Universities, in general, including private institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, have sought to protect the right of students and faculty to speak freely, including the right to take controversial ideological stands. Also, in alignment with the Constitution, they have set up policies to protect the right of free speech. But they have also set limits on types of speech which generate hate and stir violence. The protection of free speech and the prevention of hate creates a delicate balance with which each generation of scholars and university leaders must constantly grapple. It is often a source of controversy on campus and beyond the borders of campuses.
The huge divisions over the Israel-Gaza war have continued to intensify since it began. Students and faculty with different views on the conflict have been targeted and criticized for their positions. Graffiti, including swastikas, has defaced University properties. Jewish students have been made to fear for their safety simply by identifying themselves with their faith. Arab students have been the victims of threats of violence simply because of their appearance or cultural backgrounds. Universities have a direct responsibility to protect all students and keep them safe.
The congressional hearing at which Elizabeth Magill, the recently resigned president of the University of Pennsylvania made her controversial testimony was an attempt, in part, to discuss the limits of free speech and the appropriate response to hate speech. Ms. Magill seemed to equivocate in her response to intense questioning, testifying under oath that calling for the genocide of Jews was “context dependent.” She has since apologized for her choice of words. That was insufficient to prevent a major donor to the university from withdrawing a generous offer of funds.
I understand the need for nuanced judgement in response to the intense emotions of the deep divisions on college campuses. However, I have to agree that Ms. Magill’s response was deeply troubling. Calling for genocide is clearly hate speech. Advocating the killing of people because of their religious beliefs cannot be tolerated. The history of the 20th century is a clear situation that such speech can lead directly to violent behavior and the slaughter of innocents. A University leader needs to be clear and unequivocal that calling for genocide is always wrong and such a call must be condemned in the strongest manner possible. I also understand that the aggressive questioning in the congressional hearing presented Ms. Magill with a theoretical situation, not an actual one, and that her legal training and scholarship led her to offer an answer that left room for further discussion and debate.
The debate behind the debate in my mind is over how to define the limits of free speech. When does an expression of freedom of speech become a true threat - a statement that communicates a clear intent to cause physical harm? Obviously the use of the word genocide constitutes a clear threat. Genocide is always wrong. Calling for genocide is always wrong.
On a deeper level, it is clear that indiscriminate killing does not solve human problems. Hamas did nothing to advance the cause of Palestinians with its terrorist attack on October 7. The situation of Palestinians in Israel is clearly worse than before the attack. On the other hand, it can be argued that Israel’s destruction of much of Gaza, including schools, hospitals and homes, is not advancing the security of the citizens of Israel. It is difficult to see how the war is leading to solutions for any of the parties.
Meanwhile the resignation of a University President is not resolving the important debate over free speech that must continue on US university campuses. We need clarity. Students must learn that the actions of the nation of Israel are not the intentions of all Jews in all places. Putting all people of a faith into one category is dangerous and wrong. They must learn that the actions of Hamas do not reflect the intentions of all people of Arab descent. Putting all people of a particular heritage into one category is dangerous and wrong.
The debate needs to continue, but it is a debate that must be carefully executed with words that inspire, not words that lead to violence. The choice of words is important. Universities must be places where language is taken seriously and the choice of words is undertaken with great care. University leaders need to model the careful use of language in every context.
It is a difficult time to get to the debate behind the debate, however.
The stakes on the surface are so high. Even prior to the attacks, the leaders of Hamas have spoken directly of their desire to destroy the modern state of Israel. Innocent civilians, including women and children, were killed, tortured, and taken captive simply because they were Jewish. Israel’s response has been the almost total destruction of much of Gaza with weapons that are indiscriminate about the age, gender, or status of the victims. Food and fuel supplies have been cut off to the citizens of Gaza. People have been forced to flee without access to food and medical care. Hospitals and schools have been destroyed.
Real people are dying. That is what happens in every war.
In the face of this great human tragedy it is difficult to remain objective. It is hard to define the rules of conversation and debate.
To be clear, the Constitution of the United States protects free speech. People are not supposed to be punished for speech alone. That does not mean that there are no responses to anything that is said at any time. Words are powerful. The distinction between speech and behavior is impossible to draw in some circumstances. The example that is often used is that free speech does not entitle one to cry “fire!” in a crowded theatre, where such an utterance would cause panic and the possible injury of people in a rush to evacuate the room. While there are limits to that particular example, it is clear that hate speech has often been directly related to acts of violence.
Universities, in general, including private institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, have sought to protect the right of students and faculty to speak freely, including the right to take controversial ideological stands. Also, in alignment with the Constitution, they have set up policies to protect the right of free speech. But they have also set limits on types of speech which generate hate and stir violence. The protection of free speech and the prevention of hate creates a delicate balance with which each generation of scholars and university leaders must constantly grapple. It is often a source of controversy on campus and beyond the borders of campuses.
The huge divisions over the Israel-Gaza war have continued to intensify since it began. Students and faculty with different views on the conflict have been targeted and criticized for their positions. Graffiti, including swastikas, has defaced University properties. Jewish students have been made to fear for their safety simply by identifying themselves with their faith. Arab students have been the victims of threats of violence simply because of their appearance or cultural backgrounds. Universities have a direct responsibility to protect all students and keep them safe.
The congressional hearing at which Elizabeth Magill, the recently resigned president of the University of Pennsylvania made her controversial testimony was an attempt, in part, to discuss the limits of free speech and the appropriate response to hate speech. Ms. Magill seemed to equivocate in her response to intense questioning, testifying under oath that calling for the genocide of Jews was “context dependent.” She has since apologized for her choice of words. That was insufficient to prevent a major donor to the university from withdrawing a generous offer of funds.
I understand the need for nuanced judgement in response to the intense emotions of the deep divisions on college campuses. However, I have to agree that Ms. Magill’s response was deeply troubling. Calling for genocide is clearly hate speech. Advocating the killing of people because of their religious beliefs cannot be tolerated. The history of the 20th century is a clear situation that such speech can lead directly to violent behavior and the slaughter of innocents. A University leader needs to be clear and unequivocal that calling for genocide is always wrong and such a call must be condemned in the strongest manner possible. I also understand that the aggressive questioning in the congressional hearing presented Ms. Magill with a theoretical situation, not an actual one, and that her legal training and scholarship led her to offer an answer that left room for further discussion and debate.
The debate behind the debate in my mind is over how to define the limits of free speech. When does an expression of freedom of speech become a true threat - a statement that communicates a clear intent to cause physical harm? Obviously the use of the word genocide constitutes a clear threat. Genocide is always wrong. Calling for genocide is always wrong.
On a deeper level, it is clear that indiscriminate killing does not solve human problems. Hamas did nothing to advance the cause of Palestinians with its terrorist attack on October 7. The situation of Palestinians in Israel is clearly worse than before the attack. On the other hand, it can be argued that Israel’s destruction of much of Gaza, including schools, hospitals and homes, is not advancing the security of the citizens of Israel. It is difficult to see how the war is leading to solutions for any of the parties.
Meanwhile the resignation of a University President is not resolving the important debate over free speech that must continue on US university campuses. We need clarity. Students must learn that the actions of the nation of Israel are not the intentions of all Jews in all places. Putting all people of a faith into one category is dangerous and wrong. They must learn that the actions of Hamas do not reflect the intentions of all people of Arab descent. Putting all people of a particular heritage into one category is dangerous and wrong.
The debate needs to continue, but it is a debate that must be carefully executed with words that inspire, not words that lead to violence. The choice of words is important. Universities must be places where language is taken seriously and the choice of words is undertaken with great care. University leaders need to model the careful use of language in every context.
