#814 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday December 11)
Good morning,
IMAGINING HATE SPEECH
Students were marching on Harvard Yard last week, chanting “Let’s lynch all the Blacks.” This was met with universal revulsion by the faculty of the university. The president scheduled a press conference for all the national and local media, to decry this horrific example of racism and incitement to violence. The Harvard Crimson devoted its entire front page to a single article with the banner headline, “Black Lives Matter Here.” An editorial signed by all the teachers in the university’s ethnic studies and religious studies departments was published in the Crimson, stating that “On this day, we all are Black. We will not stand for hatred or violence directed by any member of our academic community against any people of any color, creed, belief, or ethnicity.” The Harvard Law School faculty pointed out that “freedom of speech ends at condoning violence,” and pledged that the next issue of the Law Review would be devoted to the history of jurisprudence in the area of freedom of expression and speech, focused on speech calling for violence against minority groups.
The foregoing is, of course, an alternative history. There is little doubt that, rightly, all of the reactions described above should ensue if someone called for the murder of Black Americans or Native Americans or Gays. One would expect that calls for murder of Jews would be met with a similar response by the Harvard’s administration. But, instead, when the President of Harvard was presented with the question of whether speech supporting the killing of Jews was protected speech or not, she resorted to legal linguistic gymnastics in her answer. Indeed, the Presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania when questioned in the House of Representatives of whether shouts of advocating “genocide of the Jews” constituted permitted speech on their respective campuses, they paused, consulted their notes, and equivocated. Apparently, to some in academia, calling for death to Jews does not rise to harassment until it becomes persistent. While their answers were not identical, they hedged their responses with circumlocutions about “whether the speech led to actions” and “the statements would have to be taken in context.”
What possible context would justify advocating for the indiscriminate murder of Jews? Apparently, to hear the President of Penn speak, any hate speech is only hateful if it actually results in killings stemming from the speech. Apparently, Penn will wait and see whether people actually commit violence before taking action against incitement to violence. That said, President Magill of Penn submitted her resignation last week. Perhaps this will bring greater thought and sense to the notion that even speech—even on campus—has its limits and guardrails.
I watched the presidents of these colleges as they spoke. It’s worth watching the video. When presented with difficult questions (of course, how difficult a question is whether one condones calling for murder?), they were fiddling with their notes. They kept looking down at these notes and spoke mechanically, bypassing moral compass and going direct for legalisms. I suspect think these presidents were speaking from outlines prepared by their lawyers, rather than speaking from the heart. The lawyers did not advise them well.
POLITICAL EVENTS DO NOT FORGIVE HATE SPEECH
Some will suggest that protests that advocate for violence must be taken in context with emotional responses to events playing out in the news. There is no question that there are multiple issues at play in Israel/Palestine. And there are myriad points of view. There is a legitimate strain of Israeli and Jewish opinion (note to antisemites—these are not the same) that questions the occupation of the West Bank and that is horrified by the bloodshed in Gaza, while at the same time decrying the murderous rampage of October 7th and prior acts of terrorism. But we must be careful not to vilify Jews or Arabs for the actions of governments, militants, and/or murderers 8,000 miles away.
Protests, particularly on college campuses, that call for violence against Jews or against Arabs is as reprehensible as any other such speech against any other group. Even the heat of the debate and the rhetoric about the violence in the Middle East, there is no justification for this sort of talk.
COURAGE IS IN SHORT SUPPLY
Not everywhere are people dodging the real angst and anger on college campuses. Not all university presidents are as mealy-mouthed or indifferent to the presence of antisemitism, nor willing to allow seemingly no limit to the aggressions by a few. And while there definitely are periodic indications of strain within the student body at my alma mater and at others, these universities have responded thoughtfully, deliberately, and with an open heart to student protest, free speech, and heightened passions. I am impressed with USC’s hosting a conference on antisemitism and the statements by our president. It’s not hard to do what’s right.
THE HOLIDAY SPIRIT
Although it’s still Hanukkah, the Christmas carols increasingly are playing in my head. I woke up this morning whistling “Deck the Halls…” And now, I will don my gay apparel and begin the day!
Have a great day,
Glenn