[ The problem with the “all-sides-are-being-silenced” argument
is that administrators have responded differently based on whether the
targeted individuals support or oppose US-Israeli policy.]
[[link removed]]

THE SELECTIVE SILENCING OF CAMPUS SPEECH  
[[link removed]]


 

Kevin Young
December 11, 2023
AmherstINDY
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The problem with the “all-sides-are-being-silenced” argument is
that administrators have responded differently based on whether the
targeted individuals support or oppose US-Israeli policy. _

Amid Israeli attack on Gaza, students demonstrate in support of the
Palestinians at Columbia University in New York, Oct. 12. , PHOTO:
JEENAH MOON/REUTERS

 

“Fears of Violence on Mass. Campuses Are Silencing Many on
Israel-Hamas War,” reads a recent news headline
[[link removed]] from
western Massachusetts. The article quotes several professors who say
they feel silenced by those who criticize US-Israeli policy. It also
quotes several critics of US-Israeli policy who say they feel
silenced. What should we make of these dueling claims?

The key practical question here is what campus leaders are doing to
protect free speech. It’s problematic whenever an individual
infringes on another’s free-speech rights, but what’s most
important is how administrators respond. They’re the ones who set
policies and they also exercise the most influence over campus
culture.

The problem with the “all-sides-are-being-silenced” argument is
that administrators have responded differently based on whether the
targeted individuals support or oppose US-Israeli policy.

At UMass Amherst, where I teach, the administration has staunchly
defended the free speech of supporters but has failed to defend
opponents. When a student allegedly ripped an Israeli flag from a
Jewish student’s hands on November 3, administrators sent an
all-campus email condemning the action. They sent no such email after
a faculty member, who is also Jewish, received threats of physical
violence because she opposes US-Israeli policy.

My administration has also opted for a draconian response to activists
who criticize UMass’s partnership with weapons makers that supply
the US and Israeli militaries. When hundreds of students – Muslims,
Jews, and others – occupied a building on October 25,
administrators rejected pleas for dialogue
[[link removed]] and
deployed the police department to arrest them
[[link removed]].
They have since threatened the students with suspension and loss of
housing and even posted their home addresses online. Student activists
who have received threats have been told by campus police that the
threats are not “credible.” The three Palestinian students
[[link removed]] who
survived a murder attempt in Vermont on Nov. 25 may feel differently.

Official statements have also made clear where the administration’s
sympathies lie. UMass President Marty Meehan has joined other
presidents and chancellors in reaffirming that they “stand with
Israel.”
[[link removed]] That
statement was released on October 26, more than two weeks into an
Israeli campaign of ethnic cleansing
[[link removed]] that
legal experts widely consider genocidal
[[link removed]].

I’ve spoken with many UMass employees and students who fear
retaliation from supervisors and/or administrators if they speak out
against US-Israeli policy. Some have reluctantly remained silent.
Given the administration’s behavior since October 7, their caution
is understandable.

They’re also aware of the national scene. Educators
[[link removed]] elsewhere
(including at Smith College [[link removed]]) as well
as journalists
[[link removed]], actors
[[link removed]], lawyers
[[link removed]],
and union organizers
[[link removed]] have
lost their jobs for protesting US-Israeli policy. Student groups that
advocate for Palestinian rights are being banned
[[link removed]] by campus
leaders [[link removed]] and state politicians –
often the same demagogic politicians who have banned discussion
of racism, slavery, sexuality, and empire
[[link removed]] from
K-12 classrooms.

By contrast, how often have institutional leaders, at UMass or
anywhere else, fired an employee or banned a student group for
supporting US-Israeli policy? Even when supporters engage in overtly
genocidal incitement – calling Palestinians “bloodthirsty morally
depraved animals”
[[link removed]] or
praising Israel’s obliteration of Gaza as a “much needed
cleansing”
[[link removed]] –
they have only been investigated, placed on leave, or removed from
campus leadership positions, not fired.

Administrators everywhere condemned Hamas’s terror attacks, but how
many have condemned US-Israeli terrorism, which is far more
destructive of human life? Has a single administrator, anywhere,
proclaimed that they “stand with Palestine” against Israel’s
illegal 56-year occupation?

How many have denounced, let alone banned, affiliates of the Israel on
Campus Coalition, a nationwide spy network
[[link removed]] that
feeds information on activists to the Israeli government? That group
is proudly “modeled on General Stanley McCrystal’s
counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq,” in its CEO’s words. It
includes “over 600 university faculty from 200 different
campuses,” according to its website
[[link removed]].

It’s true that supporters of US-Israeli policy may feel some vague
social pressure from their peers. But there is a fundamental
difference between the credible fear of retaliation felt by critics
and the mere discomfort
[[link removed]] of
a conservative tenured professor who disagrees with a petition that a
leftist colleague posted on the faculty listserv. Disagreement does
not equal danger.

Why then do the supporters of US-Israeli policy keep claiming
victimhood? Some of them are undoubtedly sincere. Hamas’s October 7
attacks have been deeply traumatic for people with connections to
Israel. The recent rise in antisemitic violence
[[link removed]] in
the West adds to their fear.

In many cases, however, claims of victimhood are a cynical ploy. The
Right is consciously “working the refs”: alleging discrimination
in order to win preferential treatment.

It’s a time-tested strategy. In 1971 right-wing lawyer Lewis
Powell warned [[link removed]] the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce of a pervasive “Attack on the American Free
Enterprise System.” Powell claimed that “few elements of American
society today have as little influence in government as the American
businessman.” He called for an “aggressive” response, including
“constant surveillance” of media and school curricula and the
lodging of incessant “complaints” with authorities.

Contrary to Powell’s claims, the American businessman was still
mostly in control of society – he just no longer had a total
stranglehold, thanks to the social movements of the 1930s and 1960s.
One measure of business’s continued power is that Powell himself was
soon appointed to the Supreme Court. He and the rest of the corporate
world then launched an aggressive assault on workers and the public
sector, the consequences of which we are living with today.

Their assault included “constant surveillance” and
“complaints” directed at universities. Continually claiming
discrimination became a way of bullying administrators and faculty
into compliance. Powell and his allies simultaneously defunded
[[link removed]] public
higher education, which made campuses more dependent on private
donors. Since October 7, donors have threatened to pull funding if
administrators aren’t sufficiently supportive of US-Israeli policy.
Right-wing donors’ success in a few high-profile cases, like
the University of Pennsylvania
[[link removed]],
is just the tip of the iceberg, since such victories have a broad
chilling effect.

Though the Right always claims that universities are dominated by
leftists, a better case can be made for right-wing dominance. The
campus boards that determine investments, tuition rates, appointment
of administrators, and other crucial matters are run mostly by
business tycoons
[[link removed]].
The UMass Board of Trustees [[link removed]] is
a who’s-who of the Massachusetts corporate elite. The undemocratic
structure of the modern university helps explain campuses’
selectivity in responding to recent free-speech disputes.

Democratizing our campuses will require a long-term struggle. Right
now, we should demand that campus administrators safeguard the
free-speech rights of all employees and students. They must publicly
reaffirm those rights, protect individuals who are targeted with
harassment and threats, and engage in good-faith dialogue with
activists who oppose their policies. 

_Kevin A. Young is Associate Professor of History at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst. He serves on the steering committee
[[link removed]] of
Historians for Peace and Democracy, which has compiled an
online archive
[[link removed]] of
right-wing attacks on critical thinking._

* Israel-Gaza War
[[link removed]]
* Student protests
[[link removed]]
* Free Speech
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]