View this post on the web at [link removed]

Late last year, University of Southern California economics professor John Strauss was barred from campus [ [link removed] ] after telling pro-Palestinian demonstrators on the main quad that he hopes every member of Hamas [ [link removed] ] is killed. Free speech groups [ [link removed] ] have rightly rushed to his defense, and though he’s once again allowed on campus [ [link removed] ], Strauss remains under investigation, apparently for hate speech and discrimination on the basis of national origin.
As appropriate as it is to defend Strauss’ free speech rights, we should also keep in mind a sobering truth of discussing war: To side with one warring party against another is to call for deaths. Banning from campus all expressions of support for violent actors would either silence all opinionated discussion of war or else require dissembling about the nature of war. In either case, the result would be the hindering of free and open analysis of pressing matters.
Truth: Another Casualty of War
A call for one side’s military victory doesn’t necessarily feel like a call for people to die, of course. In the comfort of a quad or the glow of a laptop, it might feel more like mere hope that one’s favored side will regain its allegedly rightful territory and hold a victory parade, while the other side walks away, physically unscathed. But alas, soldiers reclaim territory with bullets, bombs and the blood of friends and foes alike.
Politicians and arms manufacturers might dangle hope that precise strikes will destroy enough weapons, vehicles and facilities to stun adversaries into bloodless submission, but truth is the first casualty in both war and advertising. Defeated foes do not so much walk away as limp or crawl—if they’re lucky. As to victory parades, those come at the cost of funeral processions, and many victors must “march” in wheelchairs. And, obviously, a great many civilians neither congratulate the victors nor console the defeated, for they too perish in war.
Those are the facts of what people call for when they wish for one country’s military to defeat another’s. Even if you, dear reader, have always spoken of war in the most measured terms, calling solely for peace and never once hoping that one side or another wins, you have surely heard friends express hopes that Ukraine will “push back” or even “crush” the Russian army, or that the U.S. military and allies will “defeat” ISIS. It is understandable, of course, that they favored sanitized speech over more blunt statements about war. Still, the fact is that what they were calling for naturally would entail combatant deaths.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no exception to these brutal facts. To either hope that Israel defeats Hamas or that the Israeli military is driven back from Gaza is to hope that a preferred side kills enough fighters to achieve whatever sort of victory is possible in that interminable conflict. Strauss simply said straightforwardly what others say circuitously, and both American law and numerous universities’ policies make room for such sentiments, as evidenced by unimpeded pro-Ukraine rallies [ [link removed] ] and op-eds, and even a popular song [ [link removed] ] featuring vocals by a volunteer soldier.
The Difference Between the Individual and the Institution
I frankly respect Professor Strauss for having the courage to state his goals plainly rather than hiding behind euphemisms. The task of scholars and teachers is to see and discuss the world with clarity, and Professor Strauss rose to that task with an honest version of what most people usually say indirectly about war and foreign policy. If his acceptance of deaths or choice of sides is unacceptable in one’s value calculus, then his stance should be debated as a matter of ethics and international politics, i.e., treated as fit for campus discussion.
Indeed, such blunt speech would be a much-needed expansion of discussions about war. Candid descriptions of military action mostly come from two groups that overlap but are hardly synonymous: anti-war activists and combat veterans. Everyone else generally refrains from candidly admitting that the cost of war is a butcher’s bill. Explicit truth is as much a casualty in conversations about war as it is in the conduct of war.
Of course, some might accept the reality of war as Strauss does, but nonetheless oppose his call for the death of Hamas fighters, likely because they oppose Israeli policies. Opposition to Israeli policy is a stance that people have every right to vigorously advocate. However, unless Strauss crosses a line that makes the educational work of the university infeasible, by creating a genuinely threatening atmosphere inhospitable to participation by reasonable adults, he should still enjoy the right to offer arguments in favor of Israel and in opposition to Hamas.
The truth-seeking and educational work of a university requires that the institution remain neutral regarding conflicts remote from campus, so that multiple perspectives can be openly examined on campus. Surely, the most important lesson proffered by scholars of human affairs is that everything is complicated. Experts can offer reasoned, evidence-driven arguments for multiple sides of any domestic or foreign policy issue, and universities should be open to examination of varied opinions in both teaching and research.
Even in conflicts with clear-cut moral stakes (e.g., World War II), there were hard questions that could, did and still do divide reasonable people—the morality of atomic weapons, for one, or the proper posture toward a reprehensible ally like Stalin. There may be times when an institutional stance is needed, but it should be bland (“we hope for a swift resolution with as little loss of life as possible”) and allow room for debate.
The Weakness of the ‘Emotional Harm’ Argument
A tempting counterargument, especially in this era of sensitivity to psychological harm, is that frank speech on matters of war and peace actually impedes the work of the university, either inflicting distress that hinders learning or threatening the public order necessary for a campus to function. Both approaches to the argument fall short, however.
Consider first the possibility that Strauss’ call for the death of Hamas combatants inflicted psychological distress on the students who overheard him. Given that USC is apparently investigating him for discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin, this is likely an element of the argument under consideration by campus authorities. However, the facts of both the specific USC event and nationwide campus activism around Israel and Gaza undermine the suggestion that war and peace are too unsettling for discussion.
The complaints against Strauss came from students who were discussing the war in Gaza and mourning civilian deaths. Deaths in Gaza were surely a painful topic for many attendees, but (per the campus newspaper's reporting [ [link removed] ]) they nonetheless chose for their assembly the spot of densest foot traffic on campus: the landmark statue of Tommy Trojan [ [link removed] ], situated near the administration building, the student union, a major library and classroom buildings. And of all the topics that one might discuss in that most public of places, they chose one of the most controversial conflicts on the globe. They plainly chose public engagement over private mourning, with a reasonable expectation that dissenters might pass by and express contrary opinions.
Beyond the specific USC event, since Oct. 7, there has been no shortage of commentators and activists candidly discussing both Hamas’ brutal attacks on Israeli civilians and the terrible conditions faced by Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Seemingly everyone with an opinion on that conflict is motivated to discuss terrible suffering and cruelty, objecting only when an interlocutor expresses disagreement. Recoiling from disagreement is inimical to the purpose of a university, where people ought to be gathering to weigh hard questions from multiple perspectives.
This weakness of the emotional harm argument also showcases a key reason to eschew “trigger warnings [ [link removed] ]” in academic settings: Claims of emotional distress are too easily wielded in bad faith. Of all the terrible things to happen in the seemingly endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what most upsets aggrieved activists is not the abundant human suffering but disagreement with their side. There might indeed be a mental health concern at issue here, but it’s more likely narcissism than post-traumatic stress disorder.
Is a Call for Deaths a Call for Violence?
The other objection one might raise against Strauss’ blunt remarks is that calling for deaths is not merely pro-war opining but active incitement to violence, one of the few forms of speech punishable under both American law and institutional rules. Again, both the specific context and broader discourse inveigh against this take on the situation. In the particular case of Strauss’ comments, there is no indication that he was planning any sort of violence, or speaking to people who he might plausibly think would be moved to violence.
More broadly, even though Strauss obviously posed no imminent threat to order, one might ask if his call for deaths nonetheless reflects at least some sympathy for lawless violence, constituting a longer-term threat to campus order. Again, the facts say otherwise. He endorsed the use of force by an internationally recognized state that receives support from the United States government. None of this places Israeli (or U.S.) policy beyond critique, but it does underscore that Strauss made no call for lawlessness or chaos. He is firmly in line with the political order within which university officials operate, for good or for ill.
That still leaves room to debate the morality of state violence and the current political order, but endorsement of state violence abroad (implicit in every “Support Ukraine” button and bumper sticker, defensive though their violence is) is hardly a call for mayhem on campus. If we can accept that the ROTC trains on campus, preparing to possibly fight and kill enemies foreign and domestic [ [link removed] ] (the undeniable nature of their prospective task), then we can also accept that a professor called for a foreign military to kill its foes.
Consistency requires that we also protect the rights of anyone hoping that Hamas defeats the Israeli military. People in the U.S. have been able to freely express support for militants fighting against other internationally recognized states (e.g., anti-Assad rebels in Syria, or Armenians fighting for the largely unrecognized Republic of Artsakh [ [link removed] ]). People should likewise be free to express support for forces fighting the Israeli government. I do not assert moral equivalence between Hamas, Syrian rebel factions and the former Republic of Artsakh, but an institution open to discussion of global affairs must allow arguments for all of those parties.
Finally, no side has a monopoly on threatening people’s jobs [ [link removed] ] for what they say about the war in Gaza. As every grown-up knows, however, illiberalism on one side does not justify retributive censoriousness. Anyone who desires peace should call for more grace and forgiveness, and open, civil debate, not vengeful ruination of careers.
There is nothing pleasant about the subject of war. There are ample reasons for people to avoid the topic. However, as long as grim matters of war and peace and global affairs are deemed fit for campus discussion, unpleasant sentiments must be fair game for public airing, in keeping with viewpoint-neutral rules aimed at fostering civil examination of ideas. Professor Strauss said explicitly what others say implicitly in every word, sign or sticker in support of a side in war: that he hopes that combatants for his preferred side kill combatants for the opposing side. If such speech offends one’s moral sensibilities, well, better to advocate for peace and cooperation rather than stifle discussion.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?