Sometimes the technical details are correct, and despite this the exam is failed. This is what happened on December 5 at the US Congressional hearing on the existence of anti-Semitism on university campuses. When asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews was an act worthy of punishment at their schools, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania responded evasively. They said it depended on the context; whether, for example, the speech fell within the scope of threats directed at specific individuals. Amid uproar, Liz Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, resigned four days later. On December 12, the Harvard board confirmed its president Claudine Gay to the position. More than 700 teachers had signed a letter asking for this permanence.
The disastrous hearing has forced a rethinking of how universities deal with anti-Semitism while raising questions about the line between acceptable protest and impermissible speech. The appearance took place amid a wave of anti-Semitic incidents on university campuses as a result of the war between Israel and Hamas that began on October 7. Since that date, Hillel International, a Jewish nonprofit organization, has recorded 38 anti-Semitic physical attacks at universities and 227 cases of vandalism.
Both in the prepared testimony and in the answers to questions during the five hours of hearing, the presidents denounced this worrying increase and explained what disciplinary measures were applied in cases of harassment. However, his responses to Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik’s tough questioning about anti-Semitic speech were evasive, legalistic, and wholly unsatisfactory. Somehow, they did not take into account that appearances before Congress are a political theater made of speech cuts, not legal statements. “Over prepared and too legalistic,” said Scott Bok, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania board, who also resigned.
The presidents described precisely what is allowed under the rules that regulate freedom of expression in their centers, which closely follow the American First Amendment. Violent speech is permitted as long as it does not fall into the realm of discriminatory harassment or incite violence. Holding a sign with a despicable slogan at a protest is not the same as sending someone threatening text messages. The context does matter.
Much of the rejection reaction is due to the lack of credibility of the universities themselves when it comes to the protection of freedom of expression; that is, to the feeling that they are too willing to take drastic measures against speech considered racist, sexist or anti-trans. “When they tried to defend free speech, no one took them seriously because they had previously behaved according to a double standard,” says Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a advocacy group. pressure. Of the nearly 250 universities evaluated by FIRE, Harvard and Pennsylvania stand out as the two least welcoming of freedom of expression and open inquiry, according to an assessment made from a series of surveys conducted, cases of conference cancellations and disciplinary sanctions against teachers.
Administrators’ inconsistency manifests itself in two ways: by directly silencing speech and by failing to punish students who violate university policies (such as yelling at unwanted speakers or blocking access to lecture halls). ). In 2019, Harvard University, faced with a student revolt, refused to renew a law professor who was working on the legal defense of Harvey Weinstein as dean. In 2021, he canceled a course on police tactics at the request of students. That same year, MIT rescinded a speaking invitation to a geophysicist who had criticized affirmative action. Too often, universities reflexively try to appease students rather than force them to confront ideas they find uncomfortable, says Edward Hall, a professor of philosophy at Harvard. Administrators see an angry or upset student in their office and immediately try to make them feel better.
Faculty and students at elite universities lean overwhelmingly toward the political left. That creates a climate of censorship in which conservative voices are restricted, even when no administrator is involved. Carole Hooven, a scientist who claims that sex is binary, dropped out of Harvard after being called a transphobe by students. “I felt like a sucker,” she said of her departure. Students and faculty censor themselves out of fear of being ostracized, a fear “often reinforced by insecurity about how the university will respond,” argues Keith Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton. “The university may defend you, but it may throw you to the lions.”
What lessons will university leaders learn from the recent tumult? At the same time as confirming Gay in his position, the Harvard board rebuked his initial statement following the Hamas attack, which occurred on October 9. It should have been an “immediate, direct and unequivocal condemnation,” the board said. However, universities are in this mess in part because they have taken to meddling in all kinds of public affairs.
No position will satisfy everyone. That’s why, about 50 years ago, faculty at the University of Chicago advised that the university remain neutral, that it be “the seat and sponsor of criticism…not itself the criticism.” Perhaps this latest controversy will prompt universities to move toward an approach to free speech on campus that is consistent and content-neutral. But that’s not what donors or politicians are asking for, Whittington says. In the name of security, they are practically demanding an expansion of restrictions on freedom of expression. Incentives and pressures may well lead to greater inconsistency.
© 2023 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Translation: Juan Gabriel López Guix
