In her essay, Katherine Franke of Columbia University shows a remarkably selective myopia. She seeks to persuade readers we have reached a significant turning point on public recognition of Israel’s suppression of Palestinian human rights—citing rising divestment efforts on American campuses, the election of a few pro-Palestinian voices to Congress, some actions by celebrities, even the behavior of global companies.
Now, More Than Ever, We Need Diversity in Admissions
Viewpoint and religious discrimination at San Francisco State University
What happens when a university lets a select group decide what constitutes “hate speech” for an entire campus? The answer at San Francisco State University is censorship of any opinions the group doesn’t like. This example is instructive for the larger societal debate on hate speech.
Free Speech, Campus Safety, or Both
Concrete barriers were erected and a security perimeter was created around six buildings, all reinforced by hundreds of police officers. Weapons, backpacks, helmets, and masks were forbidden. This was not some distant capital in a war zone. This was the University of California at Berkeley last night.
Is Free Speech Under Fire on Campus?
Over the past few months, a series of student protests has erupted across the United States on campuses such as Amherst, Dartmouth, Ithaca, the University of Missouri and Yale. While the specific spark of each protest has differed, their substance has been of like mind: Students are contending that their administrations have neglected an obligation to address bigotry, discrimination and intolerance, and specifically racism. Pressured to respond to such concerns, some universities have taken steps to discourage or proscribe “hateful” or “hurtful” speech. In other cases, faculty and administrators have been forced out, speakers have been disinvited and buildings have been renamed. Further complicating matters are questions about the First Amendment rights of religious minorities and new tensions between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian students and organizations. For some, today’s is an era of intellectual intolerance and so-called political correctness, of illiberal censorship of opposing or unpopular opinion. Others paint a different picture, one in which marginalized voices that have been silenced for too long are finally being heard and accommodated. So: Is free speech threatened on college campuses? Moment asks an array of scholars, university administrators and students to weigh in. This print symposium is an expanded version of a March 2016 live symposium produced in partnership with the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute.
Appreciating Hillels On College Campuses
The great rabbinic scholar Abraham Joshua Heschel once remarked that “mankind will not perish for want of information but for want of appreciation.” Too often we in the Jewish community fail to appreciate what dedicated Jewish professionals and organizations accomplish every day. We tear down those who should be our heroes. A good example of this is the episodic acrimony toward Hillel International and the executive directors who serve Jewish students on more than 500 university campuses. They have dedicated their lives to the education of Jewish students and to helping them maintain their Jewish identity and religion. The detractors say what they please with little appreciation of the critical role that campus Hillels play – and often with no accurate information. Rabbi Heschel would not be pleased. The risk of failing to respond is the demoralization of the very professionals on whom the students are so dependent.
Opinions | U.C. principles give needed protection to Jewish students
Former tennis star John McEnroe, when vociferously contesting a linesman’s call that his shot was out of bounds, famously remarked: “You can’t be serious!” The regents of the University of California similarly have called foul after multiple incidents of anti-Semitism and violations of free speech at several U.C. campuses. And, yes, they are deadly serious. I applaud the path-breaking resolution on Principles Against Intolerance unanimously adopted by the regents on March 24.
Incidents of anti-Semitic graffiti, calls for an intifada in America, the cross-examination of Jewish students putting themselves up for student government offices, and blood libels uttered in the heat of student debates over boycott, divestment and sanctions movement resolutions have been widely reported.
Anti-Semitism and junk Constitutional law
Governments not only do things like provide police protection and build infrastructure, they also speak and provide moral leadership. The Board of Regents of the University of California recently had such a teaching moment.
Anti-Semitism and junk Constitutional law
Governments not only do things like provide police protection and build infrastructure, they also speak and provide moral leadership. The Board of Regents of the University of California recently had such a teaching moment.
In reaction to numerous episodes of anti-Semitic graffiti, narratives around the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel invoking ancient libels (Jews as too powerful and privileged), calls for an Intifada in America, and efforts to silence any campus speaker perceived as pro-Israel, the board unanimously adopted a simple resolution: “Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism, and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.”
Why UC Regents report on intolerance works
The sculptor Rodin was once asked how he would approach a likeness of the vibrant Theodore Roosevelt. He replied that his job was to get the blood flowing through the marble. Most university statements on intolerance, racism and anti-Semitism are lifeless and have platitudes coursing through the veins. Not so the recent task force report to the UC Regents.
The report as a whole is one of the most thoughtful statements on intolerance, including anti-Semitism, to appear from any university leaders. Members of the task force demonstrate a firm grasp of the dispiriting anti-Semitic events that have occurred on too many University of California campuses, including malicious vandalism, inappropriate challenges to Jewish students vying for student government offices, outright expressions of anti-Semitic claims and narratives, and threats to the physical safety of persons. The authors say forthrightly that “Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in the University.”