Suppressing Dissent. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. A Reposting

In December, 2023  House Republicans summoned the Presidents of Harvard, MIT and University of Pennsylvania to a hearing about Anti-Semitism on their campuses.  They were asked if calling for Genocide against Jews would be an offense.  Knowing that Republicans consider the word “intifada” (“shaking off”) and the phrase “from the river to the sea” to be genocidal, not to mention that Israel should be a state for all its people rather than a “Jewish” state, there was no way to win with that question.  Nor can you expel students for saying stupid things.  Plus that hearing was really about trolling for votes and donations.  And the Presidents fell into the trap.  The President of Pennsylvania was told that a billionaire donor was cancelling a $100 million donation.  She had to resign.  

This  was a class lecture in November, 2020. It is not an easy topic.  It focuses upon how difficult it is to engage in serious discussion of the conflict and of how there are organized efforts to disrupt or silence debate.  

One issue is that there are groups trying to define the word anti-Semitism in a way to weaponize it forpolitical use.  That will require a different podcast. However, if you are interested, see an article by Nathan Thrall in the NY Times, March 28, 2019, “How the Battle over Israel and anti-Semitism is Fracturing American Politics.” 

I wrote three articles in Middle East Policy on the Presbyterian debates on whether to sell their shares in five companies that cooperated with the Israeli occupation.  Those can be found in the University of Michigan virtual archive called Deep Blue.   

I mentioned a Task Force that wrote a policy on faculty being required to write letters that raised moral issues.  Here is that policy:  Point I.   Faculty Obligation to Support Students: Faculty should endeavor to support their students in the pursuit of their aspirations.  This includes writing letters of recommendation whenever possible.  Point II.   The Case of a Faculty Member Declining to Write a Letter of Support.  Given the right to acts of conscience as a part of academic freedom, faculty members are not obligated to write letters of recommendation for participation in programs if they judge that doing so would compromise their moral principles.  Point III.  Working with the Student:  In the event that a faculty member declines to write a letter covered by this policy, the faculty member should consider meeting with the student to discuss the reasons for that decision.  Such a discussion can be beneficial and educational for those students who may not understand the issues involved.  Point IV.   Due Process in the Event of a Formal Complaint: If there is a complaint  under this policy  against a faculty member, that matter should be referred to the department grievance committee.  In such an event, there should be an initial assumption that the faculty member behaved appropriately.  There should be strict adherence to due process for the faculty member, including a right to appeal an adverse finding.  In the event of an adverse finding, the matter should be referred to the appropriate  promotion and tenure or other review committee for consideration during their assessment of the individual’s performance of duties.   There should be no sanction beyond whatever comment the committee chooses to include in their review letter. Point V.  Letters for Undeserving Students: This policy affirms the established right of faculty to refuse a letter for an individual  student who is academically or otherwise undeserving. 

Note:  I was Faculty Ombudsman for 17 years.  Free expression is important to me.