Widespread student protests on the US campuses against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza are being labeled antisemitic by pro-Israel politicians and donors. They have now joined forces to intimidate the leadership of top American universities. President Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania has already been forced out. Leaders at Harvard and MIT are also under threat. The Pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Brandeis Center have called on 200 college presidents to investigate pro-Palestinian student groups. Faculty members and instructors at several public and private colleges have either been placed on leave or fired for comments about the conflict, according to Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman. These actions are a direct assault on academic freedom in America, with long-term negative consequences for the world’s most admired institutions of higher education.
Academic Freedom
Academic freedom is about the free exchange of ideas on campus by students and faculty. It is considered essential for learning. Limiting this freedom hurts the pursuit of excellence which has helped American colleges and universities become the envy of the world. This freedom must be defended by all Americans to maintain the excellence of institutions of higher learning in America.
US Congress
GOP politicians see these pro-Palestine protests on US campuses as a fundraising opportunity. Harvard alumna Rep. Elise M. Stefanik ’06 (R-N.Y.) aggressively questioned presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT to score points with the Israel lobby. “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” asked — to which Gay twice responded that “it depends on the context.”
GOP politicians like Stefanik are deliberately conflating slogans such as “From the River to the Sea, Free Palestine Free” with a call for genocide of Jews. This chant is only about ending the long brutal Israeli Occupation of Gaza (along the Mediterranean Sea) and the West Bank (of the Jordan River).
Jewish Donors
Several Jewish donors of major private sector universities have either canceled their donations or threatened to do so over the Pro-Palestine protests. Investors Bill Ackman and Ross Stevens have been among the most vocal pro-Israel donors at Harvard and Penn. They both called for the ouster of the presidents of these universities over what they call “antisemitism” on campuses.
The aggressive behavior of Jewish donors is serving to reinforce the antisemitic stereotype of wealthy Jews. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put in a Guardian Op-Ed: “As a Jew, I cannot help but worry, too, that the actions of these donors will fuel the very antisemitism they claim to oppose – based on the perilous stereotype of wealthy Jewish bankers controlling the world”.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Some right-wing politicians and donors have attacked DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs as the cause of what they call “antisemitism” on campuses. These programs help bring in faculty and students from under-represented groups to colleges and universities that have traditionally been almost entirely white. They blame DEI because many new students from minority backgrounds tend to sympathize with Palestinians whom they see as oppressed. Many of them see Israel as a “Western settler-colonialist oppressor par excellence”, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Israel has long been seen as a settler colonial state. It was established by the displacement of the indigenous population of Palestinians and their replacement by Europeans, similar to places like America and Australia. This process of Israel’s creation was endorsed by top British politicians like Winston Churchill.
“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger,” former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told the Peel Commission in 1937, “even though he may have lain there for a very long time.” He denied that “a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the Black people of Australia,” by their replacement with “a higher grade race.”
Thank you for taking the time to read my blog post! want to believe that you thought it was useful and locked in. I would enormously see the value in your criticism of the substance and composing style. Did the article give important experiences? Was it clear and straightforward? Were there any areas that could be refined?
Your criticism is unquestionably significant to me as it assists me with understanding what reverberates with my perusers and how I can upgrade future posts. Please feel free to share any suggestions or ideas for future topics you’d like me to cover. I anticipate hearing your considerations and proceeding to furnish you with significant substance. Many thanks to you!
