= Premium Content

  • Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Some Complaints of Campus Anti-Semitism Are Called Attempts at Censorship

April 20, 2011, 3:22 pm

Some recent complaints of anti-Semitic incidents on American college campuses do not involve actual discrimination but instead represent attempts “to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers,” argues a statement issued today by Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, and Kenneth Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s point person on anti-Semitism and extremism. The statement, which cites recent complaints of anti-Semitism at Rutgers University and the University of California’s Berkeley and Santa Cruz campuses, says it is “dangerous” to characterize anti-Israel remarks as ethnic discrimination, in violation of federal civil-rights laws. Doing so, it says, changes the campus debate “from one of exposing bigotry to one of protecting free speech, and the last thing pro-Israel advocates need is a reputation for censoring, rather than refuting, their opponents.” The organizations and students who have brought the complaints have argued that the behavior they cite clearly crossed a line and created a hostile environment for Jewish students.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • trendisnotdestiny

    I appreciate your efforts with this story Mark. Thank you.

    For me, this makes the fraud that has gone unpunished on Wall Street (all the more amazing) since we find ourselves at the brink of systemic shutdown (government, education, commerce) while we are being told by an Animal House wannabee Kevin Bacon: “All is well”….

    Truly the runnin’ rebels if this thing happens!

  • jffoster

    Wrote Prof. Bauerlein: “As you know, the only way to remove tenured professors is by shutting down departments.”

    Not quite, at least not in many places. A declaration general of financial exigency typically, and with particular local variation in detail, allows for the layoff of tenured faculty irrespective of whether an entire department is closed. It sound like this is the provision under which the University of Nevada at Lost Wages is going to operate under.

  • markbauerlein

    Thanks for the correction, jff. I never heard of that. If it works at UNLV, I bet we’ll see more of it elsewhere.

  • speciosm

    Finally.

  • alan_kors

    Indeed. Now, when might we hear the AAUP speak out on behalf of the intellectual and moral status of the critics of affirmative action, overly broad harassment policies, and other politically correct causes?

  • burger1376

    When people are Anti-Israel, they are just speaking their point of view. When people are Anti-Islam, it is a hate crime. When people are anti-white, they are speaking their point of view. When people are anti-black, it is a hate crime. There is racism in America. It is against the Jews and the whites. Everyone else can seek remedy in the courts who support racist blacks, latinos, muslims, gays, etc.

  • mmeisens

    Give me a break. On today’s campuses the ongoing censorship is of any support of Judaism and Israel. By the way, that same censorship is extended to either Christianity or Judaism. The exempt religion is the religion of peace, Islam. One cannot “argue” with anything that is said about Islam that is positive. One CANNOT criticize anything Muslim on the University. It is forbidden. But, one is free to criticize Jews, Christians, and both through Israel. The anti-Defamation League is still living in World War II and fighting the original Nazis. Good luck to them but it is meaningless at the university. Most Jews do not feel physically safe on today’s campuses. What does that tell you?

  • lairdwilcox

    The “hostile environment” issue is a slippery slope rationalization toward censorship and other assaults on civil liberties and the rights of individuals to freely speak their minds. It’s also a direct threat to the public interest that debate takes place over controversial issues that impact on our lives.

    If there is a “hostile environment” anywhere it is toward freedom of expression, debate, criticism, and discussion of core issues of public policy on the grounds that they are disquieting and may challenge the conclusions preferred by privileged and protected interest groups. This is contrary to very core of the First Amendment.

    Civil liberties scholar Thomas I. Emerson put it this way: “Suppression of expression conceals the real problems confronting a society and diverts public attention from the critical issues. It is likely to result in neglect of the grievances which are the actual basis of the unrest, and thus prevent their correction.” (Yale Law Journal, 1963).

  • 22067030

    People tend to take support of their own views for granted, while being hypersensitive to the mere occurence those they oppose. So pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian activists both quite sincerely complain about facing a stacked deck because … their opponents are not only tolerated, but getting their views into the media! Deplorable.

    More reliable data comes from tracking statistics (what percentage of Coke guests appear versus Pepsi guests?), but even here, one can wind up jumping to conclusions. For example, for years FAIR has dinged MacNeil-Lehrer for the rightward tilt of its guest gurus: M-L guests come from think tanks whose politics run the gamut from right wing American Heritage to (occasionally) center-left Brookings. But does that mean that MacNeil-Lehrer is itself right-to-center? Or just that they rely too much on the bigger Beltway thinktanks and, like the rest of the Main Stream Media, lack imagination? One must remember that in many ways, M-L is a shoestring operation, so there are other dynamics going on besides conservative bias.

    (And ask you favorite tea partier whether they think M-L is tilted rightward.)

    As Lucy van Pelt pointed out, conversation is a tricky business. We like to talk, but we don’t like to listen…

    —–GL McColm

  • 11144703

    I agree that it is “dangerous” to characterize anti-Israel remarks as ethnic discrimination, in violation of federal civil-rights.

    However the self-censorship of mainstream media concerning Islam or Muslims has become suffocating. For example, it was reported that Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted. That could mean she was repeatedly groped. It could mean she was repeatedly raped. But the media never gave details. Mainstream feminist press never pressed for details. Lara’s story has virtually vanished. Of course only those men who happen to be Muslims should be blamed for this incident. But the Left’s fetish for Islam (since The enemy of my enemy [the West, capitalism] is my friend) suppresses negative news about Islam as much as possible since in its view any negative press gives aid and comfort to Islam’s critics.

    Those who support freedom of inquiry should be transgressive and discover the truth behind the façade of the Lara Logan story. The radical Right’s perpetual lies and exaggerations about Islam should not dissuade us from pursuing the truth. As Justice Brennan wrote in NYT v. Sullivan, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

  • keis8427

    “The exempt religion is the religion of peace, Islam.” hahaha…yeah, that’s funny…

  • _perplexed_

    “It’s not practical or possible to exterminate millions with louse disinfestant and Diesel exhaust or cremate thousands per day as alleged.”…….and Raquel Baranow is no more anti-semitic than many of the anti-Israel campus demonstrators I’ve encountered.

  • 11147066

    Holocaust denial does not belong on this web site. It is outside the boundaries of legitimate discussion about this important issue. Ms. Baranow’s comment should be reported and removed immediately!
    Emily

  • ldjaffe

    I’m still waiting for someone to explore this issue with some serious thought. This AAUP piece is vague and largely speculative. I get why the AAUP brass might come down on this, without any hard facts or attention to the issues raised in the case: the AAUP is to to “academic freedom” what the NRA is to gun control. It puts them on the wrong side of some really outrageous classroom behavior and other unscholarly activities in defense of a principle. Again, the NRA analogy holds.

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.