ATTACKING ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK
By Matthew M. Hausman
As they hosted factually challenged programs to coincide with “Israel Apartheid Week,” college campuses across North America achieved new heights of intellectual vacuity and sophistry. On campus after campus, malicious ideologues were given license to demonize Israel by advancing the canard that the Jewish State engages in apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. That such claims cannot be supported by a shred of objective evidence and could constitute libel and slander if hurled against nonpublic figures and entities is irrelevant to the hate mongers who utter them. Instead, these thugs and bullies are secure in the knowledge that the institutions providing them their platform are not generally interested in constructive dialogue. Despite being subjected to gross intimidation, Israel’s supporters are often discouraged from responding out of false concern for preserving public order. Speech in these venues is free when used to pillory Israel, but apparently not when used to defend her or to inject historical perspective and honesty.
People sitting on the sidelines often ask why anybody should care what happens in the ivory tower; it does not affect their daily lives or interfere with their personal business. Why indeed? Those who are ambivalent or who, through benign ignorance, believe there may be some truth to the Arab narrative need only look to the recent display of anti-Israeli and antisemitic invective at Toronto University to understand the danger.
As reported on March 5th, Toronto University was hosting “Israeli Apartheid Week” events, which included a propaganda presentation by Palestinian speakers. During the question-and-answer period, a Jewish student had the temerity to ask whether Israel had the right to exist, whereupon he and a companion were assaulted by a “Palestinian security team.” These two students were physically assaulted, while one of the “security personnel” – in front of 100 witnesses, no less – shouted: “Shut the F**ck up or he’ll saw his head off.” Although this may constitute political discourse in the Arab Middle East, it is considered incitement in the West and should not be tolerated.
The report did not relate what action if any the university undertook to investigate the physical assault or the threat, or to assure safety of its Jewish students. But if the track record at other institutions is any indication, the path of least resistance is usually to label the pro-Israel crowd provocateurs or to claim an inability to take corrective measures that would restrain the right to speak freely on campus. What action is taken when UCLA-Irvine permits the posting of signs equating the Star of David with the swastika or allows the Muslim Student Union to host annual lectures by known Israel bashers and Jew haters? Where is the balance when Central Connecticut State University hosts revisionist ideologue Norman Finkelstein to lambaste Israel and the so-called sale of the Holocaust? What equal time is provided when Columbia University welcomes Ahmed Ahmadinejad to speak?
The absence of statutes criminalizing hate speech means that public speakers can spout whatever views they choose even when factually inaccurate, morally reprehensible, or evocative of the theater of the absurd. As stated by the Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, “onstitutional protection does not turn upon ‘the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered,’ for ‘erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and … must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they ‘need … to survive.’”
And indeed, any attempt to regulate speech by statute necessarily invites government interference to prescribe “acceptable” standards of thought and to censor speech and expression based on political considerations, a horrifying scenario that apparently would have been welcomed by Senator Charles Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when they recently attempted to resurrect the “fairness doctrine.” The risks inherent in statutory restrictions far outweigh any perceived benefits in a free society, in which governmental regulation of belief, thought and expression would stifle dissent and encourage totalitarianism. And yet freedom of speech is not an absolute and the citizenry is entitled to some protections.
The failure of many colleges and universities to identify or condemn such conduct as hate speech has become so de rigueur that it should surprise no one. What is surprising for Jewish students is the discovery that there are few means with which to enforce institutional objectivity. Despite claiming to stimulate discourse and the free exchange of ideas, many universities have little incentive to confront such biases. Truly private institutions have no obligation to permit any speech with which they disagree while publicly funded schools claim they are unable to regulate speech because their receipt of government funding raises the specter that any restrictions would be tantamount to unconstitutional censorship.
Although parties claiming to be injured by untruthful speech may resort to libel and slander relief under common law, legal actions could be asserted only by those injured against the persons engaging in libelous speech, not necessarily against the institutions at which they state their views. Moreover, the usual standards of proof would apply and would present steep hurdles with respect to speech directed at public figures.
Some critics have questioned whether universities under the law are analogous to the workplace, where private employers can regulate employee speech to maintain a harmonious work environment (although government employers may not have the same latitude). Restrictions on workplace speech are generally lawful as long as they are not discriminatory. Despite a certain appeal, however, the analogy may be inapposite because universities are expected to provide forums for dissenting viewpoints and students are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the neighborhood. Moreover, most states have employment statutes governing the workplace.
Still other critics have suggested that legal action could be predicated on a contract theory, i.e., that a university’s acceptance for admission and a student’s payment of tuition constitute bargain and consideration entitling the student to an education without harassment. However, the university’s position would be that the object of the “contract” is to provide an education, not to guarantee intellectual comfort, and that students should expect to be subjected to dissenting viewpoints no matter how offensive. The issue will turn not on the content of speech, but rather on personal safety and discrimination, which may afford legal avenues for those with the fortitude to pursue them.
Regarding the Toronto University incident, for example, one can argue that the institution has an obligation to provide a safe environment, and that students have a reasonable expectation that they will not be assaulted, threatened or abused. Those who commit assault and battery or who engage in criminal incitement may be prosecuted criminally under the appropriate statutes. Then the institution could be pursued civilly for negligence or reckless endangerment in allowing or fostering a dangerous environment. Victims of such crimes as assault, battery and rape have successfully prosecuted property owners whose acts or omissions facilitated crimes committed by others.
Or if institutional rules are violated by offensive speech, civil action might be possible to require universities to enforce their own codes or policies equally, or to penalize them for failing to do so. This was the strategy taken in Sklar v. Clough, a civil rights lawsuit against the Georgia Institute of Technology. The plaintiffs, two women who belonged to the College Republicans, alleged that Georgia Tech had discriminated against them by, among other things, failing to enforce its campus speech code against groups whose views were considered politically acceptable. The plaintiffs would not be deterred despite being abused and threatened after commencing the suit; and their speech claims were eventually settled before judgment, perhaps providing a template adaptable for other situations.
A civil rights claim may be possible, for example, when permitting pejorative speech on campus acts by intimidation to suppress opposing speech, unless the institution provides a safe forum for rebuttal. If the university takes the position that it must allow programs by Israel bashers, it would be incongruous not to provide a protected forum for those wishing to offer opposing viewpoints. And the failure to do so could perhaps be molded into an equal protection claim if access to the forum is withheld from a protected class as defined by religion, ethnicity or nationality. If the facts fit, it may be possible to allege violations of the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Perhaps the best defense against the kinds of hate speech on display during Israel Apartheid Week is to be forceful in branding hate speech for what it is, demanding equal time from the institutions providing the stage, and demanding that they provide security to prevent attacks such as those occurring at Toronto University and elsewhere.
Instead of putting the onus on Jewish students by advising them to avoid displays of public identification (e.g., the wearing of kippot), universities must punish the thugs who attempt through abuse and intimidation to restrict any speech in support of Israel. Moreover, they should issue editorial disclaimers that they do not endorse hate speech. Punish the aggressor, not the victim.
Finally, if these institutions fail to provide a safe forum for dissenting views, students and faculty who support Israel should determine whether the failure violates campus policies and codes or anti-discrimination laws, and take appropriate action. The failure to protect students in the face of a known risk or threat may well be actionable. The task is surely daunting, especially given the level of polish and coordination exhibited by those who are determined to defame Israel and cow her supporters into silence. But advocates need to understand that what they see on the college campus is a microcosm of what happens on the international stage, and must be addressed with resolve r students have to contend with visit Peace on Campus.and confidence.
ADDENDUM: To get a first hand report of what students are subject to visit Peace on Campus.
ADDENDUM II:
I just received this email from a Toronto activist.
To my knowledge the administration is doing nothing to quell the violence. Security still has no authority to do anything.
Jewish students are beginning to stand up for their right to an unimpeded education. What they need is support.
See message below. The intro is from Shirley Anne Haber….
Dear Friends,
This is the second email for the ‘Peace on Campus’ initiative with a youtube video showing the hateful rallies and rhetoric of the Palestinian group in Vari Hall – you notice the obscene hate graffiti that students see wherever they go on campus – in washrooms, on desks, walls and signage – the swastika evoking traumatic memories of Nazi Germany Jew Hate, symbol of anti-Semitism, now being resurrected – you see Arab students wearing kaffiyehs as scarves as an affront, yelling racist messages through megaphones to intimidate and disrupt which is against school policy – you hear lies accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing – you observe rude offensive tactics shouting down MK Sharansky, to silence him and harass Jewish students, and other students. I encourage you to click on their website link below to show traffic…
And if you haven’t yet written to York U President Mamdouh Shoukri, please do so after watching the video – state that it is the responsibility of the university to provide a safe and secure learning environment for all students free from intimidation as set out in the school Code of Conduct! We need LOTS of letters – please act! Please forward me ‘copies’ of your letters…
The Media Acton Group
info@mediaactiongorup.com
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Last week was ‘Israel Apartheid Week’ at York University. During the ‘festivities’, Aaron Rosenberg, President of Hasbara @ York, was engaging a member of the Tamil Students Association in Vari Hall while some guy behind him blurted out, “The F*#king Jewish….it’s always the F*#king Jewish!”.
The level of Anti-Semitism at York University has flown over the boiling point. It is unacceptable for us to allow this kind of behaviour in an academic environment let alone at all. As you can see in the video, while I was yelling for security, it happened that one was standing right beside me and did nothing about it.
Please forward the YouTube link to your contact list. We need to inform the Jewish community and the greater York community that we will not stand for Anti-Semitism. Until the University feels the heat from our communities, the situation will not change.
That is why we must pressure the university to stamp out this type of hate as it has been getting worse at York over the past month. Urge your friends and family whether they be alumni, parents, students, or just concerned citizens to email their outrage to President Shoukri at mshoukri@yorku.ca
Also, visit the website at: peaceoncampus
Our goal is to hit as many views as possible within the next 72 hours. Please join our efforts now! Spend 5 minutes and send this to as many contacts as possible.
Thanks,
Students for Peace on Campus
ADDENDUM III
In George Orwell’s dystopian allegory, Animal Farm, the pigs assume governance of a farm the animals have seized from their oppressive human owner. Not content with contingent power, the pigs appropriate the farm dogs’ newborn puppies. Trained in secret, knowing no other way of life, the puppies grow up to be fearsome, loyal guard dogs. From then on, the pigs’ power to dictate “politically correct” thinking amongst the animals is absolute.
The organizers — not themselves high school students, but the “pigs” in this neo-Orwellian story — only allowed “puppies” — high school students with identifying student cards — to attend a five-hour session of anti-Israel propaganda. No teachers, parents or media were permitted to attend, so we really have no idea of what went down there. CONTINUE
Ted Belman
Posts
