The United States is at once the most wonderful and ridiculous country in the history of the world.
We are, as Louis Hartz pointed out in his classic 1956 book The Liberal Tradition in America, a country that, like Jay Gatsby, was born of a Platonic idea of itself. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington created the idea of America as a self-contained representative democracy with three branches of government and fought an eight-year war to bring it into existence.
We are also a country whose leading universities — Harvard, Penn, and MIT — have presidents testifying before Congress who cannot find the words within their presidential toolboxes to say that on their campuses no group can march in front of libraries and dorms and chant death. For all Jews, genocide for Jews – or death for all Muslims, Palestinians, Ukrainians or Mexicans.
The backlash to each college president’s disgraceful performance is that the United States is the most controversial country in the history of the world and that is why Penn President Liz Magill has resigned, as has the president of the Penn Board of Trustees.
No country has a law that protects freedom of expression as much as the First Amendment in the United States (which amounts to a law).
Private universities are not bound by the First Amendment
Although each president’s twisted and heartless testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee did not rely on the First Amendment to defend it—because the First Amendment has no force at private universities—the presidents still made arguments that “the first “It is the basis of much of what they said.
Lawyers can talk until hell freezes over, but it will never be a reasonable argument to say that our major private universities should allow any group of students to go out in the streets of their campuses and call for the death of all Jews or any group of people, to call for genocide. Many Jewish students in Pennsylvania are afraid to leave their dorm rooms.
However, the presidents used legal arguments to justify their universities’ codes of conduct when questioned by House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). They acknowledged that in certain “contexts,” advocacy of genocide would be prohibited on their campuses, that is, when such language was directly linked to efforts to cause imminent acts of violence in specific places and times. That’s what the First Amendment says.
What was needed, however, was a statement from each president making clear that regardless of what the First Amendment says and the case law that addresses it, there must be a rule in their code of conduct prohibiting hate speech (which is constitutionally protected). ) which calls for genocide. Each of them should have said that although their Code of Conduct does not provide for this today, it will be updated in the coming days.
Nuance is the enemy of reason in some circumstances, and this is the case.
First Amendment lawyers can tell the difference to the death between the language of genocide and hate speech cases, but that’s not actually a legal issue. It’s a matter of club rules for Ivy League universities and honorary Ivy League universities — and indeed all private colleges and universities.
You can’t shout “fire” in the theater unless there’s fire; This is part of First Amendment law with its limitations. Private universities, regardless of the First Amendment, are not obligated to respect the First Amendment and are therefore free to impose certain restrictions on impermissible speech on their campuses.
Public universities, which I’ll leave out again, have a longer order, but there’s also a way forward for them to ban genocidal language on their campuses.
The circumstances that need careful analysis are the way Israel is conducting its war against Hamas. This is a very complicated situation as Hamas hides behind Palestinian civilians and Israel cannot attack Hamas fighters without killing civilians.
However, there is an easy solution to the language of genocide on private American colleges and universities. It can never be allowed when those who use it call for the death of an entire group of people.
The writer has taught ethics and political philosophy at five American colleges and universities. He is editor of the interdisciplinary volume Leveraging (Springer, 2014). Contact: dmamaryland@gmail.com.
Advocating for genocide on private college campuses is unequivocally abhorrent and should not be up for debate. There is no justification or nuance to be found in discussing the extermination of an entire group of people. Any form of hate speech and incitement to violence has no place in higher education, and it is the responsibility of universities to uphold the safety and well-being of their students and staff. As such, advocating for genocide on campus must be met with zero tolerance and firmly condemned.