U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik posed a simple question to the presidents of three prominent schools of higher education: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate each university’s code of conduct?
University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, Harvard University President Claudine Guy, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth had surprising difficulty formulating a coherent answer, and when pressed by Stefanik, they all offered more or less legal responses that hovered around a full condemnation of the genocide.
“If the speech turns into behavior, it could constitute harassment,” Magill said during the Dec. 5 hearing.
Now, I didn’t go to an Ivy League school so I may not be as smart as Magill and the others, but…
For recklessness? Do we believe that a Penn or Harvard student would need to attempt some sort of act of genocide and violence to go against the school’s conduct policies?
What happened to basic civility? What happened to safe spaces on campus and making all students feel welcome? Don’t such things apply to Jewish students?
The backlash to the hearing was swift and bipartisan, with Stefanik drawing praise, explicitly or implicitly, from unexpected angles. With little effective political theater, the upstate Republican revealed something dark.
“I’m not a fan of @RepStefanik, but I’m with her here,” Lawrence Tribe, a constitutional scholar and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, wrote on X. “Claudine Guy’s hesitant, formulaic answers and strange evasions were deeply disturbing to me and to many of my colleagues, students and friends.”
What is particularly striking about the responses is that genocide against Jews is neither theoretical nor inconceivable. This has happened literally in recent memory. It’s a new horror and historical line. Condemning it should be easy.
White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in response to the hearing: “It is unconscionable for this to be said: calls for genocide are brutal and contradict everything we stand for as a country.” “Any statements calling for the systematic killing of Jews are dangerous and disgusting — and we must all stand firm against them, along with human dignity and the basic values that unite us as Americans.”
Magill, Guy and Kornbluth have spent the days since apologizing and trying to explain — in other words, do damage control.
Magill even released a video in which she appeared to be a hostage being forced to pronounce words from a cue card. She pointed to “the irrefutable fact that calling for the genocide of the Jewish people is a call for some of the most horrific acts of violence that human beings can commit.” [Magill resigned Saturday.]
Meanwhile, Jay issued a statement that said, among other things: “Let me be clear: calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group, are despicable acts, and have no place at Harvard, and those Those who threaten our Jewish students will be held accountable.”
Would they do it though? Given the recent scenes on college campuses across the country, we might wonder if this is true, which is why Congress held a hearing on mass anti-Semitism in the first place. (In related news, the U.S. Department of Education is investigating Union College in Schenectady after Jewish students filed a discrimination complaint.)
Don’t equate this with a First Amendment question. Yes, every student should feel free to protest the Israeli government and how the state manages its response to Hamas terrorism. Condemnation of Israel’s policies and concern about the plight of Palestinians is not necessarily anti-Semitism, and even speech that is ugly, horrific, or endorses violence is generally protected against government interference.
But this does not mean that hateful language comes without consequences. We’re talking about a code of conduct, mind you, and we know that advocating harm to almost any other minority would not be tolerated under the rules in most schools.
It would be different if colleges were true bastions of free speech and consistently took a hands-off approach to discriminatory speech. But this was not the direction of travel. Many schools have become increasingly intolerant of freedom of debate and expression, with some even issuing lists of everyday words that students and staff should not say.
However, is hateful language directed at Jewish students tolerated? The double standards and lack of consistency are striking.
So Stefanik is fair game for asking the question — and pressing when it became clear that college presidents were doing their best to evade providing answers that would reflect basic human decency. What follows is how the hearing should have been conducted.
Elise Stefanik: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?
Bosses: Yes, it definitely will be. Our Jewish students deserve the same protections afforded to other students.
there. Was that very difficult?
In recent years, college presidents have come under increasing scrutiny for their failings in exhibiting basic human decency. Whether it be mishandling of sexual assault cases, prioritizing profit over student well-being, or showing lack of empathy towards marginalized communities, it is clear that some leaders in higher education are falling short of the ethical standards expected of them. This trend not only reflects poorly on the institutions they represent, but also raises important questions about the values and priorities within academia. It is crucial to address these shortcomings and hold college presidents accountable for their actions in order to create a more respectful and equitable university experience for all.