The US House of Representatives summoned the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania for a hearing this week to address a troubling rise in overt anti-Semitism on their campuses in the wake of Hamas attacks on Israel two months ago. Their responses made abundantly clear why one of the oldest and most shameful forms of intolerance thrives today in academia.
The refusal of the leaders of our most elite universities to answer questions directly and acknowledge the inconsistencies in their institutions’ response to hatred directed toward Jews and other groups was a shocking display of moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
Rep. Elise Stefanik repeatedly tried to ask the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn State whether calling for the genocide of Jews constituted bullying, harassment, and intimidation in violation of their codes of conduct. The three refused to answer yes or no, saying it depends on the context. They suggested that if crowds of students chanting genocidal slogans crossed the line into “behaviour” they could be punished.
Good to know. It seems that actually killing Jews, as a behavior, is subject to university discipline, but just calling for their killing — even when Jewish students are walking to their dorms or sitting in class — is just part of the robust dialogue needed to shape our best selves. And the brightest.
>>> The root cause of the craziness on campus is older than you might think
These universities’ sudden adoption of an absolute free speech stance is particularly surprising, especially since none of them adhered to this principle when non-Jews were the targets. Harvard’s record of failing to protect freedom of expression was so poor that it was given the lowest possible rating by an academic freedom advocacy organization.
As Rep. Stefanik pointed out, Harvard University fired the dean of Winthrop House, who is also a law school professor, after he agreed to serve as attorney for disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Harvard University also revoked the admission of several students due to statements they made on social media.
Penn’s record on protecting free speech has never been better, giving it the second-worst ranking for free speech from the same group that placed Harvard last. The university is in the midst of trying to fire professor Amy Wax, who has been an outspoken critic of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts on campus. If she had called for genocide (but only against Jews), she might have been safe from university work.
MIT scores better on freedom of expression, but it still has its problems. For example, climate scientist Dorian Abbott was famously banned from speaking at MIT – not because of his views on global warming, but because he openly opposed diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
MIT has also refused to enforce its own rules and punish anti-Israel protesters because many of them are foreign students and disciplining them could jeopardize their foreign visas and lead to deportation. MIT could not be clearer about who matters most — not the Jewish students who face abuse, but the foreign students who abuse them.
The hypocrisy of suddenly discovering a deep commitment to free speech when it is Jews who are under attack is bad enough, but an all-hands-on-deck approach to speech on campus is also educationally inappropriate. Yes, universities should promote the expression of different viewpoints, but they should do so in the service of the search for truth, which should be the central mission of higher education.
The rules governing free speech on a college campus are different than on a street corner. People can scream whatever genocidal nonsense they want in public, but in educational settings such speech can be restricted to ensure it does not interfere with learning opportunities. In fact, all universities that receive federal subsidies must ensure that students do not face significant harassment on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity, including Jews. The US Department of Education has just begun investigations into Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania for violating the civil rights of Jewish students, which gives you an idea of how bad things have gotten.
>>> Event: Promoting Learning and Virtue: Moral Education in the University
The presidents of Harvard and Pennsylvania must have realized how disastrous their inability to condemn calls for genocide as a violation of their university’s code of conduct was, because both issued carefully worded statements after the fact in a feeble effort to save their reputations and perhaps their jobs. . There are reports of an emergency meeting of the Penn Board of Trustees, indicating that the President of Penn may lose her position due to this disaster.
Nothing will improve without outside pressure. As several representatives at the hearing suggested, Congress should reconsider the overly generous taxpayer subsidies to these universities that coddle anti-Semitism. If this is the kind of education that Harvard, MIT, and Penn State want to provide, let them do it at their own expense. This is especially true because these three universities have nearly $100 billion in endowment funds between them.
In addition, donors need to close their wallets and start demanding accountability for the irresponsible leadership demonstrated by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn. These places are not the same as those found in the fond memories of their graduates. Major donors, such as Bill Ackman of Harvard University and Mark Rowan of the University of Pennsylvania, are organizing donor strikes until changes are made.
But the strongest form of accountability is the dismissal of the presidents of these universities. Senior administrators in higher education are characterized more by ruthless ambition than by profound principles or scholarly achievement. If they see others losing their jobs because of their failure to stand up to anti-Semitism, they will all fall in line.
The moral compass of college presidents has recently come under scrutiny, as they have been accused of showing cowardice in the face of ethical and moral dilemmas. With mounting pressure to address issues such as racism, sexual assault, and gender discrimination on college campuses, many presidents have been criticized for their lack of courage in taking a stand and implementing meaningful change. This hesitance to confront difficult issues has led to growing disillusionment and frustration among students, faculty, and the broader public. In light of these developments, it is imperative to examine the actions and decisions of college presidents, and hold them accountable for their moral responsibilities as leaders in higher education.