I sighed last week when I learned that my friend David Chung, a fellow Journal editor, was writing about the same topic I chose for my column today. The cool kids don’t mean to write different versions of the same editorial — we’re opinion columnists, not screenwriters for Hallmark movies. But it does not surprise me that freedom of expression on college campuses is on our minds at the moment after a rise in anti-Semitism has led some to question what speech should be accepted and what should not.
From our own experiences, Chung and I know all too well how easy it is to suppress free speech on college campuses — we are conservative Republicans. Ideas that meet resistance always come from our side of the aisle. The demand for its suppression almost always comes from the vocal (and sometimes hateful) Left, which usually claims that the idea is dangerous or repugnant. Unwilling to be accused of embodying hate, many conservatives on campus are good at self-censoring, while liberal ideas dominate campus culture.
However, in the wake of the brutal October 7 terrorist attacks on Israeli communities, few people have hesitated to speak out in expressions condemning Israel or supporting Hamas. At Brandeis University in Massachusetts, the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine was revoked due to the chapter’s “openly” support for Hamas. At NYU, an October 10 letter to the Student Bar Association from its president claimed that “Israel bears full responsibility for this terrible loss of life.” The association’s president was immediately fired from her position, and the law firm where she worked as a summer associate immediately rescinded her offer of future employment.
Anti-Israel sentiment among college students is already troubling. In a Harvard Harris poll conducted on October 19, a majority of respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 believed that “Hamas’ killing of 1,200 Israeli civilians in Israel can be justified by Palestinian grievances.” More than one in four believe that the long-term solution to the conflict is to “end Israel and hand it over to Hamas and the Palestinians,” although more than two-thirds indicated that they (correctly) believe Hamas has been designated as a political force. A terrorist group designated by the United States
This is terrifying, but not surprising if you think about how Generation Z is informed. Forty-four percent reported that they never get their news from traditional sources like newspapers, TV networks, or their digital companions. Instead, three-quarters of 16-24 year olds get their news from social media, most commonly on the short video streaming platform TikTok. Anyone with a smartphone can broadcast to the world – realism, context and accuracy just aren’t necessary.
Apply this poor standard of information gathering to college campuses, most of which are already petri dishes of liberal orthodoxy, and watch the pursuit of knowledge rapidly transform into the kind of leftist groupthink I witnessed two weeks ago “teaching” at KU. College on December 3 entitled “What is happening in Gaza”.
I already have a basic understanding of what’s happening in Gaza – being the fossil that I am, I get my news from news sources. But I can tell from a mile away that the “crowd-led” event will have a left-wing flair, and it seems useful to know what young leftists on campus who get their news from TikTok about the crisis in Gaza think and believe.
The educational session was organized and led by Mimi Daoud, a board member of Advocates for Social Justice, one of the sponsoring groups. The discussion was pretty much what I’d expect from college students in an ideological hive, where they immediately paint Israel as an evil white supremacist colonialist oppressor committing genocide against the besieged, displaced, and persecuted.
Sarcasm aside, I will not underestimate the atrocities faced by millions of people in the region. War – and terrorism – is the unleashing of hell on Earth. In fact, this was partly why I was annoyed by how phrases like “colonialism,” “white supremacy,” and other leftist buzzwords were immediately central to the conversation while the word “Hamas” wasn’t even uttered until about 30 minutes later. . And even then it was only when an audience member condemned President Biden for repeating unverified claims about Hamas beheading children during the October 7 attack.
The topic of Hamas eventually came up (a good idea, given the occasion), and while a more ideologically diverse audience (and better panelists) could have explored some really engaging topics about tensions in the region and the key players, Daoud said: Instead I offered A number of statements that might earn some Pinocchio from the Washington Post fact-checker. among them:
“Israel is using Hamas as an excuse to humanely bomb civilians in Gaza.” I’m not sure what that means, but it was in her slideshow.
(The United Nations does not give Israel the right to defend itself.) This is true, but only in a narrow context: the United Nations is neither a ruling authority nor a granter of rights. Is it true that Israel cannot defend itself against Hamas because it cannot claim the right to self-defense in the territories it already occupies? Maybe – if Israel actually occupies the area. Israel has not formally occupied Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005. Whether it still effectively occupies Gaza is debated, but has not yet been settled.
“Most of Hamas’ work is focused on humanitarian issues.” You say “humanity,” and about 32 countries say “terrorist organizations.” Potatoes, potatoes, apparently.
“Hamas has since created a new charter… and said specifically and explicitly that it is not about eliminating the Jewish community, but about the Zionist enemy.” This claim requires some semantic maneuvering to demonstrate the erasure of anti-Semitic sentiment. Hamas’s 2017 document claims that its conflict is with “the Zionists” – in other words, not with the Jews but with Jewish nationalism. But it still insists that “the Jews are the owners of their colonial project and their illegal entity,” and that “there will be no recognition of the legitimacy” of that Jewish entity.
Daoud’s worst statements included a list of allegations about Hamas’ brutality, which she said her information sources could “debunk.” Specifically, the allegation that “Hamas raped several women on October 7, which was also debunked by the New York Times.” [Israeli Defense Forces] themselves.”
I listened to the recording of my teaching several times to make sure I hadn’t misheard those preposterous words. Daoud’s source, Electronic Intifada, is an online outlet with a heavy pro-Palestinian slant. Through detailed analysis of the allegations of mass rape committed by Hamas, they have cast a great deal of speculative doubt, but no actual exposure has been confirmed, at least by the IDF. However, they compare accounts of mass rape to the propaganda the Nazis used to gain political support from Germans. This is…horrible.
Had a wider range of minds attended the teaching, you would have thought it would have led to some angry reactions about what should and should not be allowed at Coe. But should Daoud, whether by law or school policy, have been prevented from expressing her opinion?
Unequivocally, no. That’s why we call it “protected speech.” If it is not protected, it will be easy to remove it for being offensive or “unsafe”. Conservatives know better than anyone how heavy a hand it is to stifle free speech on campus after someone complains.
We’ve been there. Within the past six years, a conservative dental student at Iowa State has faced a threat of discipline for expressing disagreement with the dean’s position on a political issue. Conservative Iowa students were presented with a curriculum that explicitly prohibited the conservative perspective in the debate. The pro-life student group was rejected by UNI’s student government solely because of its stance on abortion.
House Republicans used their heavy hand, now making free speech training mandatory at public colleges in Iowa. But while the law guarantees my right to express something controversial, it cannot protect me from the hostility of people who hate what I have to say and hate me for saying it. Not if this hostility is allowed to continue on college campuses where politics are overwhelmingly one-sided.
Which brings me to what I realized two weeks ago as I wandered into Coe Hall: None of the attendees were concerned about being seen there, even when they knew the topic was controversial. No one was afraid to express his point of view.
No one had to get advance tickets, be walked around by security, or prevented from bringing their backpack into the hall. No crowds stood in the hallway outside shouting obscenities. No event-goers had to be escorted out a side door to avoid confrontations or become stuck in their car in the middle of the street because an angry mob blocked traffic.
But what if the tables are turned? Would leftists on campus, surrounded by their leftist friends, show the same respect for the exchange of conservative ideas?
Not a chance. But this cannot be called “protected speech” if there is no one to threaten it. The law works very well for speaking on campus. It’s a culture that has some catching up to do.
Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com
The content of an opinion represents the view of the author or editorial board of the newspaper. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com
The concept of freedom of expression on college campuses has been a topic of debate in recent years, especially when it comes to allowing individuals with controversial or unpopular views to speak. One such group that has sparked controversy is Hamas defenders, whose support for the Palestinian militant group has led to heated discussions about the boundaries of free speech. Despite the controversial and polarizing nature of their views, some argue that allowing Hamas defenders to express their opinions is essential for upholding the principles of free speech and intellectual diversity on college campuses. This issue raises important questions about the limits of free speech and the role of universities in fostering open dialogue and exchange of ideas.