Last week, the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT achieved in our nation’s capital what everyone thought was impossible: bipartisan consensus! Unfortunately, this was not the consensus These presidents failed To demonstrate moral clarity when they were questioned about what they would do when faced with direct expressions of anti-Semitism.
they Answer“It depends” basically fails the test of common sense and decency. The presidents were asked whether they would defend their Jewish students and colleagues if groups on campus called for their extermination. They hesitated in the worst way possible, with evasive and legalistic responses that did not acknowledge the real concerns that exist on campuses now. Their failure had consequences. Liz Magill, President of Pennsylvania, He had to resign.
As a university president, I understand their dilemma as they tried to reconcile legal advice with what they knew was the only morally acceptable answer: calls for genocide are abhorrent and subject to university action. But I’m also Jewish, and I was appalled that they couldn’t bring themselves to say that. Would they not have done so if other groups were under a similar threat?
It was also outrageous that a MAGA culture warrior would put them in this position, cornering them so easily. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) is a proud boxer for Donald Trump, and is eager to audition for what she hopes the incoming Trump administration will be like.
Her record is Clear. Not only has it insisted on denying elections since 2020, it has continued to do so Replacement theory encouragedy – The idea that elites (manipulated by Jews) seek to weaken and replace white Americans. Even after white nationalists were implicated in mass shootings, a case not far from her district in upstate New York, Stefanik continued to fan the flames of white supremacy, eager to ride Trump’s coattails to spread this toxic message more widely.
The fact that Stefanik could see the political advantage in poaching Ivy League bosses is not surprising. Stefanik is a Harvard graduate and knows the foibles of Ivy League officials as well as anyone else. First, I asked if familiar pro-Palestinian slogans constitute hate speech on these campuses. I then asked about the “intifada,” which most protesters understand as resistance (often violent) to Israel’s endless (often violent) military occupation. These wouldn’t be violations of the rules of any institution that claims to value free speech, but then Stefanik fired her. She wondered: “Yes or no.” What about the call to exterminate the Jews? The leaders did not see the trap until it was too late.
To my knowledge, no one protesting on behalf of the Palestinian cause on their campuses is calling for genocide – although many accuse Israel of military genocidal tactics. Advocating genocide would make it impossible for Jews to feel safe enough to continue teaching, learning, or conducting research at their universities. Some of the criticism of Israeli tactics has been offensive to many Jews, but the censorship here is inappropriate.
I don’t like the ritual of using words like “Genocide“or”settler colonialism“And I don’t want to hear the slogan, ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine must be liberated,’ but the call for freedom is not a call for murder. Protesters have the right to choose expressions that appeal to those with different viewpoints. There is no right not to offend. But anyone should be expelled.” At school he calls for mass murder because this call makes it impossible for the educational mission to continue.
Higher education leaders should not buy into an unregulated “market” approach to expression because educational environments depend on structured conversations. For many years, many universities have posted notices about “no-hate zones” and served to alleviate the fears and hurtful feelings of different groups who feel misunderstood or misidentified.
College presidents are not merely neutral bureaucrats or arbiters among competing protesters, faculty, and donors. We must not hide behind the language of lawyers. we He must speak On issues of the day when they are relevant to the core mission of our institutions. College and university leaders should not allow ourselves to be put on the defensive by politicians who are mostly interested in scoring points. We must defend academic freedom and intellectual diversity to ensure that demagogues cannot decide what we read or how we teach it.
Our universities should not be so protective that intellectual confrontation is forbidden, they should promote forms of inclusion and respect that enable students to succeed – and to be open to ideas and perspectives different from their own and from which they can learn. We can say “no” to calls for violence while cultivating the freedom of expression necessary for learning.
University presidents will not keep our jobs by trying to protect people from disagreements or from abuse. We do our job when we ensure our campuses are safe enough to explore differences without fear of violence.
Michael S. Roth is president of Wesleyan University and the author of Safe Enough Spaces: A Practical Approach to Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness on Campus and The Student: A Short History.
College presidents hold significant influence over the ethical and moral direction of their institutions. As the guiding force behind a college’s policies and decisions, they are expected to embody and promote values of integrity, honesty, and ethical leadership. However, in recent years, there has been a growing concern that many college presidents are more focused on bureaucratic matters and financial gains, rather than leading with a strong moral compass. This has led to a debate about the role of college presidents and whether they should be held to a higher ethical standard. In this essay, we will explore the expectations and responsibilities of college presidents as moral leaders, and whether they are living up to these expectations.