We call it a sign of the times.
On December 8, two days after the presidents of three prestigious universities on the East Coast of the United States were unable to tell a congressional committee that calling for the genocide of Jews on campus violated their schools’ codes of conduct, Stanford University – an elite American school Others, but this one on the West Coast – issued this statement:
“In the context of national discourse, Stanford unequivocally condemns calls for the genocide of Jews or any people. This statement clearly violates the Stanford Core Standard, which is the code of conduct for all students at the university.
What is striking about this statement is that it had to be issued in the first place.
Think about that for a minute. One of the world’s best universities must make clear that it “unequivocally condemns calls for the genocide of Jews or any other people.”
In normal times, who would have thought otherwise? In normal times, who would have such doubt? But these are abnormal times, and that Stanford felt the need to make this statement, and that anyone would have any doubt that a university of Stanford’s size would not unequivocally condemn calls to kill Jews, is astonishing.
But here we are, this is reality.
Since the October 7 massacre and the pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas demonstrations that followed in its wake with chants such as “The intifada is a revolution,” “The globalization of the intifada,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” It is not a given that such calls for violence against Jews are prohibited on university campuses.
This became painfully clear during testimony last week by three presidents of elite universities before a congressional committee holding a hearing on campus anti-Semitism.
When Penn State President Liz Magill was asked directly whether “advocating the extermination of Jews” conflicted with the university’s standards, she responded that it “depends on the context.”
Stanford had to clarify something that should have been made clear — but, as the conversation with Magill showed quite clearly, is not — which is that these types of calls are a form of Jewish harassment.
But what’s also interesting is that Stanford felt the need to publicly clarify its position on this issue. Why did you feel this need? Because of the backlash that resulted when Magill, Harvard President Claudine Guy, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth said they had to review the context of those calls to determine whether they would constitute harassment.
This context-dependent argument would be the equivalent of a group of white students marching in Harvard Square chanting slogans that African American students believe are calls to kill them, and the president requiring disciplinary action against these protesters based on the “context” of their struggle. Cheer and whether it leads to tangible action.
Bad news and good news
The congressional testimony was bad news, evidence that something was happening at America’s best universities.
But there was also good news that came out of the gruesome testimony, and that too should be acknowledged and appreciated. The good news is the decline.
The good news is that many Americans were disgusted by this testimony. The good news here is that about 20% of members of the US Congress, most of whom are Republicans, but also a few Democrats, have signed letters calling for the impeachment of presidents. The good news is that the White House issued a statement saying that “calls for genocide are brutal and contradict everything we stand for as a country.”
The good news is that big-money donors have threatened to pull money from these schools. The good news is that well-known figures like Philip McGraw, known as “Dr. Phil, they made their voices heard, and strongly rejected the views of the bosses.
The good news is that one of the presidents, Magill, has had to resign, and the other two presidents—particularly Jay at Harvard—are under pressure to follow suit.
While it is important to highlight what the presidents said, it is equally important to highlight the backlash to it. If the president’s comments reflect an atmosphere on campus, the backlash also reflects something no less important — that these positions are rejected by much of the American mainstream. There is solace to be found in that.
With the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States, there are those who draw exaggerated comparisons with the rise of anti-Semitism elsewhere and at other times, such as in pre-war Germany. But while elsewhere and at other times governments and a large section of the public have supported and supported such anti-Semitism, in America it is denounced by government, political leaders, and a large section of the public.
Yes, there is anti-Semitism in America, and double standards towards Jews and Israel. But when these attitudes are expressed, there are many people – from the highest levels of government to all different strata of society – who will condemn them and hold those who promote them to account.
The silver lining in the “it depends on the context” saga of college presidents is that this kind of rhetoric, these kinds of comments, do not go unchallenged and the challenge is fierce.
Is what Magill and her colleagues said worrying and disturbing? Yes. Does it give a peek into the rot that has seeped into US academia? Yes too. But likewise, the reactions to it should also be noted – anger, uproar, astonishment, blame, and calls for resignations.
When looking at the current situation of Israel and the Jewish people, there is a lot to be depressed about – and the testimony of university presidents is another small reason. But there are also some rays of light in the darkness – the backlash to that testimony among them.
The testimony of American university presidents offers a unique and insightful perspective on the state of higher education in the United States. Through their testimonies, these leaders shed light on the positive developments and advancements within their respective institutions, as well as provide key insights into the challenges and opportunities facing the American higher education system. By analyzing and understanding their testimonies, we can gain a deeper understanding of the bright side of the higher education landscape and the innovative approaches being implemented by university presidents to create a positive impact on their campuses and communities.