The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Stanford Instructor "Suspended for … [Alleged] 'Identity-Based Targeting' of Students in Connection with the Israel-Gaza War"
From the Forward (Beth Harpaz):
An instructor at Stanford University has been suspended for what the president and provost called "identity-based targeting" of students in connection with the Israel-Gaza war.
Rabbi Dov Greenberg, director of the Chabad Stanford Jewish Center, said he was told by three students who were in the room that the instructor asked Jewish and Israeli students to identify themselves during a session for a required undergraduate course called "Civil, Liberal and Global Education."
The teacher told the Jewish students to take their belongings, stand in a corner, and said, "This is what Israel does to the Palestinians," Greenberg said, citing the student accounts. The instructor then asked, "How many people died in the Holocaust?" When a student answered, "Six million," the lecturer said, "Colonizers killed more than 6 million. Israel is a colonizer."
This appears to be the incident referred to by the Stanford President and Provost here:
We have received a report of a class in which a non-faculty instructor is reported to have addressed the Middle East conflict in a manner that called out individual students in class based on their backgrounds and identities. Without prejudging the matter, this report is a cause for serious concern. Academic freedom does not permit the identity-based targeting of students. The instructor in this course is not currently teaching while the university works to ascertain the facts of the situation.
I agree that universities may indeed generally forbid targeting individual students for hostile treatment because they're Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Palestinian, white, black, or anything else, and probably should do so. (I say "for hostile treatment" because we can all think of friendly and productive requests that relate to background and identities—for instance, when an instructor discussing some question related to, say, some religion's theology or life in some foreign country asks whether some students can speak to that based on their personal knowledge, which is often closely correlated with their religion or national origin. This case, however, doesn't seem to fall within that mold.)
There is also the separate question of what discussion of supposed Israeli misdeeds—or, for that matter, Hamas's misdeeds—has to do with "Civil, Liberal and Global Education." But perhaps there is some such connection, since the title seems to refer to several different classes, which might be quite broad. And in any event, rightly or wrong modern universities generally give instructors a good deal of flexibility to bring in discussion of even unrelated current events into the classroom (and indeed sometimes encourage it). That's why, I think, the Stanford president's and provost's message focused on targeting rather than on the instructor's using the class to spread his own ideas on political topics unrelated to the subject.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wait, but I thought they are not against Jews, just against Zionism?
The mask has slipped.
Whatever it is, they're against it!
So true. The elite schools are lost.
All the Jews in those schools, are they also lost?
Jews and especially Israeli Jews need fully to understand that Zionism is an evil ideology of genocide.
Palestinians don't hate Jews out of antisemitism. Palestinians hate Zionists because of the heinous crimes that Zionist colonial settlers have been committing against Palestinians since the 1880s.
During WW2 we Americans considered the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fought or killed racial supremacist genocidal Nazi invaders in occupied Europe.
Today we Americans must consider the native resistance to be heroic and admirable when it fights or kills racial supremacist genocidal Zionist invaders in stolen Palestine.
The Zionist mentality is completely congruent to the Nazi mentality, and the US Zionist movement commits heinous crimes according to the US federal code.
Nah.
This is something you are required to believe in.
No, my analysis is based on my experience:
(1) in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories during the period from Baruch Goldstein's Purim Celebration through the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin,
(2) on my knowledge of the detailed planning of the JNF and the JA during the period from Dec 1946 through Dec 1947 for the genocide that started in Dec 1947 and that will not have ended until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country, and
(3) on experiences that I had while working in the occupied Palestinian Territories including Gaza during the 2000-naughts.
Yeah, those are all things you don't know about and didn't happen.
Pray tell ... what kind of provocation, history, and context would, to your mind, justify raping women and murdering their children?
Mist be the worst genocide ever since the areas population has grown 10 fold
Is that kind of like how your mask has slipped, when it comes to a genocidal campaign to eliminate Palestinians in Gaza? Or are we going to pretend that’s not your position?
I have no problem writing off this professor as a nutcase. Stupid lesson, stupidly delivered – even if I agree that Israel is essentially an “apartheid” state. But at least I’m not on here expressing support for war crimes.
The professor is not a "nutcase" and your writing him off as such reveals what dishonest poster you are. He is a Jew-hater, who pretends to be an anti-Zionist only. As are many, like the 1000 pro-Hamas protestors who chanted "Gas the Jews" at the Sydney Opera House.
And your imputation of genocide to me is another lie, fits your ilk: Fellow Traveler. Can't deal with the crimes on your side, so smear the other side. We've seen this movie before.
And your imputation of genocide to me is another lie, fits your ilk: Fellow Traveler. Can’t deal with the crimes on your side, so smear the other side. We’ve seen this movie before.
I do not see the world in stark, black-and-white contrast. I wouldn’t say that I “stand with the Palestinians,” either now given recent events or probably ever. I would say only that the non-militants among them have human rights that we ought to respect, both now and over the previous decades when we didn’t. I also wouldn’t say that I “stand with the Israelis,” because I find that statement uncomfortably jingoistic and I do, in fact, object to the current Israel government’s policy platform (even while acknowledging that it reflects the democratic will of the people and has every right to respond to Hamas's attacks with military force).
I “travel” only with my own conscience. In Israel, I see an historically and morally complex situation with a real, direct impact on many people I call my friends and colleagues. In America, I see a media and political establishment that cannot really deal with that complexity – it may be impossible to say something that is both coherent and true about the moral values at play – and so it reduces things to morally clear sound-bites.
That moral clarity is appealing to simple-minded folk like yourself, who prefer the rush of vindication you get by being able to stamp your feet on the ground and declare, to no sane person’s objection, that Hamas’s actions were evil, and that Hamas’s militant members must be hunted down and captured, or killed trying. But, for me – I am not even saying you’re wrong. I am just saying that there’s more to the picture, and we should be sensitive to how a shining moral clarity can lead to even worse atrocities. But that is a nuance you are blinding yourself to, and intentionally so.
Call me a capital-F capital-T “Fellow Traveler” if you must. That incantation apparently has a private power for you that I cannot directly discern. Another testament to your creeping nuttery. But you’re a would-be war criminal.
I'm puzzled by this course being required.
I thought the required stuff usually came from categories like math, science, foreign language, literature, history, etc. Old fogey, I guess.
"COLLEGE is more than just shorthand for the first-year Civic, Liberal, and Global Education requirement: it signals the purpose of the courses, and a vision for what a college experience can be. Going to college is not just about acquiring the ability to make a living, but about exploring what makes living worthwhile. It’s also about developing the skills that empower and enable us to live together: in our own communities, in a diverse nation, and in a globally connected society."
Ah, teaching us out to live together in a community. By selecting out the Jews and telling them to go to the corner. Liberal education...
This is hilarious.
Here is some info on the course from the Stanford website.
"Civic, Liberal, and Global Education (COLLEGE):
COLLEGE started rolling out last year, but due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, undergraduates were required to only take one COLLEGE class in the 2021-22 academic year. This year, however, first-year undergraduates are required to take two of what is a three-course sequence, with Citizenship in the 21st Century in winter quarter and Global Perspectives in spring. Eventually, the plan is to require students to take all three courses – a decision that will be made when the faculty senate reviews the COLLEGE program when the pilot phase ends in the 2025-26 academic year."
“This quarter there are 1,055 undergraduates in 75 seminar-style sections who are taking Why College? Your Education and the Good Life. The syllabus for the class is the same – no matter what section a student is in, they are going to be reading identical materials. ‘We want students to have a shared intellectual experience,’ said Dan Edelstein, one of the faculty directors for COLLEGE and the William H. Bonsall Professor of French in the School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S). ‘Students from different sections can still talk about themes, books, and assignments outside of class with their dormmates or friends.’ Classes are kept small to help encourage discussion and are taught by either a postdoctoral student or a faculty member from across the university.”
Here are my three quick thoughts.
1. Requiring the frosh to take a liberal arts, discussion seminar is reasonable.
2. Even using a common curriculum, with 75 sections of one class, there will be vast differences in the styles and competencies of the teachers.
3. The "non-faculty instructor" referenced in the President/Provost note presumably was a post doc with limited teaching experience and no filter for keeping personal politics or anti-Semitism out of the classroom.
No, Bernard11, it's only the indoctrination courses that are mandatory.
Democrats and their racisms ... they never change.
Why is a required course being taught by a non-faculty instructor? That’s appalling. Do any of the Conspirators teach at schools where that happens?
What? For a gazillion dollar tuition you expect actual, real-life professors?
Yes
I'm puzzled by the use of the term 'faculty'. When I was a graduate student, and teaching as an 'Assistant Instructor', I was of course not tenured, nor was I a member of the 'voting faculty', which had a voice in university policy. But from the POV of a student, I was the Instructor of Record for the course; I was responsible for grading. I was acting a faculty role. Stanford is trying to dodge this with weasel words.
Huh. I would think the non-required courses would be the ones where you'd want the really specialized professor. You don't really need a PhD and tenure to be able to teach the stuff that every college graduate knows.
Just a guess but I would bet that the professor is a leftist.
Sounds like someone is going to be fired. Or at least should be, if it is as reported.
If by fired you mean moved into administration so this becomes the rule and not a violation.
Such actions have a quite simple test, a thought experiment, to decide if they are appropriate.
Simply substitute other groups for the target.
Whites? Likely nobody would care
Blacks?
Hispanics?
Chinese?
Mohammedans?
Indigenous tribal peoples from around the world?
Women?
If ANY of those groups trigger an inappropriate response, it is an inappropriate question. Simple as that.
Kudos to Stanford for getting it right.
It's a good thing I wasn't in that class because I would have told the instructor to go fuck himself/herself/itself and things would have gone downhill from there. And WASPs have no rights in academia, Jews have *few* rights, but WASPs have NONE.
I no longer believe in the concept of "academic freedom" and crap like this is the reason why. I have no doubt that this sort of thing is being done at UMass Amherst this week, no doubt whatsoever.
It's why I keep saying that academia is dead -- UMass Amherst not only had a Hamas chapter in the grad dorm 30 years ago, but it was in charge of security. The only thing that surprises me here is that the institution acted -- stunts like this go all the way back to the Delta Charlie teacher who went with blue eye and brown eye children.
And it was over 12 million murdered in the Holocaust -- 6M Jews and another 6M gays, Blacks, Jypsies, disabled and a few more groups.
And Stalin killed at least twice as many but we aren't supposed to mention that...
Why aren't you supposed to mention that, unless it is in a context of Hitler wasn't so bad?
Hamas does not have "chapters." It's not Sigma Pi Epsilon.
Agreed!
Look. There are times for reasoned and rational responses.
There are times for nuance.
And then there are outright and explicitly racist actions taken by a university administrator to explicitly punish people based on a protected class while openly promoting a terrorist group that is committing rampant war crimes and massacring civilians as we speak.
You can openly condemn. You can state that the facts speak for themselves. Or you can quietly list the number of laws and university policies that this professor violated.
In this situation, your critique is so light that it actually comes across like support.
I agree -- and what QA doesn't understand is that I would have pointed out both to the Teaching Assistant, in the most pedantic method possible.
As an aside -- the Forward reports that it was a "Teaching Assistant" -- in most cases, that's a graduate student.
A student, but still an employee and person in authority. That might explain his ignorance and rage, but it does not excuse it.
In this situation, your critique is so light that it actually comes across like support.
I don't think that's an even remotely fair assessment. I read it as a dispassionate analysis of the incident wrt policy and/or law violations, not an attempt to demonstrate outrage or other personal feelings.
I considered the career of historian. I realized that to be an historian one must learn how to empathize with all historical actors.
It was hard to do. When I studied Germans of the 30s, I tried to understand their mentality. I realized that Nazis had built an system of intimidation that scared all Germans — especially after the Night of Long Knives (Röhm Putsch). Eventually, it just became easier to go along with Nazism — especially after all the Nazi successes of the 30s.
Zionist colonial settlers have for the last 75 years been indoctrinated in extreme genocidal organic nationalism even more intensely than the Nazis indoctrinated Germans during the 12 years of Nazi rule.
Since Nazi and Zionist genocides have shaped out world, analyzing the Zionist and Nazi mentalities is a reasonable component of Civic, Liberal, and Global Education, but I would go deeper and try to encourage students to ask themselves
(1) how Zionism successfully co-opted Judaism and then murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide and
(2) how Zionism has subverted white states to support the genocide by white racial supremacist European Zionist colonial settlers against the native population of Palestine so soon after the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens.
Palestinians have been waiting 76 years for the international community to obey its law and abolish the Zionist state so that they can go home.
Zionism has poisoned international relations for 76 years, has undermined the international legal system, ruins the American legal system, and strips Americans of their Constitutional rights like freedom of speech.
These topics should have been addressed by the class, but the preceptor introduced the topics badly and probably not with much understanding of the relevant intellectual history.
But then you realized that historians aren't supposed to just lie, so you realized it wasn't for you?
Look. For someone who claimed to study history, you don't know what the word genocide means.
Israel has been in a state of war since the very day of its founding, when all of its neighbors expelled all of their Jewish populations and declared their intent to wipe them off the map. There have been near constant attacks on civilians and innocents since before either of us were born as well as multiple hot wars since. That is the background upon which this situation is built.
Also, Israel never expelled anyone from their homes. The surrounding states, most notably Egypt, told Muslim civilians to flee so they would not be caught up in the conquest.
Now, as a state in war and ready for war, many of these actions are not evil hatred, but necessary self defense. While they arguably exacerbate the situation, when the stated goal of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is genocide, you cannot blame Israel for defending themselves.
I'm not wiping out all blame, but equating them to the Nazis is willful ignorance.
To be fair, Martillo doesn’t know what lots of words mean.
Separate from the targeting, the sheer audacious enormity of a blood libel like claiming that Jews killed more than 6 million Palestinians is astonishing. Coming from an instructor at Stanford University no less.
The preceptor does not seem to have claimed that Zionist colonial settlers murdered 6 million Palestinians. The passage in the article above seems to assert that colonizes including Zionist colonizers murdered far more than 6 million people.
I would have lain such a stream of lava through his ears his head would have melted like the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Starting with, "You kids go sit back down. Never again gather into small jewish groups because someone in authority orders you to, especially since he wants to blame you collectively for the evils of society.
In other words, he is including the 6 million Jews killed in the category of people killed by “colonizers.” (lebensraum-seekers.)
Although Jews no more “colonized” Israel than the Cherokee who returned to North Carolina from Oklahoma generations after the Trail of Tears “colonized” North Carolina, nonetheless you are conceding that the instructor is obtaining his figure only by holding Jews responsible for their own murder.
Which seems to be par for the course these days.
The passage speaks for itself. I don't perceive any claim that alleges Jewish Holocaust victims were colonizers.
I don't think he's doing any such thing. The weird far-left fetish about "colonization" describes a worldwide phenomenon (though something done only by white people, of course). What he's saying is that the Holocaust wasn't so bad because after all "colonizers" killed far more people than Nazis killed Jews.
In other words, he is including the 6 million Jews killed in the category of people killed by “colonizers.” (lebensraum-seekers.)
I've often observed that you're long-winded commentaries on court cases makes it clear that you didn't bother to read them first. Now I'm wondering if that's wrong, and the problem is that your reading comprehension skills are just sorely lacking. As bad as what the idiot in question did and said, you're interpretation above is not at all what he actually said, which was:
"Colonizers killed more than 6 million. Israel is a colonizer."
That followed a student's answer of "6 million" to the question of how many were killed in the Holocaust. He's claiming that "colonizers" have killed more people than were killed in the Holocaust, and including Israel in the set of "colonizers.
It's hard to believe that you actually graduated from college at all, let alone law school.
Don’t have any facts? Can’t think of an argument? No problem. Just insult people.
Don’t have any facts? Can’t think of an argument?
Well, yes…the fact that you clearly can’t comprehend simple English, as I just pointed out.
Just insult people.
Perhaps if you bothered to learn from that same stupid mistake instead of insisting on repeating it ad nauseum the insult you’re whining about wouldn’t be valid.
If the facts reported are true, this is absolutely atrocious and rightly condemnable behavior on the part of this instructor.
It should go without saying that not only is "targeting" students based on their identity completely unacceptable and wrong, but the idea of targeting Jewish students ... and referring to the Holocaust while doing so ... is so evil that it is hard to imagine that it would exist anywhere outside of a fever dream.
Stanford did the correct thing in immediately removing the instructor, and if the allegations are true, then that instructor should be terminated from all further involvement/instruction etc. with Stanford.
Doubtless a tenured position awaits at Harvard to reward such fearlessness.
What are the odds?
How many Republicans v Democrats have came out in support of the "Palestinians?"
It's "a thing" BECAUSE IT IS HAPPENING....
But those who HAVE come out in support -- Democrats or Republicans?
Dude ... just be honest.
You don't know me.
I wouldn't have *needed* a firearm, nor would I have physically touched the schmuck. I wouldn't have needed to....
You don't know me, nor what I am capable of.
The JNF purchased perhaps 10% of the land and worked hard to deny Palestinians their right to national self-determination. Palestinians were an overwhelming majority in Palestine. Zionist colonial settlers waged an outrageous and atrocious campaign of murder and terrorism from 1943 through Nov 1947 in preparation for genocide.
Only an ignorant, racist, or mendacious person claims that Palestine is the ancestral homeland. The scripture of Judaism says the opposite.
A Zionist colonial settler in stolen Palestine is an invader, interloper, thief, impostor, and genocide-perpetrator.
Here is my short summary of ancient pre-Rabbinic Judaism.
During the Greco-Roman period, there were three separate populations that practiced Judaism. The Hellenistic Judaism of the Occidental Roman Empire was Greek-language based and used the Septuagint or later Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible for its Holy Scripture. Only descendants of non-Judean converts practiced Greek-language Judaism. This Judaism was also practiced in Alexandria among Greek speakers. European Judaism was Hellenistic, often used a vernacular version of a Greek Bible, and was ignorant of Hebrew or Aramaic until approximately 850 CE when merchants that practiced Mesopotamian Judaism established a seminary in Venosa, Italy. The Mesopotamian merchants were willing to admit Europeans into their trade networks in the role of junior partners but only if the Europeans were willing to use Mesopotamian religious law for the sole Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Palestinian and Phoenician Canaanite/Hebrew-language-based Judaism was practiced among Phoenician and Palestinian Canaanite/Hebrew speakers including those that lived in Alexandria, Carthage, and other Phoenician colonies in N. Africa and elsewhere on the shores of the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. This version of Judaism was tied to the Jerusalem Temple cult and was mostly shattered by the destruction of the Jerusalem and Leontopolis Temples. (The Casifia/Ctesiphon Temple probably continued to function until about 300 CE.)
The maniac Bar Kochba and his lackey Tannaim (e.g., Rabbi Akiba) completely discredited Biblical and Tannaitic Judaism for the peasantry because Bar Kochba persecuted the peasantry and the Tannaim supported him. The Palestinian population, which practiced Biblical Judaism, converted entirely to Christianity and subsequently mostly to Islam, which is a slight variant of Judean (Jamesian) Christianity in which Jesus is the messiah but not divine. By the beginning of the 3rd century CE most of the Judean peasantry (90% of the population) practiced some form of Judean Christianity.
The Roman Exile is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practice. The ancestors of Palestinians are Greco-Roman Judeans, who converted first to Christianity and then mostly to Islam.
Aramaic-language-based Judaism was practiced in Mesopotamia/Babylonia. It was initially an Aramaic-language version of Zoroastrianism but adopted the Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic period. This community created Rabbinic Judaism.
Judah the Prince and Nathan the Babylonian tried to introduce an early form of this version of Judaism to Palestine during the 3rd century CE in the form of the Mishnah, but their efforts were mostly scorned by the peasantry.
As everyone in Palestine became Christian, the regional distinctions like Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Galilee, Nabatea, etc. became mostly obsolete, and it made sense to refer to the whole region by the territorial name Palestine. The Saints and Church Fathers of Palestine were routinely called Palestinian.
Of course, the Arab league and other states voted against the Partition Plan, which was completely optional because forced involuntary transfer constitutes genocide. The Zionist leadership did not even give the Palestinian leadership a chance to reply but immediately set in motion the genocide, whose logistics, PR, and legal defense had been planned during the preceding 12 months.
Cool fanfic, bro.
I don't think they were talking about "people" as much as they were talking about university administration
That's unfair. He has a very vivid imagination.
So ... no honesty -- gotcha.
No mention about the fact that all Jews were expelled from everywhere from Egypt to Iraq?
With that level of selective bias and storytelling, you can talk about Lord Vader and his Freedom Star against the evil tyranny of the terroristic Alderaanians.
Rebel scum!
Uh, what exactly are you claiming to be capable of?
Generalization fallacy - do you even know what it is?