The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Rotten Core Of College Campuses
Many readers may be aware that it is currently the holiday of Chanukkah. And maybe you know that during this holiday, the Jewish people light a menorah (candelabra) with eight candles to remind us of a miracle: in ancient times, there was only enough oil to light a lamp for one day, but the oil lasted for eight days. But why was there so little oil left over? Why was the holy temple destroyed? The Syrians forced the Jewish people to accept their Hellenistic beliefs, and worship pagan idols. A small band of Jewish rebels, known as the Maccabees (Hammers), fled from the Syrians, and hid in the hills. Against all odds, the Jews defeated the Syrian army, and rededicated, or sanctified their temple. Chanukkah translates to dedication.
The Chanukkah story is not an outlier. Throughout the entirety of recorded history, there have been countless attempts to wipe out the Jewish people. It is told that King Louis XIV asked Blaise Pascal, the French philosopher, to provide evidence of miracles. His response was simple: the Jews. As all other civilizations come and go, the Jews somehow continue. Nevertheless we persisted, as the saying goes. This story may be apocryphal, but it conveys an important lesson: in every generation, there are attempts to exterminate the Jews, yet this scrappy minority survived. Indeed, many Jewish holidays can be summed up with some humor: they tried to kill us, they failed, let's eat.
In every generation, different rationales are put forward for why the Jews cannot be accepted: they practice heretical beliefs (monotheism), they reject the true religion (polytheism), they follow laws without reason (chok), they committed deicide (Jesus), they spread disease (the Black Death), they were infidels (Islam), they engaged in harmful practices (usury), they refuse to convert (Inquisition), the holy land belongs to us (multiple crusades), they don't belong (multiple expulsions), they do not belong (pogroms), they cause struggles (Nazis), and so on. The history of civilization can be written based on whatever the elite society of the day thinks about the Jewish people. As Justice Scalia reminded us, the Holocaust "happened in one of the most educated, most progressive, most cultured countries in the world."
In the wake of the Holocaust, there was perhaps a brief moment of lucidity when the nations of the world recognized that the Jewish people needed a home of their own to ensure these atrocities never happen again. To put it in terms even Tirien Steinbach could understand, Israel would be a "safe space," or "affinity housing," for the world's most oppressed minority. (Don't ask her if the Jews are worth the squeeze.)
Regrettably, as soon as Israel was established, the millennia-long train of anti-semitism simply morphed into its latest manifestation: anti-Zionism. They don't hate all Jews, they just oppose all Jews who seek to protect the the only speck on planet Earth devoted for their protection. This doctrine was dressed up in all the academic garb of Marxism, anti-colonialism, and critical racial studies. Anti-Zionism was championed by elite academics on campuses. DEI apparatchiks, ostensibly hired to promote equity, reified the anti-Zionist trope. Students, who are woefully unfamiliar with world history, see the children of the Holocaust as just another oppressor. And, as they are taught, any act of resistance against the oppressors is not only justified, but necessary. The right type of violence demands silence.
The "gotcha" questions about whether a call for genocide is anti-semitic largely misses the mark. The deeper question is why are elites, in every civilization, drawn to theories that antagonize the Jews. Whether it is Hamas, Hitler, Hadrian, the Hellenists, or Harvard, the root cause is always the same: the Jews are different. The wise people of the day can always make up some rationale to get to that conclusion. Really nothing ever changes. Recently, during the oral argument in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Justice Gorsuch observed "Harvard's move to a holistic application approach happened in the 1920s because it wanted to impose a quota on Jewish applicants, but it didn't want to do through front door, so it used diversity as a subterfuge for racial quotas." There are always subterfuges to treat the Jews differently.
This background brings me to recent events on campus. Let me make two points at the outset. First, I think Eugene has accurately described First Amendment doctrine, as well as the analogous principles that private universities purport to follow. Second, modifying campus speech policies would likely be turned around to censor Jewish students in the future who defend Israel's policies.
The problem here is not the First Amendment or any campus speech protocol. The root of the problem is the rotten core of college campuses. From the earliest age, students are inculcated with a flawed philosophy: the world must be divided between the oppressed and oppressors. And the answer to any question turns not on any sort of objective moral truths, but based on a dogmatic preference for the plight of the oppressed. So long as this ideology predominates, no committees or task forces can make any difference. Simply adding Jews to the list of "oppressed" people masks the underlying rot. Indeed, the past two months have demonstrated the complete failure of DEI as an institution. If DEI could not handle the most blatant outbreak of anti-semitism since the Holocaust, what good does it serve? These apparatuses should be abolished and the intersectional pyramid should be toppled.
I still favor robust protections for free speech on campus, and oppose governmental intervention in academia. I also worry what happens when donors can influence what happens in academic progress. I'll admit, these views are much less sturdy then they were a few months ago. Let's see what the future brings, as Presidents lose their jobs, as donors withdraw donations, and perhaps, a future Department of Education in a Republican administration brings down the Maccabee.
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
Syrians?
Technically speaking it was the Seleucid Empire. While the empire was more vast at one point in time, it was ultimately reduced to a smaller state centered around the current area known as Syria (Coele Syria) by the time of the Maccabean Revolt. During this period of time, ruler of the Seleuicid empire was known as the "King of Syria"
Josh is never right.
Indeed, the Seleucids were having a hard time with rising Roman state at that time. They were not the power that they had been before.
The only evidence of rot in higher education that I see, Josh, is the fact that it gave you a degree and a job.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If you had merely argued that Josh is exaggerating, or even an idiot, you might have a plausible case. But to deny there is any rot just shows you have shut your eyes.
"Rot."
Define it, and/or explain why I ought to spend a single minute addressing the hyperbolic metaphors of a bunch of right-wing cranks.
Read the article. You've clearly shown you haven't done so.
Simon explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7dfzNHfQmA
I still favor robust protections for free speech on campus, and oppose governmental intervention in academia.
All the text up to this point makes it seem like you don't.
Also: "modifying campus speech policies would likely be turned around to censor Jewish students in the future who defend Israel's policies" is the innovative thinking I expect from Blackman.
'I wanna have internal rules that restrict speech, but I'm too paranoid about the other side doing that harder and better if I give them the chance.'
Beyond that twisted logic, Blackman works on a college campus. But I presume he believes that the rot didn't get to his pure backwater.
The overall tone of the post is classic Blackman (that's not a compliment). But, this part of Blackman's argument strikes at the core of American freedom of speech principles. We permit worthless speech because we don't trust those in power to draw the line between worthwhile and worthless speech, in part because the powerful are (or will be one day) on the opposite team.
We permit worthless speech because we don’t trust those in power to draw the line between worthwhile and worthless speech
Well put, except ambiguity regarding 'we.'
It's Constitutionally mandated that the 'we' include the government.
The VC and many others also talk about good practice being a 'free speech culture' that nonbinding expands the we to a number of important institutions as well.
Individual choices based on the perceived worthlessness of others' speech is itself expressive association so at some point permitting all speech is no longer a virtue.
I think the point where permitting all speech is no longer a virtue is when when the suppresser doesn't have inordinate power over the talker. Along with the government, I think employers and colleges have that power.
The government is very different from employers and colleges.
And if colleges and employers are only actually protecting "some" free speech, while other speech is punished in one way or another (as has become dramatically apparent) then we need to ask some very pointed questions. Because then "free speech" isn't really free at all.
There hasn't been free speech in academia in this century.
The only example you have for this is DEI, and even that one is weak.
Is DEI all you care about? If the left were actually interested in suppressing campus speech, we'd have a lot of higher priorities than DEI.
http://www.thefire.org
Just read.....
Randal,
DEI is often the excuse for suppressing speech.
What is wrong with fat-shaming?
Why shouldn't the words, "chief" or "master" be used. We could both go on in this fashion.
I'd say that much speech is already suppressed. And I agree that what is suppressed should not be and why is not suppressed should not be targeted for suppression.
I only ask that campus rules that students agree to as a condition of admission and that employees agree to as a condition of employment be enforce.
So, against suppression but not realizing going on in this fashion leads to being OK with suppression, as long as conditions of admission and employee agreements don't suppress the words you judge permissible?
So, you firmly condemn the forced resignation of of Penn's president? Or is it only 1st-order but not 2nd-order impacts are worth your consideration?
" but not realizing..."
I do not see how your draw that conclusion. I said I don't approve of suppression, but I consider punishing transgressions in behavior of terms of enrollment or of employment to be a necessity.
Magill failed in her primary assignment. She badly pissed off Penn's major donors. She had to go. Full stop.
DN, OK, simpler language.
You said you "don't approve of suppression," providing as an example of such non-suppression, "transgressions" consisting of speech the colleges should be suppressing through either denial of admission to otherwise qualified prospective students, or initiation of employee disciplinary action.
So, no suppression except to transgressives. You don't approve of transgressives. Maybe it just the thing y'all have for trans words?
To illustrate the differences between the government and colleges/employers, imagine the following situation.
A guy comes up to you at a bar and comments sexually on your looks and how you should show him a good time. Then repeats the suggestion. You don't like it and tell him to stop. But he does it again, and the next time you're at the bar. And again, the third time. No one here would say the government should "ban" such speech or make it illegal.
But take the same situation, and put in a workplace, and you get into sexual harassment lawsuits.
Yes, but that’s on-the-job speech, and it would equally apply if the government is the employer. Say instead, you were blacklisted because of your unwanted advances outside of work. That strikes me as very wrong.
You've needed to recast the government as the employer...
The original point stands.
And if a potential employer learns about someone's severe tendencies to sexually harass individuals, they may indeed "choose" to not hire the individual. Or not. Depends on the employer. But the government still can't ban such speech.
We are talking about punishing behavior that is either illegal or against the conditions of employment (or enrollmnt).
Assuming the speech of the harasser is protected by the First Amendment (*), then I think (in the spirit of freedom of speech) you ought not be blacklisted by employers over such speech (even though the law permits it).
(*) The government cannot punish you for the speech, including firing you.
Actual blacklisting is generally a practice generally frowned upon by legal counsel.
I'll say it again. The government as the government, and the government as an employer are quite different in their powers and restrictions.
The government can't ban someone from crudely hitting on women at bars. But...if the government is hiring someone as a coach for a women's high school volleyball team...such behavior will be negatively looked upon.
The government can't ban an normal individual from publically endorsing an individual for President with a large advertisement.
But a government employee (For example, Anthony Fauci) publically endorsing an individual for President? The government could fire them for that.
I’ll say it again (as well); IMO, private employers hold enough power that in the spirit of freedom of speech, we should generally treat them as if they were the government in judging their actions against speech they don’t like.
I'm pretty sure Fauci is permitted to endorse a candidate for president on his own time.
I may be wrong about Fauci because the Hatch Act prohibits top-level civil servants from endorsing candidates. But the vast majority of federal employees can endorse candidates.
Actually, if he does that to you three times in a bar, and you make it clear that his comments are unwelcome, doesn't that become harassment that you can get a restraining order against?
Potentially, yes. Borderline, but plausibly a misdemeanor in some states.
I'm sorry, I'm not following the logic of not allowing some speech is somehow supporting free speech
If all speech is not allowed, what specifically is permitted and who decides?
Are you OK with you deciding not to associate with people because of their speech, based on whatever criteria you want? Are you also OK with the government not being able to sanction such speech?
I think both support the spirit of freedom of speech, even though the former sanctions speech. The difference is the power of government to impact lives, whereas your right of association is far more important than the small amount of damage done by you not associating with someone.
The question then becomes where does the spirit of freedom of speech countenance permitting all speech because the power of the censor to impact lives is too big relative to the rights of the censor. To me, employers and colleges cross the line to be more like the government than personal associations.
Only those with inordinate power over talkers have the ability to decide whether to permit speech.
You speech is permitted only with the punishment of not being able to associate with me if I don't like your speech. Yet, I don't have inordinate power over you.
Prof. Blackman works for an atypical school.
It is one of the handful of shittiest institutions still accredited to award law degrees in the United States.
Yet another substance-less post by RAK.
As opposed to Harvard or Yale?
Those august institutions ain't so august anymore.
What does the free market say about the relative value of degrees from Harvard or Yale versus South Texas? Or are you abandoning your libertarian "principles" yet again out of envy or perhaps just childishness?
They ain't so august anymore.
The free market says that the Harvard or Yale are more valuable.
I doubt it'll remain that way with the way things are going.
Who exactly are you responding to here who you think has libertarian principles? Certainly not Dr. Ed.
"If DEI could not handle the most blatant outbreak of anti-semitism since the Holocaust, what good does it serve? "
Sarcastro has no good response to this.
Josh faults "DEI" for failing to "handle" (meaning?) "the most blatant outbreak of antisemitism" (referring to what, exactly?) "since the Holocaust" (well, that's rich), and asks, "what good does it serve" (is DEI intended to be some kind of emergency response task force for addressing campus protests, or...?).
No response is really needed, because all Josh has done is stuff a rotting red herring into a limp strawman. Insofar as this "outbreak of antisemitism" is constitutionally protected speech, "DEI" can do nothing other than instruct and inform; insofar as it is not, it is a criminal matter to be addressed by the proper authorities.
Indeed - I know you will twist this but it needs to be said - promoting the diversity of views in higher education is part of what makes it possible to be newly critical of American policy vis-a-vis the Middle East. That is why conservatives are incensed. We let all these black and brown people into the university, all these people with diverse backgrounds, and told them that their perspectives matter and have value, that they should question the hoary truths handed down to them by the white male establishment. And lo, so it has come to pass.
So people who are not afraid of critical engagement need to roll up their sleeves and dive in to engage the debate. Josh, et al., would prefer to have power shape the discourse and shut down this noisy business of dissent.
The problem is that the "black and brown people" are committing crimes with impunity.
Let's just take Planet UMass. Punching a kid, kicking a kid, using a foot-long butcher knife to slice up a (any) flag --- in the civilized world, these are considered crimes and we don't give a damn why the perp committed them.
Free speech does not include the right to criminal trespass or to intentionally disrupt classes or officess -- and if you lie down so as to prevent me from getting to my lunch, I have the right to place my size 13 (men's) viburnum-soled logging boot in the middle of your rib cage and if you wind up with a half dozen broken ribs, sucks to be you.
As reprehensible as it would be, schmucks shouting "Kill the Jews" would be one thing -- *IF* the Jews could then shout "The only good Palestinian is a DEAD Palestinian" and I think we all know they could never do that.
What we have is the unacceptable situation of some people being licensed to not only speak but go further into violence -- with impunity -- while others can't even speak.
Planet UMass is no longer going to post the names of those arrested because it might hurt their job prospects. WELL MAYBE NOT GETTING ARRESTED WOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.....
Ed: ...“black and brown people” are committing crimes with impunity.
Oh?
"Impunity" definition, per the Dr. Ed Dictionary.
Did you forget the Floyd riots?
DEI makes it possible for there to be antisemetic riots and protests on college campuses?
Well, now there's a good reason to get rid of it.
And the Pavlovian dog salivates, right on cue.
Armchair is right. You didn't provide a counterargument against him.
"Sarcastro has no good response to this."
Why are you surprised.
Same goes for SimonP.
The Republican messaging machine is really chugging on this one. They are trying to call for the censorship of putatively "antisemitic" speech while invoking the values of a DEI culture that, to date, they have been relentlessly attacking as part of their own culture war. You can tell that they're barely holding it together. The news cycles are just too close.
So far, their successes have come largely in the form of the pure, direct application of power and wealth, which need not follow any principle of self-consistency or explanation. Why should the president of Penn resign? Because fuck you, that's why. $100 million says she goes, so she goes.
The rabble here likes the scalp, and think they had something to do with it, but I don't think they quite comprehend where this could go or how it can turn on them. Or, indeed, how it has already gone for them, if their kvetching over COVID Twitter is to be taken seriously. Same song, different verse, really, when it comes to that.
Simon, read "Rules for Radicals."
We're making them follow their own rules....
It more seems like the Progressive Messaging machine that’s blowing a gasket. They’ve been trying to paint conservatives as neo-nazis and antisemites such as attacks on Trump and Elon Musk (who is neither a conservative or an anti-semite), and painting the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter as emblematic of the right.
And while 20% of antisemitic “hate” crimes do come from the right, that’s hardly comes close the left’s portion.
Now that the masses on the left are riled up enough to pull off the mask and let their freak fly, the spin on neo-nazis on the right are responsible for most anti-semitic incidents has collapsed.
If it was a set up to try to get the university presidents to condemn rhetoric and actions they would never find context or nuance in if directed against Black, or LGBT students, or was directed at Jewish students from groups they could describe as right wing, and would trip over themselves to condemn it, then it was they that set themselves up.
Black and LGBT students aren’t associated with an ongoing and dubious war. Universities do look at context when anti-Black and anti-LGBT speech is at issue, it’s just that there’s not a lot of reasons people are making anti-Black and anti-LGBT statements these days other than harassment.
There’s a glaring and obvious non-harassment context for anti-Israel speech.
Agreed about (it's BiPOC; get with the program) and LGBTQI+ students.
The context for anti-Zionist speech is not an excuse for anti-Jewish behavior.
I have yet to see evidence of anti-Jewish behavior. Lots of anti-Israel behavior, yes.
"I have yet to see evidence of anti-Jewish behavior. "
You either won't read, can't read, or are lying,
There is little point in repeating the evidence
Read what? You keep saying that but you haven't pointed to anything to read.
Stefanik: “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?”
Gay: “It can be, depending on the context. Antisemitic speech when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct and we do take action.”
Stefanik: “So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?”
Gay: “Again, it depends on the context.”
Stefanik: “It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
How is this not evidence of Gay allowing anti-Jewish behavior? What part of that do you not get? Get to your senses, Randal.
Oh, there are still plenty of neo-Nazis and antisemites no the right. It's just it's all priced in, like Republican corruption and Trump's lying. No one even thinks to hold conservatives accountable for being pieces of shit, because that's just what it is to be a conservative these days.
Not so. There are plenty of Jews on the right, and the media is fast to condemn antisemites on the right while making excuses for the antisemites on their side. You simply haven't been paying attention.
‘They’ve been trying to paint conservatives as neo-nazis and antisemites such as attacks on Trump and Elon Musk (who is neither a conservative or an anti-semite), and painting the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter as emblematic of the right.’
I was slightly shocked at how many right-wing commenters here chimed in to support the Great Replacement Theory, while screaming ‘anti-semitism’ at every criticism of Israel. It’s completely mainstream conservative ideology now, as that whole eschathon thing is with fundamentalist Christian conservatives.
1) The idea that "right-wing commenters" support the "Great Replacement Theory" is nothing but a disingenuous strawman proposition. They're only calling out the left for the antisemitic rot that runs on campuses that Josh Blackman correctly points out.
2) Most criticisms of Israel are not sound and have been parroted and refuted over and over. These same critics demand that the state of Israel be wiped off from existence. To deny the Jews their own nation is outright antisemitic. So yes, criticism of Israel is often antisemitism as well.
3) If it's mainstream conservative ideology to combat antisemitism, that should be celebrated, regardless of religious beliefs. Most American Christians actually have a favorable view of Jews as shown in polls--this "escathon" mentality does much good to improve the relationship between Jews and Christians.
You've been deceived, Nige. Repent of your erroneous viewpoint.
A joyous feast to you!
1. Some early Zionists were antisemites. Sending the Jews to Palestine was a way of getting rid of them. Even the Nazis made deals with Zionists, early on.
2. Jews are indestructible. Isn't that obvious by now?
Jews are indestructible. Isn’t that obvious by now?
When King Louis XIV of France asked Blaise Pascal, the great Christian philosopher to give him proof of God, Pascal answered, ‘Why the Jews, your Majesty, the Jews!’
There is no prouder nationality.
No. The Nazis that sent Jews to Palestine were not part of the movement that was started by Theodor Herzl. That’s like putting certain second-wave feminists and conservative religious leaders as part the same movement because of their opposition to the porn industry. It’s completely disingenuous to portray those Nazis as Zionists.
You also left out the fact that when Hitler wanted to execute his Final Solution, he no longer permitted Jews to leave to the Levant or anywhere else–he wanted them completely exterminated.
Harvard can not claim it tolerates peaceful expressions of Judenhass because it has a position of tolerating all peaceful speech, no matter how odious.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/05/harvard-rescinds-admissions-offers-offensive-memes
The only explanation for Harvard refusing to punish the expression of Judenhass is because the Harvard leadership suppoirts JUdenhass.
Obviously universities evaluate the content of candidates' speech in the context of admissions and hiring. That's the whole point of essays, interviews, etc. This is not an example punishing students for speech, because they weren't students yet.
"evaluate the content of candidates’ speech"
In my field we have ample evidence of speech in the form of peer-reviewed papers and letters concerning the behavior of the faculty candidates in prior positions.
We should not care what physicist thinks of mRNA vaccines.
You should care about the physicist’s ability to teach truths. That probably means you want physicists who aren't flat-earthers or otherwise conspiracy theory nutjobs.
Did you read what I wrote, or are you just making a stupid and meaningless statement for the sake of argument?
You said you shouldn't care what a candidate for the physics department thinks about mRNA vaccines. I'm saying you should. Physicists should be able to understand scientific papers even in other specialties. And, it's not like the mechanics of mRNA are totally unrelated to physics.
You shouldn't hire scientists who don't understand science. More generally, you shouldn't hire teachers with bad judgement.
RE: "Let's see what the future brings, as Presidents lose their jobs, as donors withdraw donations, and perhaps, a future Department of Education in a Republican administration brings down the Maccabee."
That will never happen. If Republicans get enough power to actually change anything at all, they will abolish the Department of Education altogether, and replace it with nothing, or with a pure Soviet-Style brainwashing-agency. You know it's true.
There should not be a Department of Education.
States should run education.
(...while being funded by the federal government, ideally pursuant to a national policy requiring that charter schools, vouchers for private schools, and subsidies for homeschooling be provided.)
I can see the Federal largess drying up.
"You know it’s true.
No, we don't. Neither Bush II nor Trump abolished the DoE.
Yes, deliberately holding yourself separate from the people you live among does tend to have that effect. Especially if you (appear to) practice in-group bias. It's unfortunate, but probably unavoidable.
Romani (aka "gypsies", although I hear that word is offensive these days) also tend to have similar issues wherever they go. (Including having been another target of the Nazis.)
I've heard that Christians tend to have similar issues in places where they're a minority.
etc etc
[In light of modern restrictions on who can say what, I should probably note that I was raised Christian and my wife is a semi-practicing Jew. I should also note that "is" and "ought" are not the same thing.]
DEI is not intended to combat anti-semitism, so it's not a failure for it to not do so.
DEI seems to be intended to make material success a function of moral worth (as judged by the left, meaning it's anti-correlated with your assigned tribe's past success) rather than individual competence. Which has the inevitable side-effect of being detrimental to society as a whole. Or if you look at the other stated beliefs of the louder supporters, maybe that side-effect is the motivating goal.
(Of course, when challenged, DEI proponents tend to retreat to a motte that sounds an awful lot like the ADA's reasonable accommodations idea, where you do things like for example make sure the odd person out has their holidays treated just as seriously as the majority does.)
By this logic campus police are not intended to prevent crimes, since they still happen.
Except there is a lot research that shows diversity training is at best ineffective and can be actually counter productive.
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2020/12/05/research_shows_diversity_training_is_typically_ineffective_652014.html#!
reason.com/2020/08/07/diversity-training-isnt-just-expensive-its-counterproductive/
1) RCP is not where I'm going to go for that kind of analysis. They cite things and I cannot trust their provenance, nor whether they are outlier studies.
2) DEI does a lot more than trainings.
Yes, DEI also actively encourages identity politics, leading to more antisemitic thought. That is a foreseeable consequence of the general intent of DEI. It may have also been a specific objective.
'Yes, DEI also actively encourages identity politics, leading to more antisemitic thought.'
Is that what you blame for your increasing levels of antisemitic thought?
How is being against DEI antisemitic? It was DEI thought that portrayed Jews as the "oppressors" to the Arabs at the Levant. You clearly do not have your facts straight.
'DEI made me racist' is a thing I do hear from racists a lot.
And I'm sure there are shitty DEI people who don't help things on that front.
But attacks on the entire enterprise from people who don't actually know what DEI even includes is just racial grievance politics.
It played briefly on trans issues locally; we'll see how it plays on race nationwide.
If you're running a system which is routinely doing things to antagonize the population, they're going to be angry. You need to give them a target for their anger before they identify YOU as the proper target.
Such a target has to have certain characteristics: They should be a minority, because it's the majority you're trying to confuse. They should be successful, because it's hard to demonize people who are visibly doing badly. They should be in some way identifiable, can't target the invisible.
Jews, unfortunately for them, meet these criteria to a T. You'd be hard put to do better if you were deliberately designing a group to demonize.
You think DEI is a conspiracy to target the Jews in order to control the population's unhappiness?!!
Look at what happened at Harvard. You can thank critical theory for that.
Why would this conspiracy target the Jews, who are doing all the heavy lifting in the Great Replacement?
Easy–DEI doctrine believes the Jews at Israel are the “oppressors” to the “oppressed” Levant Arabs when in reality it’s a much more complicated issue, where putting the sole blame on Israel, which is what certain Harvard student groups did, is not a fair conclusion. It was exactly the tenets of DEI that led to Claudine Gay to answer Elise Stefanik’s questions the way she did. Don’t defend Gay’s actions.
Blah blah blah, just a big smokescreen designed to let Israel avoid accountability for anything.
The campus protests are not really aimed at Israel, I don’t see any IDF on campus.
It’s pretty obvious they are aimed at Jews.
For instance the tearing down of posters of kidnapped hostages while decrying civilian casualties in Gaza, isn’t aimed at supporting the Palestinian cause, it’s a statement that there are no innocent Israelis, and the targeting of Jews on campus extends that to no innocent Jews.
Hahaha what! You have the same disease as David Bernstein and a lot of others around here. You take the bad faith of your political opponents as a premise, then use that to make some inane argument which — surprise! — reveals the bad faith of your political opponents. It's totally circular.
For instance the tearing down of posters of kidnapped hostages while decrying civilian casualties in Gaza, isn’t aimed at supporting the Palestinian cause, it’s a statement that there are no innocent Israelis, and the targeting of Jews on campus extends that to no innocent Jews.
The only way that chain of insane inferences can be made is if you’ve already decided the students are guilty.
Hahaha what! You have the same disease as David Bernstein and a lot of others around here. You take the bad faith of your political opponents as a premise, then use that to make some inane argument which — surprise! — demonstrates the bad faith of your political opponents.
So you are saying there are very fine people on both sides?
Of course not. I totally disagree with the stance of these students. But I don't think they're all, or even mostly, antisemitic, I don't think they're harassing Jews qua Jews, and I don't think their speech should be banned... just like I don't think the Charlottesville protesters' speech should be banned.
Nice try, jerk butt. Maybe I'll ban your speech, groomer boomer.
Yeah, tell that to Paul Kessler. There were antisemitic actions these past three months that amounted to more than just speech.
Calling Michael Ejercito a "groomer boomer" is completely uncalled for.
No, that is an issue for Mr. Biden, not for the leaders of Penn, Harvard, or MIT.
Now you are just making excuses.
Why not go on a rant about the failed leadership of Arafat or Abbas?
Why not go on a rant about the failed leadership of Arafat or Abbas?
Because no one's saying that a rant against Arafat or Abbas should be banned. But you just suggested that rants against Netanyahu should be the sole purview of the Biden administration, not a proper subject for college campuses. So I say again, bullshit. Or in other words...
We get it, you’re an antisemite. One with a strawman argument at that.
"they cause struggles (Nazis)"
N o, it's way more complicated than that, and I'm not sure I blame the Nazis.
It would have to be an observant Jew doing it for political reasons, but it would be one incredible PhD thesis to (a) determine the real roots of the Nazi's antisemitism -- I suspect a lot of it actually came out of the Eugenics movement they borrowed from the US -- and (b) if the Holocaust cost them the war.
I mention the latter in terms of cold hearted logistics -- every boxcar en route to a death camp was a boxcar not loaded with badly-needed winter uniforms heading further east to the Russian front, every Gestapo agent chasing Jews was one less soldier on the Russian front, etc.
Germany was anti-Semitic before WWI. In Herman Hesse's writing just after WWI he noted that Germany's anti-Semitism before the war seemed relatively harmless but he thought the new version was much more dangerous.
Note the Judenzählung and the later Dolchstoßlegende. Hitler's own view was, quite simply, that Jews were the ultimate enemy of Aryan - German - culture, which is why eventually killing us was so important that the Nazis moved resources from the front lines to keep doing so.
"Regrettably, as soon as Israel was established, the millennia-long train of anti-semitism simply morphed into its latest manifestation: anti-Zionism. They don't hate all Jews, they just oppose all Jews who seek to protect the the only speck on planet Earth devoted for their protection."
tl;dr Any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.
At least you're honest about your ridiculous position here, not trying to dance around it with "Well theoretically you can criticize some actions of the Israeli government, just everyone who actually does is an anti-Semite".
Stick to SCOTUS statistics and case summaries. Just about every time you open your mouth on something else you look just like Trump; a blabbing moron who thinks he's the smartest person in the room, when that barely qualifies as true when alone on the shitter writing another inane screed.
There is research showing that people who consistently claim that criticism of Israel isn't anti-Semitic tend to be anti-Semitic. Non-anti-Semites seem comfortable criticising Israel without pre-emptively defending themselves. As it is said, "qui s'excuse, s'accuse".
Anti-Zionism is a convenient cover for anti-Semitism - even you might agree.
When did antisemitism ever need a convenient cover?
A "convenient cover" is how it was often done, and usually in the name of advancing the progress of humanity. Anti-Zionism has become one such form--wanting to deny Jews a state of their own and wanting it removed off the face of the earth is absolutely antisemitic. It doesn't matter if it is under the guise of advancing human rights--it is an unacceptable ideology.
It's not ridiculous to say that anti-Zionism has significant overlap with antisemitism, especially considering that most criticism of Israel simply does not hold ground. That is something you and many others here clearly do not understand.
Yeah, let's write a Free Speech piece predicated on 2000 year old stories from sheepherders. Better yet, let's make it story premised on a "miracle" in a contest between people who believe in different imaginary friends in the sky.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Your antisemitic bigotry is noted and reported. The "different imaginary friends in the sky" are not actually imaginary.
Blackman likes to state conclusions as though everyone agrees with him and no evidence is needed.
All conclusion, no evidence. Blackman bullshit at its 'finest.'
There is absolutely evidence. Look at what happened to Harvard. You have to be either deaf or a dishonest liar to believe otherwise.
In the wake of the Holocaust, there was perhaps a brief moment of lucidity when the nations of the world recognized that the Jewish people needed a home of their own to ensure these atrocities never happen again.
Zionism began and was getting support from nations, particularly Great Britain, before and during WWI, not after the Holocaust. (Back when they still called it The Great War in the vain hope that there wouldn't be a second world war.)
The need for the Jewish people to have a home of their own was due to the nations of the world not wanting to treat Jews as equal citizens, even when they were born in those nations and had roots there going back as far as the majority of those citizens. Great Britain, the U.S., France, etc. all could have matched their declarations of equal rights for Jews with actually living up to those declarations. Instead, their solution to the Jewish problem was to try and find them someplace thousands of miles from their countries to go. The Holy Land wasn't even the only option discussed, but it was attractive due to the ancient historical and religious significance. It was in the late 1800s that the Zionist movement decided that was the way to go, with Theodore Herzl publishing Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State") in 1896.
Basically, the premise was that antisemitism was so ingrained and inherently rooted in Europe and elsewhere that only their own state would do. The Jews of that time that believed this certainly seem vindicated by the following half a century.
The only problem is that the Biblical Israel was not uninhabited. In fact, it was still only around 10% Jewish in the British Mandate for Palestine in 1921, after a few decades of immigrants arriving. (It was only couple percent Jewish prior to 1900, but that is less certain from what I can tell, due to not all Jews living there being Ottoman citizens and perhaps not counted in census figures.) In 1947, when the question was kicked to the newly formed UN, there was only one sub-district of Palestine that was majority Jewish - Jaffa, which contained Tel Aviv (founded in 1909).
The problem here is not the First Amendment or any campus speech protocol. The root of the problem is the rotten core of college campuses. From the earliest age, students are inculcated with a flawed philosophy: the world must be divided between the oppressed and oppressors. And the answer to any question turns not on any sort of objective moral truths, but based on a dogmatic preference for the plight of the oppressed.
This is made most clear by the founding of the modern state of Israel. Millions of people horribly oppressed in a manner without equal in world history in its geographic and human scale absolutely deserve peace and security and equal human rights somewhere. Perhaps in an alternate reality, the democratic nations of the West recognized their moral failures at providing that justice within their own lands and provided the Jews among them justice directly, and welcomed those in other lands to come there for peace and justice. Perhaps in that alternate reality hundreds of thousands of yet another group of people weren't driven from their homes.
As I have said before, had the Holocaust never happened and had Europe had a long history of tolerance towards Jews, the treatment of Jews in Arab/Muslim lands for 1400 years is more than sufficient in and of itself to warrant a Jewish state in its current location.
That makes no sense at all. Why would people living relatively comfortable lives in an increasingly modern Europe or the U.S. want to move to the Middle East to live in a state surrounded by people that don't like them? Without the history of antisemitism in Europe and Russia prior to the Nazi rise to power, there is no Zionist movement and no Balfour Declaration. Without the Holocaust, you don't get enough Jews into that region to create an independent state.
Israel as the "safe place" from antisemitism seems like a bad deal, to me. The rising antisemitism in many countries, including the West, is definitely worrisome. But would a Jew living in Western Europe or the U.S. today see Israel as safer? Objectively, I'd be hard pressed to see that. The religious and cultural connection has got to be the tipping point for anyone migrating there today.
And that is the other aspect of Zionism that some don't want to talk about. The religious hard right in Israel sees the land as theirs as matter of divine promise. That is why there are hundreds of thousands of settlers (with or without the explicit permission of the Israeli government) in the West Bank making a two-state solution non-viable. The 1967 borders aren't enough for them, nor is sharing Jerusalem.
"The religious hard right in Israel sees the land as theirs as matter of divine promise. [...] The 1967 borders aren’t enough for them, nor is sharing Jerusalem." Precisely.
The Nakba wasn't enough: the massacres at Balad al-Sheikh, Saasaa, Deir Yassin, Saliha, and Lydda weren't enough. When _does_ it stop? How much "safe space" should the peoples of the world unwillingly "give" to a people unpopular not due to religious beliefs but instead due to their greedy and murderous behavior?
We are at a point where even Jewish-owned media outlets are forced to acknowledge Israeli illegal use of white phosphorous: at what point do those who condone the Israeli propensity for genocide step into reality?
Why would people living relatively comfortable lives in an increasingly modern Europe or the U.S. want to move to the Middle East to live in a state surrounded by people that don’t like them?
They may nonetheless want to live in their own country rather than as welcome "ex-pats". But that doesn't address the Jews living elsewhere in the ME, who might well find that being surrounded by hostile countries is better than living in one.
Why would they be "ex-pats"? An American Jew whose ancestors came to the U.S. before 1900 is as American as any other citizen. In the alternate reality or this one, they are living in their own country. And moving to a place that wasn't a country that shared their cultural and religious heritage until 1948, and that came to be at the cost of the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people that had cultural and religious ties to that land going back centuries, still doesn't sound that appealing to me compared to living in a modern society built around equal rights. Even if I would be within a small minority in terms of religion.
If anyone doubts the right is just using everything here as just another clumsy partisan cudgel against the left, here ya go.
Absolutely
Yes - I do not find the argument, "our anti-Semites are better than their anti-Semites" to be particularly convincing.
If anyone suspected that Sarcastr0 has any mental lens other than "clumsy partisan cudgel", this should dispel that suspicion.
So Michael, I've noticed before that I'm Not! You Are! is pretty much your go-to technique here. Doesn't do a lot for your overall credibility.
If Higher Education were mainly education and priced that way,donors would not have such power and the donations would be from a much broader base.
So everyone on here using 'right" or "left" is a moron and needs true education. Even under that right/left rubric one would have to admit that it is the non-specificity of the educational institution's values that makes future conflict inevitable. Say this school is Biblically-based, accepts the American Founding, and "In God we Trust" --- and 99% of dispute disapperas. Ever see a Catholic college that says "our view on all moral issues is in the Catechism" ? All you right/left non-thinkers will get what I am saying
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/06/should-universities-ban-advocacy-of-genocide/?comments=true#comment-10346274
“From the earliest age, students are inculcated with a flawed philosophy: the world must be divided between the oppressed and oppressors. And the answer to any question turns not on any sort of objective moral truths, but based on a dogmatic preference for the plight of the oppressed. So long as this ideology predominates, no committees or task forces can make any difference.”
I doubt Josh is trying to take the side of “oppressors” here, so I guess he’s insinuating there is too much “victimology” in university discourse. Which is ironic for the obvious reasons…
More interestingly, isn’t grade school American History basically the heroic story of ourselves as underdogs standing up for themselves and winning again and again? Revolution; 1812; the Civil War; WW1/2; the Space Race…
It’s really not until university level courses that students are meaningfully exposed to the underbelly of our history: the Indian Wars; Japanese internment; anti-semitic isolationism during the early 20th Century; the Tulsa Massacre; Sooners and Boomers….
So I would say that “from the earliest age” our students are actually inculcated with the flawed philosophy that anglo-America is the exceptionalist, manifestly-destined underdog fighting against the world’s evils.
Exactly. I remember George Will commenting about the Tulsa Massacre.
“There is something wrong that I lived 80 years, benefited from wonderful institutions of higher education, and in my 80th year, I learned about the Tulsa riots,” Will said. “There is something wrong there. I should have known about that. That wasn’t just erasure; that was a pogrom.”
He was no fan of the 1619 Project, but he spoke the truth there. I hadn't heard of it either until Trump was scheduled to speak in Tulsa on June 19, 2020. Juneteenth being another thing I had never heard of until then.
My high school history courses covered the Indian Wars, Japanese internment, Sooners, the deep ugliness of slavery, and more. I wouldn't have thought that the Florida panhandle was unusually honest about such things, and I know my kids are getting a much earlier dose of America-hate.
Even when I went through school, there was a heavy vein of the oppressor-oppressed axis.
So, how do you feel about Florida and Texas legislatively distorting or suppressing lessons about “…the Indian Wars, Japanese internment, Sooners, the deep ugliness of slavery, and more…,” that is, if the accurate history might make White people feel bad?
The author apparently doesn't realize that most European Jews were anti-Zionist through WW II, and roughly 10% of the current Jewish population of Israel (the Haredi) are currently anti-Zionist.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, and never has been. The secular state of Israel has long been strongly socialist. A lot of religious people, including Jews, really don't like either its secularism or its socialism. America's conservative evangelicals just don't understand how Judaism works, thus silly essays like this one.
1) Most European Jews were not anti-Zionist prior to WWII--as a matter of fact, the formal Zionist movement began in Europe. It would've not succeed if it was met with that much opposition.
2) Only a portion of Haredi Jews oppose Zionism--and even among those a lot of them are not opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state, only against some aspects of Zionism. Others are groups are very supportive of Zionism.
3) Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, and never has been.
Between the incidents directed at Jewish students on campuses, the actions of the current BDS movement, the death of Paul Kessler, and the explicit goals of Hamas to eradicate Israel, that claim is simply not true. There is a lot of overlap.
4) The secular state of Israel has long been strongly socialist.
Blatantly false.
Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel
"The economy of Israel is a highly developed free-market economy." - Wikipedia
Read the sources of the first sentence alone while you're at it.
5) A lot of religious people, including Jews, really don’t like either its secularism or its socialism.
As demonstrated before, there are many religious Jews who are also Zionists, even if they don't agree with every aspect of the movement.
6) America’s conservative evangelicals just don’t understand how Judaism works, thus silly essays like this one.
Josh Blackman has done his research--those "silly essays" are based on factual evidence and common sense. You on the other hand have clearly no understanding of either Christianity (including evangelicalism), nor Judaism. You don't speak for either group.