Colleges and universities are traditional centers of intellectual rigor, fountains of diverse opinions and laboratories for ideas. They should be safe spaces for open minds and healthy debate. But as we have seen in recent weeks, the aspirational mission is clouded by blatant anti-Semitism, violence and cowering college administrations.
All public universities are subject to the First Amendment to the Constitution. (In some instances, private colleges have their own speech guidelines that follow the First Amendment.) The First Amendment protects speech from government interference, and it is interpreted broadly to protect unpopular and hateful speech.
However, that does not mean university leaders’ hands are tied when campus speech is repugnant. College presidents can, and should, respond forcefully to speech that may have a harmful effect. Columbia University President Minouche Shafik failed to do that when pressed during a Congressional hearing on whether she believed “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” was an anti-Semitic phrase. (Hint: It is)
She said it was “hurtful” and she would “prefer” not to hear it on campus. Talk about lame. She should have said that any speech that advocates for the destruction of Israel and targets Jews is antithetical to the principles of the University and must be rejected in the strongest terms.
And, she could have added, that goes for any speech that targets a specific group or promotes violence. If a white supremacist spoke on campus and advocated for “sending blacks back to Africa,” it would be the responsibility of the college leaders to counter that with a forceful and unequivocal response.
That is not only the right thing morally, but it is also a legal obligation.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal money. According to the Anti-Defamation League, “Harassment that creates a hostile environment for individuals with a shared ancestry, such as Jewish students, can be a form of national origin discrimination. A college or university’s failure to address harassment that creates a hostile environment may be a violation of Title VI.”
But too often college leaders have hidden behind the convenient catch-all of “academic freedom.”
Academic freedom pertains to the right of professors and students to pursue knowledge without unreasonable interference. Think of a class where the teacher and students have rigorous debate about all aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That has value, and it’s a far cry from chanting “From the river to the sea,” while camped out on the campus green or storming and vandalizing a college building.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams blamed “outside agitators” for making matters worse at Columbia University. Fair enough. Professional protestors know how to take advantage of a situation and mobilize a mob. However, students who aligned themselves with bigots and vandals also bear responsibility, along with college administrators with their weak response to law breaking and hate-filled speech.