Given the spate of articles on antisemitism that Conor Friedersdorf publishes in the Atlantic, he would seem to be the house conservative (yes, defending Israel or criticizing campus antisemitism is now largely the purview of the right or of centrists). Indeed, Wikipedia says this about him:
In an interview with journalist Matt Lewis, Friedersdorf stated that he has right-leaning views but that he does not consider himself to be a doctrinal conservative or a member of the conservative movement.
I’m not sure, though, whether this is relevant when discussing his views, like those in the article below, as his arguments should stand on their own. And I think that in the main they do, although perhaps the word “unethical” is a bit strong (I’d say “a violation of the right to a college education” or “campus protest encampment should be banned”). But you can decide for yourself by reading the piece. Click on the headline, or find the article archived here. (BTW, I’m going to try to find archived versions of articles that are paywalled, so look for “archived here” links in future posts.)
Indeed, Friedersdorf begins not by discussing ethical issues, but by arguing that campus encampments are maladaptive: the costs exceed the benefits. I’ve bolded the one place where he mentions ethics:
The practical, legal, and moral arguments against occupying the quad add up to a protest tactic with costs that far outweigh any benefits. Some of the problems with encampments are obvious, others subtle; taken together, they show that academic communities cannot thrive when any group uses coercion to try to force others to adopt its ideas––an approach that usually fails anyway. Activists should reject encampments as both unethical and ineffective.
Again, I’d say “ineffective and disruptive” rather than “unethical”. I can see where some could consider that activist notions that they have a right to disrupt the education of others is “unethical”, but if that’s the case, then any disruption in the cause of ideology is “unethical.” (Besides, it’s not at all clear that we’ll have any encampments this year.)
Now I know what you’re thinking: if encampments are unethical, why weren’t the disruptions of the Civil Rights movement in the Sixties—lunch counter sit-ins and so on—also unethical. But there are several crucial differences between then and now, and I believe I’ve pointed them out before. But here they are again from Friedersdorf:
A standard defense of disruptive tactics is to invoke the civil-rights movement. Its leaders repeatedly engaged in civil disobedience––the knowing, willful violation of laws and rules to disrupt the status quo. If such “good trouble” played an integral part in a cause as righteous as the U.S. civil-rights movement, why are today’s encampments any different or less defensible? It’s a fair question to pose, but not a hard one to answer.
In the civil-rights-era victories, protesters were violating unjust laws, such as the ones that forced lunch counters to segregate. Today’s students are violating perfectly reasonable rules, such as the ones that forbid anyone, regardless of viewpoint, from erecting barricades to prevent fellow students from traversing the quad. Ending those illegitimate laws against segregated lunch counters made almost everyone better off. Ending legitimate rules against occupying the quad would make almost everyone worse off.
In addition, when “occupying” was a tactic in civil-rights-era civil disobedience, it was aimed at cogent targets. To protest segregation in a given jurisdiction, activists targeted segregated spaces in that jurisdiction.
Well, I suppose one could answer that divesting from Israel—the ultimate goal of encampments, which of course is completely futile—could be conceived as violating campus regulations in pursuit of a just cause. After all, what’s really important vis-á-vis ethicality is the ultimate goal of your action, not which local regulations (short of proscribing violence) you violate to achieve it. Fortunately, for Friedersdorf (and unfortunately for the encampers), the immorality of colleges investing in Israeli companies (or even in funding through investments Israel’s war against Hamas) is not at all obvious.
There’s another difference, too, and one that Friedersdorf doesn’t mention. Civil rights protesters knew that they would be punished for their actions, and gladly accepted that punishment, even when it was severe, like being bashed by Southern cops, sprayed with water hoses, or jailed. The punishment was clearly part of the moral suasion that horrified onlookers. In contrast, today’s protesters and encampers regularly make it part of their list of “demands” that they not be punished for their actions. In other words, they insist on breaking the rules, but also insist on immunity to punishment. That takes away from them the right to claim civil disobedience.
There’s no doubt that many, perhaps most, encampments are against college regulations and are disruptive. Ours certainly was, blocking access to campus and disrupting classes with noises, bullhorns, and megaphones. These encampments are against most college regulations, but invertebrate administrators let them go up anyway. In some cases, such as UCLA, the encampers even prevent “Zionist” students (i.e., Jews), from crossing the area or even entering class. And that is not only disruptive, but against campus regulations. Sadly, administrators, who are often weak and spineless, let this stuff happen under the misapprehension that it constitutes “free speech” (it might be in some situations; see below).
I found this story about UCLA interesting because the Jewish students filed suit against their school and won:
UCLA offers a case study in what’s wrong with encampments. Royce Quad is a space many students crisscross to access central parts of campus. On April 25, pro-Palestine protesters formed an encampment with barricades. Entrances were guarded by activists, many of them masked. They barred entry to students who support Israel’s existence. On April 30, an angry crowd gathered to protest the barricades and encampment. Counterprotesters “hid their faces behind masks and scarves,” CNN reported. “Some attackers sprayed protesters with chemical irritants, hit them with wooden boards, punched and kicked them and shot fireworks into the crowd of students and supporters huddled behind umbrellas and wooden planks, attempting to stay safe.” Authorities, who had failed to stop protesters from unlawfully occupying the quad, similarly did not intervene as counterprotesters unlawfully assaulted some of its occupiers.
Three Jewish students who were denied the ability to cross the quad filed a federal lawsuit against UCLA, arguing that they have a religious obligation to support a Jewish state in Israel, that their religious belief caused them to be denied equal access to their college education, and that UCLA nevertheless allowed the encampment to remain in place for a week. UCLA countered that it lawfully exercised the discretion that it needs when trying to avoid the escalation of conflicts.
The group Faculty for Justice in Palestine at UCLA submitted an amicus brief in the case, arguing that their allies are the ones who were mistreated. “Students and faculty of the Palestine Solidarity Encampment have been subjected to police brutality and mob attacks by self-proclaimed Zionists and white Supremacists, representing an almost total failure of UCLA to provide timely intervention or protection,” their brief asserts. In its telling, “Entrance to the encampment is contingent on principles, politics, and solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, and not on identity.”
Federal Judge Mark C. Scarsi disagreed. Earlier this month, he issued a preliminary injunction siding with the Jewish students, writing that they “were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.” He called this “abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.” UCLA appealed the ruling, then dropped that appeal. The school is obligated to clear future encampments, or else to shut down any educational program––a class, lecture series, and so on—that is inaccessible to anyone due membership in a protected class.
Note that UCLA was on the side of the protestors!
I have to note, though, that even Friedersdorf isn’t down on all encampments, as he gives a pass to those that aren’t so disruptive:
Granted, it is possible to set up a peaceful encampment that is intended not to intimidate, but to raise awareness or show ongoing commitment to a cause. When visiting UC Berkeley one day last spring, I found the tents pitched in front of Sproul Plaza to be minimally disruptive, in a lively part of campus where free-speech activities are constant. The encampment was far from academic buildings, did not block pedestrian traffic, was easy to avoid by using other routes onto campus, and seemed easily monitored by UC police officers stationed nearby.
But nondisruptive encampments are the exception, not the rule, partly because crowds of young people behave unpredictably, and partly because disruption is often the point.
Does this mean that Friedersdorf considers encampments like the one at Berkeley to be “ethical”? Unless there are university regulations that allow encampments in some places but not in others, then they’re equally illegal. But I guess to Friedersdorf, “ethicality” equates with “nondisruptive.”
I’m on the fence about this one, at least the “unethical” desription. Clearly, it’s illegal to blockade campuses in a disruptive way, and, after a warning, violators should be disciplined. But for just a few tents in an out-of-the-way place that aren’t disruptive, I wouldn’t be so draconian. That could, after all, be considered a demonstration of freedom of speech, and even if violations prohibit encampments, I wouldn’t necessarily enforce a small, unobtrusive one. But of course the very point of encampments is to be disruptive in a way that is supposed to force the university to divest (along with other demands).
About the “ethicality” trope, I am not sure I agree. But perhaps our difference is largely semantic. To me, “disruptive and illegal” would suffice.
h/t: Mayaan
I agree that “disruptive and illegal”, plus contrary to university regulations even if not against the law, should suffice. Perhaps an ethical formulation might be aimed at students who don’t care about the oppressor’s laws and are happy to be disruptive but who still want to do the right thing. It might also stiffen the spines of administrators who also mostly want to act ethically by some analysis or other.
What is weak in the article is what the ethical framework actually is, which makes disruptive protests unethical. It sounds vaguely utilitarian but utilitarian ethics doesn’t appeal to rights seekers pressing for their own rights even if everyone else is made worse off. (Trans activism takes this form.) And if the goal is revolution, anything that undermines the effort is unethical on its face. The view cited by the author to disagree with it, that there is no wrong way to protest, is an explicitly ethical claim after all.
I think it makes sense to discuss the question of whether the encampments are unethical, particularly if being deemed “unethical” leads to actions on the part of the protestors and the administrators to curtail such encampments. I doubt, however, that the protestors—incipient terrorists in some cases—will will change their behaviors based on such subtleties. For example, I doubt that ethical concerns would cause Students for Justice in Palestine to re-think its planned Week of Rage, scheduled for October 7-11 at college campuses across the U.S.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C__KP_pSvp9/?img_index=1
I sincerely hope that university administrators and law enforcement agencies are ready for what might be a very rough week.
I think the problem is that the protestors’ ideology likely rejects the very notion of ethics as bourgeois/Western/racist.
A very convoluted subject. But students in many encampments do unethical things, with general consensus, like blocking access to public areas, blocking fire lanes, and trying to force Jewish students into untenable positions. Those then become unethical encampments, imo, since I can’t separate the encampments from the unethical things that encampment members do.
Look~ What percentage of “demonstrators” know anything about Palestinians? Demonstrations are FUN. Being obnoxious is FUN. Disrupting campus order is Fun. What percentage are frat types? Why do colleges not expel those involved? It is largely the fault of wimpy administrators. Just read their wimpy excuses. Were I still a student at Cornell I would be writing angry letters to the campus newsletter. I really think firehoses would clean up the sorry “encampments.” It certainly would not hurt to expel anyone and everyone in an “encampment”. Why is antisemitism Fun? How about antijerks? By the way, what is a Palestinian? They are an extraordinarily diverse group. Some are extraordinarily cruel to women. Tp protest some college students are “camping out” and disrupting the functions of the university. Kick them out!
I think the question of whether the encampments or “protests” are productive depends on what the goal is. We’ve seen the statements that the goal is the destruction of America. To that end any disruption feeds the impression that the “system” isn’t working. This is undoubtedly meaningful to the faithful, whether or not it’s true.
Insofar as the “protestors” tactics are violent or seek to engender violence, they are likely unethical to anyone who agrees that “ethics” is a thing. I doubt they think ethics is a thing. The end absolutely justifies the means to them.
Yes, I think that’s true.
When planning a response to varying levels of political demonstrations on campuses, it might be interesting for administrators to ask their committees to include something like the following question amongst other scenarios: how should we respond if disruptive protests are held in support of a presidential election perceived to be stolen from Red America? I’d love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation.
There seem to be several definitions of unethical. If we go with “not morally acceptable”, then perhaps not. The leaders, at least, believe it is their moral imperative to root out and torment Jews wherever they can be found.
If we prefer “not adhering to standards of professional behavior”, then they are tremendously unethical. That is assuming the student code of conduct defines their professional standards as students. At U of C, disruptive conduct is a violation.
The biggest problem as I see it is that by allowing this crap, they encourage escalation, and share the blame for where that escalation leads.
I just think “unethical” is a strange word to try to force here.The article in totality seemed like a stretch to me. Where to start? As Jerry said, the encampments are “ineffective and disruptive”. To take the subject much deeper than that is, to me, giving the whole movement more credit than it deserves. These protests are, above all else, emotional. They have no “cogent target” (great choice of words, Jerry). To quote reader/commenter/contributor Mark Sturtevant, “This is a very convoluted subject”. I couldn’t care less if Conor Friedersdorf is conservative or not. He just didn’t write a very persuasive article.