The weather is warming, the crocuses are starting to poke their leaves above ground, and you know what that means. It’s Protest Season again on American campuses!
The poster below appeared on the University of Chicago Students for Justice in Palestine (spuchicago), University of Chicago United, and Faculty for Justice in Palestine sites. It announces a pro-Palestinian protest at noon today on our Quad, sponsored by these organizations and, as you can see on the poster, also by the American Association of University professors (AAUP). The text accompanying the poster:
sjpuchicago On Saturday night, the federal government abducted Palestinian student activist Mahmoud Khalil from his home, in collaboration with Columbia University. He is currently being held in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. Join us at noon this Tuesday to stand in solidarity with Mahmoud and rally against the Trump administration’s fascist escalations against the student movement! We demand that UChicago refuse collaboration with DHS/ICE and that UChicago admin and DA Eileen Burke drop all disciplinary proceedings and charges against Student A and Mamayan.
“Mamayan” apparently refers to Mamayan Jabateh, one of two students put on indefinite involuntary leave from the U of C this January after being arrested charged with “aggravated battery of a peace officer and resisting/obstructing a peace officer”. The demonstration was last October, and I described it here.
As I noted this morning, Mahmoud Khalil was a Syrian-born, pro-Palestinian grad student at Columbia University who engaged in many activist activities there but, as far as I can see, none of them illegal. He’s married to an American citizen who is eight months pregnant and holds a green card as well. Nevertheless, he was snatched up by ICE and spirited away, apparently to Louisiana.
This looks to me like Trump pulling another illegal move to punish the kind of speech he doesn’t like. (Note that Ilya Shapiro argues otherwise at the City Journal.) Now make no mistake, I don’t like this kind of speech, either, and I know that the aim of most of these organizations (save the AAUP, which seems to be going bonkers) is to destroy American democracy and its professed values. But the test of free speech is whether you give the okay to legal speech even when it says things you detest, and so, given that this is a legal protest (which I suspect it is), here’s what I think right now.
- As far as I know about the law, the snatching up and attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil is unconscionable, a violation of the First Amendment. (There may be other things Khalil did that I don’t know.) And right now a federal judge agrees: “On Monday, a federal judge in Manhattan ordered the government not to remove Mr. Khalil from the United States while the judge reviewed a petition challenging the legality of his detention. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers also filed a motion on Monday asking the judge to compel the federal government to transfer him back to New York.”
- While I don’t particularly want to live another summer on a campus roiled by protests, with pro-Palestinians shouting through speakers, if the University deems this protest to be legal, then I can’t say it’s wrong. That said, however, our administration has been very lax on protestors, both faculty and students, and as far as I know, despite at least five illegal pri-Palestinian protests, only the two students mentioned above hav been sanctioned. (SJP was given a toothless “warning by the University).
- I do deplore the AAUP abandoning institutional neutrality, though one might argue that they are defending free speech here. But given their decision to stop opposing academic boycotts, an implicitly anti-Israel move, the AAUP may be taking political sides. If they are, they’re going the way of the ACLU and SPLC.
I do have a queasy feeling in my stomach, because I simply don’t want to live through another protest season like last year’s. Several of the protests, including the encampment, were illegal and disruptive, but little was done by our administration, although eventually, after a couple of warnings, University police did remove the encampment. But nobody was ever punished. J’accuse! Legal demonstrations are okay, but many college administrations, including ours, don’t seem to have grasped that failure to punish those who participate in illegal demonstrations not only promote more of them, but erode the reputation of universities.
Here’s what will happen today. Although I’d like to go and take pictures, one of my friends is giving a biology talk on evolution, and that takes precedence.
Ooo, mid-level provocations.
[…]
… did they use an actual photo of Honey last year, or was it another mallard? That was a new low, I thought.
I am pretty sure it was Honey. But it doesn’t matter because they called her “Honey”. It was clearly aimed at me, and do you really think it makes a difference?
Only that your photography would have been used without permission/credit, is what came to mind.
Or, an even lower new low.
I’m pretty much a free-speech absolutist, but I find Ilya Shapiro’s argument to be fairly persuasive. Non-nationals who are in a country on a visa do not have all the rights that a citizen has, and the threshold for revoking the visa of a non-citizen should be lower than the threshold for sanctioning a citizen.
An appropriate test is whether it is in the public interest for the country to host the non-national. If it’s not then they can be sent home.
[In the UK in recent years (with inward migration running at over a million a year, amounting to turnover of 2% of the population each year), the courts always rule that the public interest is outweighed by the migrants’ interests.]
I’ll write about this tomorrow, because there is also law allowing “aliens” to engage in the same beliefs and associations that are lawful within the U.S. It’s not a cut and dried case.
Free speech does not give you the right to harass and intimidate others. If Khalil engaged in activities that infringed on the rights of Jewish students he should be deported.
On the other hand, if he just was peacefully holding a sign he should not be deported.
I think the question is going to be whether a non-citizen can be deported as an undesirable. Certainly due process in the adjudication and punishment of a crime should (and surely does) apply to all people in the country, even if in the U.S. illegally. Mr. Khalil shouldn’t be put in jail for anything he said, no matter what his residency status, unless what he said would be illegal for anyone else within the very tight guardrails of your First Amendment. But deportation is not a criminal penalty impinging on life, liberty, or property.
I’d read with interest Jerry’s upcoming take on this. Free-speech absolutists should always get the benefit of the doubt.
Yes to all Lysander. A number of Americans have dual Israeli and US citizenships. No visitor to a country should have or expect a right to publicly call for the death of any of that country’s residents or visitors or for the destabilization or destruction of the country she is visiting. If a visitor does any of these things, it’s time to wish her bon voyage and send her on her way.
I wasn’t crazy about deporting this (unfortunately green card holding*) terrorist simp ….until recently.
The large protests in his favor change my perspective. You won’t find this argument anywhere else… which doesn’t mean it is wrong. I practiced immigration law but I’m not an expert in it. Still…
Terrorism is about perceptions and mind control/propaganda rather than actual death toll and this is what we have in the instant case.
His becoming a cause celeb for a terrorist movement and his many sympathizers have TURNED HIM INTO a terroristic threat. Now deportable.
So… this (non) judge says: “Before his case actively motivated masses of terror simps and fools… I’d say let the green card holder with odious opinions stay. First Ammd and all. Subsequently his wider fame has altered his situation and effect. His remaining here is not in the interests of the United States.”
Remember that phrase for it is important in immigration law: Not in the interests of the United States. THAT is what we’re dealing with as the most important issue – not the opinions or fate of one small, noisy Arab fool.
So it is on the plane for you sir, give my regards to Gaza!
So ordered,
Pretend Judge but real attorney,
D.A.
NYC
*Green Card makes deportation a bit … icky…. from a legal perspective. As opposed to student visas – here at the sufferance and discretion of the Dpt of State.
** Richest irony of the week: The “has a new wife and baby” sop and plea of his has about as much cred with me as residents of Sederot had as Hamas was killing them, new wives and babies included. Whom they murdered btw – not deported. He cheered them on.
…
I’m reading this Jacques Ellul book, Propaganda – The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965) – he says (paraphrased) by virtue of technology, technological society guarantees propaganda….
It means everyone is potentially spreading propaganda.
Post-edit window addendum :
So – I don’t know the answer, but you’re right to bring these ideas up – of operational interests… and their origin.
Might be true in some sense, but not in any useful sense.
Better to attend the biology talk.
For consideration regarding Mahmoud Khalil: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/whats-the-best-argument-for-columbia-agitators-arrest-and-deportation/.
Yep, I’ll write about that tomorrow; already read it. There are, of course, holes in that law.
It worth mentioning that there are precedents relating to foreign anarchists at the beginning of the last century and to Communists in mid-century.
I couldn’t read the whole thing, not being a subscriber. But I did learn that Khalil was not involved in the building takeover.
I have zero sympathy for him but I’ll wait to see how the legal arguments come out.
Has anyone seen any reporting that suggests Khalil was protesting either in coordination with or under the direction of a US-designated foreign terrorist organization? That would, as I understand it, firmly take this case outside the realm of free speech. Lacking evidence of that, I’m with the free speech absolutists–no matter how disagreeable I find the message.
A protestor and an abductee at the same time… this should give Khalil some insights he didn’t count on.
Just a comment of thanks to our host. There are not many people in the blogosphere who make statements like “This looks to me like Trump pulling another illegal move to punish the kind of speech he doesn’t like. (Note that Ilya Shapiro argues otherwise at the City Journal)”.
Most writers would either not mention an opposing viewpoint or pick a nutty one in order to make their point. I really appreciate the fact that the opposing view curated for us is a well-reasoned argument written by a serious person who knows his stuff. It’s nice when someone can have an opinion while still recognizing the complexity of an issue. Plus, it’s so much better than the other articles that boil down to “Stupid Trump’s doing it so it’s BAD!”.
+1
One reason I like Trump’s actions against Mahmoud Khalil: Palestinian activists are scared.
I see the Senate Judiciary Democrats want to “Free Mahmoud Khalil”
https://bsky.app/profile/judiciarydems.senate.gov/post/3lk26z7n5mc2q
Lots of replies along the lines of 1A rights.
Then there’s https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/10/opinion/mahmoud-khalil-free-speech.html?smid=bsky-nytopinion
I wonder if supporters would be so supportive if he was out marching with a far-right neo-nazi party? Or if he was a Christian marching to ban abortion? I don’t recall the left having the same concerns for 1A rights in other cases such as expressing doubts about US COVID policy.
The fact that the judge stayed the deportation doesn’t necessarily mean the judge agrees with Khalil. It’s just to prevent anybody from doing anything irrevocable while the judge considers the issues.
Update to my own comment. Khalil was taken to Louisiana. The judge’s stay of the deportation reportedly was, at least in part, to preserve jurisdiction in New York.