Anti-semitic poster at the University of Chicago: is it compatible with our policies?

52 thoughts on “Anti-semitic poster at the University of Chicago: is it compatible with our policies?”

1. Definitely agitation. Asymmetric – sort of forces the free speech reply to be what, a sign in the window of the building opposite? Or what, they want the reaction to be a large gathering holding signs? Or in tents?

   Not sure what to make of it but I find the notion to do what a sign says … something – it’s something!

2. If it’s allowed, it seems to me that the university did the right thing by asking the poster to take it down. (And the poster did the right thing by complying.) I suppose that the investigation will determine if it’s allowed or not.

   Even if it is allowed by official rules, it still makes sense for university officials to ask the poster to take it down—simply in the interest of preventing others from riffing on it and creating an escalation that could impede teaching and learning.

   Once many years ago, my wife put a statuette of Rodin’s The Thinker in her office. Her boss asked her to please remove it because of the show of nudity. Pretty trivial if you asked me, but my wife removed the statuette to keep the peace.

   1. But if it’s allowed, I would deem it “chilling of speech” to even ask the person to take it down, much less investigate it. That’s akin to censorship. I hate the sentiments of the poster, but free speech is free speech, and you shouldn’t come down on those who express it.

      1. I’d be interested if what happens with the investigation. If a sign is facing public view, is that sign regarded as a statement by the university, or is the sign a statement by the person who posted it? One would think that this is not the first case of this sort.

3. If you can read more of it, please decipher in the comments.

   The wording immediately above “deport Israelis” could be “Deport school bombers and child murderers”.

   As for whether this should be allowed, it’s notable that the speech that Amy Wax has been sanctioned for (at another university of course) is vastly, vastly milder and vastly more reasonable than this poster. But that was not about Jews!

   The stuff on this poster would only be considered even remotely acceptable about Jews (or perhaps “whites”), not about anyone else.

   1. I think “Deport Egyptians” or “Deport Ethiopians” would be taken down right away.

4. Considering that “national origin” is a protected class of equal stature with race in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allowing this sign means the university would have to allow signs, e.g., advocating expulsion of all blacks from campus or sending all Africans back to Africa. Like you, Jerry, I give a wide berth to freedom of expression, but I understand why the uni needs to weigh the slippery slope possibilities of this one carefully.

   1. I don’t really see a way around allowing either both offensive posters or neither. Although offensive, I suspect the overall better timeline is when both are allowed.

5. I can’t read the whole thing and I know nothing about U of Chicago policies. But I think it passes the First Amendment tests for free speech, and therefore should be permitted (even though I know there is no obligation for private entities to obey the First Amendment). I can easily imagine similar signs about the Russian aggression in the Ukraine, where it would probably be true. The solution is not to take it down (or arm-twisting the office owner to take it down) but to put up a factual sign nearby showing why it is not true. However, I can understand the university’s desire to not turn their departments into Balkanized islands of hate.

   1. I don’t agree that a university should allow on campus everything allowed by the first amendment. A campus should also be a community of scholars and students, and a professor’s office is a place that a student may go to to learn. That means there should be some standards of civility to fellow members of the university, at least for on-campus speech.

      For example, “group are disgusting vermin” does not violate the first amendment, but is beyond what a university should allow.

      1. I kind of like the truth-in-advertising aspect of permitting offensive speech. The students don’t have to guess what the professor really thinks.

         1. I contemplate whether the professor would (try to) refuse to teach Israeli/Jewish students (or non-Jewish students sporting Stars of David in solidarity), and would take offense learning that one or more students (Israeli or not) refused to take his class on account of his sign. (Unless only that professor teaches that particular class.)

         2. I agree and once you know you know what you need to counter.

6. I think the “Deport Israelis” crosses the line and indicts an entire nationality simply for being part of that nationality. Same for a sign that says “Deport Palestinians” or “Deport Irish” or “Deport Blacks.” It’s a slogan that is not part of a rational discussion.

   1. That’s how I see it too.

   2. I moderately disagree with the last part (“Deport Blacks”) as being similar as that is racial whereas the others are nationalities.

      Open to other ideas but currently see no difference between saying “deport Israelis, Nigerians, Iranians, Koreans, French, Germans, Russians, Turkish, etc.” along with Irish/Palestinians.

      But “Deport Blacks” is akin to “deport Jews, Whites, Arabs, Asians, etc.” and is very different to my way of thinking.
      Many of them see themselves as being very different from their neighbors and would deeply disagree being considered part of a single group (and there are certainly cultural differences that should be considered IMO).

      1. Logically, yes, national origin is different from race.

         Legally, however, discrimination against national origin is illegal. See Gary above.

         1. But discrimination is not the same as expressing animus. Discrimination is an action that has an observable result: deliberate, intended differential outcomes sorted by a prohibited criterion.

            Expressing animus is perfectly legal (even in Canada), no matter whom it is directed at: race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, ugliness, gun-nuttiness, membership in the plutocracy, whatever. The employer will have something to say about it if it reflects on him but the state does not. If “Eat the rich” is permissible, so is “Deport the Israelis”.

            I could say, “I don’t like black people (or people from Somalia) and wish the government could somehow send them back to Africa,” and no one can do anything to me (except fire me or, if I was a registered professional, sic my regulator on me.) Ditto, “I would never date a black person and would disown my child if s/he ever married one. I think the Supreme Court should find a way to reverse its decision about mixed-race marriage and strike down the Civil Rights Act while they’re at it.” None of those statements is illegal discrimination because I can make private choices and express opinions based on animus if I want to.

            If I refuse to rent apartments to black people or admit them to my university, that is (illegal) discrimination based on race. Even if I said, “I love black people, nothin’ against them. I just don’t want them as tenants or students for secret private reasons,” what I do is still illegal. I can still say whatever I want as an individual as long as I have no power to convert my beliefs into actions that discriminate illegally. (I can, of course discriminate on lawful criteria. I can refuse admission to fat people, to poor people, to people of mediocre intellect, to nepo-babies, to short people who can’t play basketball to save their lives.)

            So the professor with his sign is not discriminating against Jews or against Israelis because he has no power to deport anyone. His sign has to be judged purely as speech, not as any form of discrimination. His sign might be taken as indicating his intent to discriminate against his Jewish students in teaching and grading them, but on its face it does not say that.

            Further, the University of Chicago has no authority to deport anyone. So the University is not carrying out discrimination on the basis of national origin by allowing the professor to display his animus against Israelis with his sign. The most it could do is cancel the registration or job contracts of Israeli academics which would cause them to lose their visas and be deported. But the University is vanishingly unlikely to do that at this professor’s behest. All it needs to do is ignore him. If it did selectively fire or expel Israeli academics but not foreign academics from other countries, that would be discrimination based on national origin. So the University is clearly not going to do that, completely thwarting the professor’s goals.

            I think the only issue here is whether the professor’s speech is offensive enough that the University needs to silence him for fear of driving away students and professors whom the University would like to keep, who are offended by it or who worry they won’t be treated fairly as students and colleagues. First Amendment principles won’t really help here. The University has an interest in the matter that the state does not in 1A cases.

7. If the poster was calling Palestinians “child murderers” and saying they must be deported, it would be expressing sentiments I’ve seen in discussions of what to do about the pro-Hamas groups on campus. The opposing view is similar. I think I’m on the side then that this is free speech.

   Of course, when I imagine that this professor has Israeli foreign students in his classrooms, I move in the other direction.

   1. Pro-Hamas groups on campus are stirring up hatred and physically threatening Jews. How is expressing a sentiment that they be removed remotely comparable to a generic (and vile) “Deport Israelis” sign? What Israelis? The guy teaching physics? The student going about his or her own business?

      You refer to posters calling Palestinians “child murders.” Have you seen this? Did they originate with Jews? The word “If” at the beginning of your sentence makes the whole thing sound hypothetical. If you have evidence that Jews are behaving towards supporters of Palestine in the way the latter have attacked Jews, then I can support the expulsion of Jews. But I haven’t seen that evidence.

   2. “Of course, when I imagine that this professor has Israeli foreign students in his classrooms, I move in the other direction.”

      On the contrary, when I imagine this, I am grateful to the professor for advertising his true feelings. It might alert students to possibly unfair treatment if they take his or her class.

8. We would not be having this conversation in any community of well-balanced adults who have shed adolescence, who understand responsibility, and who exercise self-restraint.

9. I have no opinion beyond respecting that controversy can be explored civilly.

   To me, it seems this is the tension any private entity, like UChicago, experiences in trying to comport itself as if the First Amendment applied to it, even though the 1A restricts only the power of the state to punish speakers with fines or jail. An ordinary workplace like a coffee shop would not allow an employee to post a sign like that at her service counter and would fire her on the spot if she refused even for a moment to take it down. No 1A issue there: you have no free speech against your employer if it damages the employer’s business, in the sole opinion of the business owner. But the owner of the coffee shop could post whatever sign he liked unless the sign said, “Jews will not be served”, as that would be a civil-rights issue that businesses, but not ordinary private citizens, must obey. (More hair-splittingly, maybe he could post the sign as long as he didn’t actually refuse service to Jews, or make any effect to detect Jewishness for the purpose of refusing service.)

   So a private entity that promises to uphold 1A might be biting off more than it can chew. As an employer, it must not allow a harassing environment that gives employees grounds for lawsuits that the employer will expensively lose, or that cause Jewish staff to quit. What if students or private donors were abandoning the University because of anti-Semitic speech to where it threatened the University’s survival even if it didn’t disrupt classes and research with noise and obstruction? The University would be within its legal rights to enforce a crackdown with academic sanction. But should it? How far does time place and manner extend?

   The case for free speech in the public sphere is that giving the government the power to imprison people for speech is unacceptable except (maybe) in a war emergency. But an employer already has the right to fire you for any reason, or for no reason at all. Normally he will fire you as an individual only for poor job performance, and insubordination or creating an environment that harasses customers or other employees is poor performance on its face. So is misuse of the employer’s private property, such as posting unauthorized signs in office windows that reflect badly on him. But he can’t put you in jail for any offence. He can only discipline you or fire you under the terms of employment law, contract with students, and any collective agreements with workers.

   First Amendment principles are, I think, only aspirational for private-sector entities, never to be observed as if they had force of law. Universities should aspire to more than coffee shops and car factories, sure. As a professor of law and philosophy told us, in a pluralistic society getting to the right decision is less important than that it be got to rightly.

10. I’m confused! If, after discussion, s/he voluntarily removed it, why is an investigation necessary? I agree that the removal is a violation of free speech, but I can also understand the University’s concerns regarding the Fuhrer and potential retaliation.

    1. That last bit may be why the investigation is announced. Although the U of Chicago is a private institution, they do receive a lot of federal money and the Orange One may wish to make an example. There are legalities, and there are practicalities.

11. It clearly falls within the bounds of free expression, in my estimation. It does suggest that this professor might not be able to be fair to Israeli and Jewish students, though, which might be an HR concern.

    I’m not suggesting using HR as a way to silence this professor, just that it calls his or her professionalism into question.

    1. What if it said, “Deport Blacks.” Still clearly within the bounds of free expression?

       1. In my opinion, yes. I think a more appropriate analogy would be “Deport Chinese.” In any case, vile but not a threat or incitement to immediate violence.

          Again, it would make me question the professor’s ability to teach effectively and fairly.

          1. I don’t think such vile comments need to be protected as free speech at private universities for those universities to be able to have the academic freedom they need to foster intellectual growth.

             1. Who gets to decide what is too vile? Would you be willing to give that power to someone who has different views than you?

                The solution to bad speech is good speech, particularly in a university environment. Students need to learn to argue their case, not be protected from even horrid views.

                All that being said, professors may be held to a different standard in their professional role because of the power differential over students.

          2. Who gets to decide what is too vile, you ask? The university. Who gets to decide what is too vile to say around the dinner table at your home? Would I give that power to someone who has a different view than me, you ask? I’m not giving them anything. It is their power. If I don’t like the decisions they make, I go elsewhere or start my own university.

             The solution to bad speech is not only good speech. If someone yells “fire” in a crowded theater (assuming there is no fire), the immediate answer to that bad speech is for people to get up and say there is no fire before people get stampeded to death. But that’s not the full answer. The person who yelled “fire” should be punished by the courts. Good speech alone is not (always) enough.

             1. The only time speech isn’t enough is if violence is occurring or imminent.

                Universities are places where all ideas should be subject to debate. Lukianoff explains why succinctly (https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/mills-trident-an-argument-every-fan)
                * If you are wrong, freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
                * If you are partially wrong, free speech and contrary viewpoints will help you get even closer to the truth.
                * If you are 100% correct (which is unlikely) you still need free speech for dissent, disagreement, and attempts to disprove you, both to check your arguments and to strengthen them.

                Silencing other people isn’t conducive to learning.

          3. Should universities waste time on whether the earth is flat, on whether the Holocaust happened, on whether the sun circles the earth, on whether there is a largest prime number? There is only so much time in the day. Should there be classes in alchemy? Universities have to make all kinds of decisions that limit speech, and that includes the right to limit speech that creates a hostile environment. Should a student be able to say, “All N—s should be sent back to Africa”? You said, “all ideas.”

12. I am usually pretty pure on allowing for speech protected by 1st amendment but this is a clear title 6 violation even before the changes of title 6 for anti-Semitism as it blankets national origin.

    Btw pretty sure I know this professor and he has a long negative history with your current President which predates Alivasatos coming to Chicago. Will be interesting lol.

    1. I don’t know who the professor is. There is a lawsuit against the University for exactly this Title VI violation, so perhaps why the university brought the hammer down.

       1. Right. I think the university had the right to bring the hammer down under title 6 regardless of an investigation.

          Not sure you care to know the name. I can email it to you if you care. I guess for sake of this thread it’s not important…

13. Surely advocating for the deportation of a category of students (Israelis) who have not violated any university regulations would be considered a violation of university regulations — given that deporting a student necessarily involves functionally expelling the student from the university? No? Would it be permissible (on first amendment grounds) for a faculty member to post a sign advocating for the suspension or expulsion of all Chinese students, or Muslim students, or gay students, or Somali students, or Nigerian students? Surely the posting of this sign would make any Israeli students QUITE REASONABLY feel that they could not take this faculty member’s classes?

14. The sign should be allowed if free speech were the only consideration, however if this faculty member teaches students it seems to me to be a Title VI violation. He/she advocates deportation of Jewish students, how can they possibly expect to receive equal treatment in classes the faculty member teaches?

15. I will try to look at the comments above as time allows.
    This may be legal, but I don’t think it is ethical for a professor to do this.
    A professor is vetted to have power over the lives of their students, so it seems unethical to me to publicly display a political position that will deliberately create a threatening atmosphere to some students, and will have a coercive effect over other students.
    I teach classes. I have my opinions about evolution, but I would regard it as unethical for me to directly attack religious views regarding the age of the earth and about human origins. That would be another example

    1. Mark, I regularly do argue with students who are young-earth creationists, since this contradicts everything they have been taught. I would also argue with a flat-earther for the same reason. I think we should. However, I would not fail them for disagreeing with me if they demonstrated that they understood the arguments against their beliefs.

       1. There is a difference between debating and attacking. If a student wants to debate me on these issues, I will, albeit with reluctance since I don’t want the student to then turn around and complain to my department chair about me (one did that, long ago). But I don’t think it’s right to bring up specific biblical doctrines and criticize them in front of a captive audience.

          1. I feel that the parts that are relevant to biology, insofar as they make empirical claims, are fair game to criticize and evaluate, just as we would for Lysenko’s theories or phlogiston. We should not put a fence around fact claims based on religion.

             I don’t hit people over the head with it. I am subtle but I can see the students do think about it. Many students from religious colleges have told me later that they appreciated our frank discussions of these issues and appreciated being treated like thinking adults instead of coddled children.

16. I have a child who is an undergraduate student at U of Chicago right now who is Jewish and wears a Star of David necklace. Any debate about free speech just becomes semantics when it’s your child taking a course with an openly antisemitic professor who is proud to display this message on their office door. My student is there to learn and not to feel harassed when going to office hours. Can we really trust this professor to treat Jewish/Zionist and/or Israeli students fairly? The professor can professor can share their views in any number of forums but surely putting it on the door of their academic office sends a clear message to any student taking their class.

17. Far more interesting to me is the campus community’s and the media’s reaction to this hate speech: what would be the repsonse if the professor had posted “all transgenders should be banned from public life” or something comparable. If it were any different from the reaction to this posting (and of course it would be), well, that tells me all I need to know. There will always be haters, but what matters is how communities respond to them.

    1. Brilliantly said, Danny!! Bravo.

18. Readers may want to think about the treatment of Amy Wax at
    Penn, at the Law School. She is being suspended for a year with half pay, starting next fall. This is because of views she has expressed about students’ abilities in relation to their race. It’s a long story and I won’t try to give details, some of which are disputed. I believe that for a long time she has not taught required courses. So the administration for a while dealt with the Amy Wax issue by making it possible for students to avoid taking her classes.

19. Speaking of antisemitism, you may have received this too, Ceiling Cat. It came to my Gmail account (vs my Beth Israel or Harvard Chan accounts). That makes me worry some that I’ve been trolled, but Harvard may just have my Gmail on file. It is addressed to the Harvard Community. I think the messaging is solid.

    Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

    Earlier today, the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism issued a letter putting at risk almost $9 billion in support of research at Harvard and other institutions, including hospitals in our community. If this funding is stopped, it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.

    The government has informed us that they are considering this action because they are concerned that the University has not fulfilled its obligations to curb and combat antisemitic harassment. We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry. Urgent action and deep resolve are needed to address this serious problem that is growing across America and around the world. It is present on our campus. I have experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president, and I know how damaging it can be to a student who has come to learn and make friends at a college or university.

    For the past fifteen months, we have devoted considerable effort to addressing antisemitism. We have strengthened our rules and our approach to disciplining those who violate them. We have enhanced training and education on antisemitism across our campus and introduced measures to support our Jewish community and ensure student safety and security. We have launched programs to promote civil dialogue and respectful disagreement inside and outside the classroom. We have adopted many other reforms, and we will continue to combat antisemitism and to foster a campus culture that includes and supports every member of our community.

    We still have much work to do. We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism. We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom. By doing so, we combat bias and intolerance as we create the conditions that foster the excellence in teaching and research that is at the core of our mission.

    Much is at stake here. In longstanding partnership with the federal government, we have launched and nurtured pathbreaking research that has made countless people healthier and safer, more curious and more knowledgeable, improving their lives, their communities, and our world. But we are not perfect. Antisemitism is a critical problem that we must and will continue to address. As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings, pursue needed change, and build stronger bonds that enable all to thrive. Our commitment to these ends—and to the teaching and research at the heart of our University—will not waver.

    Sincerely,
    Alan M. Garber
    © 2025 The President and Fellows of Harvard College | Harvard.edu

    Harvard University | Cambridge, MA 02138

    1. Thank you for passing this letter on for weit readers, roz.

       1. 👍

          (I see Ceiling Cat did also receive it.)

20. A later thought.

    The sign says “Deport Israelis”. Only aliens (non-U.S. citizens) can be deported. The animus is clearly directed at alien citizens of Israel, probably but not necessarily Jewish, temporarily resident in the United States. It likely represents a protest by the sign’s author against the policies of the Government of Israel over its conduct of the war in Gaza, directed at its citizens working or studying abroad on visas. (The flag further indicates sympathy with Hamas, which is a separate issue and more reprehensible in my view.)

    A parallel would be if a Canadian professor called for the cancellation of student and work visas held by American nationals temporarily resident in Canada, because Trump. Trust me, there are many Canadians from all walks of life — mostly older — who would heartily endorse this sentiment as a way of sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the U.S. President. But “Deport Americans”, or “Deport Russian hockey players”, could not refer to Canadian citizens of American or Russian ancestry, simply because they are immune from deportation.

    Similarly, if the author of the UChicago sign wants to get at Jews of any citizenship including American Jewish students born in the U.S. who take his classes he needs to use different language, but he didn’t. Yes, all westerners, Jewish and not, should broadly support Israel including taking its Government’s side in an existential war of civilization against barbarism. But not all do. We can’t compel that support, even though opposition to Israel often comes from a darker place than routine, reflexive Canadian anti-Americanism does. Opposition to Israel often spills over into animus against Jews who have never been to Israel. Anti-Semites often cloak their views in exactly that way. I get that.

    I would roll my eyes at a Canadian university professor who called to deport Americans, just as I scoff at my friends who won’t buy American lettuce. But even under the very broad powers the Canadian state applies against “hate”, I can’t see censuring her.

    This doesn’t resolve whether the professor’s sign violates UChicago’s policies but I’d like to suggest this note as a way to think about what, exactly, the University would be censuring, or permitting.

21. The federal prohibition on national origin discrimination trumps a private entity’s internal policies. There is not a constitutional free speech protection applicable to University of Chicago in this instance and, even if there was, faculty receive a lower degree of protection due to their responsibilities as employees.

    This type of sign singles out and threatens a protected group. The University of Chicago does not have powers of deportation, but, as recent events have made clear, universities and their staff can report students suspected to have violated their visas to federal authorities. Also, discrimination includes actions that create a hostile environment for protected classes, including chilling registration by Israelis or Jews for a class with this professor or any class in the department (which apparently allowed the sign), discouraging these groups from applying for a research assistant position with that professor, etc.

    That is the legal bottom line. Personally, I think expensive private universities in considerable debt need to get over themselves and realize that U.S. education is significantly commodified and it is poor business practice to threaten to deport your customers!

    1. Would “Deport Russians” (i.e. Russian nationals in the U.S. on visas) be acceptable as political protest against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? When the U.S. applies sanctions against a specific foreign country, which it compels private actors like businesses and universities to to comply with, isn’t it demanding that those actors discriminate amongst those they’d like to trade with on the basis of national origin? “You may offer temporary jobs and student places to nationals of countries A, B, and C, but not to nationals of Russia, because we won’t issue them visas. And you can’t enrol Russians in distance learning either, because of our sanctions. If you take their money for a Zoom course, or pay them money to give one to your American students, we will whack you for evading our official sanctions against Russia and its citizens.”

       If the United States was not refusing to issue education and work visas to Russian nationals, but a professor thought it should be (because Ukraine), this would surely be protected speech, no? At least as far as the government is concerned, it’s not illegal discrimination by national origin coming out of his mouth, surely.

       I think there is a difference between discriminating amongst Americans based on their national origin and discriminating amongst foreigners according to where they come from. The United States can engage in free trade with some countries, impose import tariffs on others, and embargo exports against still others. Further, a private mail-order business can decline customers from certain countries because of fear of fraud in those countries’ payment-clearance systems…. or just because he doesn’t like dealing with Canadians. Certainly in time of war, foreign nationals of the belligerent country are rounded up and interned, but U.S. citizens born to immigrants are left alone. (Both Canada and the U.S. dishonoured this approach with citizens of Japanese ancestry in 1941.)

       I fully agree with you that the University has a legitimate interest — to Hell with the First Amendment — in not allowing its employees to scare away potential students, academics, donors, and financial angels in the U.S. Government by uttering speech on its premises that suggests animus against them, even if the University itself has no intention of actually discriminating, or allowing it, on the basis of a prohibited criterion. This is what I think I meant earlier that the First Amendment can only be aspirational on private university campuses, but it is clearer in my mind from reading your comment.

Comments are closed.