Category: anti-semitism

Jon Haidt on the rise of antisemitism on campus

December 24, 2023 • 11:30 am

On his Substack site “After Babel,” social psychologist Jon Haidt, most of you know of, explains the rapid rise of antisemitism on American campuses. The piece is long and a bit repetitious, but well worth reading of a Christmas Eve.

Click to read:

I’ll just summarize his thesis and give some quotes. First, the problem:

Why is the culture of elite higher education so fertile for antisemitism, and why are our defenses against it so weak? Don’t we have the world’s most advanced academic concepts and bureaucratic innovations for identifying hatred of all kinds, even expressions of hatred so small, veiled, and unconscious that we call them “micro-aggressions” and “implicit biases”?

Yes, we do, but it turns out that they don’t apply when Jews are the targets,1 and this was the shocking hypocrisy on display in that Congressional hearing room on December 5. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asked the President of the University of Pennsylvania “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?” President Magill was unable to say yes. When the question was asked in various ways to all three presidents, none could say yes. All said variations of “it depends on the context.”

The question, then, is this: given that persecuted minorities are at the top of progressive’s “admiration pile”, why are the Jews, perhaps the most persecuted group in history, at the bottom? Part of the answer lies in one of the three “great untruths” presented in Lukianoff and Haid’s book The Coddling of the American Mind:

“life is a battle between good people and evil people”

And this came from the increase among the young in “safetyism”, described by Wikipedia this way: “a culture or belief system in which safety (which includes ’emotional safety’) has become a sacred value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.”

And so this form of Manichaeism developed:

The new morality driving these reforms was antithetical to the traditional virtues of academic life: truthfulness, free inquiry, persuasion via reasoned argument, equal opportunity, judgment by merit, and the pursuit of excellence.  A subset of students had learned this new morality in some of their courses, which trained them to view everyone as either an oppressor or a victim. Students were taught to use identity as the primary lens through which everything is to be understood, not just in their coursework but in their personal and political lives. When students are taught to use a single lens for everything, we noted, their education is harming them, rather than improving their ability to think critically.

This leads to what Haidt calls “common enemy identity politics” (opposed to its virtuous twin, “common humanity identity politics):

[Common enemy identity politics] teaches students to develop the oppressor/victim mindset and then change their societies by uniting disparate constituencies against a specific group of oppressors. This mindset spreads easily and rapidly because human minds evolved for tribalism. The mindset is hyper-activated on social media platforms that reward simple, moralistic, and sensational content with rapid sharing and high visibility. This mindset has long been evident in antisemitism emanating from the far right. In recent years it is increasingly driving antisemitism on the left, too.

And the oppressor/victim mentality, says Haidt, comes from evolution: it’s a way of thinking that was presumably adaptive competition between the small groups of our ancestors. In those groups, “us-versus-them” thinking presumably led to greater reproduction of those who were wary of “the other.” (This hypothesis makes sense to me, though it’s very hard to test. But the universality of tribalism demands some kind of explanation. Fortunately, one of the increases in morality emphasized by Pinker involves the disappearance of this tribalism, which is maladaptive in a modern world of widespread interaction.)

Still, why the Jews?  Because they fit neatly into the slot of “oppressor.” (I’d add that Jews, as well as Asians, have done quite well compared to other minorities, which makes them less likely to be seen as oppressed. Jews, like Asians, are considered “white adjacent”!)

So, how well does our analysis from 2018 hold up in 2023? Does chapter 3 help us to understand the recent explosion of antisemitism on campus?

Unfortunately, the analysis works perfectly. Many students today talk about Israel as a “settler-colonialist” nation That is straight oppressor/victim terminology, from post-colonialist thinker Frantz Fanon. It treats Israel as if diaspora Jews were 19th century England or France sending colonists to take over an existing society, motivated by monetary greed. Once that frame is applied, students’ minds are closed to any other understanding of a complicated situation, such as the view that Jews are the original (or indigenous) inhabitants of the land, who had a continual presence there for 3,000 years, and whose exiled populations (many in Arab lands) had nowhere else to go after being decimated by Hitler’s version of common enemy identity politics.7 The French in Algeria could return to France, but if these students get their wish and Hamas gains control of all the territory “from the river to the sea,” it’s not clear where seven million Jews would go, other than into the sea.

Haidt then gives some polling data showing that members of generation Z (those born roughly between 1997 and 2012, making them 11 to 26 years old) are far more antisemitic than older folks. This is presumably because Gen Z has been subject more often to safetyism and the oppressor-victim narrative. Here are some data from Haidt’s paper:

As you can see below, all older generations favor disciplinary action as the proper response to students who publicly call for the mass killing of Jews. Only Gen Z does not.

The big difference between generations is that only Gen Z endorses this kind of identity politics. One survey item asks: “There is an ideology that white people are oppressors and nonwhite people and people of certain groups have been oppressed and as a result should be favored today at universities and for employment. Do you support or oppose this ideology?” [p. 56]

Gen Z, and only Gen Z, agrees with the “ideology that white people are oppressors.” The direct line linking this explicit form of common enemy identity politics to antisemitism is found in the responses to the next item: “Do you think that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors or is that a false ideology?”

The summary (Haidt’s bolding):

In other words: While all generations agree that race-based identity politics now dominates on campus, only Gen Z leans toward (rather than away from ) endorsing such politics, applying it to Jews, and agreeing that we should treat Jews as oppressors—that is, treat them badly and not protect them from hate and harassment because they deserve what’s coming to them. 

One of the noxious results of this trend, which of course is jumped on by the Right-wing media—Left-wing media barely touches the issue because they perpetuate the victim-oppressor narrative—is that it makes Americans lose trust in higher education; and the more Right-wing you are, the faster you lose trust. But even the Left is losing confidence in higher education, as seen in the graph below (caption from Haidt):

Figure 1. Percent of U.S. adults with “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education. Source: Gallup (2023).

It is in fact appropriate to lose faith in higher education given what is happening here. It’s not just antisemitism, but the rise of “studies” departments that are based on identity politics, the proliferation of DEI bureaucracy, increasing self-segregation in universities, the tendency of universities to make ideological statements that chill the speech of many (especially conservatives), and the infection of academic discourse with ideology.  The consequence is that both Left and Right, who see Biden as the embodiment of “progressive” and elitist politics, are going to turn more towards Republicans, with the ultimate disastrous possibility that Trump will be re-elected.  Universities are hoist with their own petard.

Haidt’s argument for the rise of antisemitism makes sense, and I do recommend you read The Coddling of the American Mind. But of course people like me who live on campus are more concerned with quelling this kind of hatred than understanding its philosophical roots. How can you preserve free speech and the First Amendment on campus while at the same time preventing speech (especially now) from creating at atmosphere of fear, mistrust, and self-censorship? That is a huge problem, and one that brought woe to those three university presidents who testified before a House committee, eroding their and their schools’ reputations through an inability to discuss this issue coherently.

Haidt gives some references to organizations “that can help universities” (i.e., FIRE, Heterodox Academy, and so on), and adds a list of books and essays that suggest reforms for colleges. Have a look at that list.  As for me, I’m a hard-core free speecher, but I deplore the atmosphere of intimidation that’s arisen at the University of Chicago, particularly with the Jewish students strongly intimidated by aggressive and loud pro-Palestinian groups. I’m doing what I can to keep my principles but to try to dispel that atmosphere. But that’s something I’ll discuss another day.

Doctors Without Borders accused of complicity with Hamas

December 20, 2023 • 10:15 am

When Kelly Houle and I sold a copy of Why Evolution is True that had been autographed by many in the science/atheist/skeptic community (including several Nobel Laureates), and which had been illuminated with Kelly’s artistic flair, we decided to donate the proceeds to Doctors Without Borders (DWB, founded as Médecins Sans Frontières), an NGO that goes around the world with its doctors and nurses helping people in distress, particularly during tragic events like hurricanes and civil wars. It even won a Nobel Peace Prize.

All this sounded great to us, and we donated the $10,500 the book brought on eBay to DWB. (Have a look at the book here.) We thought it would do a lot of good, which was the sole object of our auction.

Later, however, I heard a rumor that DWB was somewhat anti-Israel and didn’t use Israeli doctors, although it does use doctors and nurses from many other countries. I emailed the organization asking about this, and never got a reply. I found accusations of DWB being antisemitic and anti-Israel (and pushing pro-Palestinian propaganda) on the internet (see here, here, here, and here, for example), and was distressed, as such an organization should not be taking political stands or engaging in political advocacy, which it was reported as doing. If they really don’t use Israeli doctors, and those doctors are willing to be used, then it’s guilty of antisemitism, for help is help, regardless of where it comes from or the religion of the medic.

You can find other and similar accusations on the web, but here’s a new one, written by Alain Destexhe, who used to be a big shot in the organization. He’s identified this way:

Alain Destexhe, Medical Doctor (MD), a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, is an Honorary Senator in Belgium, former secretary general of Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) and former president of the International Crisis Group. Author of Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century.

I think that gives his words sufficient credibility! And the Gatestone Institute has published an article by Destexhe article that accuses DWB of complicity with Hamas. Click the headline to read, and judge for yourself:

The piece is based on a new investigation of the organization, a group is loosely organized so that members can say what they want on social media. Check out the link to the report as well as the accusations given in the excerpt below:

The public statements since October 7 of Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF) and its employees, on the ground in Gaza, show a systematic bias in favor of Hamas and hostility to Israel. MSF has failed in its humanitarian purpose and violated its own charter, which proclaims “assistance… irrespective of race, religion, creed or political convictions.”

MSF has been present in the Gaza Strip since 1989. It now plays a leading role there, with at least 300 staff members, and works closely with local hospitals on a number of projects, either directly or indirectly with the Hamas “Ministry of Health”.

MSF is often quoted by the international media and is seen by public opinion as an objective, neutral and independent observer of the conflict in the region. Because of the history of the organization, which in 1999 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the French and international media have blind faith in MSF when it comes to reporting what it states.

However, a new investigative report on the social media posts of MSF and its employees has seriously called this reputation into question. The tweets and the Facebook posts of MSF and around 100 of its employees in Gaza were scrutinized.

Despite being subject to the MSF Charter, a significant proportion of its staff seem to share the Hamas point of view and support the terrorist attacks of October 7. For example, from October 7:

  • “Always remember that Gaza has done what all Arab armies have not done… !! It dug tunnels with its own hands. It built its weapons with its own hands…!! She sacrificed her sons, her women, her youth, her elderly, her homes and her mosques for the dignity of this land…!!” — MSF nurse (see Appendix 1).
  • “oh my God, we love you” — MSF doctor (see Appendix 1).\

. . . MSF’s biased analysis of events can also be found among MSF’s official spokespeople, who — usually quick to communicate — are completely silent on the atrocities of October 7.

. . .MSF repeated the false claim that Israel bombed Al Ahli Hospital in Gaza. In a tweet dated October 17, MSF France wrote in French:

“We are horrified by the Israeli bombing of the Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza, which treated patients and housed displaced people. Hundreds of people were killed according to local authorities. This is an unacceptable massacre.”

MSF did not specify that these “local authorities” are part of Hamas.

Here’s the DWB Twitter (“X”) site logo, followed by a couple of tweets:

This is their pinned tweet, and there are repeated calls for a ceasefire.  Their concern for healthcare “on both sides of the conflict” rings hollow in the face of their complete lack of concern for what happened in Israel.

A DWB Facebook post decrying the US’s veto of a ceasefire in the Security Council, which accuses the US of giving “diplomatic cover for the ongoing atrocities in Gaza”.  Surely not an institutionally neutral pronouncement, and misguided as well. One could just as easily say that “the U.S. is trying to allow Israel to defend itself so that the tiny country can continue to exist.”

DWB picketing for a ceasefire at the UN:

Much of the article above was taken from the 47-page report, which gives examples of DWB and MSF’s tweets and other comments on social media supporting  also this from the investigation report, written by Destexhe; it’s 47 pages long and gives lots of examples.  Some quotes are blow, bolding is theirs:

MSF has had a large presence in Gaza for a long time. Moreover, in a series of tweets, MSF provides precise information on the situation at the Al Shifa hospital, showing its perfect knowledge of the premises and the staff. Is it possible and credible that MSF and its employees knew nothing and saw nothing of Hamas’s violations of humanitarian law?3

To date, MSF has not once denounced the violation of these “sanctuaries” by the Hamas belligerents, even though on 7 October it asked: Health facilities must not be targets. MSF calls on all parties to respect health facilities, which must remain sanctuaries for people in need of care.\

. . .MSF has had a large presence in Gaza for a long time. Moreover, in a series of tweets, MSF provides precise information on the situation at the Al Shifa hospital, showing its perfect knowledge of the premises and the staff. Is it possible and credible that MSF and its employees knew nothing and saw nothing of Hamas’s violations of humanitarian law?3

To date, MSF has not once denounced the violation of these “sanctuaries” by the Hamas belligerents, even though on 7 October it asked: Health facilities must not be targets. MSF calls on all parties to respect health facilities, which must remain sanctuaries for people in need of care.\

And the report’s conclusion:

Since 7 October, MSF, which is very active on X, has not tweeted a single word denouncing the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by Hamas on 7 October, the hostage-taking of dozens of civilians and the use of hospitals as barracks or human shields. MSF has denounced Israel on numerous occasions, but never these violations of humanitarian law committed by Hamas.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) regularly refers to international humanitarian law, but its interpretation of this law varies widely. MSF has seriously failed in its humanitarian purpose.MSF’s Charter asserts the organisation’s neutrality, impartiality and independence from any political, economic or religious power. MSF must be irreproachable and neutral in its work. This is clearly not the case in Gaza.

The proximity of some MSF staff to Hamas raises questions about possible links between MSF and extremist groups.

Now one could argue that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is worse than Israel, and DWB is simply reflecting different levels of crisis. But in the face of their long history of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli propaganda, and apparent failure to use Israeli doctors (I still haven’t found out whether they do, but suspect not), I think DWB is guilty of injecting political and anti-Israel bias into their actions. Plus there’s their complete silence on the activities of October 7, and of course don’t mention that Hamas and IJ are still firing rockets at civilians in Israel. Apparently Israeli lives simply aren’t worth mentioning. No call to stop firing rockets?

One thing is for sure: I deeply regret having given this organization $10,500 a while back, and they’re not going to get dime one from me any more. I put them in my will as getting a substantial amount of money, but I struck them out. There are organizations that aren’t reported to be allied with terrorism that deserve my money more.  Read not just the report above, but the linked article, and perhaps google “Doctors Without Borders” Israel to see more.  Then judge for yourself.

Bari Weiss on why DEI must be dismantled

December 19, 2023 • 9:15 am

In this 20-minute video, Bari Weiss makes two points. First, the testimony of the MIT, Harvard, and Penn Presidents before a House committee was antisemitic and reprehensible, and reflects a widespread lack of “moral leadership” in universities. Second, this moral leadership requires the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education.

Weiss points out what was really reprehensible in the Presidents’ testimony, which was their arrant hypocrisy in having a history of enforcing lesser violations of speech codes, not the fact that their speech codes apparently called for First Amendment-style freedom of speech (I’m not sure that they do). Insofar as such codes should reflect the First Amendment, then, yes, calling for the genocide of Jews is allowed in most cases, though the courts’ interpretation of the Amendment deems such speech impermissible on some occasions, like promoting predictable and imminent violence. (And of course real violence violates all university behavior codes. But you can’t start enforcing freedom of speech right at the moment that it’s calling for genocide of Jews.

In that sense, then, the Presidents were right in answering “it depends” when asked whether their speech codes permitted calls for genocide of the Jews. It’s unfortunate that their answers were given in such a  wooden and stiff way—probably the result of coaching by lawyers—and that adherence to institutional neutrality may have prevented them from expressing their own personal opinions, though in such a forum I think that giving their personal take would be okay. And, of course, they all have to fix their speech codes so that permitted speech not only comports with how the courts construe the First Amendment, but that speech regulations are enforced uniformly.

Where Weiss goes amiss, I think, is when she pronounces that Liz Magill and the other Presidents really did “do something wrong.”  What was that? Magill, says Weiss (and presumably the other Presidents, though they’re not mentioned here), failed in this way (7:53):

“failed the very basic duties that [Magill’s] role and responsibilities required of her, because the job of a university president is not merely to point out the basic Constitutional rights of student to scream for a violent uprising against Jews or anyone else—and of course the students have those legal rights—but is pointing out obvious legal rights why we have university presidents? Is their job simply to remind us that people are allowed to shout terrible things,  and that the First Amendment protects them from doing so?. . .

“The job of a university president is not merely to point out what is and isn’t legally permissible.  The job of a university president is to offer leadership—intellectual leadership, of course, but also moral leadership.

“. . . Can anyone look at these three people and say that they offer the kind of inspiring leadership and moral clarity that the country so desperately need at this moment. I think that those questions answer themselves?”

Weiss offers as her remedies “committing to  intellectual freedom, not ideology. . hiring based on merit. . .doing away with double standards based on speech”, and not sending your kids or checks to schools that betray truly liberal values.

This is all good stuff, except that if one expects college presidents to exert moral clarity leadership by condemning speech that they find reprehensible, or making political pronouncements—something that Weiss implies but doesn’t state directly—then that violates an important principle for promoting free discourse: intellectual neutrality. That is, schools should not make any official pronouncements on moral, ideological or political issues.

That principle, which is the opposite of universities providing “moral clarity,” is embodied in the Kalven Principle of the University of Chicago, a principle embraced by only two other of the several thousand American colleges.  We should not expect college Presidents to condemn Hamas or offer similar “moral leadership” as part of their regular jobs, for that violates institutional neutrality, chilling the speech of those who disagree.

You can’t fix a free-speech problem by placing more limits on speech. (Those limits, of course, will change over time, and are largely subjective.) The administration of the University of Chicago has made no public pronouncement on the morality involved in the Middle East war (see here for our statement), and we’ve come to no harm because of that.

Real moral leadership should be exercised by getting university to adopt those principles that promote the functions of a university: teaching, learning, and the free discourse that promotes these things. The other day I described Steve Pinker’s Fivefold Way: five principles that, if adopted by a school, can create the kind of climate that Weiss wants. These five are free speech, institutional neutrality, the prohibition of violence (already in place and already illegal), viewpoint diversity, and disempowering DEI.

These last two principles have not been enacted, but are necessary for The Good University.  Weiss doesn’t mention viewpoint diversity, but at 11:58 she does begin her clarion call for dismantling DEI, for she argues it imposes an injurious ideology on universities.  Pinker shares her views, as do I: DEI is divisive, sucks up lots of money without producing results, reduces viewpoint diversity, is racist in some ways, values ethnicity above merit, and quashes dissent.  Those are not liberal principles.

Here’s what Pinker said about DEI in his Boston Globe op-ed, as of the five parts of his Fix the Universities plan (I’ve given a screenshot since it’s impossible to cut and paste):

With the exception Weiss’s call for university presidents to exercise “moral clarity and leadership”, then, her discussion is eloquent and correct. I hasten to add that she doesn’t really specify how “moral leadership” is to be exercised.  The best way is to put in place and then adhere to the five principles outlined by Pinker.

Will that happen? I’m not confident that universities will launch policies of institutional neutrality, start dismantling DEI, and begin enforcing viewpoint diversity.  Very few are moving in even one of these three directions. But they’ll never do so unless people like us press for these changes.

 

h/t: Rosemary

They won’t even let Jews celebrate Hanukkah

December 12, 2023 • 12:45 pm

Nor surprising it’s from Yale University. This comes from Tom Gross’s weekly newsletter, and is example #174 of Things that Pro-Palestinian Students Do that Pro-Israeli Students Wouldn’t Do.  (Caption from Gross.)

The entitlement and hatred of these students is shameful.

And of course there’s this, which happens to be true:

Three University Presidents testify in Congress about antisemitism

December 6, 2023 • 9:45 am

A ton of readers and friends have sent me videos of the interrogation of three University Presidents (Harvard, MIT, and Penn) yesterday by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Yes, some of the Presidents waffled or seemed unprepared for the Congressional grilling (they should have had a mock “interrogation” beforehand at their schools), but, except for Harvard’s Claudine Gay, who seemed pretty much out of it, they did okay. (A video of the entire hearing is at the bottom of this post.)

Where the Presidents apparently failed, at least in the eyes of the House members who interrogated them, was in their unwillingness to affirm that their universities unequivocally condemned antisemitism, especially calls for genocide of the Jews. But I think the representatives were misguided.

Calling for genocide of Jews, or saying stuff like “gas the Jews” is, in fact, nearly always speech that is legal under the First Amendment. The only time it isn’t is when it constitutes personal harassment of someone, creates a hostile atmosphere in the workplace, or is meant to incite imminent and predictable violence.  Thus, a group of Students for Justice in Palestine standing on campus in a permitted demonstration and chanting “Gas the Jews” or “Another intifada,” or even (I haven’t heard this), “Genocide against Israel!” is in conformity with the courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment.

Repeated harassment of a Jewish person is of course illegal, as is any form of harassment, and is properly against university rules. Likewise, creating an atmosphere in the classroom designed to intimidate or harass Jews is also illegal, though the line between teaching one’s opinion and what Jewish students see as harassments could be tenuous.

Finally, it’s hard to imagine a situation in which calling for genocide of the Jews in an on-campus speech could -lead to imminent and predictable lawless violence against Jews. Even if you say this in front of Jewish students, that would incite violence only if there were people there prepared to commit violence if they heard such a statement. I have not seen this on any campus, but it’s conceivable.

Because I believe that all universities should have speech codes like Chicago’s, which conform to that Amendment, I think the only way to answer the question “Do the values of your university unequivocally condemn calls for genocide of the Jews?” is “It depends.” That is what the three Presidents tried to say. And for that they were universally condemned. Apparently the Representatives (and some people who wrote me) don’t understand their own Constitution.

Here’s an example, but first the YouTube notes:

Harvard University President Claudine Gay, the University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Tuesday about the universities’ response to antisemitism incidents that have occurred on campuses since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Below: New York Republican Congresswoman Else Stefanik bullying (there’s no other word for it) the three college Presidents, mocking their responses and saying that there’s only one right answer: a college must condemn calls for genocide of the Jews no matter what the circumstances.  She is relentless and clearly interested only in humiliating the Presidents.

Below Stefanik goes after President Gay further, but also mentions racist comments as well as antisemitic ones.

Gay responds that calls for genocide against Jews, “is against the values of Harvard.” She screwed up here, for Harvard does not (or should not) have values, and I doubt that there is even a “Harvard code of conduct” that stipulates such a value. (If it does, it quashes free speech.) This is one example of where Gay should have been better prepared. Likewise, she doesn’t handle very well Stafanik’s question about why Harvard was dead last on FIRE’s ranking of colleges’ policies on freedom of speech.

But Gay does say that odious speech is allowed under many circumstances, and in that case she’s right. But her handling of the pro-Palestinian statement blaming October 7 on Israel, in which she had to issue not only an initial statement, but then two subsequent corrections, was hamhanded.

My own prediction is that Gay won’t be President of Harvard much longer. She just doesn’t seem to have the composure or judgement to hold such a position.

Below is a statement from Harvard’s Hillel chapter criticizing President Gay for refusing to ban calls for genocide against the Jews. (h/t Mark). The statement reads in part:

A call for genocide against Jews is always a hateful incitement of violence. President Gay’s failure to properly condemn this speech calls into question her ability to protect Jewish students on Harvard’s campus.

While highlighting the conflict between free speech and intimidation or offense by Jewish students, this misunderstands the First Amendment.  Yes, these calls are calls for violence, but they aren’t (and shouldn’t be) illegal since they aren’t intended to produce imminent and predictable violence Here we see how organizations abandon adherence to freedom of speech when it leads to speech considered odious.

Dear Harvard Hillel Community,

Earlier today, Harvard President Claudine Gay testified before Congress about rising antisemitism at Harvard. When pressed during her testimony, President Gay repeatedly equivocated, refusing to characterize calls for the genocide of Jews as a breach of Harvard’s code of conduct, instead saying the offense “depends on the context.”

President Gay’s refusal to draw a line around threatening antisemitic speech as a violation of Harvard’s policies is profoundly shocking given explicit provisions within the conduct code prohibiting this kind of bullying and harassment.

We are appalled by the need to state the obvious: A call for genocide against Jews is always a hateful incitement of violence. President Gay’s failure to properly condemn this speech calls into question her ability to protect Jewish students on Harvard’s campus. Chants to “globalize the intifada,” an endorsement of violent terrorist attacks against Jewish and Israeli civilians, and “from the river to the sea,” an eliminationist slogan intended to deprive Jews of their right to self-determination in Israel, have become tragically routine at Harvard. President Gay’s testimony fails to reassure us that the University is seriously concerned about the antisemitic rhetoric pervasive on campus. We call on President Gay to take action against those using threatening speech that violates our community standards.

We do agree with President Gay’s testimony that education on antisemitism is urgently needed at Harvard. Harvard Hillel is ready to work with the administration to bring robust education and training on the history of the Jewish people and the evolution of antisemitism to every audience at Harvard — administration, faculty, staff and students.

We will continue to hold the University administration accountable to make Harvard a place that Jewish students can learn, live, and thrive without fear and intimidation.

Sincerely,
Jacob Miller

Harvard Hillel President
Rabbi Getzel Davis

Harvard Hillel Campus Rabbi

Below is a clip (h/t Al) in which Representative Tim Walberg (Republican, Michigan, though the nametag says Representative Thompson) asks Harvard’s Claudine Gay how non-odious views—like accepting the sex binary or having heterodox opinions on sex and abortion could lead to professors being fired (he’s referring to Carole Hooven, who I had dinner with last night) and to Tyler Vanderweele)—while having reprehensible views like calling for genocide of Jews is okay.  He’s trying to paint Gay as a hypocrite. Gay doesn’t handle the question well: another example of her hamhandedness.

Carole Hooven corrects the record; she was not fired by Harvard, and she links to a piece that explains what happened to her.

VanderWeele wasn’t fired either: here’s his story (he’s still at Harvard).

The whole interrogation seems to me an attempt of Republicans to flex their muscles by humiliating the elite: the Presidents of three high-class colleges.  Yes, there is a hard problem to deal with: how to maintain freedom of speech while preventing an atmosphere of hate from pervading their campuses. I have no solutions to offer, but the Republicans here seem to be bullying the Presidents. That said, the Representatives do highlight this conflict, which has led to difficulties on campuses.  But they could have been less hostile!

Someone pointed out Gay’s hypocrisy on Twitter (“X”), contrasting her words on George Floyd with her reluctance to condemn antisemitism (Harvard has no policy of institutional neutrality), and I retweeted it with a comment:

Finally, here is the full hearing: nearly 5½ hours:

Antisemitism march in Paris

December 4, 2023 • 8:15 am

For some reason I find it hard to post travel photos here after my journeys are over; I guess part of the fun of being overseas is documenting the trip as it happens.  When I recently visited Paris, the world’s most beautiful city, I was pretty good about posting as I traveled, though it’s often hard because you want to travel more than you want to write about it.

Here is the last batch of photos I took in Paris—at the antisemitism march on November 13.  It was not a pro-Israel march, but designed to bring the French together by dispelling hatred of Israel, but also of Muslims. There were thus many French flags and other tricolored items on display, but few Israeli flags. It was heartening to experience the feeling of togetherness.

Similar marches occurred in other French cities, with the total attendees estimated at 180,000.

About 105,000 people showed up near the Invalides, coincidentally the number of people estimated at the antisemitism march in Washington, D. C.

Some photos:

Part of the crowd, with Les Invalides in the backroom.

The VIP arrival spot, including the right-wing Marine Le Pen. I didn’t see her, as I was squashed by the crowds (note all the media microphones).

I was told that this guy was head of the French Socialist party, but I can’t be sure. Readers?

Some made their statements in a subtle way, like this lady with a tricolor in her hat.

This serious woman seemed to me to be our Marianne. I was told that those who wore tricolored sashes were some kind of officials:

This was the banner that, I was told, was used at the beginning of the march.

The crowds were so dense that there was a traffic jam on the stairs up to the bridge over to the Invalides from the Right Bank.  The cops made it very hard to even get to the demonstration, continually diverting us until we found that this was the only way in from the Left Bank:

Les flics. There were tons of cops around, though the demonstration was peaceful (and much less numerous than the pro-Palestinian demonstrations):

Somehow this statue, which I saw while walking back after the gathering, seemed appropriate: “The bird of peace“, sculpted by Mirza Moric. It will be exhibited until February.

 

Chuck Schumer delivers Senate speech on antisemitism

December 3, 2023 • 10:30 am

You can read Chuck Schumer’s recent op-ed in the NYT, “What American Jews fear most,“, or you can watch his 40-minute speech on the topic given in the Senate (video below). I recommend listening to the speech, of which the op-ed is a short distillation. Alternatively, read the transcript, which you can find here.

Schumer is trying to explain to the Senate why American Jews are especially worried about the rise of antisemitism accompanying the advent of the war between Israel and Hamas. (Schumer notes that after October 7, antisemitic incidents in America have increased threefold.) And, of course, on a per capita basis Jews have long been the religious group more subject to “hate violence”.

Following a brief history lesson, Schumer emphasizes the need for a two-state solution, rejecting the West Bank expansion of the Netanyahu government. Then invoking the “oppressor/oppressed” mantra of progressives, Schumer recounts the history of Jewish oppression from, noting that:

“For Jewish people all across the world, the history of our trauma going back many generations is central to any discussion about our future. . . too many Americans, especially in our younger generations, don’t have a full understanding of this history. Because some Jewish people have done well in America, because Israel has increased its power and territory, there are people who feel that Jewish Americans are not vulnerable, that we have the strength and security to overcome prejudice and bigotry, that we have, to quote the language of some, become the ‘oppressors’.

But for many Jewish Americans, any strength and security that we enjoy always feels tenuous. No matter how well we’re doing, it can all be taken away in an instant.

That’s just how it is. We only have to look back a century, a few generations, to see how this can happen.”

His only family history with the Germans is an example how Jewish freedom—and lives—can vanish in short while.

The YouTube notes:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, decrying the rise in antisemitism since Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7. “We’re deeply sensitive to the deprivation and horrors that can follow the targeting of Jewish people if it is not repudiated,” Schumer said.

Finally, halfway through the speech, Schumer gives what I see as its point: an attempt to make Americans realize how both the events of October 7 and the subsequent defense of Hamas and antisemitic tropes (.e.g, “from the river to the sea”) affects Jewish-Americans especially strongly:

While many protesters no doubt view their actions as a compassionate expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people, for many Jewish Americans, we feel in too many instances, some of the most extreme rhetoric gives license to darker ideas that have always lurked below the surface of every question involving the Jewish people.

Schumer is not normally an eloquent speaker, but this is an eloquent speech, even though it’s read from a script. In the end, I hope he succeeds in warning America that Jewish-Americans are worried that anti-Israel and antisemitic feeling will “metastasize into something worse.”  Saying “it can’t happen here” is no consolation.

The peroration, when Schumer describes his grandfather breaking into tears when first setting foot in Israel, is extremely moving.

Again, I recommend that you listen.

h/t: Bat