Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
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.
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:
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.
🚨 Presidents of @Harvard@MIT and @Penn: “It's OK to call for genocide of Jews” 🤯
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.
Five chilling minutes in which Harvard President Claudine Gay, admits that certain statements are anti-Semitic and even call for clear murder against Jews.
However, when she is confronted with these statements being made on campus during protests and…
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.
“In what world is a call for violence against Jews protected speech, but a belief that sex is biological and binary isn’t?”
Carole Hooven corrects the record; she was not fired by Harvard, and she links to a piece that explains what happened to her.
I want to be clear that @Harvard did not fire me. They did not "remove me" from my position. Another person in the same situation might have stayed on, but I could not. The fact is that I did not feel that I could do my job any longer, and I did feel pushed out; but that is not… https://t.co/XXeC2P3rfT
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:
All of this mishigass and hypocrisy could be eliminated by universities simply adopting two of the University of Chicago's principles:
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.
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.
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.
John Strauss, an economics professor at the University of Southern California (USC), has suffered one of the most ridiculous instances of professorial “cancellation” that I’ve heard of. He’s being punished by USC simply for exercising his right of free speech. (Although USC is a private school, it has a free-speech code that is close to the University of Chicago’s, and does not exempt “hate speech” so long as it conforms to the courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment.) Here’s an excerpt from their code:
Our longstanding policies also declare that the University of Southern California is committed to fostering a learning environment where free inquiry and expression are encouraged and celebrated and for which all its members share responsibility. Dissent — disagreement, a difference of opinion, or thinking differently from others — is an integral aspect of expression in higher education, whether it manifests itself in a new and differing theory in quantum mechanics, a personal disagreement with a current foreign policy, opposition to a position taken by the university itself, or by some other means. The university is a diverse community based on free exchange of ideas and devoted to the use of reason and thought in the resolution of differences. The university recognizes the crucial importance of preserving First Amendment rights and maintaining open communication and dialogue in the process of identifying and resolving problems which arise in the dynamics of life in a university community.
Sadly, Professor Strauss, who is Jewish, uttered a statement that, while conforming to USC’s definition of free speech, has gotten him into big trouble. Click below to read about it in the Los Angeles Times.
Most of the incident was filmed, and, indeed, Strauss was simply using his free speech. There are data!
The details from the LA Times:
Until recently, USC professor John Strauss was known mostly for his research on the economics of developing countries, with decades of fieldwork in Indonesia and China.
That changed Nov. 9, when Strauss stopped before students staging a walkout and protest calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and holding a memorial to thousands of Palestinian civilians killed in the Israel-Hamas war.
The economics professor’s interactions with students that day ended with the 72-year-old Strauss, who is Jewish, declaring: “Hamas are murderers. That’s all they are. Every one should be killed, and I hope they all are killed.”
Strauss told a group of pro-Palestinian students demonstrating on campus: “No, shame on you. You people are ignorant. Really ignorant. Hamas are murderers. That’s all they are. Every one should be killed, and I hope they all are.”
Students captured those remarks on their cellphones, almost instantly seeming to recognize a viral moment. “Can you say that for the camera?” one pressed.
Within hours, Strauss’ comments were posted online, shared and reshared on X, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.
Here’s the full clip of the interaction with pro-Palestinian students that got Strauss in trouble. I can’t make out what he’s saying, but even the complaining students verified that what he said is what’s given above: wishing for Hamas members to all be killed:
More from the paper:
As his remarks raced across the internet, his condemnation of Hamas was often excised, leaving only his “hope” for “all” to be killed. Captions and comments online framed his demand for “every one” to be killed in myriad, at times deceptive, ways. One Instagram post shared to millions of users claimed falsely that Strauss told the students, “[I] hope you get killed….”
Some of the clip was truncated to make Strauss looks as if he were saying that all Palestinians should be killed. Here’s that clip:
He was punished by USC almost immediately after “offended” students complained to the University. Need I add that saying one thinks members of Hamas should be killed is simply freedom of speech? It can’t even be considered hate speech or incitement to violence because presumably there were no members of Hamas in attendance! Further, trying to kill all members of Hamas is in fact Israel’s precise goal in the recent war.
Within a day, an associate dean told Strauss that he was on paid administrative leave, barred from campus, and that he would no longer teach his undergraduates this semester.
Within the week, a petition demanding that USC fire Strauss for his “racist, xenophobic behavior” and comments that “promote and incite violence” had collected more than 6,500 signatures.
Meanwhile, more than 9,000 signed a counter-petition decrying USC’s treatment of Strauss as “unjust,” saying he was the victim of online misinformation, and demanding that the university reinstate him.
Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Los Angeles, called for USC to launch an investigation into Strauss and to take actions to protect “Muslim, Palestinian and Arab students as well as any others who are targeted by hate and bigotry.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression at PEN America, criticized USC for “a shocking overreaction,” adding in a statement, “What USC has done runs counter to the university’s obligation to foster dialogue and debate.”
By now, millions have viewed portions of Strauss’ remarks, and his statements — and USC’s response — have become a Rorschach test for a war raging 7,500 miles away.
With its political, ethnic, generational and religious fault lines, the incident has reignited intractable debates over campus censorship, academic freedom and student safety. Nearly every student who spoke to The Times for this article would do so only on condition of anonymity, citing a fear of online harassment
Need I add that that this is punishment, both investigations and barring a professor from campus—punishment for exercising free speech? That violates USC’s own policies and is something for which Strauss could sue the school. Oh, and he stepped on a paper list of putative killed Palestinians, which he avers (and I believe) was an accident. And, at any rate, that “offense” is not why Strauss was punished:
Near a busy campus corridor, the event also included a memorial to Palestinians killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, a death toll that was then about 10,000 and that has since grown to more than 13,000, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry. Partly enclosed by a fence, the memorial featured four long rolls of paper, at least 18 inches wide, unfurled several feet across the ground. On the paper were printed thousands of names.
Students said that when Strauss came to the demonstration, he stepped on the paper. One student said he was “desecrating the names.”
“All I did was walk through the crowd,” Strauss said, insisting he never saw the list of names but spotted the memorial later in the day after the crowd had dissipated. He acknowledged that he “might well have accidentally walked on” the list but said it was “completely unintentional.”
No one appears to have recorded the first interaction, but students say his presence caused a stir.
Yes, of course it did; he’s known, he’s Jewish, and he wished for Hamas to be killed—a sentiment that many of us probably share. The event blew up more as Muslim or pro-Palestinian students weighed in to damn Strauss. This puzzles me because pro-Palestinian students finally admitted that Strauss was referring to Hamas, not Palestinians. But it didn’t matter: once you’re offended, the cortisol keeps circulating until you get the professor fired. I’ve bolded one bit of the report below:
But as the clip circulated online, it was at times trimmed to a few seconds of Strauss uttering, “Every one should be killed.”
The captions and superimposed text in social media posts could be minimal, misleading or wrong.
“This zionist econ professor purposefully stepped on the list of martyrs before our march and came by again after & said ‘everyone should be killed,’” a student group posted on Instagram.
Another post on Instagram, shared by @CravingPalestine and activist Shaun King, among others, said Strauss “threatened these students ‘hope you get killed and I hope they all are (*Gaza)” during a campus rally for Gaza.” That post has been viewed more than 3.2 million times.
At one point, the group Trojans for Palestine clarified on Instagram that Strauss “did not say he wanted Palestinians to be killed, but Hamas,” according to screenshots of the post.
Then, the group appeared to walk it back: “With his hateful rhetoric, you can draw your own conclusion about whether or not he wished death upon just Hamas or civilians as well.”
Within hours of Strauss’ recorded comments, USC’s Muslim Student Union issued a statement saying that Strauss was “repeatedly calling for the murder of the entirety of Palestine” and expressing “a desire for the death of those supporting Palestine.”
What we see here is a group of The Offended admitting that Strauss was talking about Hamas, but then adding, in a reprehensible bit of rhetoric, “you can draw your own conclusions”. But there’s a video, and the video, even according to the Trojans for Palestine, shows that Strauss was talking about Hamas. The conclusion to be drawn is simply that Trojans for Palestine are trying to get a Jewish professor punished for wishing for the extermination of Hamas.
Since then, USC has backed off a bit: it now allows Strauss to teach undergrads, too, but only remotely. He is still banned from campus. And now he is, as expected, being deluged with hate mail (this is of course legal unless that hate mail threatens him). Complaints have also been fired against him by USC’s “equity, diversity, and Title IX office”. For what, I wonder? Haven’t the administrators viewed the “incriminating” video? If they had acted properly, they would have seen the clip and dismissed the case as in conformity with the University’s freedom of speech policy. But they didn’t.
And so the Academic Freedom Alliance has provided Strauss with a lawyer, and FIRE has written a letter to Carol Folt, USC’s President, which includes the following paragraphs:
Neither theFirst Amendmentnor USC’s policiesshield Straussfrom every consequenceofhis expression—including criticism by students, faculty,orthe broader community.Criticism is “morespeech,”theremedytooffensiveexpressiontheFirstAmendmentprefersto censorship. Butuniversity policiesthat invoke the First Amendmentlimit thetypesof consequences that may be imposedon protected expression,and who may impose them.
Restricting Straussto teachingremotelythe restof the semesterispreciselythe type of consequenceforconstitutionallyprotectedexpressionthatUSC’sFirstAmendment– mirroringFaculty Handbookplainly prohibits,becausesuch a restrictionis likely to chill future faculty speech.The question is not whether formal punishment is meted out,but whether the institution’s actions “would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future[expressive]activities[.]” Courts have explicitly recognized consequences similar to those imposed on Strauss, such as changes to working conditions or restricting access to the institution’s facilities as sufficiently chilling speech.Whether the university labels the restriction “administrative leave”is irrelevant tothe analysis:USCviolated Strauss’s free speech rights by imposing the remote–teaching restriction in response to his protected expression.
They’re right and USC is acting shamefully. It doesn’t matter what Strauss said so long as it conformed to protected First Amendment speech, which it surely did. And I’d be just a peeved if he walked by a bunch of pro-Israel students and said that Israeli West Bank settlers who attacked Palestinians should all be killed.
USC has a history of both administrative and student anti-Israel or antisemitic actions (see the open letters here, here, here, and here). While some of this is protected speech, and other letters call for the University to violate institutional neutrality (which it does NOT have anyway), these incidents have, in toto, created a climate at the University in which Jewish students feel endangered. And if that impedes the function of the University, which is to teach such students and not chill their speech, the atmosphere needs to be addressed. I don’t know what to do about that without asking for violations of the First Amendment or of the principle of institutional neutrality (USC doesn’t have it, but all schools should). Still, the one thing that USC can do is not cancel professors who criticize Hamas.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you think Dr. Strauss has been unfairly treated, you can send an email to USC here via the FIRE website. I did, and I wrote my own email although there’s a boilerplate one on the site.
I never thought I’d live to see the day where a headline like this not only appears, but isn’t that unusual. And the pro-Israel action that got this teacher into trouble is pretty innocuous!
The author and owner of the website, Jonathan Turley, is a professor at George Washington University Law School, a prolific author, and a dedicated defender of the First Amendment.
Click to read:
You can also see this report at the New York Post, with pictures and videos; Turley links to it in his post. But I’ll begin by quoting Turley:
At Hillcrest High School in Queens this week, a New York teacher had to lock herself in her office as hundreds of high school students rioted after learning that she posted a pro-Israeli statement on Facebook. Dozens of police had to be called to quell the riot, which caused property damage throughout the school.
The chaos began shortly after 11:00 a.m. on Monday after students discovered an image on the teacher’s account from a pro-Israel rally showing her holding a poster reading “I stand with Israel.”
Hundreds of students reportedly ran into the hallways waving Palestinian flags and destroying property for roughly two hours, including pulling a fountain out of the wall. They posted images on social media with the controversial slogan “From the river to the sea Palestine will be free.”
This picture, from a misspelled Tik Tok video shown in the NY Post article, apparently shows the teacher committing her “offense”. You can see why Turley, a big free speech advocate, is reporting on this.
Turley is really upset at the students’ behavior, and well should be. Riots ensued in the school and the students went after the teacher, who had to be locked in her office to protect her!
Students reportedly attempted to breach the teacher’s classroom as school staff fought to block them. They now want the teacher fired for her personal political views.
As the teacher was rushed to her office for her protection, roughly 25 NYPD officers rushed to the school. Yet, some students said that they have located the teacher’s home address and family information for further protests.
It is a chilling example of the threats faced at schools today. The call for the teacher to be terminated is unfortunately nothing new. For years, many of us have written about this intolerance and intimidation in schools.
Yet, the violence and hatred shown in this protest shows why so many feel unsafe in our schools. We have come to the point where teachers are locking themselves in their offices for protection. These students did not just spontaneously learn this behavior. They have been told for years that they do not have to tolerate opposing views. We are now seeing that intolerance graduate into violence.
From the NY Post. who notes that the teacher is Jewish:
Hundreds of “radicalized” kids rampaged through the halls of a Queens high school this week for nearly two hours after they discovered a teacher had attended a pro-Israel rally — forcing the terrified educator to hide in a locked office as the teen mob tried to push its way into her classroom, The Post has learned.
The mayhem at Hillcrest High School in Jamaica unfolded shortly after 11 a.m. Monday in what students called a pre-planned protest over the teacher’s Facebook profile photo showing her at a pro-Israel rally on Queens Oct. 9 holding a poster saying, “I stand with Israel.”
“The teacher was seen holding a sign of Israel, like supporting it,” a senior told The Post this week.
“A bunch of kids decided to make a group chat, expose her, talk about it, and then talk about starting a riot.”
Hundreds of kids flooded into hallways and ran amok, chanting, jumping, shouting, and waving Palestinian flags or banners.
. . .“They want her fired.”
School administrators and the NYPD, which responded to the school at about 11:20 am, got wind of their plans just in time to rush the teacher into an office and lock the door, another educator said.
Students recorded the commotion, posting multiple videos, some set to pulsing Arabian music, on TikTok.
Here’s a screenshot from the Tik Tok video, and if you have access, click on the picture to see the action:
“When a protest brakes (sic) out because a teacher stands with Israel,” a caption on one says.
Another reads, “Hillcrest high school had a riot because a Health teacher was supporting Israel.”
Most comments posted on the videos applauded the kids and jeered the teacher, one calling her a “cracker ass bitch.”
. . .Clips showed a water fountain ripped out in the hallway and shattered tiles in the second-floor boys’ bathroom, which students admitted they vandalized.
The NYPD not only sent a couple dozen cops to restore order but tapped its counterterrorism bureau to investigate a possible threat against the school, according to City Councilman James Gennaro (D-Queens), citing officials.
“Whether it was one student or multiple students who did or said something, whatever the trigger was, something happened. And I know from my many years on the City Council that the counterterrorism task force is not engaged unless they believe it is potentially a serious situation,” Gennaro said.
The teacher issued a statement in which, thank Ceiling Cat, she didn’t apologize for her behavior.
The teacher gave a statement to The Post, which is withholding her name for her own safety. [She was doxxed by the students, who found out where she lived and other information about her family.]
“I have been a teacher for 23 years in the New York City public school system — for the last seven at Hillcrest High School. I have worked hard to be supportive of our entire student body and an advocate for our community, and was shaken to my core by the calls to violence against me that occurred online and outside my classroom last week.”
“No one should ever feel unsafe at school — students and teachers alike,” she added.
The teacher continued: “It’s my hope in the days ahead we can find a way to have meaningful discussions about challenging topics with respect for each other’s diverse perspectives and shared humanity,” the teacher said in her statement. “Unless we can learn to see each other as people we will never be able to create a safe learning community.”
Good luck with that! The NY Post continues:
. . .The chaos and lockdown, which sources said lasted roughly two hours, was one of the most frightening incidents of antisemitism in New York schools and colleges since the Hamas massacre in Israel Oct. 7 sparked the Jewish state’s war with Gaza.
Yes, they’re kids, and you can excuse them by saying they don’t know what they’re doing or chanting. But given their age, I doubt that.
I stand with that teacher, but her future in the school seems murky.
All because she held up a sign that said “I stand with Israel.”
And I stand with my friend who sent me the link and added, “Insane. This must stop.”
UPDATE: 5TownsCentral has more information, but I’ll just add this:
Mayor Eric Adams blasted the show of vile antisemitism in a statement: “The vile show of antisemitism at Hillcrest High School was motivated by ignorance-fueled hatred, plain and simple, and it will not be tolerated in any of our schools, let alone anywhere else in our city. We are better than this.
NYC is already conducting a full investigation into how this incident took place, and, this week, Project Pivot teams will begin outreach with students at Hillcrest to ensure they understand why this behavior was unacceptable.
No student, teacher, or staff member should fear for their safety in our schools.”
NYC Councilwoman Vickie Paladino said the following: “The scene at Hillcrest HS was beyond unacceptable — it was terrorism, plain and simple. Terrorism is violence against civilians to achieve a political goal. And that’s what we saw in one of our public schools, against a teacher whose only offense was being Jewish and peacefully expressing her support for Israel on her own time.
These terrorist students stalked her online, organized in chat rooms, then sparked a riot and hunted her down. She had to be barricaded in a locker room as the rioters raged in the hallway and attempted to gain access to her.
Question: What would have happened to her if they actually managed to get their hands on her? Do you think she’d have survived unscathed? I think we all know the answer to that question, and it’s horrifying.
We’ve seen a lot of platitudes from elected officials thus far. A lot of condemnations, and a lot of talk about how ‘this isn’t who we are’.
Well, I’ve got news for you — clearly, this is who we’re becoming. Quickly. . . . .
Paladino proposed some changes which you can see at the link.
