During the December 5th Congressional hearing led by the House of Education and Workforce Committee, respective President from Harvard, MIT and University of Pennsylvania testified in front of Congress. The focus of the hearing? Whether the calling for the genocide of Jews violated their campus bullying and harassment policies.
Harvard University President Claudine Gay (left) and University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill (right) testifying in Congressional hearing on antisemitism in their respective campus
Congressmen held this hearing to officially decipher University's policy conduct on bullying and harassment as antisemitism is on the rise on college campuses due to the Israel-Hamas war. Unofficially, these Congressmen wanted to hold the top three Universities responsible for enforcing their bullying and harassment policy by calling them to testify on whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their policy.
Despite the war, rise of anti-semitism and Islamophobia being a causation for the House of Education and Workforce Committee's to hold this hearing, committee hearings are typically held to "gather information for use by the committee in it's activities" (Senate Finance Committee). Committee hearings are typically held in order to shape a bill proposal.
Due to anti-semitism being on rise, and the US being a staunch ally for the Jewish population, the purpose of this hearing could be a result of affirming that private institutions are being held to the same standard's as public institutions in the United States.
So what came of this hearing? Public outrage. Video's of the hearing are going viral all over TikTok and other social media platforms, depicting all three Presidents of ambiguously avoiding the yes or no question that the congresswoman repeatedly asked: "Is the call for the genocide of Jews a violation of your Bullying and Harassment policy?" They basically stated that it can violate their policy based on the context of the situation.
Due to their evasive response, the White House has condemned all three Presidents for their lack of clarity on the issue, and not firming stating yes. Public black lash has led to now former President of UPenn Liz Magill to resign Saturday, while many call for Claudine Gay to resign as Harvard's president.
Sources:
17 comments:
Honestly, when I first watched the hearing I was just appalled at how poorly this whole situation was handled. I'm not sure if this was one of those foot-in-your-mouth situations, but the fact that the presidents of these schools doubled down on this ideology throughout the hearing is pretty frightening. I understand that majority of this was in hypothetical, but the presidents should've had the common sense and decency to just say, "Yes, calling for the genocide of a group is harassment by our school's policy." Any other answer would have been inappropriate and incorrect. It's embarrassing for these colleges to be represented this way certainly, but I suppose it also wouldn't be incorrect as bigger universities generally don't have much genuine support for any minority groups. Considering how unconvincing Magil's subsequent statement of apology was, it makes sense that she would resign, because her statements not only reflect terribly on UPenn's character, but also on her own.
Taking the opposite position here, but I do personally feel it was a loaded question. In her wording, Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York makes the calls for “intifada” the same as genocide. According to The Guardian, “intifada” is Arabic for uprising and has historically been used as a call for BOTH peaceful and violent Palestinian protests. Intifada DOES NOT necessarily mean violence as Stefanik said.
Her exact question towards Harvard’s president was “You understand that the use of the term ‘intifada’ in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the State of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews”
Here it seems as if she either a) twists the definition of the word so it suits her own needs, or b) doesn’t truly understand its dual meaning. I’m not trying to antagonize her, but with this definition she takes a profound word and makes it into a one-dimensional tool of violence. I believe that if the question had instead been broader in “calling for genocide of any group is bullying” the response from president’s would be drastically different. I am by no means trying to excuse the responses of the three university presidents. But I do believe there’s more nuance and politics to the issue. By simply agreeing that Palestinian students who may be calling for peaceful protests of the travesty that is happening in their home too are instead harassing Jewish students, may protect the latter group but will instead target Palestinian students and faculty on campus. Let’s remember that it is not Palestinians as a whole who started this whole tragedy, but just the terrorist rebel group of Hamas.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/university-presidents-antisemitism-congress-testimony
Regarding the question "Is the call for the genocide of Jews a violation of your Bullying and Harassment policy?", it's very questionable that the presidents of these universities said it depends on the context because I think any university president should be able to answer yes to that question --- a call for a genocide 100% should violate any bullying and harassment policy in a top university. I can't think of context in which advocating for the mass-execution a group of people is okay, because no matter how you put it, it would make students from said group feel incredibly unsafe. It would be interesting to hear from these presidents what context they're referring to that would allow for it to be okay (and elaborate on their answer).
It is very clear that the presidents prepared to give answers pertaining to a legal aspect, instead of a public setting judged by people. Their answers to the question "At Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct?" was that “if targeted at individuals, not making public statements.” (MIT) or that it was context-dependent (UPenn). These answers seem to have been chosen to not violate any first amendments, without any consideration on how tone-deaf they actually sound. Every campus should unequivocally denounce calls for genocide, and every private establishment has the right to censor speech that is against their policy. If the schools truly condemn harassment, which calls for genocide (among other things) falls under, then there are no legal ramifications. No student should feel like their school will not protect them from calls of genocide.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/business/dealbook/wilmerhale-penn-harvard-mit-antisemitism-hearing.html
https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-first-amendment-and-censorship/
As with all controversial issues, I don't think it's fair just to one-dimensionally criticize the schools' presidents for being ignorant due to their evasive answers. Building off of Chin-Yi's comment, which suggests that the line of questioning given to the school presidents was definitely loaded, I think that the whole hearing in itself came from a pro-Israel skew. With the Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York essentially equating intifada, defined as a resistance movement against oppression, to violent genocide, this bias is clearly evident. Furthermore, I think the school presidents' hesitation and ambiguity can be attributed to the fact that most college institutions are reluctant to take any stance whatsoever on the war happening in the Middle East. Obviously the question of which side, Israel or Palestine (Hamas technically) is a heated and non-objective issue, and so it's both unfair and somewhat ignorant to say that the universities should be taking one such side, which would alienate students who identify with and are protesting for the other side of the war.
Intifada
While I do agree with Evan's point that most colleges are reluctant to take a stance on the war in the Middle East, I don't think it's a hard question to answer. The simple act of calling for genocide is literally a form of harassment. While context does matter, the act in itself is violent and I don't believe context really changes that. I do believe it's unfair to passively push the presidents into taking a stance on which side of the war they support as they are well-known institutions that are mostly well-respected, so I understand their reluctance to give a straight answer. However, bullying and harassment on campus speak for themselves and I think it's important for educational institutions to take it seriously otherwise if they don't it's only going to put them under more fire. In response to Janus' point, I also agree that no student should feel like their school will not protect them from calls of genocide and any form of harrasment or bullying.
I think this topic is super important to be discussed and shared. Having someone who is a part of a very esteemed institution that many young children aspire to attend, with a big platform and following, condone genocide is ridiculous and reflects badly on them as well as the school. It is right that she resigns from her position as her actions and words definitely violate school policy. Having condoned the genocide of the Jewish people is unacceptable, and many students are now fearful of attending those esteemed colleges because of the things that have been said. Mass murder of a population both in the world and on campus is threatening. Both presidents must be held responsible and the public should be outraged. I hear out the other commenters but the context of the issue doesn't matter. Calling for genocide is not okay, in any shape or form. Schools are to educate and uplift students not threaten them and promote genocide.
For the presidents to not be taking a firm stance or clear action on this topic seems very shallow and unfair to the Jewish student body at these schools. In the Guardian article, it claims that "intifada" could be used in both a peaceful or violent way depending on the context. Since the word is so up to interpretation, I think it is in the colleges' best interest to protect their students against any kind of language that could even be considered discriminatory. This is important at any school, but especially one such as Harvard that prides itself on being diverse and inclusive. Promoting genocide is in no way following these inclusive morals, and reflects badly on these colleges as a whole.
What I think is important to note for this piece of news is the context of this event. What has been spreading on the news and on social media is that the question they were asked was whether or not students who called for the genocide of Jewish people should be punished. The presidents of UPenn, Harvard, and MIT all answered in a way that evaded saying yes or no. This is correct. People were justifiably angry for not getting a response in a very strong yes or no way to answer a seemingly very straightforward question.
However, what is not being mentioned is the fact that the President of UPenn is a lawyer, who, before this hearing, doubled down on the facts and realized that a large part of the outrage was Palestinian students using the saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." This saying (specifically "from the river to the sea") comes from the equal of a constitution for Hamas, which is calling for the genocide of all Jewish peoples (genocide of all Jewish people "from the river to the sea.") From what I know, there were no public incidents of students actually saying "I want the genocide of all Jewish people," and the thing that students (and their removals) were actually being called out on by the Jewish community was for saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," because of its history.
Now knowing this, Liz Magill knew that the issue/incidents of students calling for the genocide of Jewish people is really students saying "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which has the implication of genocide, and the complexity here was the fact that not ALL student who use that phrase want the genocide of all Jewish people. I am aware that because the question was worded in the way that it was, she should have answered, "Yes, of course, those students should be punished," but in reality, she chose to answer with the context that she knew to be true. I'm not saying in any capacity that it is ok to say that only SOME students who call for genocide should be punished, but I don't think that is what she was saying, or intended to say. Therefore I believe her removal was a little bit harsh.
And also to address the issue of students using that phrase, I believe many (although I could be wrong), were using it believing that all it meant was that Palestine should be free. If students use it in a way that means all Jewish people should be killed, their punishment is absolutely called for because, again, that is not ok!!!!! However many students (some from Harvard), were saying that they thought it meant "no Palestinians from the river to the sea have equal rights and we would love for everybody to live on that land with equal rights." I think that after knowing it's true meaning, they should choose to say only the "free Palestine" part, but those who said it not knowing it's origin should not be punished, they should be educated.
I am not Liz Magill, so I am not 100% sure if this comment is an entirely accurate portrayal of her thought process. If it is, I think the immediate call for her to step down, as well as the extreme hate she is getting for being a flat-out "antisemite," is unwarranted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/harvard-law-students-rally-in-support-of-palestinians-accuse-school-of-restricting-speech/
I get the sentiment that these presidents should be held accountable for not condemning the statement, but I still feel extreme disdain for how the question was told towards them. Like Chin-yi said, one of the congresswoman's points about anti-semitism on campus was the word "intifada" being used. This word comes nowhere close near "commit genocide against Jews" at all. It simply means to revolt, in this case against the long lasting apartheid regime that has been causing Palestinians to suffer for decades. I wouldn't consider that harassment at all, and it's completely indicative of the overwhelming bias against Palestinians and the extreme favoritism towards an Apartheid regime (MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX COUGH COUGH). In the end, colleges are a private institution and they can make their student comply with their policies, and calling for a genocide should definitely be put under the harassment policy. With that being said, if the current policies didn't include a public calling for genocide, I don't really know what those presidents could've said. They can't just lie and say "yes it covers it" if in reality the policy doesn't cover public calls of genocide, so I feel like this might be more of a flaw in the school policies themselves rather than the presidents active decisions to not say that public callings of genocide don't violate school policy. They might have been able to say something like "I personally believe xxx, but our school policies unfortunately do not cover that domain", or something along those lines. I do agree with Janus that "protecting the first amendment" is definitely not a valid argument, as those universities are private institutions and have the right to restrict speech if they wish. Many of those universities ARE kind of known to be permeated with white supremacy over its founding years (for example Harvard used to have DEEP ties to the transatlantic slave trade), and it's clear that some of that is still present on the campus. I really hope that these presidents do take accountability and either clarify that calling for a genocide is not okay, or if the policies don't cover it, to immediately take action and update the harassment policy so that it includes public callings for genocides.
quick side note:
I've also noticed (and this is just a personal anecdote so I can't say that this is a statistical truth), but many of the callings for genocide on these university forums are usually never Palestinian, or any Muslim person for that matter (you can tell because they don't capitalize the a in allah). This is probably a good sign that there are people riding the wave of anti-apartheid state sentiment as an excuse to be antisemitic.
Building off of Tara’s point, I agree that when it comes down to it, the question was simple and regardless of people’s stances on the issue of the Israel - Palestine war, at the end of the day it is in most university policies to have a ‘No Tolerance’ policy and calling for a “Genocide of Jews” goes against that policy. As the saying goes, ‘you can’t fight fire with fire’ and so regardless of how these president’s feel, it is in not only their best interest but their students’ best interests to protect the school’s student body and everyone in it. Meaning, they should properly adhere to their policies and maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all that is free of harmful language. Along with that, another point that I wanted to bring up that in a way ties back to Chin-Yi’s point is the idea that many figures in the public eye, do things or say things that they know will continue to portray them in a positive light or in a way that makes them sound better. So while there is no excuse for these presidents to be beating around the bush so to say, in some ways it is also important to consider how the situation was handled and how the questions were asked as a lot of the time with large universities, they unfortunately tend to rely on funding from donors and one can argue have a certain “image” they want to maintain.
For any school's president to hesitant when answering a question as such is concerning, and for some of the most prestigious universities to have this low level of awareness, mind you probably with plenty of time to prepare, to come up with a response like that is intolerable. I don't think it matter if it's specifically towards the Jewish community, any GENOCIDE towards anybody should be a case of "context", it's unbearable to think that schools with this much resource and prestige around their title can be so insensitive towards such a major problem. For every president to continue with the same claims and not being able to read the room as well as consider what potential backlash might arise from calling jewish genocide a context based behavior, kind of shows how disconnected they are from reality.
I believe that while not being able to answer the question is an extremely bad look, I also understand that today's society, especially with the rise of social media and the whole "cancel culture" trend, has played a big role in how these schools responded. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a very serious and sensitive topic that has split the nation in half, and I believe that if schools outright supported one side over the other, then there would be a major outbreak from the other side. So In my opinion the schools were put in a very bad situation with the question as they were forced to pick one side or the other. I believe that If they responded differently to the question, then it would be the Pro-Palestine supporters who would have been infuriated.
Too add onto Evan, the vague responses by the schools is likely in an attempt to stay neutral. While I do believe that neutrality in foreign affairs is often the best choice, not calling out antismetism or other acts of hate is not acceptable. Colleges must allow free speech on campus, while at the same time preventing the spread of hate speech. The irony however is that while these schools argue there lack of action is an attempt to protect free speech, ivy league schools (specifically Harvard) are ranked worst for free speech. The lack of actions of schools is likely not because they care about free speech, rather because they are afraid of taking action that may result in backlash from either side of the conflict.
As of December 14, "The House voted Wednesday to condemn the testimony of the three university presidents whose comments on campus antisemitism last week sparked calls for their resignation" (The Wall Street Journal). After watching the video of the hearing, first, after being asked if calling for a genocide of the Jewish violates their code of misconduct, MIT president, Sally Kornbluth, responds by saying that she hasn't heard that on her campus. Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik responded to Kornbluth stating that there were chants calling for infitada, which Chin-Yi mentions means an uprising in Arabic. She also mentions that "infitada" does not necessarily mean a violent protest, it could just as easily be used to refer to a PEACEFUL protest from Palestineans. I truly think that Stefanik didn't understand the actual definition of the word "infitada" which led to the vague responses provided by the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT. Thus, I believe that if she decided to word her question a little differently, she would have gotten the response she was looking for because I am sure calling for a genocide on a minority group is 100% a violation of any school's rules or codes of misconduct.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/house-condemns-campus-antisemitism-testimony-of-penn-harvard-mit-presidents-589b8b0e
This might be a part of the larger "free speech versus safety" debate. Given that MIT's president is herself Jewish, the fact that she hasn't openly condemned calls for Jewish genocide might indicate that these calls are not exactly threats, but rather, expressions of political sentiment.
That being said, I also echo what Brennan and Evan have said: this is probably an attempt to be neutral. The Israel-Palestine conflict is so controversial, and it makes sense that these presidents would want to maintain neutrality in order not to further cause disturbances on these campuses.
At the end of the day, calling for genocide is such an extreme stance to take, and can definitely create an unsafe (if only socially unsafe) environment for students trying to succeed in college. Additionally, given that so many students live on campus, everyone's safety should be of utmost importance-- to feel as if your peers automatically dislike you due to an uncontrollable part of your identity, I imagine, can be very suffocating.
Post a Comment