Hillel Shouldn’t Be Open to Groups Calling for Israel’s Destruction

Demanding that Hillel cosponsor events with anti-Semitic and Israel-hating organizations is an attack on both freedom of association and freedom of speech
  • 0

Extremist critics of Israel are all too common on today’s college campuses. They trace the world’s ills and troubles to one spot, one country and one people. Their vilification and their rhetoric of boycott, elimination and destruction is echoed and amplified in student governments, and in campus-funded cultural centers. Self-styled experts with questionable academic qualifications espouse similar views at lectures and in the classroom. The local Hillel is often the only place around the campus where programs presenting broader perspectives of Israel can be found.

Hillel is an international organization that promotes connections to Judaism for college students on over 500 campuses across the world. As a former president of a wonderful Hillel at UC Davis, I can attest to the important role that Hillel can play for students in a difficult and sometimes hostile college environment.

Recently a small group of students issued demands that Hillel cosponsor events with anti-Semitic and Israel-hating organizations. They have now been joined in this dubious request by a collection of faculty calling themselves the “Open Hillel Academic Council”. The list of faculty in this council reveals a particular irony. A generally hostile perspective on Israel dominates the seminars, conferences and classes of their departments. In these programs it would be futile to search for openness to a wide range of viewpoints, vigorous discussion and diverse opinions. Those calling on Hillel to change should look around them. Should not “openness” begin at home?

Hillel events are open to all, including critics of Israel. Along with Shabbat services and weekday lunches, students and visitors to a Hillel can find programs and speakers representing a wide range of views. They can ask challenging questions, even rude ones. But for some that is not enough. Hillel, they demand, must validate their personal political views. It must, they say, host and fund programs organized by groups calling for Israel’s destruction. It is highly misleading to cast this as a request for an “Open” Hillel, as Hillel is open already. To participate in Hillel programs requires no partisan screens, and no religious or political litmus tests.

The issue at play is something very different. It is whether Hillel should be forced to host and fund and cooperate with and provide a platform for groups that oppose its core values. To recognize the absurdity of such a demand, imagine a similar “Open Labor” group, which calls for the Israeli Labor party to sponsor pro-Likud activities in its facilities. Or an “Open Symphony” group that claims the right to perform rap music in the symphony hall every other weekend, during the second movement. Envision, if you can, an “Open Haaretz” group, demanding to run weekly pro-Netanyahu editorials on the opinion pages. Is declining such requests equivalent to demanding loyalty oaths and litmus tests? Such requests are absurd!

A serious principle is under attack. Hillel is a private organization. Its duties and obligations are very different from those of publicly funded universities and their campus programs. A fundamental strength of both U.S. and Israeli society is that ideas can be vigorously debated. Free speech allows one aspect of open debate, and no less important is a second right, the freedom of association. This is the right to form or to join a group as one chooses, and to act together with others to pursue the interests of that group as the members decide.

Freedom of association is vital, since effective exercise of speech can require working with others in pursuit of common goals. Along with the U.S. Constitution, it is recognized as a basic right in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A demand that Hillel host programs in conflict with its mission is an attack on both freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Perhaps Hillel’s critics should form a new organization, similar to Hillel. They could call it “A Jewish Home for the Morally Superior,” or “The Place for Jews who Dislike those other Jews”. It seems unlikely that many students would be attracted to such an organization, which would merely duplicate already abundant opportunities to vilify Israel.

I would like to believe that the supporters of “Open Hillel” are well meaning, if misguided. I therefore suggest that they look for a cause more worthy of those with high moral aspirations. On today’s college campuses there is indeed an organization that deserves to be challenged, that is closed to all but a narrow set of noxious views. This group blatantly opposes open dialogue, and explicitly calls for academic boycotts and sanctions. Its followers advocate censorship, the shouting down of opponents, heckling and disruption. It is antithetical to Jewish values and academic freedom, and it is active at numerous universities. It calls itself BDS.

Joel Hass is the Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at the University of California, Davis.

Hillel Shouldn’t Be Open to Groups Calling for Israel’s Destruction

Demanding that Hillel cosponsor events with anti-Semitic and Israel-hating organizations is an attack on both freedom of association and freedom of speech
  • 0