( SPME Editor’s Note: Richard Cravatts of Boston University and Tammi Rossman Benjamin of the University of California at Santa Cruz are on the SPME Board of Directors.)
At Temple Emanuel in Newton last Thursday, a panel of activists painted a picture of growing anti- Israelism and anti-Semitism on college campuses around the country.They showed footage of vehement anti-Israel and anti-Zionist speakers, shouting into megaphones on campus quads.
They showed cartoons published in student newspapers portraying Israelis as Nazis.They played video of keffiyehclad protestors holding signs equating Zionism to racism on campus thoroughfares.
The panel – which included representatives from Boston and Brandeis Universities, the Israeli consulate and the Zionist Organization of America – urged the hundreds of people gathered in the synagogue’s social hall to put aside political differences and unite behind Jewish students.
“Solving this has to be a bi-partisan issue,” said Ilana Snapstailer, director of academic affairs at the consulate general of Israel to New England. “Solving anti-Semitism on campus is not left or right, Democrat or Republican. It’s an issue for everyone to get behind.”
But organizations and activists seem split on two issues regarding anti-Semitism on campuses – the extent of the problem and, more importantly, how to fix it.
The challenge facing the universities and the Jewish community is that anti-Semitism today often masquerades as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism, said Richard Cravatts, founding director of BU’s publishing and digital media program, after Thursday’s event.
“Much of what is being said on campuses is not criticism of Israel. It is hatred of Jews for being Jewish,” Cravatts said.
But where is the line between free speech and harassment? That was the question that recently divided the American Jewish Committee and the Zionist Organization of America – how can you protect Jewish students and First Amendment rights at the same time?
Last year, the two organizations had worked together on this issue.The AJC and the ZOA, along with a dozen other organizations, sent a letter to US Education Secretary Arne Duncan, urging the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to reverse its 2004 decision excluding Jewish students from Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination based on race, color or national origin by agencies that receive federal funding – such as state universities.
Initially, Jews were excluded from Title VI protection because they were considered members of a religion, not an ethnic group.
But in October, the Department of Education issued a letter that classified certain anti-Semitic harassment – such as Jew baiting and swastikas – as punishable under Title VI. This meant that if a university did not protect students against the harassment, it could lose federal funding.
The decision was celebrated by Jewish groups, including the AJC and ZOA, but that unity did not last long.
Two weeks ago, Kenneth Stern, the AJC’s specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism, in partnership with the Association of American University Professors, issued a letter that warned against using Title VI as a form of censorship against groups critical of Israel.
“Title VI is a remedy when university leadership neglects its job to stop bigoted harassment of students; it is not a tool to define ‘politically correct campus speech … even objectionable statements can have content worthy of debate,” the letter states.
In response, the Zionist Organization of America issued a letter chastising the AJC for speaking out against a policy that they said protects Jewish students.
“No one is asking colleges and universities to censor free speech,” said Susan Tuchman of the ZOA. “But we are calling on college administrators to exercise their own free speech and publically condemn this kind of behavior.”
Title VI is needed, Tuchman said, because administrators have all too often ignored the harassment of Jewish students on campus.
The only Title VI complaint filed so far as a result of anti-Semitism claims that officials at the University of California-Santa Cruz have routinely ignored or denied students’ requests for help.
But, in order to prove a Title VI violation, students or faculty have to demonstrate anti-Semitic behavior and harassment. The Santa Cruz complaint offers several examples of speech that could be classified as anti-Semitic but in a context that may not be considered harassment.
For example, the complaint states that the university sponsored several conferences and seminars featuring scholars who equated Zionism with racism, claimed Israel committed crimes against humanity and said that Jews exaggerated the Holocaust.
These statements could qualify as anti-Semitic under the working definition of anti-Semitism, but Stern questioned whether it counts as harassment. Tammi Benjamin, a professor at UC-Santa Cruz, argued that conferences like this contributed to overall hostility toward Jews on campus, but Stern warned against legal action just because “we didn’t like what four professors said in a symposium.”
Stern agreed that the Title VI should be used when administrators drag their feet, but said legal action should be a last resort. Even then, complaints should be very specific, he said.
“I’m concerned that people are bringing in things that were purely political speech in a concerted effort to chill that speech,” Stern said.
Censoring debate can be as harmful to the Israel cause as hateful and bigoted speech, Stern said. “Students should be exposed to ideas, even bigoted ideas, and they should wrestle with those ideas,” he said.
Legally, there are no easy answers, according to Jeff Robbins, a First Amendment lawyer at Mintz Levin in Boston. Robbins serves on the board of the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and the David Project.
Free speech and personal safety often clash against one another, Robbins said. Courts often side with a person’s right to free speech, but there are limitations.
“Freedom of speech protects one’s right to be a moron to a considerable degree,” said Robbins, “but may not protect your right to be a bully or threaten people.”
