American universities face a reckoning over academic freedom
SOMETIMES YOU get the technicalities right but still flunk the test. So it was at the congressional hearing on campus antisemitism on December 5th. When asked if calling for the genocide of Jews would be punished at their schools, the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania prevaricated. That would depend on context, they said—such as whether the speech crossed into threats directed at individuals. Amid an uproar the president of the University of Pennsylvania, Liz Magill, resigned four days later. “One down. Two to go,” said Elise Stefanik, the Republican congresswoman who led the questioning.
The hearing came amid a spate of antisemitic incidents at universities in the wake of the war between Israel and Hamas that began on October 7th. Hillel International, a Jewish non-profit organisation, has tallied 38 antisemitic physical assaults on campuses, and 227 cases of vandalism, since the war broke out. Both in their prepared testimony and their replies to questions during the five-hour hearing, the presidents denounced that worrying uptick and explained how harassment is disciplined. Yet their responses to Ms Stefanik’s grilling about antisemitic speech were evasive, legalistic and wholly unsatisfying. Somehow they forgot that congressional hearings are political theatre made of soundbites, not legal depositions. “Over-prepared and over-lawyered,” said Scott Bok, chair of the University of Pennsylvania board, who also resigned.
The presidents gave an accurate description of what is permissible under their schools’ speech codes, which closely track the First Amendment. Odious talk is allowed so long as it does not turn into discriminatory harassment or incite violence. Holding a placard with a vile slogan at a protest is different from sending someone threatening texts. Context does indeed matter.
2023-12-12 03:23:25
Original from www.economist.com
rnrn