How Campus Protests Changed the Free Speech Debate in America

The battle lines over free speech on college campuses were largely entrenched before pro-Palestinian encampments quickly spread across the country last month.

Teachers or speakers who broke with prevailing progressive views – particularly around issues of race, gender and social justice – were often subject to job loss or other forms of “cancel culture”.

This has left conservative voices on campus and in Congress to position themselves as defenders of free speech and, somewhat paradoxically, defenders of liberal values ​​surrounding the need for open debate in America’s bastions of higher education.

The war between Hamas and Israel has altered this dynamic, said Alex Morey, vice president of campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

“Free speech hypocrisy has been the name of the game on campuses for too long,” Morey told The Hill. “We are used to seeing this kind of hypocrisy on the left, but now it has changed.”

FIRE estimates that nearly 200 professors have been fired for various speech-related crimes since 2011, and there are many more examples of progressive student groups pushing to cancel appearances by right-wing figures on campus.

The GOP-led House has regularly held hearings ridiculing what it considers to be the suppression of conservative viewpoints and demanding that universities preserve “the constitutional rights of all students to freely express their beliefs,” as the chairman of the House subcommittee on higher education at the Chamber. a hearing in March.

In recent months, however, House hearings on college campuses have focused instead on various ways to suppress speech deemed anti-Semitic or “pro-Hamas” — as protesters protest support of US to Israel’s war in Gaza, as well as the Zionist movement for which they blame. the historical oppression of Palestinians.

“For a decade, conservatives have been complaining about this,” Morey said of the restriction of free speech. “Until we get to the post-7th of October. And now people say ‘From the river to the sea’ or ‘Intifada’ or ‘Free Gaza’ – and a certain group of conservatives don’t like that. And now, suddenly, we discover the limits of freedom of expression. They don’t really mean ‘free speech,’ but rather ‘free speech until it’s speech I don’t like.’”

Rep. Mike Lawler (RN.Y.), who last year introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act to combat what he described as a “disturbing and unacceptable” level of anti-Semitism on college campuses, told The Hill he sees no contradiction on the Republican side.

“I think what’s fascinating to observe, obviously, is that many of the same people who said these protests should be protected by free speech are the same people who demanded safe spaces on universities and college campuses because they were deeply offended by conservative thinking. . and I thought about banning conservatives from speaking on college campuses,” he said.

Lawler said his legislative effort was aimed at ensuring that federal law — specifically Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — was enforced as it relates to Jewish students. Title 6 prohibits federally funded universities from discriminating against students on the basis of race or religion.

“Yes, protests are allowed. But when these protests, where the debate goes beyond the limits of violence, whether they are threats of violence or actual physical violence, [universities] has a responsibility. And that’s the point here. And, unfortunately, these institutions failed miserably in this responsibility,” he said.

Even free speech absolutists agree that direct threats against individuals are not protected by the First Amendment.

But it’s complicated to know where universities – or the federal government – ​​draw the line between protected debate and “threats.” This was vividly illustrated during a House hearing in December, when leaders of some top universities equivocated on whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their policies.

“The correct answer to these questions is not what Congress wants to hear,” said Ben Wizner, director of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. “The answer was: ‘It depends’. And that is the right answer. It depends. If someone is holding a sign at a protest, that speech should be protected by schools’ written policies. And if someone is yelling that at another student, then that should violate those rules and civil rights laws.”

The presidents’ mistakes, however, were a huge political success for Rep. Elise Stefanik (RN.Y.), whose question elicited uncomfortable responses. More university presidents were called to Congress on Thursday to face similar issues.

Wizner said that Jewish students who feel uncomfortable or unsafe because of some protest slogans, such as calls for an uprising against Israeli control of the Palestinian territories, do not have the right under Title 6 not to be offended. But they should have protection against “generalized discrimination”.

But exactly where that line should fall is a debate, even among Republicans.

Lawler said slogans like “From the river to the sea” were clearly anti-Semitic threats that should not be allowed. But Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (RN.Y.), who also proposed legislation to crack down on anti-Jewish hate speech, said such slogans were protected in her opinion.

“I think it falls under the free speech side, but I think it’s anti-Semitic,” she said. “It really depends.”

His bill, the Combating Anti-Semitic Messages and Promoting Unity in Schools Act, would strip federal funding from higher education institutions that support anti-Semitic groups or stop taking action against faculty members who advocate anti-Semitic -Semitism. Malliotakis said the measure specifically targets racial slurs, violent acts and swastikas.

“It’s terrible that a student has to go to campus and see a swastika. And if the student or teacher who painted the swastika isn’t held accountable, that’s a problem,” she said.

Protest leaders say claims that their broader message is anti-Semitic are misguided and fail to explain the large presence of Jewish students at their camps and rallies.

“We saw Jewish students at the camps holding Shabbat services and Passover Seders with their peers,” said Beth Miller, political director at Jewish Voice for Peace Action, which helped organize ceasefire protests. “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the Israeli government or protest complicity in genocide.”

Yazen Kashlan, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped organize the camp, criticized right-wing figures for “using” the term.

“It does a disservice to people who actually suffer from pure anti-Semitism, where it’s just purely religiously motivated,” he said.

“That’s not what we’re protesting against. As if it wasn’t Judaism that makes us do this. It’s imperialism, racism, colonialism – like, I always say this: if the occupiers were Dutch, Filipino or West African, the answer would be the same.”

President Biden defended students’ right to demonstrate but said violence on campuses will not be tolerated.

“Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, closing campuses, forcing classes and graduations to be canceled — none of this is peaceful protest,” he said in comments last month.

However, cases of physical violence have been few and far between, except when police intervene to arrest protesters who refuse to leave their camps. Some of the worst violence in recent weeks occurred when pro-Israel protesters invaded a pro-Palestine camp at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been a leading voice urging universities to crack down on campus protests. A spokesperson for the group said it was not calling for disciplinary action solely based on offensive speech.

“Jewish students had their access to classes and university events interrupted, were harassed and intimidated and even faced violence. This is what the ADL wants universities to address: harassment and intimidation,” they said.

The group pointed to half a dozen examples of such behavior. These included protesters who created a human chain at UCLA; protesters at Columbia University preventing “Zionist” students from entering campus areas near camps; the head of the center for Jewish studies at the University of California, Irvine interrupting lectures due to interruptions by protesters; the president of Jewish Students for America claiming he was attacked while filming a camp; and anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed at Bradley University in Illinois.

There was also an incident at the University of California, Berkeley, in which pro-Palestinian protesters gathered in front of a theater during an event featuring an Israeli soldier who served in Gaza. As a result, the speech was cancelled.

Kashlan, the graduate student, said he generally encouraged fellow students to allow for differing viewpoints and to trust that the “vile of their statements” would be obvious to anyone listening. But he said he understands the emotional reaction when the stakes seem so high.

“This is a person who was part of an offensive force that is actively dropping bombs. So, okay, people will show up, they will show up in droves,” he said.

Kashlan said the reaction to the protest was also telling. “Everyone is ready with their phones to show that they are being suppressed by the other side. So it’s kind of a show like that.

David Myers, a professor of Jewish history who directs the UCLA Initiative to Study Hate, said he wants to see both sides engaged in another debate: What are the norms that facilitate knowledge and learning?

“Like, yeah, you can be unnecessarily provocative. And that is protected speech. But what makes for a constructive conversation?” he said.

“There is no armed insurrection where one side tries to overthrow the other and engages by any means necessary. This is a protest on a university campus in the United States of America. I believe it is entirely possible to pursue goals without crossing the line into rhetoric that is dangerous or anti-Semitic.”

Myers blamed both sides for the difficulty of having respectful debates about difficult subjects at U.S. universities.

“There has been a growing sensitivity that says, you know, if I disagree with you, I consider you not just a foil or conversation partner, but the enemy, the embodiment of evil. I think that spirit, on both the left and the right, has made it really difficult to have difficult conversations, which we should be doing on our campuses.”

This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story