Efforts Grow to Limit Campus Mideast Debate

Across the U.S., there is a concerted effort to limit free and open debate about the Middle East in the guise of fighting “anti-Semitism.”

In 2013, students at the University of California, Berkeley, filed a protest with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) concerning protests against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, a classroom discussion perceived as being hostile to Israel, and critical statements made in student government. This, the students argued, had created a “hostile environment.”

The OCR investigated and rejected the “hostile environment” complaints. It concluded that the incidents did not constitute actionable harassment, stating, “In the University environment, exposure to such robust and discordant expressions, even when personally offensive and hurtful, is a circumstance that a reasonable student in higher education may experience.”

Three years ago, in response to similar concerns about allegedly anti- Semitic speech on campus, the University of California Advisory Council on Campus, Climate, Culture and Inclusion issued recommendations to former UC System President Mark Yudof that included a call “to push its current harassment and nondiscrimination provisions further” and “seek opportunities to prohibit hate speech on campus.” The Council acknowledged the First Amendment concerns, but nevertheless advised Yudof to “accept the challenge of the litigation that would surely ensue should the recommendation be accepted.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) pointed out in a letter to Yudof that were he to adopt the Council’s recommendations, he would risk personal liability for violating clearly established law. FIRE warned Yudof that, “In a fight against the Bill of Rights, the University of California will not win nor should it.” Yudof, who is Jewish, issued a letter declining to stretch UC policies beyond the First Amendment breaking point.

Many thoughtful Israelis reject the use of the term “anti-Semitism” as a means of stifling campus criticism of Israel. Writing in Jerusalem Report (May 4, 2015), Prof. Asher Susser of Tel Aviv University declares: “Israelis and their defenders cannot simply dismiss the criticism as anti-Semitism and thus absolve themselves of any responsibility for the evils inherent in post-1967 Israel. The Israeli occupation and settlement policies of nearly half a century, squeezing the Palestinians out of the little less than a quarter of historical Palestine that remains for their prospective statehood is indefensible. One does not have to be an anti-Semite to see the blatant injustice embedded in that reality. Israelis must accept responsibility for their actions: they cannot just brush off legitimate criticism as anti- Semitic in a desperate effort to continue basking in a false sense of self- righteous innocence.”

In FIRE’s view, “… as government actors, public university systems like the UC cannot lawfully maintain and enforce policies that prohibit free speech protected by the First Amendment … One foundational principle of First Amendment jurisprudence, reinforced in decisions dating back decades, is that speech does not lose protection simply because some, many or even all find it offensive.” •