Hamas and Israel

If you haven't studied-up on conflict, war, and the horrors that emerge from them, the urgency to do so grows each day. This is the message offered in October 2023 by Steve Mintz when he provided a list of books that have potential to inform us about how bad it can really become. As civilians hunkered down or fled to the south of Gaza and Israel positioned for and pursued their ground assault, campus demonstrations supporting the two sides erupted with one condemning Hamas for terrorist atrocities and the other encouraging Israel's restraint in victimizing Palestinian citizens. An early Generation Lab poll of 978 college students found that two-thirds saw Hamas' attack as terrorism while the blame for it was mixed.

The repercussions of Hamas attack and response by Israel has had many twists and turns that are summarized in this continuing post. What should be first understood is that the vast majority of student protests have been peaceful. However, it is very clear that U.S. higher education will continue to be impacted as the growing network of academic organizations that oppose the retaliation of Israel against Hamas and Gazan citizens stirs reactions among conservatives. Six months after the Hamas attack, the spread of protests on campuses increasingly resulted in punishments of students who were involved. The continuing protests in late April 2024 were met by changing policies witnessed at Indiana University and elsewhere, and Columbia University moved classes online striving for deescalation. Representative Foxx, chair of the House Education and Workforce committee, threatened Columbia's President by saying that she would be held accountable for any anti-Semitic conduct and House Speaker Mike Johnson called for her resignation. Foxx's House Education and Workforce committee later subpoenaed Columbia's records on anti-Semitism. Other campuses continued protests in solidarity with Columbia's protestors including Michigan, Maryland, Ohio State, NYU, and UT Austin. The tension between student pro-Palestine mobilization and conservative responses and the resulting dilemma of how to respond including escalation to police intervention, should be noted in preparation for the contentious Presidential election now underway.

Universities are caught in a trap of their own creation - they have not taught students about the background to the Israel v. Palestine conflict. The result is incomplete understanding and fractious declarations rather than constructive discourse. The NY Times indicated that previous restriction of speech that offended liberal-leaning students established a one-sided expectation. Two sides are now claiming hate speech by the other, with higher education leaders caught in the middle trying to determine if speech should be equally restricted or if students have to resign themselves to being uncomfortable hearing allegations that are repugnant to them. Assuming that the goal is to support free expression, educators need to help students discern the difference between ignorance and violence versus earnest expression of informed understanding. Adherence to First Amendment freedom of expression that favors no specific perspective is judged through the beholder's eye, which challenges educational leaders as well. For example, the attempt to establish a California-wide "viewpoint neutral" initiative on the Middle East resulted in the system's President being accused of bias.

University student organizations that support an independent Palestinian state and oppose the occupation and control of Israel in Gaza were quick to call out the long-standing subjugation of Palestinian's in Gaza and elsewhere in the region. Some of these statements started with condemnation of Hamas' actions and then moved to identifying the problem of injustices of the control of Gaza. Others went directly to blaming Israel for creating an environment of desperation that rationalized Hamas' cruelty. Universities were criticized for their slow response to the Hamas attack as well as to student organization statements. As an example, Harvard's new President was criticized for both not speaking up for Palestinian activists and for being slow and weak in condemning Hamas' attack. Research looking at 100 statements from a variety of universities documented that over half had to retract flawed statements.

Semester at Sea revised its itinerary to avoid the Red Sea, Oman, and Dubai after being warned of risks in the Middle East. Franciscan University of Ohio offered to welcome Jewish students who have been targeted with anti-Semitism. And the backlash to Palestinian student activism among university Boards and Alumni is putting greater pressure on institution leaders to handle dissent carefully, especially as donors act on belief that their opinions should be reflected in campus decisions. Donor influences on Presidential and institutional statements can be viewed as donor control or simply donor activism. Jewish students feared personal harm when a pro-Palestinian group assembled outside the library at Cooper Union while three students of Palestinian descent were accosted and shot at the University of Vermont. Columbia University suspended two pro-Palestine student groups and George Washington University suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine groups as well. Northwestern University students faced criminal charges for a parody front page to the student newspaper, a move opposed by many on campus. Some campuses, such as MIT, turned to suspending protestors from their campus residences.

The result of Israel's retaliation is the total destruction of higher education institutions in Gaza and the West Bank, which some strive to rebuild. The devastation has been labeled "educide" in Gaza, an outcome of Israel claiming universities were sheltering Hamas. In order to salvage anything from the current academic year, some educators proposed short-term courses or exchanges that would allow Palestinian students the opportunity to continue degree progress.

Demonstrations broke out at colleges and universities and continued while Israel retaliated, challenging administrators to find a balance between fostering debate among factions versus clearly condemning the brutality of Hamas. Harvard's debacle over student protests led it to reiterate guidelines for student protests. Having issued one set of protest guidelines soon after October 7, Columbia reissued the guidelines after input from faculty and students. Penn subsequently modified its protest policy to prohibit encampments, a strategy presumed to prevent one source of conflict. A Pro-Palestine student group disrupted the University of Michigan Honors Convocation, resulting in one administrator declaring that, "Disrupting speakers and events is not protected speech and is a clear violation of university policy." Smith College students occupied the administration building and held it for 12 days to demand divestment from weapons manufacturers that support Israel's attacks on Gaza. Even though officials claimed that it was simply a programmatic decision rather than a response to pro-Palestine activism, Pitzer College students celebrated the removal of a study abroad program in Israel but the College's President rejected a resolution to boycott all academic programs in Israel. The University of Southern California first cancelled the tradition of having a valedictory speech at graduation, saying the the having a Muslim student speak presented too many security risks, then it cancelled its main commencement all together.

Beyond clarifying rules for protest, the very definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism is under debate. The American College Personnel Association issued a statement on how to respond to competing student perspectives. The University of Michigan cancelled a student vote on Israel v. Palestine when pro-Palestinian activists allegedly attempted to influence the outcome. Calling for financial divestment is another way pro-Palestine students are registering their opposition to Israel's retaliation in Gaza. But students who staged a sit-in at on Vanderbilt's investments were arrested by police after officials deemed that it was not peaceful. "Pomona Divest from Apartheid" protestors were arrested and expelled for occupying the President's Office. Barnard students were suspended but later moved to probation for their sit-in.

Politicians intensified the challenges for higher education leaders with Virginia Foxx, the top Republican on the House Education Committee, saying that "Too many colleges require lock-step discipleship behind woke policies and politics." U.S. Presidential candidate, Tim Scott, took Foxx's criticism to another level when interviewed by CNN. The U.S. Education Department first placed six universities on a list to be investigated for civil rights violations based on anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim or anti-Arab incidents, later updated the list with six more. By March 7, 2024, the Education Department investigations grew to fifty. Indiana University's faculty are pushing back on Congressman Jim Banks' allegation that the University has not dealt with anti-Semitism. The impact of demonization of higher is evident in declining confidence in higher education leaders since October 7.

While tracking hate and anti-semitism is important, investigations gone wrong could imperil first-amendment principles, including the often overlooked right of peaceful assembly. The lack of clarity about higher education's protection of the First Amendment has resulted in troubling variations in policy and crack-downs on some campuses. Adding to the confusion, U.S. House of Representatives called for anti-Semitism monitors on campus. A particular concern of some academics is the conflation of criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, which serves neither pro-Palestinian or Jewish students.

The scheduling of Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT to speak before the House Education and Workforce Committee began with the hope that it would improve understanding of how institutions approach free versus threatening speech. The three Presidents instead faced Virginia Foxx starting off by saying that anti-Semitism was the "poisoned fruit" of their institutions' cultures. Reviews of the three Presidents' testimony was all over the place, some criticizing the House Committee for its hostility and others alleging evasion on the part of the Presidents. Liz Magill, President of Penn, faced backlash for her testimony as well as for campus events perceived to be anti-Semitic, which led to the Penn Board of Trustees seeking her resignation and she complied after being swept up in a flurry of criticisms. Penn's ex-President subsequently landed a position at Harvard. Harvard's President, Claudine Gay, confronted pressure and initially prevailed with the support of Harvard's Board. Foxx wasn't ready to let it go and initiated plans to investigate Harvard's handling of Gay's plagiarism allegations but Gay preempted it by resigning after only 6 months in her position. The controversy over Gay's plagiarism will likely lead to more conservative investigations of prominent academic figures. MIT's president announced new initiatives for a new year to address student discipline, free expression, and DEI. The House Committee agreed to investigate the "learning environment" of the three prestigious universities and issued a resolution condemning the Presidents' testimony. Investigations into institution's handling of anti-Semitism were expected to require significant time with potential removal of federal funds reserved only as the last resort. The first investigation of Harvard continued via a nine-page letter (with Harvard responding with over 1,000 pages of documentation) and another investigation was launched based on allegations that Arab and Muslim students have also been targeted. Harvard asserted that it fully complied with the House Committee's demands but faced a subpoena to provide more, which Foxx again declared was inadequate. Foxx criticized Harvard for not disciplining more students for protests and anti-Semitism. Penn's investigation began with a 14-page letter from representative Foxx. After its name appeared at the top of a list of institutions experiencing anti-Semitism, Stanford faced investigation by the House Committee. Preempting the investigations, House Republicans have already revealed publicly how they plan to punish universities after proving that they neglected to address anti-semitism. UCLA, Yale, and Michigan are the next targets to appear before the House Committee and Northwestern and Rutgers will follow. Representative Foxx's letter to the Northwestern president criticized him for negotiating with student protesters and threw in an investigation of contributions from Qatar for extra measure; the assertions of Qatar buying influence in the Northwestern partnership were quickly refuted. Occupation of Bard buildings ended when agreements were reached after negotiation between protesters and administrators. The Director of Academic Affairs for the American Jewish Committee echoed Foxx's criticism by saying that protestors should not be rewarded with concessions.

And taking down higher education institutions isn't the only target for Foxx. After an auditor for financial statements for the Education Department found irregularities, Foxx is set to investigate Secretary Cordona for failure to lead Education. On the flip side, Foxx demonstrated her bias in defending Liberty University after it agreed to a $14 million settlement with the Department of Education for Clery Act violations.

There are many lessons to be learned about confronting anti-Semitism from the House Committee hearing. One of the primary insights is that campus unrest on contentious issues should be anticipated as much as possible. Higher education leaders need to inculcate principles of expression of dissent and humane civic discourse in advance of controversy, including open fora where all can engage. One of the challenges of exploring different views is establishing clear and equitable parameters for the free expression of diverse perspectives. When potentially inflammatory moments occur, if statements are deemed helpful, they should be clear and should avoid placing legal issues as the priority. Regardless of the lessons that should have been learned from the 1960s, some institutions resorted to police intervention with both students and faculty involved in protests.

An example statement that the 3 university Presidents at the House Committee hearing might have used is included in an article on the growing public disgust with elite higher education institutions. It is clear in retrospect that the House Committee didn't only intend to investigate incidents of anti-Semitism on elite campuses but orchestrated the hearing to draw attention to perceived liberalism and intellectual equivocation on these campuses; Harvard's former President Gay reinforced this notion in an op-ed for the NYT. The aftermath of former President Gay's demise raises the question of who failed whom. Walter Kimbrough, a student affairs educator and former President of Dillard University, offered insight on how the "contextualizing" of the 3 university Presidents was defensible but failed in the "context" of deliberate bating by Representative Stefanik during the House Committee hearing. Continuing the crusade against higher education, Representative Foxx scheduled the Columbia University President and Board members before the House Committee in April 2024. Having avoided the original Ivy League tribunal, Columbia's President was likely face a strong rebuke by Foxx as evidenced by calling the meeting "Columbia in crisis..." President Shafik was more decisive in defining and calling out anti-semitism, an approach that seemed to satisfy Foxx's committee and played well with some other education leaders. Unfortunate for President Shafik and Columbia, accusations quickly emerged that she lied and threw faculty under the bus and 100 students were arrested in the wake of the testimony. President Shafik abruptly resigned in August 2024 and her successor, Katrina Armstrong, apologized to students who were harmed during the Spring 2024 demonstrations.

The continuation of attempts to unseat presidents of elite institutions, especially those led by women of diverse cultural backgrounds, is ominous. The President of the University of Maryland was accused of plagiarism, adding him to the last of leaders of minority backgrounds who have been targeted by conservatives. Criticism has spread beyond elite institutions and leaders should take note of the broad conservative agenda of discrediting higher education institutions in general. As the House Committee hearing demonstrated, clear purpose and carefully honed communication is essential in this era of intense scrutiny. In addition to focusing on free expression while protecting against acts of discrimination and threat, higher education needs to figure out how to defend itself from politicized attacks.

The five contenders included in the November 8, 2023, Republican U.S. Presidential debate, pushed the narrative that higher education must back Israel and prohibit pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Other political responses to the Hamas and Israel conflict include a bi-partisan U.S. Senate resolution condemning anti-Semitism on campuses while the House Judiciary Committee debated causes of rising anti-Semitism. A Senate bill to require reporting of anti-Semitism would result in better data about what's actually happening on campus. Florida banned Students for Justice in Palestine at its state institutions rationalizing the move based on the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. New College of Florida threatened to withhold diplomas for students who protested its commencement speaker and advocated "Free Palestine" in posters. Countering Florida's prohibition of Students for Justice in Palestine, the ACLU urged campuses to not investigate them. Governor Disantis invited students from other states who experience anti-Semitism to transfer to Florida schools.

Implications of the Hamas attack and Israel's response come in different forms and include increasing anti-Semitic and anti-Palestinian sentiments. One study found that 73% of Jewish students observed or were subject to anti-Semitism since the fall term began, while another study indicated that Jewish students' reports of anti-Semitism vary across campuses. Both Jewish and Palestine-sympathetic students fear retaliation for expressing their views. Different perspectives on specific phrases, such as "from the river to the sea," are central to their fears. A staff member at American University of Palestinian background was threatened in a note left in his mailbox. A Jewish student's report of a Stanford professor blaming the conflict on the Zionist movement is under investigation while anti-Semitic online posts threatened students at Cornell; 21-year old Cornell junior was charged with posting threats using inter-state communications. Calls to support Jewish faculty emerged as fallout from donors, alumni, and politicians intensified. Governor Abbott of Texas signed an executive order requiring all state institutions to update and increase enforcement of their anti-Semitism policies. However, UT officials subsequently dropped charges against pro-Palestine protestors.

Repercussions for academics expressing their opinions will challenge campus leaders and faculty attempting to hold steadfast to principles of freedom of expression. Faculty at NYU were arrested when they tried to protect student demonstrators and a tenured Jewish professor at Muehlenberg College was fired for expressing pro-Palestinian views. An Office of Civil Rights investigation of the Muehlenberg case overlapped and perhaps impacted the campus investigation.  Particularly at institutions where there are large numbers of Jewish students as well as those who advocate for Palestine like the University of Maryland, protests of speakers are contentious. Jeff Herbst, President of American Jewish University urges educators to defend free expression even when condemnation escalates, saying, "The antisemites will keep coming, and freedom of speech should not go anywhere. Addressing this climate in an intentional, forceful manner would be in the best tradition of the liberal arts." Recognizing the history of Jewish and Black awareness groups as allies, HBCUs launched an anti-Semitism initiative.

There is wide variation in how Presidents believe they should offer statements, reinforcing that care should be taken by institutional leaders. When the President of Colorado College resigned in order to return to a faculty position that allowed her to speak more freely, a colleague bemoaned the loss of her voice as an influential President. Restraint is likely the best strategy, starting with consideration of the centrality of any issue to a specific institution's mission. Urging Presidents to call for a cease fire, the President of Wesleyan said "Silence at a time of humanitarian catastrophe isn't neutrality; it's either cowardice or collaboration." Professing being exhilarated by the Hamas attack, a Cornell professor was rebuked by its President and Board and placed on leave but by Fall of 2024 returned to the classroom. As one group of college presidents issued a joint statement, others questioned the utility of these statements and still others said that statements should stop. The University of Pennsylvania adopted a policy of neutrality that discourages comment on issues except "those that have direct and significant bearing on University functions." Governor of Utah told university presidents to avoid political comment all together and the Governor of New York told state universities to prohibit calls for genocide. The accusation of evasiveness in statements could be averted by deploring hateful speech and asserting the importance of not selectively determining what can be said.

Academic departments making public statements in relation to the Hamas v. Israel war is also potentially inflammatory. California is considering banning departments and centers from making statements, a move that some faculty view as encroachment on academic freedom. It will be interesting to see if conflict between opposing sides so volatile that it required evacuation of faculty at San Jose State University will lead California to go further than just discouraging public statements. 

Some individual faculty are intimidated by the possible implications of speaking out and believe that any criticism of Israel is viewed as anti-Semitic, which some view as restricting free speech. The Faculty Council at the University of North Carolina declined to condemn a faculty member for comments made after the Hamas attack in October based on free speech considerations. The Faculty Council avoidance was sharply criticized by some UNC faculty. The National Communication Association told speakers not to use "genocide" in their speeches due to ambivalence about reactions but they later apologized for its decision. The American Studies Association drew criticism from its members in reaction to its statement. U.S. Department of Education urged institutions to make clear statements condemning anti-Semitism as well as Islamophobia. Others, particularly those in faith-based organizations, are striving to foster respect and dialogue with the podcast "How can we engage in 'sacred witness?'" a wonderful example. Faculty who have expertise in Middle East history are stepping up with courses and students appear to be flocking to them.

Sometimes stepping up comes with repercussions such as the political science professor who helped a pro-Palestinian student group schedule a meeting at the University of Indiana. Other educators suggest that focusing on local concerns through research, engagement with public education and health institutions, and imbedding service learning would help. Two TAs at the University of Texas were dismissed for issuing a message to "acknowledge the mental health implications of the current escalation of violence in Gaza" and offering mental health resources for students in their class who were impacted by campus reactions to a Palestinian Solidarity Committee's teach-in. Further west from Austin, an assistant professor at Texas Tech was placed on leave after social media posts that were viewed as anti-Semitic. A DePaul University adjunct was dismissed for a student assignment that included "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," and "decolonized future" in the description. The faculty who were investigated in these incidents and others experienced legal prosecution, discontinued employment, deportation, and some returned after investigations into their conduct.

The reality is that the Hamas and Israel conflict is complicated by a very contentious history and the current circumstances change by the hour. This quagmire calls for higher education to help students by focusing on media literacy, critical thinking, and promoting the value of free exchange of ideas. Holocaust Museums have an important role to play by honoring the past and preserving memory, and especially promoting dialogue. Honest portrayal is particularly important when freedom of expression is being challenged. Expression can be limited in very subtle ways, as evidenced by the AAUP statement advocating freedom of expression that portrays critiques of Israel's retaliation as inherently anti-Semitic. AAUP eventually joined labor unions in calling for a cease-fire as the devastation of Gaza and loss of innocent lives was recognized. The American Sociological Association also called for a cease-fire. American University's examination of policies related to protests is repeated across many campuses as attempts are made to harmonize a commitment to fostering an inclusive campus climate with a commitment to freedom of expression. American University's ban on indoor protests resulted in probation for its Students for Justice in Palestine group.

In an already contentious political environment, U.S. institutions and perhaps colleges and universities around the world, will need to figure out how to have very difficult conversations, support the expression of opposing views, and avoid the devolution into chaos that some recall from their institutions in the 1960s. Berkeley, a center of the free speech movement in the 1960s, evacuated attendees when protesters became violent. That Berkeley would descend into violence over expression of diverse views reinforces the critical need to set standards for discourse and enforce them. While the 1960s is remembered for opening free speech, the more ominous realization is that public sentiment and political partisanship that targets higher education is beginning to look a lot like the dark days of McCarthyism of the 1950s. Some educators believe that the specter of McCarthyism and anti-intellectualism warrants strong push-back from college and university presidents.

College presidents and other leaders met for a summit to explore how to address anti-Semitism.  The meeting was convened by Hillel, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Council on Education and was not open to media. Reporting after the meeting, organizers claimed that it was "the largest-ever gathering of college and university presidents to discuss the topic of confronting antisemitism on campus."