As the controversy grows over three university presidents refusing on Dec. 5 to clearly condemn advocacy of genocide against Jewish people as contrary to their codes of conduct, the highly partisan political battle moved from the halls of Congress to the halls of Penn, where its president, Liz Magill, resigned on Dec. 9, and onward to Harvard, where high-profile calls for the removal of President Claudine Gay were rejected by the university’s board.
While it is satisfying for many to see leftist academic elites get their comeuppance before Congress on something as fundamental as genocide, calls for the limitation of free speech are a double-edged sword that could ultimately hurt everyone, most especially conservatives.
On the Israel–Hamas conflict, both sides in the United States are increasingly blinded by emotion and the daily video of violence, which leads to cancel culture that harms their ability to engage in reasonable discussions that lead to growth and education, the core role of the university.
Likewise, the phrase “globalize the intifada” is unconscionable support for global violence against Jews. All of these terms are shocking to the conscience and appalling to the highest degree, especially given the history of the Holocaust and more recent antisemitic atrocities. The phrase “from the river to the sea” has been used by multiple terrorist organizations, including Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and so carries symbolic rather than just literal meaning.
According to The Harvard Crimson, a student newspaper, students organized as the “Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee” (PSC) described the offensive phrase as supporting “solidarity and equality for all people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea” in a social media post. This is wrongheaded but indicates the difficulty of enforcing a ban on speech that some believe is genocidal and others do not.
“We reject that this phrase is genocidal. We are against all forms of genocide and expulsion—that is exactly why we organize for this cause,” the student group stated. The Harvard Crimson noted that “During the rally, an organizer from the PSC demanded that Harvard reject ‘the dangerous conflation’ of pro-Palestine speech and antisemitic speech, create a committee to address anti-Palestinian racism, and divest from companies ‘complicit in Israeli apartheid.’”
It was not clear whether the group acknowledged that “pro-Palestine” speech is inherently anti-Israel, given that historical Palestine is nearly contiguous with present-day Israel, or explain why it would persist in using a phrase that some interpret as genocidal, even if the group rejects that interpretation. Chanting the term is clearly inflammatory rather than leading to further understanding and education, which is what Harvard students should be doing.
The Israeli siege of Gaza included restrictions on food, water, and fuel that caused widespread hunger, shut hospitals, and spread disease. The Israeli military forcefully denuded Gaza’s largest city in the north, and some analysts believe that Israel is attempting to “ethnically cleanse” Gaza by pushing its inhabitants into Egypt. Cairo has closed the country’s borders, leaving Gazans with few places to go that are safe. Some analysts argue that Israel’s campaign is thus a form of genocide, the support of which should be banned. This illustrates the practical difficulty of banning speech that is interpreted by two sides of a conflict completely differently.
While Israel’s defensive actions target Hamas rather than a protected group by the U.N. definition and, therefore, cannot be considered genocide, the argument would be made by the left. For example, Israel’s frequent bombing that also hits civilians could be considered a war crime by international standards if it can be proven that the military gain is disproportionately low relative to the number of civilians killed.
There is some hope for voluntary institutional change through better education, though it appears at least in part driven by political considerations. The day prior to Harvard’s PSC demonstration, Ms. Gay condemned the term “from the river to the sea” in an email and announced antisemitism education.
“Our community must understand that phrases such as ‘from the river to the sea’ bear specific historical meanings that to a great many people imply the eradication of Jews from Israel and engender both pain and existential fears within our Jewish community,” Ms. Gay wrote, according to The Harvard Crimson. “I condemn this phrase and any similarly hurtful phrases.”
Any ban on advocacy of genocide, to be consistent, should extend to all groups, including not only Jewish people but also Tigrayans, Rohingya, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Falun Gong adherents, for example. Ongoing genocides are arguably occurring against all these people in China, Burma (Myanmar), and Ethiopia.
A new rule against genocidal speech on campus will not be easy. It would be difficult to interpret and enforce, and champions of free speech will rightly see it as a potential threat to their constitutional rights. However, the crime of genocide is so great that it needs special consideration.
At private universities, which are allowed to regulate speech, a rule could reasonably ban support for the world’s worst crime as harassment and intimidation at the collective rather than individual level. It would be hard as a student to study knowing that someone on campus was advocating genocide against you. It would be reasonable to interpret genocidal speech as harassment that interferes with the core function of the university, which is education.
