Last spring, tension over the war in the Middle East reached a boiling point, and students at many universities across America set up tent encampments and protested what they perceived as their institutions’ role in the conflict. Schools responded in different ways — some quickly tore down the encampments while others, such as Northwestern University, negotiated with students to find a solution.
The presence of these encampments stirred a debate about free speech — and what universities should and should not permit on campuses — that continued in our section well after students went home for the summer.
Here is a look back in excerpts.
Feb. 5: Stephen J. Lyons, “Why can’t I criticize the war in Gaza without being called antisemitic?”
I have a question. Can I criticize Israel’s war in Gaza without being called antisemitic? Am I allowed to point out that so often the historically oppressed becomes the oppressor du jour?
Will I be dismissed as a pearl-clutching peacenik when I point out that, in 2022, 99.7% of the staggering $3.3 billion in U.S. foreign aid we gift to Israel went directly to its military, and that since World War II, that tiny country with some 9 million people has received more U.S. foreign aid than any other nation?
Who will be the next university president forced to resign or be fired because of a pro-Palestinian campus protest or because of a linguistic trap set by anti-intellectual members of Congress who demand fealty of all students and faculty in support of Israel’s aggressive bombing of Gaza? Are universities becoming islands of repression in a sea of democracy?
May 1: Alex Shams, “Universities should defend students’ right to free speech, not aid their repression”
When students see their tax dollars used to kill — more than 34,000 Palestinians at last count, not including thousands more buried under the rubble — they are right to question our government’s policies.
But not only are universities silencing them. Congress is pushing administrators to go further, with a bipartisan consensus forming around punishing students who question pro-Israel policies. Biden and Congress have repeatedly linked campus protests to antisemitism. But not only is antisemitism firmly rejected by most activists, groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace can be found leading protests as part of diverse student coalitions. At Columbia, the Gaza solidarity camp hosted a Passover Seder, with Jewish students sharing the holiday’s liberation story with peers.
Universities should be defending students’ right to question political consensus, not aiding their repression. And for free speech to thrive, students must be protected from harassment. Universities must provide that space — not with rhetoric but with action.
May 3: Elizabeth Shackelford, “College protests almost always on the right side of history”
For those who ask why students aren’t protesting Hamas, it’s because these institutions aren’t supporting or helping finance the terrorist group.
Across the country, student groups are specifically targeting their colleges and universities, where they expect their influence will be greatest, calling on them to divest funds from corporations and businesses that support Israel’s military action. Specific calls to action vary, from divesting from any companies and institutions linked to Israel to any companies linked to arms manufacturing generally.
This approach most closely echoes the protests against South Africa’s apartheid government, which are credited with pushing 155 universities to divest from companies that supported or profited from apartheid and the U.S. government to enact a divestment policy as well.
But student demands today face more obstacles. Opposition to Israeli government action is far more polarizing than opposition to the South African apartheid regime was then. Political support for Israel within the U.S. system is so strong that it has secured laws in more than 30 states that prohibit state governments from doing business with companies that promote divestment from Israel.
This could prove a real challenge for educational institutions even if they are open to protester demands. University administrators are already facing loud criticism from Republican political leaders in Washington who are calling on some to resign. Navigating the divide between free speech and hate speech is particularly fraught in light of the history of antisemitism in our country and beyond.
May 9: Lily Cohen, “Why I resigned from Northwestern’s antisemitism committee”
While intended to create an infrastructure for future conversations about Jewish and Zionist students’ experiences, the committees are so limited in the actions they are actually able to take that they are rendered useless. I no longer see Northwestern’s committee as paving an effective path forward — and instead have come to understand how completely performative these task forces are.
The Northwestern committee is not unique in its ineffectiveness. Rabbi David Wolpe resigned from Harvard University’s committee in December because he was not confident that he would be able to make the difference he had hoped by remaining on it.
By design, these committees are doomed to fail. While valuable in a campus environment to include a variety of identities and perspectives, Jewish voices are too often minimized as non-Jewish ideas about the experience of antisemitism are given equal weight.
Our own committee even placed an emphasis “on ensuring the physical, emotional and psychological safety and well-being of Northwestern’s students.” However, as one of only two students present, I regularly felt emotionally and psychologically disregarded. My personal experiences were dismissed and my voice ignored in favor of scholarship, research and academic credentials.
While I value using data-driven solutions and tapping into the vast educational resources available to us, it was belittling and dehumanizing to hear the Jewish student experience diluted to something that scholarship disagreed with — and therefore it was not addressed.
May 10: Michael Schill, “Why I reached an agreement with protesters at Northwestern”
With the help of a handful of exceptional faculty members, we began meeting with student protesters. They asked for several changes to university policy including divestment from Israel and the end of an academic program that focused on Israeli innovation. We said a flat no to both. But we did say we understood their isolation and alienation and wanted to work with them to improve life at Northwestern for Muslim students and students from the Middle East and North Africa.
That began three days and nights of difficult but productive discussions. Ultimately, we came to an agreement that they would take down the tent encampment and bring the demonstration into compliance with our rules and regulations. We would permit peaceful demonstrations on Deering Meadow for roughly a month and provide greater information to students about our investments. We also agreed to establish a house for Muslim and Middle Eastern students to eat, pray and socialize, something already enjoyed by our Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, Black and female students. The university also committed to including Gaza in our Scholars at Risk program, which brings students and faculty members from war-torn or devastated areas to Northwestern, a program we employed with Ukraine amid the current war with Russia as well as Tulane University following Hurricane Katrina.
May 19: Jay Tcath, “What DePaul revealed about its pro-Palestinian encampment should be a wakeup call”
The weaponization and physical damage provide just a glimpse into the nature of many agitators who were there, how little they care about the community they inhabit, how hate-filled they are and the very real danger they posed to all — not just Jews.
The protesters’ vitriol was directed at anyone trying to walk by — Jewish or not. The entire residential neighborhood was subjected to the “free speech” of this rabid takeover. Terrifying imagery, accompanied by screaming, masked disruptors, was on full display for families walking their children to the park and Chicagoans walking to work or simply going about their daily lives.
For weeks, too many have dismissed the concerns that tent encampments on local campuses were dangerous hotbeds of antisemitism and hate.
Too many believed the protesters and their defenders who said authorities sought to stifle their free speech. What has now been revealed by DePaul University should be a wakeup call for everyone.
June 23: Eli J. Finkel, “The failings of the Chicago Principles when it comes to free speech”
Recent protests at colleges and universities have exposed the fractured foundation of the prevailing framework for campus speech.
When protesters form a human chain to prevent a student with opposing views from entering their “liberated zone,” is that a violation of campus speech policy? When they plant a large protest flag in the center of the main campus quad, is that protected speech? Why or why not?
Such questions, which have nothing to do with the substance of the protest, beg more fundamental questions: What is the primary purpose of free speech at a university? What role should universities play in the broader free-speech ecosystem?
The prevailing framework for campus speech — exemplified by the Chicago Principles and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) — isn’t equipped to answer such questions, largely because it fails to appreciate that freedom of speech is not one right, but two. First, the right to unbridled speech addresses what people are permitted to say when holding the microphone (literally or figuratively); it captures the license to speak one’s mind candidly, even when doing so is likely to offend others. Second, the right to inclusive speech addresses who is able and willing to hold the microphone in the first place; it captures the equal opportunity to contribute to public discourse.
Although both unbridled and inclusive speech are essential for achieving a robust public discourse, it’s impossible to maximize both at once because certain forms of unbridled speech, including slurs, render the public sphere less inclusive. Consequently, universities that fully appreciate only the first of these two freedoms undermine the very goal they seek to promote.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.