Dear Friends: While a long-standing Penn commitment in California keeps me from being with you in person this evening, I want you to know that I am very much with you in spirit, and I extend my most sincere thanks for your participation in this evening’s program. I cannot begin to convey how pleased I am that Penn Hillel, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, and numerous other co-sponsors have stepped forward in the midst of a challenging few weeks on campus to add important voices to the conversations that are occurring about Israel. A commitment to open expression is fundamental to a great university like Penn. Occasionally that commitment gets tested, and that will certainly be the case this weekend. We recognize the right of any student or student group to freely express their opinions. Unfortunately, some then assume that those words carry the University’s endorsement. With regard to the BDS conference this weekend, that could not be further from the truth. It is important that you all know that we have been unambiguous in repudiating the positions that are espoused by those sponsoring that conference. They run counter to our principles, our ideals and importantly, our actions. I am very proud of the active collaborations that Penn has with Israel and hope that we will see those grow in the years ahead. Penn is blessed to have one of the largest and most active Hillel chapters in the country. And we are unwavering in our support of the Jewish state. Let me say it in the clearest possible words: we do not support the goals of BDS. To Ira and Sherrie and all the members of the Federation board, I offer my heartfelt thanks for stepping forward to co-sponsor this wonderful gathering, and realizing the importance of a thoughtful, educational response to this weekend’s events. I believe that truth and reason will win the day. To Rabbi Mike Uram and my dear friends at Penn Hillel, thank you for your role in creating and facilitating tonight’s program, and for serving as a powerful beacon for Jewish life at Penn since 1944. I also want to extend my thanks to Alan Dershowitz for coming to speak this evening. I have long admired Alan’s intellect and passion, and know his words will inspire you all. Your presence here tonight makes a very important statement. Thanks for doing it the right way. Thanks for supporting the cause of Israel. And thanks for supporting Penn. Shalom, Amy Gutmann Original: http://www.thedp.com/index.php/blog/redandblue/2012/02/amy_gutmanns_remarks_at_the_dershowitz_talk
I am pleased to accept the resolution approved by the University Senate at its April 23, 2004 meeting, disassociating the Senate from the anti-Semitic message of the April 21 edition of The Medium. I concur with the sentiment of this resolution and, as I stated in my remarks that day, I ask the University Senate’s help in seeking possible remedies to the ongoing problem of deeply offensive material appearing in The Medium. It is also important to note for the record that the students on the Medium staff subsequently issued an apology for the anti-Semitic cartoon – an apology that is, I hope, a sign of progress toward more responsible editorial judgment and exercise of First Amendment rights. Sincerely yours, Richard L. McCormick Original: http://senate.rutgers.edu/rlmackresolutiononmedium.html
The American Jewish Committee initiated a “College and University Presidents’ Statement on Intimidation Free Campuses” which was released, with the signatures of over 300 university and college presidents, in October 2002. The text of statement is as follows: “In the current period of worldwide political turmoil that threatens to damage one of our country’s greatest treasures – colleges and universities – we commit ourselves to academic integrity in two ways. We will maintain academic standards in the classroom and we will sustain an intimidation-free campus. These two concepts are at the core of our profession. “Our classrooms will be open to all students, and classroom discussions must be based on sound ideas. Our campus debates will be conducted without threats, taunts, or intimidation. We will take appropriate steps to insure these standards. In doing so, we uphold the best of American democratic principles. “We are concerned that recent examples of classroom and on-campus debate have crossed the line into intimidation and hatred, neither of which have any place on university campuses. “In the past few months, students who are Jewish or supporters of Israel’s right to exist – Zionists – have received death threats and threats of violence. Property connected to Jewish organizations has been defaced or destroyed. Posters and websites displaying libelous information or images have been widely circulated, creating an atmosphere of intimidation. “These practices and others, directed against any person, group or cause, will not be tolerated on campuses. All instances will be investigated and acted upon so that the campus will remain devoted to ideas based on rational consideration. “We call on the American public and all members of the academic community to join us.” The initial signatories were: James O. Freedman, former president of Dartmouth College; H. Patrick Swygert, president of Howard University; Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, president of George Washington University; Frank H.T. Rhodes, president emeritus of Cornell University; Theodore M. Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame; and, Jehuda Reinharz, president of Brandeis University. Read Original
Following is the text of a speech by Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, at Memorial Church at Harvard Yard. The text was originally printed in The New York Sun on September 22, 2002: * * * I speak with you today not as president of the university but as a concerned member of our community about something that I never thought I would become seriously worried about — the issue of anti-Semitism. I am Jewish, identified but hardly devout. In my lifetime, anti-Semitism has been remote from my experience. My family all left Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. The Holocaust is for me a matter of history, not personal memory. To be sure, there were country clubs where I grew up that had few if any Jewish members, but not ones that included people I knew. My experience in college and graduate school, as a faculty member, as a government official — all involved little notice of my religion. Indeed, I was struck during my years in the Clinton administration that the existence of an economic leadership team with people like Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Charlene Barshefsky, and many others that was very heavily Jewish passed without comment or notice — it was something that would have been inconceivable a generation or two ago, as indeed it would have been inconceivable a generation or two ago that Harvard could have a Jewish President. Without thinking about it much, I attributed all of this to progress — to an ascendancy of enlightenment and tolerance. A view that prejudice is increasingly put aside. A view that while the politics of the Middle East was enormously complex, and contentious, the question of the right of a Jewish state to exist had been settled in the affirmative by the world community. But today, I am less complacent. Less complacent and comfortable because there is disturbing evidence of an upturn in anti-Semitism globally, and also because of some developments closer to home. Consider some of the global events of the last year: • There have been synagogue burnings, physical assaults on Jews, or the painting of swastikas on Jewish memorials in every country in Europe. Observers in many countries have pointed to the worst outbreak of attacks against the Jews since the Second World War. • Candidates who denied the significance of the Holocaust reached the runoff stage of elections for the nation’s highest office in France and Denmark. State-sponsored television stations in many nations of the world spew anti-Zionist propaganda. • The United Nationssponsored World Conference on Racism — while failing to mention human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anyplace in the Arab world — spoke of Israel’s policies prior to recent struggles under the Barak government as constituting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The NGO declaration at the same conference was even more virulent. I could go on. But I want to bring this closer to home. Of course academic communities should be and always will be places that allow any viewpoint to be expressed. And certainly there is much to be debated about the Middle East and much in Israel’s foreign and defense policy that can be and should be vigorously challenged. But where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent. For example: Hundreds of European academics have called for an end to support for Israeli researchers, though not for an end to support for researchers from any other nation. Israeli scholars this past spring were forced off the board of an international literature journal. At the same rallies where protesters, many of them university students, condemn the IMF and global capitalism and raise questions about globalization, it is becoming increasingly common to also lash out at Israel. Indeed, at the anti-IMF rallies last spring, chants were heard equating Hitler and Sharon. Events to raise funds for organizations of questionable political provenance that in some cases were later found to support terrorism have been held by student organizations on this and other campuses with at least modest success and very little criticism. And some here at Harvard and some at universities across the country have called for the University to single out Israel among all nations as the lone country where it is inappropriate for any part of the university’s endowment to be invested. I hasten to say the University has categorically rejected this suggestion. We should always respect the academic freedom of everyone to take any position. We should also recall that academic freedom does not include freedom from criticism. The only antidote to dangerous ideas is strong alternatives vigorously advocated. I have always throughout my life been put off by those who heard the sound of breaking glass, in every insult or slight, and conjured up images of Hitler’s Kristallnacht at any disagreement with Israel. Such views have always seemed to me alarmist if not slightly hysterical. But I have to say that while they still seem to me unwarranted, they seem rather less alarmist in the world of today than they did a year ago. I would like nothing more than to be wrong. It is my greatest hope and prayer that the idea of a rise of anti-Semitism proves to be a self-denying prophecy — a prediction that carries the seeds of its own falsification. But this depends on all of us.
April 12, 2002 Dear Campus Colleagues: A week ago, I wrote the campus to acknowledge the particular challenges of dealing with emotions aroused by the tragic and terrifying Middle East situation and to express the hope that we would — as we did so well after Sept. 11 — express our differences respectfully, seeing individuals, not stereotypes or, worse, enemies. Earlier this week, major campus rallies dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict drew audiences as large as 1000 to Malcolm X Plaza. We had on and off-campus speakers, strong and often hostile words, and a march. In marked contrast to events on other campuses, these were non-violent — a tribute to many people of differing views who united to make sure this was so. There was, however, one absolutely unacceptable action. Some of you have heard of it, and I am writing to let you know what happened and how we have responded. A flier put out by several student groups promoting one of the rallies contained an ugly, anti-Semitic section. I do not want to give its words or images further visibility by describing them in detail; suffice it to say that they referred to the ritual slaughter of babies. I have written individual letters to each of the groups and University Dean of Human Relations Ken Monteiro is meeting with them as well. We are repeating a familiar message: Hate speech is not free speech. Anti-Semitism is as ugly and unallowable as racism or scapegoating of Muslims, Arabs, or any other group. None are protected unless all are protected. We remain wholly committed to maintaining this campus as a place where all feel safe and supported. The following paragraphs are drawn from the letters I sent to the groups: “I write in disappointment and dismay after seeing the flier promoting the April 8 campus rally. . . The flier contains a particularly repellent example of anti-Semitism. I am referring, of course, to the ‘Made in Israel’ inset. Its obvious unreality makes it the more inflammatory. This is no political statement. It is hate speech in words and image. In particular, the phrase ‘Jewish rites’ echoes a type of ugly myth that has been used through the centuries specifically to generate hatred. I understand that when the deep offensiveness of the phrase was pointed out, some members of a sponsoring club did attempt to eradicate the words from already-posted fliers. Nonetheless, hurt and harm had already been done. “The flier was much more than an offense to the Jewish community; it was an offense to the entire University community and to all that we stand for — most especially our ability to see the humanity in those with whom we disagree. With communications such as this flier, your group defiles itself, dampens its voice, and distracts attention from the very cause you want to espouse. “Here, on this multicultural and international campus, you have an unparalleled opportunity — and, I would say, a particularly strong responsibility — to show that passion, and passionate differences, can coexist with decency and recognition of our common humanity. In speaking as strongly as I have in this letter, I am doing no more than you asked — working to eliminate discrimination and combat racism. And this is just as much a protection for Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians as it is for Jews and Israelis. “I recognize that these are times of great anguish, as well as anger, and I know that one moment, one flier, does not define this group or its individual members. I have confidence that we can restore the kind of communication that so positively marked the campus [after September 11].” Sincerely yours, Robert A. Corrigan President Original: http://www.sfsu.edu/~news/response/nohate.htm
In March 2016, after months of efforts on behalf of LDB and other groups to educate the UC Regents on the need to address the problem of anti-Semitism in the UC system, the Regents issued a landmark, “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance.” In its introduction, the statement included that, “Anti-Semitism and other forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” Though further clarity may be provided by establishing a uniform definition of anti-Semitism (such as that of the U.S. Department of State, or the “International Working Definition,” also known as the “EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism”), the Regents statement serves as an excellent first step for the University of California, as well an strong example for other university administrators in combating anti-Semitism on their own campuses. Read Full Document
San Francisco State University President responded firmly and quickly to anti-Semitic incidents on his campus in 2002. President Corrigan’s contemporaneous report describes his actions, including his close work with campus security, law enforcement, and public prosecution. In addition, Corrigan devotes a substantial portion of his university’s web site to documentation of his responses to these incidents. Visit the Archives.
University of California President Mark Yudof, under fire for allegedly tolerating an atmosphere hostile to Jewish students on some UC campuses, issued a strong March 2012 statement condemning anti-Israel activists for attempting to disrupt and shut-down pro-Israel event at the University of California at Davis. This statement is important in light of the nationwide pattern of efforts to disrupt, silence or intimidate campus lecturers who are supportive of Israel.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has provided guidance on the relationship between the First Amendment and federal civil rights law as they apply to federally funded educational institutions. OCR clarifies that its regulations and policies do not require university policies that impair the exercise of rights protected under the First Amendment.
Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Legal Task Force Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and the Freedom of Speech Acknowledgement: Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Legal Taskforce wish to thank the Achelis and Bodeman Foundations for their generous support of this project. Intramural and Extramural Speech As a matter of proper university governance, professors and students should enjoy freedom of intramural and extramural expression regardless of how these freedoms are secured by external sources of law. This freedom must be secured on behalf of all members of the scholarly community with particular sensitivity to dissenting expression. These freedoms are inherent in the academic enterprise and are indispensable to facilitate the search for truth, the free exchange of ideas, and, by virtue of the University’s role as an educator, the pursuit of democratic governance in society. The extent to which these freedoms are inscribed in law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the underlying value of free inquiry and expression are universal in their centrality to the academic enterprise. These principles take various forms in different parts and within different functions of the University. Thus, review of scholarship is governed by disciplinary standards and competence. Within the classroom and in other teaching situations, the need to reach students, students’ right to academic freedom, their right to equal opportunity for achieving the standards of excellence appropriate to the institution, the pedagogical bounds set by a reasonable psychology of education, and the distinction between indoctrination and free inquiry may set reasonable limits upon faculty and student speech; by contrast graded work is subject to the standards of the discipline, including standards that recognize creativity. The housing and dining facilities within residential campuses, in which some students spend much of their private lives, may be governed by different and higher norms of privacy and personal dignity. Various public spaces will be governed by full free speech norms. Finally, we believe that the University also shelters public intellectuals whose extramural speech, outside of their primary disciplinary field, though still based on competence, serves an important public function. Policies/Enforcement The freedom of speech and doctrine of academic freedom must be carefully guarded and even-handedly enforced. Selective or inconsistent application creates unfair conditions, generates resentment, exacerbates conflict and undermines values essential to the academic enterprise. Even-handedness requires treating like cases similarly and unlike cases differently. Disparate treatment of protected groups is unacceptable. This does not, however, permit or require failure to respond in an appropriate manner to misconduct by members of any group. Silencing/Intimidating Students These rights entail correlative responsibilities. For example, members of the academic community should take care not to express themselves in a manner which threatens, intimidates or silences others; which tends to create a perception of unfairness or favoritism unrelated to excellence; or which foreseeably may chill the speech of students or less senior faculty members. The university must protect the conditions for a free exchange of ideas, which include not only the absence of formal restraints but also the absence of those forms of harassment or intimidation which foreseeably limit the equal right of all members and groups to individual and group self-expression. The manner in which these conditions are best protected will depend on context. For example, classroom speech should be regarded differently than coursework assignments or examination materials, since lessons give more scope to add professorial perspectives that are not contained within course material. In continental Europe this thought in the judiciary finds its expression in the adage, “la plume est serve, mais la parole est libre.’.. Bias/Discrimination/Hostile Environment In general, no one — and especially persons in positions of authority such as professors should exercise expressive freedom or their power in the classroom in a way that diminishes the rights of others; which entails discrimination or contributes to a hostile environment; or which undermines the mission of the university. Specifically, members of the academic community must not engage in expressive or non-expressive conduct in a manner that undermines the advancement of learning, the dissemination of knowledge, or the cultivation of an environment of respect free of harassment, retaliation or reprisal. In this respect, universities must protect not only freedom from infringements on faculty academic prerogatives but also students’ affirmative rights to expression, learning, dignity and equality. These limitations follow generally from the academic freedom of students but also, at their most extreme, are necessary to protect the humanity of students. Administrators and professors should be mindful of the danger that minority voices may be suppressed by the formation or continuance of hostile environments. In order to address this risk consistent with the freedom of expression and doctrine of academic freedom, universities must develop, enact and distribute policies which demarcate impermissible conduct in a manner which is clear, specific, and complete. Vague, overbroad or under broad policies may chill the expression of protected speech. In particular, clear written and defensible definitions of harassment with specific examples must: be established and disseminated to all faculty, staff and students; provide the basis for training and testing of managers and supervisors; and be utilized in orientations for new faculty, staff and students. By way of example, universities should provide definitions and examples which contain the level of specificity to be found in the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. The level of specificity provided in policies prohibiting racial, ethnic and religious discrimination and harassment must be no less extensive than that provided for the protection of other groups including policies regarding sexual harassment. Persons of all viewpoints must receive equal protection of their freedom of speech, while members of all protected groups must receive equal educational, employment and housing opportunities throughout the university. Moreover, administrators and faculty should be mindful that intellectual homogeneity may give rise to suppression of minority viewpoints. In some cases, ethnic or religious discrimination may be intertwined with discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. Professors must avoid engaging in conduct which could reasonably be construed to constitute intimidation on the basis of a suspect classification, viewpoint, or political affiliation. This includes, without limitation, intimidation on the basis of anti-Israelism, anti-Semitism or anti-Islamism. Conversely, faculty must not be subjected to ideological or political tests and should not be denied jobs or tenure based on external political pressure. There is a distinction between environments which are hostile and those which are merely challenging, discomforting, or even subjectively offensive. Students have a right to academic freedom which must not be infringed by professors who stifle critical thinking and discourage intellectual diversity, or create a hostile environment on the basis of viewpoint or prohibited classification. This does not limit in any way the use of pedagogical methods, arguments, or rhetoric which challenge students to rethink deeply held convictions. In order to facilitate enforcement of such policies, the university should establish a complaint process for faculty, administrators, students, and staff which is fair, prompt and effective; which is well-managed, -funded and -staffed; and which commands the respect of the academic community. The integrity of this process requires that all members of the community be protected from frivolous complaints, unfounded allegations, defamatory statements, subjective biases, and improper manipulations. At the same time, complainants and witnesses must be protected from retaliation, whether formal or informal, by the university or any of its faculty or staff. Outside Speakers Administrators must avoid the actuality or appearance of viewpoint discrimination among student groups consistent with their obligation to maintain equal opportunity and, unless they have created a fund governed by norms of equal access, to use university funds to further standards of excellence. This requires, for example, that consistent rules for proper security be provided to all outside lecturers and their audiences, but also that security considerations not provide the pretext for the suppression of unpopular speakers. Similarly, administrators must not encourage the use of “hecklers’ vetoes” by imposing disparate security costs on faculty or student groups which host outside lecturers with special security needs. Respecting the Mission of the Academic Institution The freedom of expression and the doctrine of academic freedom are also accompanied by a responsibility to respect the mission of the institution which ensures them. This does not limit the right of faculty and students to criticize the policies and practices of the university or of one another. It does, however, counsel the need for academic discourse, particularly classroom and intramural professorial speech, to be fair-minded and civil. Fair-mindedness in the classroom requires respectful consideration of opposing student perspectives and avoidance of bias among students or among faculty. Moreover, professors should be mindful in both classroom speech and written publications to maintain the scholarly standards of their discipline. Compelled Speech The freedom of expression includes a freedom from compelled speech. The right of faculty members to form labor unions must be respected to the extent guaranteed under applicable laws. Professors must not be required to support with compulsory labor union dues speech with which they disagree but which is not directly related to the interests of their bargaining unit. For this reason, faculty unions should avoid engaging in speech, especially political speech, which may be controversial among their members but which does not directly advance the material interests of the bargaining unit. Where such speech is unavoidable, faculty should receive specific, detailed and timely advance notice; a fair opportunity to have their opposition heard and considered; and the right to a proportional reduction of their dues payments. Members of the SPME Legal Task Force Kenneth L. Marcus (chair) Executive Vice President, Institute for Jewish & Community Research, USA Marc Cogen Professor of International Law, University of Ghent, Belgium Karen Eltis Associate Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, Columbia University, USA Robert Goldstein Professor of Law, University of California at Los Angeles, USA Kenneth Lasson Professor of Law, University of Baltimore, USA Ed Morgan Professor of Law, University of Toronto Original: https://spme.org/spme-research/analysis/scholars-for-peace-in-the-middle-east-legal-task-force-releases-forceful-statement-on-academic-freedom/10185/