To Fight Student Antisemitism on Campus, Try Clarity and Consequences
To Fight Student Antisemitism on Campus, Try Clarity and Consequences
Start by simply enforcing existing codes of conduct
In the wake of the contentious campus antisemitism hearing this month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution calling for the resignation of the presidents of Harvard and MIT. The congressional action follows the resignation of the President of the University of Pennsylvania on December 9. Penn’s Liz Magill, Harvard’s Claudine Gay, and MIT’s Sally Kornbluth ignited a firestorm after evading questions on whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates school policies.
Winning the fight against antisemitism and hatred on American campuses will require a variety of measures, perhaps including the replacement of negligent leaders. In the meantime, colleges and universities should consider taking one simple and straightforward step to protect their educational mission: enforcing existing codes of conduct.
During a recent “week of action”, hostile Harvard protesters disrupted classes and frightened students with bullhorns, blasting “from the river to the sea”, the genocidal antisemitic slogan denounced by the White House. The protesters also blared “globalize the intifada,” a term widely understood to refer to violent uprising. That left innocent Harvard students reportedly “terrified".
Is such behavior permitted under Harvard’s Code of Conduct? Nope.
Harvard’s code prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, religion, national origin, or ancestry — and rightly echoes Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Harvard says that “intense personal harassment” that amounts to “grave disrespect for the dignity of others” represents “an unacceptable violation of the personal rights on which the University is based.”
Grave disrespect? The bullhorns incident and shouts of “long live the intifada; intifada, intifada; globalize the intifada” certainly qualify.
Harvard’s code also declares a commitment to maintaining a safe environment for all and claims to forbid threats of physical violence made by members of its community.
Despite Harvard President Gay’s difficulty during the hearing in answering straightforward questions, genocidal chants and menacing threats of bodily harm clearly qualify as violations of that commitment – no contextual analysis required.
What consequences have been imposed on the students who engaged in these types of activities? Weeks later, disciplinary proceedings are underway for some, but serious consequences appear largely elusive thus far.
Meanwhile, at Penn, students described how an “antisemitic student mob rampaged across Penn’s campus,” vandalizing buildings with the words “blood thirsty”, “intifada”, and “shame”, according to Fortune. Two Penn undergraduates filed a lawsuit on December 5 alleging the university “has transformed itself into [an] incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment and discrimination,” CNN reported.
Is that behavior a violation of Penn’s Code of Student Conduct? Absolutely.
Penn’s code begins with a nod to the university founder Benjamin Franklin and the need for “cultivating responsible citizenship.” It goes on to declare that students have an obligation “to respect the health and safety of others” and must respect the rights of peers to “participate in University organizations and in relationships with other students without fear, threat, or act of hazing.” The university requires compliance with Title VI, of course, and condemns hate speech, epithets, as well as racial, ethnic, and religious slurs.
Have Penn students faced appropriate consequences for this egregious behavior?
Unclear.
At MIT, students were “bullied into leaving their departmental lounges” and “Jewish students were kicked out of study groups, called ‘Nazis’ for supporting Israel, and bombarded with hateful dormspam,” the Executive Board of the Israel Alliance reported in the wake of October 7. Some Israeli students were apparently even told to “go back to Israel.”
These actions are obvious violations of the MIT Code of Conduct, which prohibits “threats, intimidation, coercion, and other conduct that can be reasonably, objectively construed to threaten or endanger the mental or physical health or safety of any person.”
Since the incidents, MIT has issued what amounts to slaps on the wrists for some students. That will hardly be a deterrent to others contemplating antisemitic behavior.
So, what’s to be done?
A university’s code of conduct serves a foundational role in creating an ethical campus culture. Yet at each of these universities, it seems clear that students are either unaware of the respective code of conduct or not concerned about violating it. To address the first problem, administrators should intentionally and systematically teach students what is expected of them. This process should begin as soon as a student accepts an offer of admission.
For students who don’t care about these expectations, there is simply no substitute for consequences.
School pronouncements about fighting antisemitism are positive. But visible corrective actions enforced with consistency are necessary to protect students and faculty while preventing hatred from destroying the learning environment.
That’s why we should continue demanding that administrators enforce codes of conduct and hold perpetrators accountable.
More than ever, college students need clarity and consequences.
Until the next post,
Antonette