Academic freedom is not absolute, must bend to protect Jewish students’ safety

Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Editor’s Note: A group of parents, students and alumni gathered information for the preparation of a filing sent to the House of Representatives regarding antisemitism at SU. The author of this letter is a member of that group.

To the Editors,

In its recent editorial, The Daily Orange Editorial Board criticized the actions of a group of Jewish students and parents who filed a request for the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate antisemitism on the SU campus. The piece acknowledges that “there is undoubtedly antisemitism on SU’s campus,” and takes issue with (1) impinging on academic freedom to eliminate antisemitism; (2) engaging government to address antisemitism on campus; and (3) parent and student opinions in the report, falsely deriding those opinions as “inaccurate” on the basis that the authors hold different views about concededly accurate facts. The editorial omits critical information and falsely attributes errors where there are none. With the clarifications made below, it is hoped that all parties can come to the table and work collaboratively on the acknowledged problem of antisemitism on campus.

I. Academic Freedom Must Sometimes Bend to Ensure Student Safety

Chancellor Kent Syverud announced at the last University Senate meeting that when the safety of students is significantly threatened, Syracuse University will prioritize student safety over academic freedom and free speech. The editorial board criticizes this policy, stating that the placing of student safety above academic freedom shows a “lack of regard for academic freedom” and “foster[s] an environment not conducive to academic freedom.” The editorial board echoed the very position of presidents Claudine Gay, Elizabeth Magill and Sally Kornbluth at the now-infamous Dece. 5 House of Representatives hearings on antisemitism at colleges, where calls for Jewish genocide were defended as acceptable “in certain contexts.” As Representative Elise Stefanik made clear for all the world: academic freedom and freedom of speech are never absolute rights, and they must bow to safety in this country. Even if the editorial board believes it is morally defensible to subordinate the safety of Jewish students below an absolute right to academic freedom (a dubious prospect), Syracuse must honor the directive made explicit at the recent House hearings: such views violate federal law and are unacceptable in the U.S. I am pleased that Syverud, ahead of those historic House hearings, understood the lesson that the editorial board along with President Gay and Magill did not (a misunderstanding which cost those college presidents their jobs).

II. Engagement of the Government as Needed

The editors cast the parent and student group’s filing with the federal government in a negative light, urging that educators should be able to teach without fear of being named in a government filing and other consequences. While I take issue with even the premise that educators ought to enjoy immunity from consequence, the significant factual omissions from the editorial make even that suspect premise irrelevant. In the group’s filing, four representative communications over a three-month period were attached reflecting that the group of hundreds of parents and students joined together and asked in unison, time and time again, to meet with administrators, to engage with the university over described incidents of antisemitism, and to open a collaborative dialogue with the university about antisemitism. The filing explained that the multiple requests to engage the university in conversation “did not receive any reply from any Syracuse official, stymying the ability of students and parents to even bring antisemitism to the attention of the administration and collaborate to fix the persistent problem.”

While the editors misleadingly paint the group’s engagement of government as failing to “foster communication within the university culture,” the filing makes clear (and the editorial did not) that the group made precisely that effort — repeatedly and consistently — for months, but these pleadings fell on deaf ears. Had the university responded even one time to the many requests for discussion, the government intervention may have been avoided.

III. Differences of Opinion are Not Mistakes

The D.O. also takes issue with the report as demonstrating a “lack of care” both in containing “inaccuracies and how it defines antisemitic actions.” “Inaccuracies” must pertain to objective facts – calling the sun purple for example. When one person finds a painting beautiful and another finds it ugly, this does not make either opinion inaccurate, those are opinions which (by definition) cannot be “inaccurate.” The editorial addresses three principal “inaccuracies”:

The report describes a letter from architecture students and a response from Dean Michael Speaks as antisemitic; in response, the editorial claims the letter and response are not antisemitic because they merely criticize the Israeli government. The editors further take issue with the description of events in that it “distorted the magnitude of the situation on campus.” The letter andSpeaks’ response did far, far more than criticize the Israeli government: the letter praised the conduct of protestors on campus who called out Jewish Syracuse students by group names, labelling them as personally complicit in genocide, placing those students in fear for their safety. Vice Chancellor Gretchen Ritter described this conduct in a Nov. 9 email: “This kind of reprehensible behavior put a group of our students, based on their identity, at risk of harassment, retaliation and potential violence.” The architecture students’ letter praising such discriminatory conduct is itself discriminatory; and for Speaks to then thank the students’ praise as a “thoughtful communication” — and to actively welcome praise for conduct which Ritter criticized as “reprehensible behavior” — has nothing whatsoever to do with criticism of the Israeli government. To describe the letter writers’ and Speaks’ statements as mere critiques of the Israeli government is a lapse of journalistic integrity. Moreover, that the criticized filing deems “reprehensible behavior put[ting] a group of our students, based on their identity, at risk of harassment, retaliation and potential violence” to be antisemitic is a valid opinion (albeit one that differs from that of the editorial board), not a “distortion” or “inaccurate” definition of antisemitism.

The report describes a poster displayed prominently in class and encouraging students to attend a political rally, describing this dynamic as an “abuse of power” and “hostile adherence to antisemitic views.” The editors concede that the poster was displayed, and they concede that the encouragement was given, but they suggest that the filing fails to understand “the dynamic between students and instructor,” which according to the editors makes the assertions of hostility, antisemitism and abuse inaccurate. Again, conclusions of hostility, antisemitism and abuse are opinions, not facts. The editorial board concedes the accuracy of the facts as described. To label differing opinions as “inaccurate” is a professional misstep. Moreover, the contention that there is some dynamic whereby professors freely push political views on students during classroom hours is highly questionable. Query whether the university administration would permit such a dynamic. Many if not most universities outright prohibit the conduct complained of here. See, for example, the recent statement of Cornell University’s provost reiterating that promoting a political point of view during classroom time “diminishes our roles as educators” and is a violation of school policy. Cornell Statement.

The editors also criticize the filing for raising the topic of an employment offer to poet Mosab Abu Toha, noting that Abu Toha is not the first to be offered a position through the Scholars at Risk program. Nowhere did the filing suggest he was – how is this an error?

In summary, a group of Syracuse students and parents did not reflexively run to the government as a resource of first resort without making an effort to engage with the university. Rather, the group of Jewish students and parents were ignored for months and denied an opportunity to engage in the type of meaningful discussion the editorial board hopes they would have pursued. Further, there being room for differences of opinion and viewpoint diversity, one cannot assign an opinion as “inaccurate.” Conceding that there exists an antisemitism problem on campus, hope springs eternal that the entire Syracuse community can cohabit on campus with respectful treatment of one another, allowance for differences of opinion, and complete protection of and safety for all community members, including Jewish students, professors and teaching assistant’s who are sorely lacking those entitlements at present.

Sincerely,

An anonymous* Syracuse parent

*Owing to the antisemitism on campus, this parent does not want their child to be targeted as a result of this letter.