Navigating The Murky Waters Of Antisemitism, Free Speech, And Academic Freedom

Unlike the presidents of Penn, Harvard, and MIT, Columbia University president Minouche Shafik’s testimony unequivocally condemned antisemitism on the New York City-based campus. Shafik also issued an essay in The Wall Street Journal the day before her April 17 hearing, proclaiming: “Antisemitism and calls for genocide have no place at a university.”

Representative Aaron Bean (R-Fla.) noted that Shafik was able to condemn antisemitism without the phrase “it depends on the context” — a term often used by the presidents who testified in December. However, Bean and other Republican representatives were not entirely satisfied. They claimed that the words stated in the hearing did not match the lack of action on Columbia’s campus.

Much of the concern pertained to Joseph Massad, a tenured professor in the department of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies at Columbia. Massad published an article titled “Just another battle or the Palestinian war of liberation?” in The Electronic Intifada on October 8, 2023. In the article, he referred to the Hamas attack on Israel one day earlier as a “resistance offensive” and stated, “regardless of who comes to power in Israel, nothing will change the nature of Israeli settler-colonialism and racism toward the Palestinians.” The Republican lawmakers objected to these statements.

Reps. Tim Walberg (R-Mich) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) both challenged Shafik, asking what the university had done to condemn Massad’s statements and how he had been reprimanded. Shafik was quick to say that she condemned Massad’s statement but when asked what the repercussions were, she replied, “He was spoken to by his Head of Department and Dean.” She also noted that he has not repeated the behavior. The Republican lawmakers were not happy with the answer, with Stefanik firing back: “Does he need to repeat stating that the massacre of Israeli civilians was ‘awesome’?” Massad used the word “awesome” in his article mentioned above. Of note, Massad told the Associated Press that he was not reprimanded and claimed that his comments were taken out of context.

After considerable grilling, Shafik stated, “On my watch, faculty who make remarks that cross the line in terms of antisemitism, there will be consequences for them. I have five cases at the moment who have either been taken out of the classroom or dismissed.”

University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education professor Jonathan Zimmerman, an expert on free speech and academic freedom, stated: “Yesterday was a sad day for academic freedom in the United States. A major university president told a Congressional committee that she intends to censor “antisemitic” speech. But reasonable people disagree about what that term means. And if we impose a singular definition of it, we will not be able to converse across our differences.”

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich) also questioned Shafik, inquiring if a statement like “from the river to the sea. Palestine will be free” is antisemitic. Here Shafik was nuanced in her response, stating “I hear [it] as such, some people don’t.” David Schizer, former dean of Columbia Law School and leader of the school’s antisemitism task force, disagreed and labeled the phrase antisemitic.

Despite the many arrows coming at her, Shafik was skilled in her approach, learning from the experiences of the presidents who testified last year. She spent hours preparing, was accompanied by two members of the Columbia board of trustees, and Schizer. One strategic move used by Shafik was focusing more on fighting antisemitism and less on free speech. She tried to make it clear that free speech is valued but that the presence of antisemitism and calls for terrorism and genocide are not.

Larry Moneta, an adjunct professor in higher education at the University of Pennsylvania, “It seems that the Columbia president avoided the pitfalls of her presidential colleagues (some former now) but may have created controversy for her[self] back on campus. I see nothing of value in these hearings related to the diminishment of antisemitism. All I see is blatant sexism, culture wars, and flailing presidents.”

Shafik’s testimony was consistent with her words from the night before, when she stated, “Most of the people protesting do so from a place of genuine political disagreement, not from personal hatred or bias or support for terrorism. Their passion, as long as it doesn’t cross the line into threats, discrimination or harassment, should be protected speech on our campus.”

When thinking about protests on college campuses around these types of volatile issues, Walter Kimbrough, the former president of historically Black Dillard University in New Orleans, LA, shared “My overriding thought is that members of Congress seem to expect even more than in loco parentis [universities acting in place of the parent].” Referring to the lawmakers questioning of Shafik about antisemitic flyers on Columbia’s campus, Kimbrough stated, “They expect schools to be able to limit what kinds of flyers students pass out on campus. It just seems like there are unreasonable expectations, which if fully executed, would lead to much greater costs. Schools would really be locked down.”

As the debate continues, it is crucial for all those involved to engage in constructive dialogue that respects diverse perspectives while actively working toward eradicating antisemitic beliefs and fostering inclusive environments within academic communities. As Moneta shared, “The hearings only focus attention to expressions of antisemitism not on antisemitism itself. Actually diminishing antisemitic beliefs requires far more work…work that seems unlikely as DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] is further demonized by conservatives.”