[Editor’s note: On Wednesday, November 20, Cary Nelson will discuss the book reviewed below at a Martin Center “Education Book Webinar.” To register for the free event, click here.]
Academics who cherish free speech have been pushed into a corner by the rapid rise of anti-Zionist and antisemitic rhetoric and action on our campuses. The concept of free speech covers speech we abhor and regard as not merely false but dangerous. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, the proper remedy for bad speech is more speech—to argue against that with which you disagree. That is a splendid concept, but what if that freedom of speech is abused by partisans who spread hatred and intimidate anyone who dares to respond to them?
University of Illinois professor Cary Nelson addresses that question in his book Hate Speech and Academic Freedom: The Antisemitic Assault on Basic Principles. As Nelson begins, “Antisemitism is on the rise worldwide and academia plays an important role in rationalizing its character and application, indeed in applauding and promoting antisemitism’s culture and political strategies.” Nelson surveys the stunning resurgence of antisemitism (usually presented as the merely political “anti-Zionism,” though, he argues, the two are hardly distinguishable) at American colleges and universities and ponders the correct response to it. Can we protect academic freedom without letting loose the vicious hatreds that caused so much misery in the last century?
Can we protect academic freedom without letting loose the vicious hatreds that caused so much misery in the last century?After World War II, most people saw the Jews as the victims of a horrible ideology spun by the Nazis to justify conquest and mass murder. They wished the Jewish people well in their new state of Israel. Within just a few decades, however, many professors and public intellectuals had begun referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” and declaring that it was the worst human-rights violator on the planet.
Why this shocking turn? Nelson observes that many people on the left need “a community of pure victims” with whom they can declare their solidarity and from which they can recruit support for their agenda. The Palestinians fit that need. They are the victims, the Jews their oppressors. Facts and civility were readily abandoned as this narrative gained momentum.
The frenzy to attack the Israeli government (anti-Zionism) has spilled over into hatred directed at Jews anywhere (antisemitism). We saw that on display on many college campuses following the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas. Character assassination, bold lies, and violence have become normalized, and our academic leaders mostly look on helplessly, or even approvingly. Professors and speakers who adhere to the “Israelis are the new Nazis” line can say whatever they want, but woe betide someone who dares to rebut their claims. Many students get a steady diet of virulently anti-Israel rhetoric and never hear a word to the contrary.
To make matters worse, anti-Zionism has become institutionalized. We now find scholarly organizations adopting resolutions condemning Israel even though such controversies have nothing to do with their fields (e.g., anthropology), as well as academic departments putting forth declarations that embrace anti-Zionist viewpoints. (That is most often the case in those fields that are more about the grievances of the faculty than about conveying a body of knowledge.) As a result, young scholars who don’t buy into the demonization of Israel and the Jews (whether they are Jewish or not) realize that they have little hope of making it through their programs unless they can manage to hide their dissent from the antisemitic orthodoxy. That badly undermines the university as a place where truth is sought.
Another ugly aspect of the success of the antisemitic movement is that publishers are now getting in on the act. Nelson points out that the University of California Press is now upfront that it won’t consider manuscripts by authors who disagree with the “Israelis are the new Nazis” narrative. This is a spreading plague.
Boycotts are profoundly anti-intellectual in that they block dialogue and damage scholars who have nothing to do with Israeli policies.Arguably, the worst affront to academic freedom is the demand that institutions boycott Israeli scholars and universities to show their support for the anti-Zionist cause. Nelson observes that such boycotts are profoundly anti-intellectual in that they block dialogue and damage scholars who have nothing to do with Israeli policies. The Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement on many campuses is vociferous and sometimes victorious; rarely do officials confront and oppose it.
With all of that in mind, the big question is: Where does a principled believer in academic freedom stand with regard to this toxic development?
Nelson does not favor efforts to silence or punish people for their antisemitic advocacy, even when it is blatantly false and inflammatory, such as the claims by one professor that Israel tests its weapons on Palestinian children. We shouldn’t try to silence such voices even if we could. But, he argues, that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be adverse consequences for those who push inflammatory falsehoods.
He writes, “Tenured faculty are protected from severe sanctions for publishing antisemitic statements. But that doesn’t protect them or untenured faculty from criticism for doing so, or from other consequences. You can call out antisemitism just as you can call out misstatements or poor reasoning. Moreover, there are decision points in faculty careers when antisemitism can have serious consequences.”
An illustrative case Nelson points to is that of Stephen Salaita, who had been offered a position by the ethnic-studies department at the University of Illinois. After the offer, however, a trove of his tweets came to light, making it clear that he was viciously antisemitic. The university’s board decided to rescind the offer based on them, indicating the probability that his work would be tainted by zealotry. Salaita’s defenders wailed that the university’s action was an attack on academic freedom. Nelson disagrees, rightly saying that academic freedom does not protect you from other people drawing the conclusion that you’re not fit for a school’s scholarly work.
Nelson further argues that, when vetting candidates for academic positions, committees should look deeply into their social-media writings, as those often give a clearer picture of the individual’s mindset than his scholarly work. Do the person’s social-media posts reveal a scholarly disposition—a willingness to carefully weigh evidence and respond rationally to opposing views—or do they indicate that he or she is an intemperate zealot likely to bring discredit to the institution? When academic leaders scrutinize social-media posts and rule people out on that basis, they are not violating the principles of academic freedom but are instead defending the scholarly enterprise against people who would use classrooms to promote their ideology.
It is the job of academic leaders to stop the spread of antisemitism and begin the difficult task of cleaning up.It is the job of academic leaders to stop the spread of antisemitism and begin the difficult task of cleaning out the pseudo-scholars who promote vitriolic notions. They need to restore our colleges to teaching rather than indoctrinating. That demands more careful screening of candidates for faculty positions. It also calls for the ending of departmental pronouncements that take sides in political controversies.
Nelson argues that it isn’t enough for college presidents to disavow such declarations by their departments. That’s because prospective faculty members or students probably won’t know about such disavowals and, even if they do, will decide that presidents can’t protect them from the wrath of their immediate superiors if they’re identified as being “wrong” about Israel—or other heated controversies. Departmental declarations must be disallowed, not just disavowed.
Nelson’s book highlights what I regard as the most disturbing problem gripping academia—its capture by zealots who use it for their own political purposes. His focus is on antisemitism, which I think is the worst but not the only manifestation of this nasty trend. Our educational institutions are now filled with people who are as fanatical about their “diversity” agenda as are the purveyors of antisemitism. Their concepts are similarly divisive and anti-intellectual, propounded as unquestionable truths that must never be challenged.
Hate Speech and Academic Freedom is a desperately needed book that reminds academic leaders that they’ve allowed their institutions to be overrun by people who turn them into propaganda organs. Every college president should read it, then pass it down the chain of command.
George Leef is director of external relations at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
This article was originally published at www.jamesgmartin.center
