The firestorm over antisemitism on college campuses may be dying down from its hottest point last week, when congressional questioning of three elite university presidents over their institutions’ responses to antisemitism went viral and resulted in one of them losing her job.
But the discord has turned into a lingering debate over free speech on campuses, one that has left experts and scholars worried about its potential chilling effect on dialogue, debate, and education at institutions of higher learning.
The debate reached a frenzy after the congressional hearing last week that saw lawmakers grilling the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania, most notably Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-NY) line of questioning on whether calls for the “genocide of Jews” would violate their campus codes of conduct. Though all three had repeatedly assured lawmakers that they hold students accountable for conduct that violates their policies on bullying, harassment, and intimidation during their nearly five-hour testimony, their answers to Stefanik’s question were essentially the same: It depends.
That answer was widely deemed unacceptable by many Republicans, some Democrats (including the White House), prominent alumni, and deep-pocketed university donors, one of whom pulled a $100 million donation to Penn in the intense fallout. Former University of Pennsylvania president Elizabeth Magill, after losing the support of the university board, consequently announced her resignation. Harvard president Claudine Gay faced calls for her removal, but the university board stood behind her on Tuesday and will allow her to remain in her position. Though some politicians had also called for MIT president Sally Kornbluth’s ouster, she was supported by her board from the outset.
Many of the critics wanted a simple “yes” to Stefanik’s question. But the university presidents could not have given that and still upheld their commitments to free speech.
Read the full article here
