In the aftermath of verbal threats and physical intimidation by anti-Israel protestors directed at Jewish student activists and their supporters at the conclusion of a very successful student-led pro-Israel rally on May 7, San Francisco State University President Robert Corrigan was sharply criticized by some members of the Jewish community. Critics felt he failed to ensure a safe atmosphere for Jewish students on campus.
In part, this was a result of the e-mail equivalent of the old telephone game, where an initial e-mail — in this case a powerful cry for help by Laurie Zoloth, chair of SFSU’s Jewish studies program — continued to attract bolder headlines as it wound its way around the world. “Pogrom at SFSU,” “Anti-Semitic Riot” and other headlines not part of Zoloth’s original e-mail fueled the anger. The situation on campus was bad enough without such exaggerated headlines.
Intimidation directed against Jewish student activists at SFSU is, unfortunately, not new. It took root in the late ’80s, and was even entrenched in student government. In June 1995, the Jewish Community Relations Council, along with San Francisco Hillel, submitted to Corrigan and other top administrators a 59-page non-public report entitled: “Anti-Semitism at San Francisco State University.” The report gave a detailed description of the problems and a series of recommendations to rectify them.
Attacking Corrigan for failing to act is plain wrong. He has repeatedly acted with courage and deserves our praise — along with our calls for more action in response to the return of intimidation at SFSU.
In 1994, a mural of Malcolm X was unveiled on campus, complete with explicit anti-Semitic symbols the artist added at the last minute. Corrigan, outraged that the student government did not have the guts to act, made a decision that the entire mural be painted over. And it was sandblasted, as I recall, despite predictable cries of First Amendment rights.
In the two days prior to his decision, we spoke several times as I conveyed the depth of concern among Jewish students and the broader community. I told him that Jewish students did not want the entire mural removed, only the offensive symbols. But he reasoned that the entire mural had to be removed because it violated the terms on which it was originally approved.
In the nearly 10 years I have known him, since we spent 10 days together in Israel on a JCRC-sponsored seminar for non-Jewish community leaders, Corrigan has demonstrated that he cares deeply about the safety of Jewish students on campus. He has established the Jewish studies program to level the playing field and ensure a symbol of pride for Jews on campus. (There are now nine to 10 classes with 200 to 300 total students per semester.) And he has called on the campus community to raise its voice when intolerance is directed at any group.
In his May 13 statement to the campus community about the most recent incident of intimidation, Corrigan once again spoke out and went beyond words. He wrote: “A small but terribly destructive number of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, many of whom were not SFSU students, abandoned themselves to intimidating behavior and statements too hate-filled to repeat.” He asked the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office to investigate and take legal action against any individual who may have committed a crime, while committing the university to taking action against any group or student who violated university regulations.
Yes, much more needs to be done, and we should urge further action. Following a two-hour meeting with Corrigan last week — attended by myself, along with Hillel Director Seth Brysk, students, a parent, Professors Laurie Zoloth and Fred Astren, and Karen Zatz of the local Anti-Defamation League — Brysk submitted a list of recommended actions. These include:
*Teaching a jointly taught course on the Middle East to educate each “side” of the other’s history and concerns, as well as another course about the values and nature of civil discourse and disagreement.
*Ensuring that office space is provided on campus for a Jewish student group and that there is an adviser to the administration and faculty for Jewish concerns.
*Adopting a zero-tolerance policy for hateful acts, with clearly defined sanctions.
*Convening an ongoing dialogue among student leaders in the groups most directly affected.
*Revisiting the recommendations made by JCRC in our 1995 report.
I would add to the list two other urgent priorities. First, to convey to all administration officials that no favoritism toward anti-Israel voices on campus will be tolerated; and secondly, to sensitize all administration officials to the need to act swiftly and forcefully to any manifestation of anti-Semitism, whether or not it is masked in the language of anti-Zionism.
(Anti-Semitic rhetoric and incidents on campus are often ignored because they are generally tied to the Mideast debate, and university officials shy away from choosing sides. That hesitation must end when it comes to explicit anti-Semitism or attempts to harass Jews on campus).
We should press Corrigan to implement these recommendations to ensure a safe environment for Jews. And we should monitor the situation closely. But when we call, write, or send e-mails, it is also important to know that he has stood tall. At a time when our community feels under siege, we should applaud moral courage even as we ask for more of it.