This month, the U.C. Regents will consider adopting a “statement of principles” against various forms of intolerance.
Originally, the U.C. proposal focused on the State Department definition of anti-Semitic speech and behavior. Since then, a bill has been put forth omitting references to Israel and Zionism. In my opinion, the U.C. Regents should retain the State Department definition, including it in the comprehensive scope of hate speech that also encompasses racism, homophobia and sexism.
Like the other categories, anti-Semitism targets a minority with extreme language and actions, and like the others, it is contrary to the democratic norms and values of American society. The California Legislature recognized this in mid-July, when both houses unanimously passed a resolution urging each U.C. campus to condemn “all forms of anti-Semitism and racism,” citing the State Department definition.
What compels these actions at this time? A major reason is the recent spike of anti-Semitic and extreme anti-Israel actions and speech at various U.C. campuses, a pattern duplicated at many other universities throughout the nation. Some of these U.C. incidents have taken place in student venues, others in the programs of academic units and in faculty actions. Beyond the rash of swastika paintings and anti-Semitic vandalism at a Jewish fraternity, a Hillel house, university buildings and other locations, in the past view years, we have observed a number of less graphic but just as threatening incidents. Among them:
• Challenges to the qualifications of Jewish students for student government office because of their support of Israel
• Anti-Israel advocacy and indoctrination at U.C. Davis and other campuses with speakers and programming that present only one side of the issue
• Annual “Apartheid Week” events that falsely paint Israel as a discriminatory nation, despite its status as the nation in the Middle East most protective and tolerant of minorities
• Anti-Israel themes dominating U.C. courses in the humanities and social sciences, including sections taught by graduate student teaching assistants, despite a longstanding U.C. Regents’ policy prohibiting political indoctrination in the classroom
• Harassment of Israelis invited to give campus speeches, most notably the disruption of Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech at U.C. Irvine in 2010
• Hostile incidents experienced by some Jewish and pro-Israel students in campus interactions with others
A common element in many such incidents is a basic denial of the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. To the extent that campus attacks on Israel, its representatives and its supporters are targeted on the Jewish character of the state, anti-Semitic sentiments are brought into play. The State Department definition of anti-Semitism encompasses some extreme forms of criticism of Israel, which some commentators aptly describe as the “new Anti-Semitism.”
It is entirely appropriate and not defamatory to criticize Israel in the manner other nations are criticized, taking issue with specific policies or actions. But when the attacks demonize, delegitimize or apply a double standard to Israel, that is anti-Semitism, according to the State Department, which specifies that it is anti-Semitic to prohibit “the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and deny “Israel the right to exist.”
We should emphasize what U.C. adoption of the State Department definition would not do: It would not restrict anybody’s freedom of speech on any campus or elsewhere. Considering the way U.C. campuses operate, there is no authority that can outright block hate speech and there is little ability to penalize its perpetrators. The First Amendment, as courts have declared, protects even the vilest and most extreme expressions.
So in short, it would be only a symbolic action for the U.C. Regents to pass a resolution containing this definition of anti-Semitism. But this is symbolism with great educational value. It would put U.C. on record as recognizing the detrimental and discriminatory character of speech that singles out the Jewish State of Israel for special attacks that are not applied to other nations.
Even with the definition in place, critics would still have the freedom of speech to bash Israel to their hearts’ content, whether at U.C. or elsewhere. At the same time, the rest of us would have the freedom of speech to label their attacks for what they are.
Alvin Sokolow is an emeritus faculty member at U.C. Davis and co-chair of Davis Faculty for Israel. He can be reached at [email protected].