I commend Nicholas Dirks, chancellor of U.C. Berkeley, for taking steps to ensure the university is a place where Jewish students feel at home and are accepted and safe, as outlined in his op-ed in the Nov. 13 issue. Each step he lists is important. But given the stakes — a U.C. Berkeley where no religious, ethnic or racial group feels threatened or unwelcome — I urge him to consider an additional action: Exercise his moral authority as leader of the campus to decry offensive statements that degrade Jewish identity.
For example, at the Oct. 15 demonstration that prompted the original ZOA letter as reported in J. (“ZOA alleges that Jewish student was assaulted at Cal,” Nov. 6), at least one person held a placard saying “Zionism Is Racism.” Though permitted under the first amendment, that statement exceeds the bounds of appropriate discourse on a campus committed to mutual respect.
Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a right of self-determination in a country of their own, Israel. To label Jewish self-determination “racism,” one of the most incendiary words in our current political lexicon, is to repudiate Jewish communal identity and discredit the entire national aspiration of the Jewish people.
The slogan “Zionism Is Racism” has a long and sordid history and was a rallying cry for people to commit violence against Jews in Israel and elsewhere. It is not designed to foster dialogue. It is designed to convey hate. The United Nations recognized its perniciousness and purged it from U.N. nomenclature 24 years ago.
The university is not limited to merely engaging, training and attempting to persuade people to abide by acceptable norms of discourse. Many participants in the movement that repudiates Israel do not accept those norms, as the presence of the “Zionism Is Racism” placard attests. No amount of cajoling and tolerance training will lead those advocates to abandon offensive messaging. They want to offend.
I suspect that if people on campus showed placards saying “Black Pride Is Racism” or “Gay Rights Are Perverted,” the chancellor would call out those messages as beyond the norms of appropriate discourse on campus.
I would like to see Chancellor Dirks make a statement along the following lines:
“I am deeply troubled by the tone of rhetoric I have seen directed against beliefs dear to the Jewish community on this campus. Wide-open commentary about public affairs, including criticism of Israel, is entirely proper. But when discourse devolves into repudiating fundamental values of one of our communities, it goes too far. I was disheartened to see a placard on campus at a demonstration asserting ‘Zionism Is Racism.’ That slogan has a hate-filled history designed to repudiate Jewish aspirations of self-determination. It is not designed to lead to productive dialogue. It is a false statement. The United Nations rejected the slogan a quarter-century ago. All of us feel pained when one of our communities is the object of uncivil discourse.”
Despite the first amendment’s protection of wide-open speech on campus, a university leader is not required to be mute in the face of offensive speech. Nor does the first amendment relegate an administrator to the role of tolerance trainer left to hope that all participants will be reasonable. Precisely because the first amendment allows offensive speech and people will avail themselves of the right, it is critical that leaders use their bully pulpit to call it out.
I would like to see the chancellor exert the moral authority that comes with his office to denounce offensive speech hurtful to communities on campus. In 2002, as president of Harvard, Larry Summers did precisely that, condemning the ugly tone of discourse that sought to repudiate Israel. This is an opportunity for heightened moral leadership. I urge the chancellor to embrace it.
Adam M. Cole is a San Francisco lawyer and a national commissioner and regional board member of the Anti-Defamation League.