Freedom of Speech, Antisemitism and Education at Columbia University and Beyond

The international media’s focus on the Trump administration’s policies on tariffs and Iran has inadvertently downplayed significant strides made in addressing rampant antisemitism on American campuses. Following Israel’s military response to the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas activists held demonstrations at Columbia University. Recent threats of federal funding revocation led to the resignation of Columbia President Katrina Armstrong. These events highlight the complex issues of free speech and antisemitism, as well as their potential conflict. Understanding the dynamics at Columbia and other campuses requires looking beyond this conflict and is worth exploring.

The Hamas attack on Israel involved launching hundreds of rockets on Israeli cities, committing documented massacres in neighboring communities, and taking an estimated 250 hostages. In response, students and activists at Columbia organized protests to express solidarity with Hamas and criticize Israel. These protests involved illegal actions, including disrupting university events, occupying facilities, and most disquieting, harassing Jewish students.

The Columbia University administration faced criticism from both sides: for failing to protect students from antisemitic actions and for stifling free speech related to pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas sentiments. In contrast, a subsequent Columbia University Task Force on Antisemitism reached an unequivocal conclusion. It found no repression of pro-Palestinian free speech but confirmed that demonstrators acted illegally and were inadequately restrained. Additionally, it reported that Jewish students had been driven out of dorms, ostracized by peers, and denigrated by faculty. It highlighted the extent of anti-Jewish discrimination, stating that pervasive antisemitism has “affected the entire university community,” and concluded that “the larger social contract is broken” and that “university policy and individual practice must change.” Despite acknowledging the need for a safe environment for all students, the administration did little to protect Jewish students from antisemitic actions or prosecute lawbreakers.

To address this issue, it’s crucial to define antisemitism. For example, is criticism of Israel antisemitic? Clearly, no—criticizing Israeli policy is not inherently antisemitic. The tolerant response of the Israeli government to current acerbic public protests demonstrate that such criticism does not equate to antisemitism. However, both applying a double standard, that is holding Israel to a higher standard than other countries while downplaying Hamas’s nefarious behavior—exhibits bias and does constitute antisemitism.

Another example of a double standard is the absurd criticism of Israel simply for responding militarily to the Hamas assault. When has any nation been criticized for defending itself after being attacked? A breach of sovereignty is legally considered a casus belli—a justified response—which was certainly the case with the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.

War is inherently tragic and results in casualties. In this case, Hamas initiated the conflict, leaving their civilians exposed above ground while they hid in tunnels. While Israel’s actions in Gaza are comparable to those in other conflicts, including the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war and numerous other conflicts in the Middle East that cause even more havoc yet receive less coverage, criticism has only demonized Israel—despite a significantly lower civilian-to-military death ratio in the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Another antisemitic component of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the “yes, but” syndrome, where Israel’s alleged status as an occupier is used to justify any action, including acts of terror against Jews and Israelis. This argument condones the deliberate slaughter of civilians, the rape of women, and the burning of children by an organization opposed to negotiations and committed to Israel’s destruction. Moreover, the occupier assertion itself is inaccurate and spurious, as it can be easily demonstrated that Israel is not an occupier.

Antisemitism should concern not only Jews but everyone who benefits from a free society. History shows that the impact of antisemitism extends beyond the persecution of Jews. When the Nazi Party rose to power in the 1930s, they initially targeted Jews, but their persecution expanded to other groups. Their ideology also led to World War II resulting in 50 to 85 million fatalities. Imagine how differently it might have ended if the Nazis had been stopped in their tracks when they first enacted their Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws.

Today, Islamic fundamentalist extremism, exemplified by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Yemen, primarily targets Israel and each regime’s local populations. However, waves of Muslim immigration to the West have also introduced elements of Islamic extremism, affecting Western Europe, including Scandinavia. Supporters of Hamas-like ideologies should not be surprised when this radicalism eventually disrupts their lives, as it has for Israelis. To paraphrase a line from a ’60s protest song: “When they knock on your friend’s door, they will eventually come knocking for you.”

Why didn’t the Columbia University administration take a stronger stance against the illegal protests and prejudicial behavior toward its Jewish students? Two reasons may explain this. First, the unprecedented audacity of the pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas actions caught the administration off guard. Second, there was a desire to avoid upsetting stakeholders, including donors. Qatar, a major supporter of Hamas who has contributed nearly $2 million to Columbia University via the Qatar Foundation and other channels. It would be naive to believe this generous donation was given solely out of goodwill. Rather it is reasonable to assume Qatar had expectations—implicit or explicit—for sympathy toward causes important to them, including pro-Hamas support. Thus, one might speculate that the administration was reluctant to take action that could upset this donor, opting instead what could be termed a disingenuous strategy of criticizing antisemitic actions without taking sufficient measures to prevent them. Had the administration been more competent and acted with moral probity, it could have strictly curtailed these illegal activities.

The Qatar involvement is not limited to Columbia University; contributions extend to other Ivy League universities and various entities, including the Israeli government. In fact, an investigation is underway into several individuals in Netanyahu’s inner circle for allegedly receiving payments from Qatar. While a deep analysis of Qatar’s motives is beyond the scope of this blog, several guiding principles appear to shape their approach.

Qatar seeks to have it both ways: being a strong supporter of Hamas—financially, militarily, and by providing protection to its leaders—while simultaneously portraying itself as liberal-minded. By supporting Ivy League universities, Qatar can effectively enhance its liberal image, impart implicit influence on administrative policies potentially allowing for the indulgence of pro-Hamas behavior and inhibiting a strong response to antisemitic actions on campus, all while continuing to back Islamic extremism.

Regarding the handling of this crisis by the Columbia administration, as well as by the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and others, the appearance of their representatives at the congressional investigation left a distinctly negative public impression. All three spokespersons seemed evasive and unfocused, each appearing overwhelmed in managing the crisis. This raises questions about their competence.

Is it possible that, due to diversity considerations, these universities did not appoint the most qualified individuals to their top administrative positions? If any of these individuals were only deemed qualified under normal circumstances but were not the best possible candidates, it highlights the tangible cost these universities face by pursuing a diversity-focused policy rather than one which is exclusively merit based.

The question of why so many Ivy League students actively participated in pro-Hamas demonstrations is arguably the most disquieting aspect of this issue. Why did so many students support use of wanton terror against Jews and Israel? After all, one would expect that students at top US universities would be taught to employ critical thinking before adopting an extremist ideology and participating in illegal activities.

Reality was different. Many students interviewed appeared poorly informed and illogical in their assertions. Many protesters, for example, failed to differentiate between being pro-Palestinian and pro-Hamas. Pro-Palestinian can refer to people who believe that the Palestinians are entitled to their own state without necessarily supporting Hamas ideology. In contrast, Hamas ideology as spelt out both in their covenant and actions, includes calls for the destruction of Israel and killing of as many Jews as possible along with opposition to a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The protests at Columbia were largely pro-Hamas. There were no pro-Palestinian protests critical of Hamas conduct.

Other examples include accusations against Israel of genocide or apartheid are easily refuted by examining definitions and conducting a factual check. Regrettably, many protesters made these claims flippantly, without fact checking or use of critical reasoning. The chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” was repeatedly used by large numbers of protesters, many of which were unaware even of the geographical references, (What River? What Sea?).  Furthermore, those who did understand that the chant implies a call for Israel’s destruction were engaging in antisemitic rhetoric.

One wonders whether modern teaching practices prioritize ideological education over fostering critical thinking. Are students being taught to uncritically express what their professors expect rather than developing independent thought processes? Could the willingness to adopt extremist ideologies stem from a higher education system that encourages students to embrace, without question, the ideologies promoted by their professors, ultimately making them more susceptible to other ideologies, including Islamic fundamental extremism?

Educators should be asking themselves, how these views accrued dominance on their campus? My (naive) assumption is that a major purpose of education, particularly at an Ivy League university, is not just to acquire a profession but to generalize concepts learned in coursework. When I attended medical school in Canada several decades ago, we took a course on how to read medical articles. While some material was specific to Medicine, such as understanding statistics, other skills had far-reaching generalizable implications, including the importance of fact checking, evaluating the logic of arguments, and verifying the credibility of sources. These concepts extend beyond Medicine and can be applied to various fields. More Columbia students should have been using  a similar approach before consolidating an extremist racist position and committing illegal actions.

On a personal level, I have lived and practiced Medicine in the Western Galilee for several decades in a region which is over 50% Arab. Israeli Arabs have more freedom than Arabs anywhere else in the Arab world and are, on average wealthier except when compared to Arabs living in the oil rich countries. It is unfortunate that so many Ivy League students and many of their instructors have adopted an inaccurate distorted negative portrayal of Israel.

Until recently, Columbia did not make significant changes to its policies. It is regrettable that they only agreed to overhaul their protest policies, security practices, and Middle Eastern studies department as a condition for restoring $400 million in federal funding. It would be prudent for Columbia and other prestigious institutions to take advantage of the present crisis to reassess their zeitgeist with specific regards to Jews and Israel, critical thinking and promoting divergence versus merit.