The university has traditionally served as an enclave for intellectual
expression, insulated from the distractions of the world outside.
It has also served as a trendsetter for that outside society,
a laboratory where social change first begins to ferment and find
an outlet. To a large extent, the excitement and passion on American
campuses stem from the combination of scholarly debate and student
activism in a sheltered environment.
In recent decades, Jews have generally found the American campus
to be a positive environment. Gone are the days of quotas limiting
the number of Jewish students at our nation's top colleges and
universities. It is now common to find flourishing Jewish life
on many campuses, anchored by vibrant Hillel programs and increasingly
popular Jewish Studies Departments. Jewish faculty have thrived
at many of the nation's top institutions, both as teachers and
Institutionalized discrimination against Jews is a thing of the
past. Jewish students and faculty are found in great numbers at
elite universities which once resisted their presence. A majority
of Ivy League universities and many others now have or have had
Jewish presidents. There are few if any positions in American
higher education that are not open to Jewish talent. Therefore,
it is paradoxical that the American college and university campus
recently emerged as one of the major sites for the expression
and dissemination of anti-Semitism.
At hundreds of institutions of higher learning, the concepts of
academic freedom and student activism (which have been part of
the Jewish success story on campus) have been invoked to shield
hatred. No longer the ivory towers they were once considered,
colleges and universities are proving all too porous to the prejudices
emerging in our society. In recent years, campuses have become
a new proving ground for the tactics of all manner of extremists,
forcing some colleges and universities onto the frontline in the
fight against extremism and anti-Semitism.
The Nation of Islam, or far-right extremists denying the existence
of the Holocaust, for example, may not have had their geneses
at universities, but their speakers and advertisements have found
fertile ground there. As students form their sense of self at
college and seek a niche in the world, some are especially vulnerable
to hatemongers who either stir their developing political passions
or couch bigotry in academic terms designed to appeal to their
intellectual curiosity. Controversial speech is often welcomed
at universities more than in other venues; students see their
campuses as havens of free expression, with the right to speak
Racists and demagogues have ably exploited schools' commitment
to free speech, cloaking their propaganda in the guise of academic
freedom. They have two objectives: hooking the country's future
leaders on the ideas they preach, and generating mainstream media
coverage through the controversy that inevitably erupts over particularly
Among America's students are many who grew up with little or no
contact with Jews and who have a limited personal background to
fall back upon when professional anti-Semites come to campus.
For instance, young adults with little knowledge of the Holocaust might cast an uncritical look at a campus newspaper advertisement
or scholarly-looking text claiming to prove that the murder of
six million Jews is a historical hoax.
All too eager to prove their commitment to a free exchange of
ideas, many students-and sadly, school administrators as well-in
their idealism and naivete, fail to distinguish adequately between
debate that enriches and elevates the mind and speech that lowers
the level of discourse to name-calling and lies. Many tend to
treat all opinions and statements of fact as meriting equal consideration.
This mind-set is often encouraged by the current academic vogue
of deconstruction and post-modernism, which emphasize relativism
and the social construction of "truth." The resulting
intellectual atmosphere has provided fertile ground for the airing
of conspiracy theories, newly invented mythologies and, in some
instances, anti-Semitic propositions.
Another factor that has allowed anti-Semitic arguments to proliferate
on campuses is the notion that the First Amendment requires their
airing. But the Constitution does not oblige universities to host
everyone who wants to speak or write there, nor does it require
campus newspaper editors to publish every item submitted to them.
Campus leaders and journalists have the job of responsibly drawing
a line between valid, fact-based opinions and outright bigotry.
Moreover, free speech is a two-way street. Students and school
administrators have the right and responsibility to condemn and
counter hatred. Their failure to do so not only contributes to
the spread of hate-filled rhetoric, but causes victimized students
to feel defensive, angry and isolated.
Instead of remaining a place where ideas and backgrounds mix harmoniously,
or at least contend civilly, many campuses are becoming polarized
along ethnic lines and riven by suspicions. The symptoms range
from acts of vandalism to hate-filled rallies to ethnic stereotypes
that are tolerated in student publications.
While a growing number of university presidents have responded
strongly to the importation of bigotry to their campus, many others,
regrettably, have not used their platforms to forcefully counter
the hatemonger. Some college presidents have issued anemic and
generic responses to naked anti-Semitism, using the shield of
free expression as an excuse not to condemn extremism at their
schools. Responses are often delayed, and then come only as a
reaction to pressure from students, alumni, faculty and the surrounding
community. Some college heads seem to believe that a response
from the president will only fan the flames and keep an unwelcome
incident in the public eye.
But just as student groups may exercise their right of free speech
by sponsoring a controversial speaker or printing an incendiary
opinion, university administrators may exercise their right of
free speech by publicly criticizing both the message and the messenger.
Criticism is not censorship. The fact that prejudice sometimes
comes from a disadvantaged minority group does not give university
heads carte blanche to ignore it. Most presidents would presumably
want to uphold and elevate the level of debate on their campuses,
not protect the racists who would turn the schools into battlefields
of name-calling. Leaders must not abdicate their obligation to
Administrators also do a disservice to their students when they
hesitate to criticize students spoken or printed words that eschew
the standards of accountability and accuracy applied in most American
workplaces. Instead of preparing them for the professional world,
where one's work is usually subject to scrutiny and corrective
review, these school officials allow students to think that their
actions will never have consequences or ramifications beyond the
walls of academia.
The hesitancy on the part of certain school heads in responding to anti-Semitism only seems that much more glaring when compared to the positive, timely statements made by some of their peers. University presidents who unequivocally and immediately condemn expressions of bigotry on their campuses send a clear message to students about the line that separates academic freedom from racism.
Source: Schooled in Hate: Anti-Semitism On Campus, ADL, 1997. Copyright Anti-Defamation League (ADL). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.