As Democratic Party delegates and activists leave Chicago after their national convention, America’s college students are returning to their campuses for the start of fall classes.
The common thread between these two migrations is the continued unhappiness among many progressives with the U.S. government’s support for Israel in the ongoing war in Gaza.
While the protests outside the convention center have not provided much insight into how the political left’s anger will affect the November election, the promise of continued campus mayhem makes it clear that anti-Israel activists will be using the nation’s colleges and universities as their primary staging grounds for barricades, encampments and other disruptions for the foreseeable future.
University administrators have been hoping that summer vacation has cooled some of the strongest emotions that caused such unrest throughout the previous school year. But such a de-escalation seems unlikely, especially in the home stretch of a high-stakes presidential campaign and the growing frustration surrounding the seemingly unending ceasefire talks.
Last week’s resignation of Columbia president Minouche Safik after the ongoing turmoil at that school and the decision by a federal judge the same day that UCLA must forbid protesters from denying Jewish students equal access to campus spaces and events served as twin reminders of the challenges that we will face again in the months ahead.
Shafik’s resignation made her the fifth Ivy League president to step down over Gaza-related confrontations since last fall. It should prompt us to look back at how badly strategies of concession and capitulation have failed in the face of anarchy and violence.
It appears that many university decision-makers have decided to take a harder line with protesters this year, allowing them to continue rallies and marches as long as they do not disrupt other campus activities. The University of California system is already moving in this direction. Many others will follow.
The UCLA court decision has much broader ramifications, as it will require schools across the country to prohibit any activity that selectively denies some students the ability to access certain areas of their campuses.
The UCLA demonstrators who refused passage to Jewish students claimed that they were not restricting the rights of those students based on their religious beliefs but rather their political opinions. But let’s examine the supposed distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism a bit more deeply and we can see how it falls apart under closer scrutiny.
I’m not aware of any other religion on the planet whose members are not allowed to decide for themselves what values should be accepted parts of their faith. I might not agree with a Catholic friend’s decision not to eat meat on Fridays or how a Hindu couple conducts their wedding ceremony (for the record, I have no objection to either) but that is not my decision to make, it’s theirs. Israel’s detractors seem to believe that because they do not consider support for a Jewish state to be a core component of the Jewish religion, their definition of our faith should overrule ours.
This is an indefensible position both legally and morally. Just because there are Jews who do not define their religion to include a commitment to Israel—or express that commitment differently than you or I—does not deprive us of the ability to establish our own definition of Judaism.
This means that an Israel-hater who wants to keep my students from walking to class can no longer pretend that it is an action based on political opinion rather than religious belief.
The anti-Zionist political argument is not sustainable either (imagine if pro-choice or pro-life students were barred from designated parts of campus) but it has provided a barely plausible pretense for discriminatory behavior for far too long.
Now the courts have said that such conduct should be considered religious bigotry pure and simple, and that universities can no longer allow it to occur.
Sadly, our schools will not be free of such hateful bias anytime soon. But the UCLA decision is an important step in the right direction.
Originally published by Jewish Journal.
