On the second night of Passover, vandals at Northwestern University desecrated the building that houses the Holocaust Educational Foundation with antisemitic graffiti.
Given that Northwestern has a $20 billion endowment, was patrolling a known target overnight during Passover too much of a burden or expense, or perhaps, “willful ignorance?”
Contrast this with what would happen if people were regularly attacked in a dimly lit corner on Northwestern’s campus. We know the answer. There’d be rightful outrage, and the university would take action. They’d install lighting, cameras and patrols.
Yet when it comes to protecting Jewish spaces and students, many universities fail to take concrete action. They could, if only they wanted to. To be clear, this is not a free-speech issue, it is a conduct issue.
Trespassing is conduct, not speech. Vandalism is conduct, not speech. Blocking entrances is conduct, not speech. Spitting on police is conduct, not speech. Stopping traffic is conduct, not speech. Disrupting commencement is conduct, not speech. Tagging benches with graffiti is conduct, not speech. Barricading yourself in a building is conduct, not speech. Taking over a meeting is conduct, not speech. Attacking someone is conduct, not speech.
And it’s all illegal conduct. Pro-Palestinian groups that attack others, barricade themselves in school buildings and spray graffiti around campus need to be held accountable.
Jews don’t need any favors. They need the rules applied equally to all. And if a pro-Israeli group attacks others or invades the quad, they should be shut down and expelled. This is not complicated.
Handing out a flier is free speech. Holding a sign is free speech. Throwing a brick through a window, no matter the message scribbled on it, is not free speech—it’s conduct.
If any other group were targeted by the same type of conduct being committed against Jewish students, it would happen perhaps once or twice before it would be shut down. It would not be celebrated. The students behind the targeting would be rightly disciplined, even expelled. But when it comes to Jews, too many universities look the other way. If you want a definition of antisemitism, there you have it: Antisemitism is a special form of hypocrisy.
Would it be so hard to station campus security outside a class on Israel and check IDs as students enter to make sure they should indeed be there? Or do the same when a pro-Israel speaker is invited to campus?
Speech denigrating minority communities is not tolerated or allowed on most, and probably all, college campuses. Why then is it OK for groups to demonize pro-Israel and Jewish students?
If a racist group targeting African-Americans tried to set up any kind of encampment in Harvard Yard, it would never be tolerated. A KKK rally outside a building housing the African-American studies department would not be tolerated. Nobody would suggest that doing so brings a “useful viewpoint” and that free speech requires it.
In fact, if black students continued to be targeted while Harvard did little to protect them, violating federal law, groups would demand that the government withhold all funding to the school. When it comes to Jews, however, those same groups now protest that the federal government is withholding funding.
The elites have no trouble wringing their hands when antisemitism emanates from the far right, but when it comes from their own quarters, the cognitive dissonance is too much.
All said, just as communities would scream in outrage if a college allowed assaults against students on campus without taking action, there needs to be outrage for the Jewish students facing hate on campus.