In a recent House hearing on campus antisemitism, three university presidents - Claudine Gay of Harvard, Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T., and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania - faced intense questioning from Representative Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican. The hearing has since gone viral, sparking denunciations from various individuals and institutions, including the White House and the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania.

The viral clip that circulated showed the university presidents refusing to acknowledge that calling for the genocide of Jews violates their schools' policies on bullying and harassment. This led to a surprising reaction from many, including a staunch liberal friend of the author, who found themselves agreeing with Stefanik's line of questioning. The presidents' responses were widely seen as morally obtuse and coldly legalistic, fueling concerns about the tolerance for antisemitism in academia.

However, a closer examination of the entire hearing reveals a more nuanced perspective. Prior to the controversial exchange, Stefanik asked Gay about the use of the term “intifada” in the Israeli-Arab conflict and its association with violent armed resistance against Israel. Gay condemned the language as “abhorrent” but emphasized that disciplinary action would only be taken when speech crosses into conduct. Stefanik then went on to inquire whether the university would take action against students or applicants advocating for the murder of Jews.

Stefanik's line of questioning seemed to target common pro-Palestinian rhetoric, which poses a challenge in terms of free speech rights. While slogans like "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" may be controversial, their meaning is subject to interpretation. Therefore, disciplining students for such speech would violate the principles of free expression. The university presidents found themselves in a difficult position, leading to bureaucratic responses that were criticized by many.

The viral clip generated anguished and furious reactions from the Jewish community, who have been increasingly concerned about rising antisemitism on campuses. Jewish students have faced threats and instances of assault, contributing to a climate of fear. This has prompted calls for a strong response to combat antisemitism. However, the author argues that responding with repressive measures may lead to unintended consequences and harm free speech rights.

Critics have pointed out the inconsistency in defending free speech on college campuses. While some universities now claim to protect free speech in response to accusations of coddling antisemites, they have previously prioritized community sensitivity over unrestrained expression. This double standard has further fueled the Jewish community's frustration.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a civil liberties group, acknowledges the double standards but emphasizes the importance of consistently protecting free speech rather than expanding calls for censorship. However, critics argue that those pointing out the hypocrisy may not be genuinely committed to defending free speech but rather seek to silence speech they disagree with.

The debate surrounding speech about Israel has revealed significant hypocrisy within academia. The author, like Harvard professor Ryan Enos, found the hearings shocking but for different reasons. Enos, a founding member of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, resigned due to what he perceived as an effort to restrict pro-Palestinian speech on campus.

The hearings also drew criticism for the line of questioning that asked each president whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. While rejecting calls to dismantle Israel, Enos emphasized the danger of loyalty displays and the risks associated with demanding a single “right” answer.

The fallout from the hearing may result in consequences for the university presidents involved, potentially leading to a crackdown on various forms of pro-Palestinian expression. In response to mounting calls for her resignation, Magill of the University of Pennsylvania issued an apologetic video statement, expressing the need to clarify and evaluate speech policies in a world plagued by hate.

Overall, the fallout from the campus antisemitism hearing has ignited a broader discussion about free speech, antisemitism, and the challenges universities face in maintaining a balance between protecting free expression and addressing hateful speech. The implications of this debate are likely to shape future policies regarding speech on college campuses.