This is the third post part of in a four-part series on faculty anti-Semitism. Part One was about the blatantly anti-Semitic Facebook posts of Michael Chikindas of Rutgers, and Part Two was about the bigoted images retweeted by UC Berkeley's Hatem Bazian. This post discusses some of the defenses that have been raised on behalf of Chikindas and Bazian.
The most extensive defense of Chikindas was written on the AAUP's Academe Blog by John K. Wilson, who says that "Chikindas is an anti-Semite, and an idiot," while arguing against the measures taken against Chikindas because "Perpetuating 'toxic stereotypes' is not a violation of any campus rules, nor is upsetting people." Thus, says Wilson, a professor could not be sanctioned for asserting that "gay men have a propensity to molest children," or "that Muslims are a terrorist threat," or "that blacks are less intelligent than whites on average." Wilson is an academic freedom absolutist, but he makes some key mistakes.
First, though perhaps most understandable, it is trivializing for Wilson to call Chikindas "an idiot." The problem with Chikindas is not stupidity or poor judgment, it is bigotry. The reference to anti-Semitism as idiocy has the effect of minimizing the seriousness of Chikindas's Facebook posts -- which would be familiar to any reader of The Daily Stormer -- and the historic harms that have been committed in the name of similar anti-Jewish tropes. A synagogue was firebombed in Sweden last weekend by people who share Chikindas's beliefs. They were racists, not idiots. The dismissal of bigots as fools has a certain knee-jerk attractiveness, especially among those who have not been subjected to their vitriol, but the ultimate effect of that response is to deemphasize the actual danger of racism, which is based on hatred rather than ignorance.
More significantly, Wilson failed to recognize the scope of academic freedom. Chikindas has been subjected to two consequences, and the possibility of a third. He has been prohibited from teaching required courses and removed from an administrative directorship -- neither of which implicate academic freedom -- and he is facing the prospect of suspension at reduced pay.
The question here is whether Rutgers students and staff should be compelled to study or work under someone who has grotesquely ridiculed their ethnicity and religion. Rutgers has decided as an administrative matter that no one should have to be placed, against their will, under Chikindas's authority. This is not punishment of Chikindas, but rather a protective measure for students and staff.
Wilson rejects the idea that students might have a legitimate objection to mandatory studying under a bigot. If Chikendas is "qualified to teach classes, then that should include required courses. The fact that some students feel uncomfortable about a professor’s views is not a good reason to ban [him] from teaching required courses." This conclusion can only be reached by someone who dismisses anti-Semitism as nothing more an "uncomfortable view," which of course is another form of trivialization. (Wilson's citation of Levin v. Harleston is inapposite, as that case involved the creation of "shadow classes" for a professor, and not the reassignment of required courses.")
As I explained in Part One, Wilson is on solid ground when he objects to the ongoing investigation of Chikindas that may result in suspension from the university, but that does not mean the the university's hands must be completely tied. Wilson says, "If we allow personal opinions to be the basis of penalties, almost any controversial professor could be punished." The slippery slope argument, as it often does, proves too much. Rutgers has thus far taken only measured steps in the face of breathtaking bigotry. Wilson thinks that the university can only act following proof of discrimination in the classroom; I think Rutgers students and staff deserve better. Again, with the recognition that a suspension would in fact implicate academic freedom. (I also agree with Wilson that sending Chikindas to a "cultural sensitivity training program" would be pointless and overbearing.)
This brings us to Hatem Bazian, who has received nothing more at UC Berkeley than a mild rebuke for circulating racist memes about Jews. To Bazian's defenders, however, this is apparently the work of "powerful allies of the Trump administration and the UC Board of Trustees [who] seek to intimidate, bully and silence any and all advocacy for justice in/for Palestine by pressure, strong arming and bribing public universities."
According to Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi of San Francisco State University, Bazian's behavior was nothing more than "a mistake he made and for which he took responsibility and has publicly apologized." In a letter to UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, Abdulhadi asserted that Bazian had merely "inadvertently retweeted an offensive meme." Abdulhadi said nothing about the nature or content of Bazian's retweet, as she evidently could not bring herself to acknowledge that it included vile and unmistakable anti-Semitic imagery. Instead, Abdulhadi insists that "Hatem is being attacked because the Zionist establishment would like to silence all of us and use bullying, smear campaign and outright incitement to violence to take us out once and for all." To Abdulhadi, it seems that complaints about anti-Semitism have no intrinsic legitimacy and can be readily discounted as coming from the "Zionist establishment."
Some of the overheated complaints against Bazian have no doubt called for his firing, which, as I explained in Part Two, would be a disproportionate infringement of academic freedom. But neither should his foray into ugly anti-Semitism be brushed off as an innocent error. It was a slip-up, alright, but not an inadvertent one. Sadly enough, it is obvious that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism have become inextricably intertwined, to the point that BDS advocates like Abdulhadi cannot even respond to anti-Jewish memes without invoking conspiracy theories.
Neither Michael Chinkindas nor Hatem Bazian is an idiot. They are well-educated and highly intelligent, and Bazian, as Abdulhadi describes him, is also "an astute political strategist and thinker." Their defenders, one out of naivete and the other out of zealotry, have sadly failed to appreciate the seriousness of anti-Semitism, which is far more than, as Wilson called it, a "personal opinion."
In other words, with respect to speech, restraint not restraints. A sober, sophisticated, and nuanced view. If only such views could retain currency in our present climate.
Posted by: Wiliam Markle | December 13, 2017 at 07:42 AM
Kayla Moore said it best: One of his attorneys is a JEW!
Posted by: Deep State Special Legal Counsel | December 13, 2017 at 09:05 AM
With respect to not teaching required courses: What was your view about the demand by some students at Penn for Amy Wax to no longer be permitted to teach required (read: 1L) courses following her "some cultures are better than others" op-ed? Because many people do not see a difference between that piece and the anti-Semitic cartoons at issue here. So if no required classes can be a sanction for a professor's objectionable/hateful/hurtful speech, there are not going to be many people around to teach required courses.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | December 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM
That is a fair question, Howard. It would not violate Professor Wax's academic freedom to assign her only to non-required courses, which has not happened at Penn. Your conclusion -- "there are not going to be many people around to teach required courses" -- is empirically incorrect.
Posted by: Steve L. | December 13, 2017 at 10:14 AM
Steve,
Thanks so very much for this thoughtful three part series. The blatancy of the antisemitism in these examples is so revoltingly clear and the long history of that hatred so manifest in hate crimes in the U.S. and around the world, that Howard's view beguiling.
As almost every democracy in the world, the United Nations, and the European Union recognize the dissemination of antisemitism has been instrumental in historical and contemporary hatred, discrimination, alienation, disaffection, devaluation, pogroms, scapegoatism, and attempted genocide of Jews.
Context, content, and viewpoints matter. The categorical defense of speech is ahistorical, wedded to libertarian theory, and tied to pre-World War II notions of the benign nature of speech, without recognizing its centrality, impetus, and indispensability in stirring genocide, lynchings, misethnic violence, and discrimination.
It's difficult to image university administrations acting so blase toward professors expressing any comparable form of blatant discrimination. As the former United States Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers pointed out, “[W]ith very few exceptions, university leaders who are so quick to stand up against microaggressions against other groups remain silent in the face of antisemitism.”
Posted by: Alexander Tsesis | December 13, 2017 at 10:47 AM
AT's final paragraph is the key here: why are universities, so quick to condemn even the slightest implication of any untoward bias in other contexts, so ignorant, oblivious or tolerant of Jew hate?
My impression is that the reason is simple: Jew hate is ubiquitous and accepted.
Put in the place of the Jew any other "protected class" and it is obvious that the standards are different.
The real defense is, as usual, about money. Jew haters perceive Jews as rich, powerful and successful. They imagine that their discrimination against Jews is meaningless, because "the Jew," unlike others, will do exceedingly well despite the obstacles that Jew haters put in the way.
This is, of course, a false assumption. Jew hate hurts individuals every single day in legal academia, but, legal academia cannot even admit there is a problem. How then can this problem be addressed?
Posted by: anon | December 13, 2017 at 03:31 PM
I largely agree with the comments by Alexander Tsesis, above. The impact of destructive speech communicated through social media and other avenues on the internet is greatly multiplied from what we have been used to, as is the potential for reprisals by trolls and organized groups. I am not sure what the right answer will turn out to be, but I think we need to rethink some prior views on academic freedom in light of these new technologies and social practices. I am not convinced that the Holmesian marketplace of ideas can be trusted to work effectively given current communicative technologies. Nor am I convinced that we can, should, or must tolerate the extreme forms of hate speech that seem to be becoming ever more common. Perhaps we will reaffirm present conceptions of and existing commitments to free speech and academic freedom, but I am not certain that should be taken for granted.
Posted by: Alan Jay Weisbard | December 14, 2017 at 01:36 AM
Yes, of course, the choice is between free speech and academic freedom on the one hand, and Jew hate expression on the other.
What a load. Only an academic know nothing could conceive of such a mindless formulation: a fallacy of the false alternative that really defies our common sense and common experience.
We all know how hate speech is dealt with when the targets have been members of the "protected" (i.e., favored) groups ... Jews are simply a legitimate target, an unfavored group.
Stop the posturing and the pretense, please.
Posted by: anon | December 14, 2017 at 02:56 AM
anon^^^
I hesitate to respond to your post, because it smacks of derision. Maybe I am wrong. Hate Speech is a subset of Free Speech, protected yes. Can't have a prior restraint imposed on it. However, that doesn't mean there are NO consequences to uttering it. In this nation, you are free to be stupid, be a criminal, do drugs, eat till you are 600 pounds, be greedy, and shout from the highest mountain hateful things about other people. Under our law, you suffer the consequences of your "free" behavior.
Posted by: Deep State Special Legal Counsel | December 14, 2017 at 09:51 AM
Steve, great series overall and very interesting.
And a question for Steve and for Howard (similar to one I posed under another in this series but right at the close of the comment period):
If offending profs are permitted to teach only elective courses, are the courses they do teach also going to be offered by other professors? In my school, many of the more interesting late 2L and 3L classes were only taught by the one prof who had an interest in doing so.
If not, having such profs teach only non-required courses seems like half a solution, and still a limitation on Jewish students' access to courses they might want to take. Or they have to gird their loins and take a course from someone whose behavior has shown may be strongly biased against them...
Posted by: concerned_citizen | December 18, 2017 at 02:56 PM
DSSLC: "In this nation, you are free to be stupid, be a criminal, do drugs, eat till you are 600 pounds, be greedy, and shout from the highest mountain"
Five of these things are not like the other,
Five of these things just do not belong,
Can you guess which five are not like the other,
Now before my song is done?
And now my song is done!
;-)
Posted by: concerned_citizen | December 18, 2017 at 02:59 PM