The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The protection for speech and press protects us from government action. If a private publisher refuses to print your book, a social media platform kicks you off its site or a private employer fires you for insulting the boss, the First Amendment does not protect you from nor give you a cause of action for the violation of your freedom of speech or press.
Likewise, private universities can and routinely do regulate speech for the purpose of maintaining the academic environment they deem appropriate. For example, Harvard’s code of conduct states, “Gender-based and sexual harassment, including sexual violence, are forms of sex discrimination in that they deny or limit an individual’s ability to participate in or benefit from University programs or activities.”
Harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct of a verbal, nonverbal or physical nature that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a work or academic environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile or abusive and that adversely affects an individual’s educational, work, or living environment.
In determining whether unwelcome conduct is harassing, the Institute will examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct, including its frequency, nature and severity, the relationship between the parties and the context in which the conduct occurred. Below is a partial list of examples of conduct that would likely be considered harassing, followed by a partial list of examples that would likely not constitute harassment:
Examples of possibly harassing conduct: Public and personal tirades; deliberate and repeated humiliation; deliberate interference with the life or work of another person; the use of certain racial epithets; deliberate desecration of religious articles or places; repeated insults about loss of personal and professional competence based on age.
To be clear, those insisting the university or its leadership is depriving students of their free speech in applying these very rules to protect Jewish students do not understand that: (1) the First Amendment does not apply to these institutions and (2) refusal to apply its own rules so as to protect Jewish students is the very definition of antisemitism. To boot, refusal to enforce the prohibition against harassment and discrimination against Jews is a plain violation of Title VI.
There is no question that antisemitism is exploding across the country and specifically on college campuses. A recent report from the Anti-Defamation League found, “Since the Hamas massacre in Israel on Oct. 7, U.S. antisemitic incidents reached the highest number of incidents during any two-month period since ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) began tracking in 1979, according to preliminary data released today.” That translates to “a total of 2,031 antisemitic incidents, up from 465 incidents during the same period in 2022, representing a 337-percent increase year-over-year. … [including] 40 incidents of physical assault, 337 incidents of vandalism, 749 incidents of verbal or written harassment and 905 rallies including antisemitic rhetoric, expressions of support for terrorism against the state of Israel and/or anti-Zionism” (emphasis in original). That is well more than one incident every single hour for more than 60 days.
As President Biden said at a Hanukkah celebration at the White House on Monday night, “Silence is complicity.” University administrators, boards and academics must be held accountable for what is happening on their campuses, where many of these incidents occurred. If they hold their institutions up as places where students develop character and practice inclusion, they must not allow the world’s oldest hatred to flourish. (If a university wants no bar on any sort of speech, it can do that, accepting responsibility for the atmosphere it creates; however, frankly, no private employer or institution or public workplace, for that matter, allows anyone to say anything without consequences.)
The University of Pennsylvania’s president and head of the board of trustees resigned; the presidents of Harvard and MIT remain — for now. But the problem will not be solved by changing leaders. (Indeed, leaders who have acquired a deeper understanding of the issue might become effective reformers.) The fate of the individual university presidents matters less than the consistent application of the universities’ own rules. Because colleges plainly want to shape their academic atmosphere to reflect their values, they must treat all victims of harassment, intimidation, threats and discrimination fairly and equally.
Perhaps institutions can absorb critical lessons about the First Amendment and hatred of Jews. If so, this terrible period might lead to institutions that are more decent, inclusive and effective in supporting our pluralistic democracy.
Distinguished person of the week
The inflation rate dropped yet again, to 3.1 percent, a steep decline from its peak at 9.1 percent. The Post reported: “Economists widely expected the steep run-up in rates would cause a recession. Instead, key pillars of the economy are roaring.” This is indisputably good news, greatly reducing the risk of any recession, and yet many in the media insist dark clouds are already on the horizon. There is no pleasing some people.
The same media crowd that predicted a recession as inflation was rising now frets — you guessed it — about a possible recession now that the Federal Reserve has clamped down on inflation. The Wall Street Journal intoned: “One danger is that [Fed Chair Jerome H.] Powell and his colleagues — blamed for reacting too slowly to address surging inflation two years ago — will wait too long to lower rates as they ensure inflation is fully extinguished. That mistake could curb economic growth too much, causing a recession.”
C’mon. How about giving some credit where credit is due? Powell and his Fed cohorts, with backup from the White House, methodically and predictably raised rates without throwing the economy into reverse. (Biden’s least appreciated contribution to the recovery was defending Fed independence.) Contrary to the naysayers (including the Journal and other business media outlets), the Fed seems headed toward the proverbial “soft landing.”
Powell shouldn’t expect too many attaboys from the press. Good news does not sell as well as hysteria. Nevertheless, economic historians undoubtedly will credit Powell, and his colleagues will earn their share of credit (along with resilient U.S. workers and Biden’s smart fiscal investments). It’s not by accident that our recovery was quicker and stronger than any other in the industrialized world.
Presidential libraries are the crown jewels of civic education. Filled with their chief executive’s accomplishments (and, sometimes, their failures), they also can provide remarkable detail about an entire historical era. After all, most presidents were in politics for years, sometimes decades, during which events of great consequence occurred. The LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, which I recently visited, is the best I have encountered.
Ever since Robert A. Caro’s masterful volumes on Lyndon B. Johnson (the writing of which is captured in a delightful documentary) riveted me, I have looked forward to visiting the library where Caro did his research and to seeing exhibits incorporating themes he illuminated (e.g., “the Johnson treatment”).
I found the museum entirely gripping. Perhaps it engages so effectively because visitors can access hundreds of hours of audiotape (including Lady Bird Johnson’s audio diary). Maybe it’s the sheer magnitude of Johnson’s domestic accomplishments — or how the Vietnam War tragically overshadowed them — that is so engrossing. And, for me, the library’s depiction of events that played a prominent role in my childhood and political education made the experience all the more compelling.
Neither dumbed down nor mired in minutiae, the library tackles major issues ranging from the Cold War to civil rights to the government’s responsibility to care for vulnerable Americans (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty). Johnson’s career spanned the New Deal, World War II, the New Frontier and the Great Society, during which the federal government came into its own. He played a part in virtually every significant policy and constitutional debate (e.g., state vs. federal power, war powers) during the 20th century’s middle decades.
Visitors can find inspiration (in Lady Bird’s triumph over a tragic childhood, for example) as well as instances of shocking hubris (Vietnam). They can marvel over iconic images and extraordinary reporting (when major newspapers were packed with hard, detailed news accounts, often six or seven columns abreast).
It’s a feast of history, presented masterfully, and worth a special trip to Austin.
Every Wednesday at noon, I host a live Q&A with readers. Read a transcript of this week’s Q&A, or submit a question for the next one.
Guest: Can the Eighth Amendment be invoked in Texas abortion cases? I couldn’t help but think that prosecuting someone in a situation like that of Kate Cox would be cruel and unusual. Do you think that the Eighth Amendment (against cruel and unusual punishment) can/should be invoked to invalidate abortion laws without sufficient exceptions (as in Texas)?
Jennifer Rubin: The Eighth Amendment concerns the punishment meted out after conviction, not the decision to prosecute. The right to due process under the 14th Amendment — which the Supreme Court took away from women — is the relevant constitutional provision. The utter cruelty and hypocrisy of the not-at-all-pro-life crowd have never been more evident.
Credit: Source link
