I am thinking about this all again because of the latest congressional testimonies given by the heads of three top US universities – Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania – about the alleged rise of antisemitism on US campuses.
As the shoe is on the other foot, US politicians who cheered Hong Kong student rioters as freedom fighters are now denouncing their own protesting students who have actually been far more peaceful, if noisy, as being antisemitic, for taking a stance against the US-Israeli war on the Palestinians.
Only in the US Congress, as opposed to most other places in the world, does criticising Israel’s war on Gaza amount to antisemitism.
Be that as it may, those congressional members get at least one thing right, even if it makes them hypocrites: hate speech is not free speech; and that’s true even if no US student demonstrations were actually calling for the destruction of Israel or the genocide of Jews, as alleged. Seriously, shouting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” doesn’t count as a call for genocide. One survey showed half of those who chanted the slogan had no idea which river and sea were being referenced.
Similarly, back in 2019, many young Hong Kong protesters/rioters couldn’t name all “five big demands, not one less” beyond the first two or three they were always banging on about.
Canadian journalist Naomi Klein has a point; the furore over antisemitism was all part of the American-Israeli “distraction industry” to sidetrack public attention from the carnage being inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza.
Still you would think being the heads of some of the world’s most prestigious universities must mean you are savvy, or at least smart enough to answer a simple question: would “calling for the genocide of Jews” violate each university’s code of conduct?
There can only be one answer: yes it would, of course. In fact, I think it would violate laws against hate speech in most, probably all Western countries.
So, I don’t know why all three university chiefs hesitated. Maybe it was because no university protest actually called for “the genocide of Jews”, at least not any of those reported in the mainstream media; and claims that there were such calls, were mostly manufactured by pro-Israel media outlets, and those members of Congress who were questioning and cornering the three academic leaders with their leading questions.
Still, couldn’t the university presidents have taken the question as hypothetical, and just answered, “Yes, calling for the genocide of any race would be against university policy”? Why was that so hard to say? University of Pennsylvania president Elizabeth Magill has since resigned following a public backlash.
Of course, most American lawmakers fret more about the hypothetical genocide of Jews as opposed to the actual genocide of Palestinians. Still, their concern about the state of college students in the US is not completely unjustified.
When it comes to free speech, I am a complete relativist. But with academic freedom, I am an absolutist. They are two very different beasts. The pursuit of scholarship or production of knowledge should be as free or freer than any other human endeavour; that’s what universities as institutions are for. If you restrict that, you undermine their foundations.
University of Pennsylvania president resigns after antisemitism testimony
University of Pennsylvania president resigns after antisemitism testimony
However, universities have no more or fewer obligations to uphold free speech than any other private or public institutions in a given jurisdiction, community or country.
How much free speech is tolerated or protected depends on the existing law, community norms and standards, and/or a declared “state of emergency”; there is no absolute free speech.
One country may allow extreme pornography; another only mild porn; and a third no porn at all. I am OK with all three; who am I to decide for others their erotic tastes or levels of tolerance for bodily expressions?
What about or how much free press should be allowed in countries A, B and C? Well, it all depends, it’s all relative, too. But that may be for another column.
Now, academic freedom is completely different. It is not about your freedom to express an opinion on something or another. It’s the right and duty of scholars and scientists in the employ of an academic institution to pursue any inquiry or subject matter within their areas of expertise, and subject only to the constraints of available resources. It is about the right and duty of academic institutions to protect its scholars or knowledge workers and shield them from outside influences.
For example, I think a Hong Kong scholar must be free to examine the issue of Taiwan or Hong Kong independence in all aspects, including their likelihood and desirability for different stakeholders.
Now, if that scholar starts to advocate for Taiwan or Hong Kong independence, I would be the first to call for him or her to be sacked, if not jailed. I think the same protection and criteria of judgment extend to the students of a university in the pursuit of their academic studies.
However, their universities are no more or less duty-bound than any other institutions in society to protect their free speech.
With this understanding, I agree that since it’s patently offensive for many US students to protest for a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli position, universities have every right to ban them from campus or from using university facilities, resources and affiliations in public. Protesters can’t appeal to their right of free speech.
What they do in their private capacity and in their own time is, of course, their own business.
So, living in North America, I am happy to join any protest in support of Palestinian independence in a neutral public place and donate to any reputable Palestinian aid group. But if I were a university official, I would discourage those same student protesters from taking up campus space and wasting time. University is a place for learning, not for protests.
"freedom" - Google News
December 11, 2023 at 08:00PM
https://ift.tt/y0zA7qL
Don’t confuse academic freedom with free speech - South China Morning Post
"freedom" - Google News
https://ift.tt/U9PAYd3
https://ift.tt/SwD29pF
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Don’t confuse academic freedom with free speech - South China Morning Post"
Post a Comment