Letter to Penn

Dear Ms. Kernan,

I find little joy in writing this letter to you.  I have been donating to the University of Pennsylvania on a regular basis for many years.  I treasured my years as an undergraduate there from 1963 to the year I graduated in 1967.  But of recent years I have questioned the education afforded today’s students as that same education has appeared to stray from the mark of its original model in which academic freedom was its hallmark.  This became evident to many at the congressional hearing last December when Liz Magill, then president of the University of Pennsylvania, along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT, were unable to say whether calls for the genocide of Jews were in violation of their schools’ code of conduct. Public and alumni outrage resulted in her resigning from her position that indeed had been short-lived.

Let me make it clear that I don’t believe Ms. Magill is or was an antisemite. A combination of the policies that preceded her presidency along with the coaching she received from attorneys prior to her testimony, no doubt, influenced her answers.  Much of the problem resides in the differential treatment accorded certain minority groups when it comes to free speech.  Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt wrote about this in their book:  The Coddling of the American Mind.  These authors point how the past eight years have seen the concept of free speech take a reversal when students from various “minorities” have complained to faculty and administrators about triggering remarks made by their peers.  One of the functions of administrative staff is to censure such comments, known as “microaggressions,” to protect these same minorities by creating safe spaces for their exclusive use.  This line of reasoning of course is contrary to what the notion of free speech is all about.  Moreover, as New York Times journalists, Bret Stephens and David French maintain, following this practice creates a double standard on Jewish students.

Although Jews have a longer history of persecution than any other racial or ethnic group that I know, they have enjoyed a sense of freedom and wide acceptance in America never experienced in any other country.  Many have regarded them as white, though to what should be no one’s surprise, I know many Jews that clearly are not white.  Besides, elite universities, such as the University of Pennsylvania, apparently do not deem those as white in need of protection from overt hostility.  An example of this occurs when students chant “free Palestine from the river to the sea” that translates to the end of the Jewish state, Israel. This is an example of where free speech targets Jewish students. However, rather than creating safe spaces, I prefer Jonathan Greenblatt’s (the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League—ADL) idea of protest zones or spaces.  This would limit the disruption of classes and disallow students to threaten or harass those who don’t hold their beliefs.  Furthermore, this would give speakers, who may not be popular with the prevailing sentiment of many students, a chance to present their view of what may be considered controversial.

I am in agreement with Bret Stephens when he said universities need to replace ideology with their raison d’etre, pedagogy. As Pamela Paul, another columnist of the New York Times put it, faculties were given an “essential role and stake in both a pluralistic democracy and a capitalistic economy—without being subject to the whims of politics or industry.”  Accordingly, I don’t think donors like myself should tell universities how to educate their students.  But I also don’t think identity politics featuring social justice and other such ideologies, should be the default mode found in much of contemporary academia.  This is not to say that ethnic studies should not be a part of the curricula in academic coursework.  But as Pamela Paul has pointed out since the summer of 2020, a focus on social justice has permeated college reading lists.  My concern here is if this is a focal point, the original intent of a liberal education could be undermined.  The repercussion being the substantial loss in the development and burgeoning of the young minds that attend these institutions. Not to have experienced the likes of Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Joyce, Ellison and Faulkner to name a few, would deprive them of studying some of the greatest artists of all time.

Let me conclude by saying I remain optimistic.  I recently heard Julie Platt, a Penn alumna and current trustee at Penn, speak at a Zoom meeting sponsored by a local Jewish group.  She indicated she would be in favor of adding to the curriculum at Penn a course in the history of antisemitism.  I have been told that such a course has not been included in many programs of ethnic studies.  Emily, I would like you or a representative from the University to keep me posted on any new developments occurring at Penn. It is my hope that some positive changes will bring Penn back to its foundation of a liberal education where people can listen, and even learn, what those from a different background and different set of beliefs may have to offer.   

Cordially,

Dr. Bernard F. Natelson

College, 1967