Many of us gasped in utter disbelief when three female college presidents from universities, considered the most prestigious in the country, met at a congressional hearing and were asked whether statements implying genocide of Jewish people went against their code of harassment and conduct. All three responded similarly by saying it depends on the context or conduct of those individuals. It was evident that all three had been coached by lawyers inasmuch as their answers almost sounded as if each were parroting one another.
I graduated from one of the three, the University of Pennsylvania, where its President, Liz Magill, came under fire by alumni that culminated in her resignation. The other two university presidents, Claudine Gay from Harvard, and Sally Kornbluth from M.I.T., have, to date, withstood the criticism and pressure to leave their respective positions. Although their responses appeared to affirm what appeared to be protests that smack of obvious antisemitism, I very much doubt that any of these three women, in fact, were antisemites. Their responses to Representative Elise Stefanik’s inquiry at the hearing, subsequently widely televised to the American public, I would maintain was merely a symptom of a much greater problem that has existed on college campuses for a long time.
Experts that study adolescence have likened this period to the German expression, Sturm and Drang, whose literal translation is storm and stress. The term originated in the mid-18th century and embodied a movement in which free expression and individualism was exalted over the rationalism personified by the Enlightenment. Puberty and the ensuing rebelliousness of adolescence have become a cliché for this period of life. This then is the period in which these young people begin to question the conventions of their parents when they attend a college. Whereas classical conservative beliefs maintain much of a laissez faire (i.e., leave things the way they are) attitude toward their surroundings, liberals on the other side of the spectrum, demand change for the “greater good.” Contemporary progressive thinking has expanded greater good to mean the protection of classes/races deemed as oppressed. Because change is what adolescence is all about, many college students are prone to grasp on to a more liberal, or progressive mindset. Elite universities, such as those from the Ivy League, rather than disappointing these adolescent proclivities, have encouraged them.
Make no mistake back when I attended the University of Pennsylvania in the ‘60’s, there was a Leftist tinge but nothing like it is currently. I remember taking a course in sociology in which the teacher was a fan of the philosopher, Herbert Marcuse, and he assigned us to read his book: One Dimensional Man. Marcuse who taught at Columbia and Harvard in the ‘50’s was a Neo-Marxist who believed that the capitalistic system that focused on efficiency and production of goods was creating a mindless class of workers that lacked any sense of imagination. A number of commentators have said that Marcuse’s influence on American college campuses may have been the precursor of what now is happening.
This was a faculty member who had little influence on the campus beyond the class he taught. In any event, I took Marcuse’s ideas with a grain of salt and was not proselytized by them. The climate on college campuses today is much different than it was when I attended Penn. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt documented many of these changes in their book: The Coddling of the American Mind. Both of these authors point out how for the past 8 years the concept of free speech took a reversal when students from various “minorities” complained to faculty and administrators about triggering remarks made by their peers. These comments were labeled as “microaggressions” and were censured by administrative staff that carried the mantle of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). An example of a microaggression would be when a White student tells a fellow Black student: “I didn’t know you were so smart.” And, he may add: “I didn’t know Blacks were that smart.” Often statements such as these are inadvertent, meant to be compliments, but are taken as put-downs.
Comments, such as the above, are censured by an administrative staff that are hired to enforce speech codes that protect minorities. Furthermore, elite campuses, such as Harvard and Penn, have created “safe spaces” where the DEI designated minorities can stay where no such speech would be allowed. Rather than fostering a climate where students could learn how to tolerate their differences, administrators have reinforced their potential discomforts in interacting with one another by protecting them. Here is where the double-standard became apparent vis-a-vis the testimony of the three university presidents: Free speech applies when the targets are Jews because the latter are not protected by DEI. Thus, it’s acceptable for students to chant from the “river to the sea” that implies the extinction of Israel, but, microaggressions that are of much less severe content to protected minorities, should be sanctioned.
The result of the congressional hearing has resulted in several affluent alumni of these institutions threatening to withhold donations to these universities. Moreover, there is talk of Jewish students now being considered a group that could fall under DEI protection. If this occurs, the only group that will not be afforded DEI protection will be White males. Neither of these trends are healthy. Wealth of donors should not dictate what behaviors are appropriate or not on college campuses.
Perhaps the uprising from the testimony of these three college presidents may result in some constructive changes in the way college life is presently conducted. A good start would be to dismantle the bureaucracy involved in the DEI. Reinforcing a victim mentality teaches students to avoid rather than face the everyday challenges that life may present. On this note, I would hope that Jews don’t become a part of DEI. Here I go along with that famous quote from Groucho Marx: “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
To end on a positive note, I hope that the national visibility of contemporary campus life will lead to more open forums and open discussion where controversial topics are voiced and speech becomes less constrained.
Dr. Bernard F. Natelson 