US attack on freedom of speech is not doing ‘Brand America’ any favours

The combined efforts of US President Donald Trump , Republicans in Congress and pro-Israel groups such as the Anti-Defamation League are directly targeting the liberal ideals of freedom of speech and assembly and the very idea of the university. Republicans and their allies are demanding that universities eliminate any mention of diversity, equity and inclusion – or DEI – in admissions or programming, and they have put in place a distorted and expanded definition of anti-Semitism. In both instances, they have told educational institutions that failing to bow to these directives will find their federal funding cut. While organisations representing both faculty and administrators have cautioned against complying with the requirement to eliminate DEI, some universities have already done just that. Dozens of institutions have scrubbed their websites of the now-taboo words and programmes. Offices to promote diversity have been closed and courses have been cancelled. More ominous has been the damage done to free speech and academic freedom by the threats of the administration and Congress to punish universities that do not take measures to rein in what they call “anti-Semitism”. The main problem with this edict is that it’s based on a bogus definition long promoted by the ADL – a definition that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Their argument is that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because it is the only Jewish state and therefore criticism of Israel is threatening to Jews who identify with it. At best, the “logic” is far-fetched. At worst, it’s a crude effort to silence critics. In their efforts to impose their definition, the ADL found eager accomplices among right-wing fundamentalist Christians, Republicans in Congress and Mr Trump – though their reasons for doing so may have differed. But whether their collaboration was a marriage of convenience or consensus, the result has been serious damage to higher education. With the earliest pro-Palestinian demonstrations having occurred on a number of prestigious university campuses, Republicans also see this effort as a way to amplify their targeting of “elites” and “liberals”. And as critics of Israeli policies are largely Democrats, Republicans see defending Israel as a wedge issue that strengthens their base while making life uncomfortable for Democrats. For his part, Mr Trump sees criminalising protesters and forcing universities to cower as yet another way to accumulate power. An early sign of this assault was evident during last year’s congressional hearings in which a number of Ivy League university presidents were summonsed to appear in order to be skewered by Republican members of Congress. The hearing’s most memorable moment began with Elise Stefanik, then a Republican representative, falsely claiming that the expression heard in some demonstrations “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” was an anti-Semitic call for genocide against Jewish people. Ms Stefanik, currently the US ambassador-designate to the UN, then quickly shifted gears asking the presidents whether there were punishments for calling for genocide against Jews. The presidents were flummoxed by this illogical leap and gave confused responses. Then, in the midst of the Columbia University campus protests, Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House, made a visit to the school demanding a crackdown. Other Republicans joined in pointing out that the campuses were bastions of un-American liberal elitism and needed to be taught a lesson. A congressional committee threatened to cut federal funds to campuses that didn’t stop protests, punish protesters and rid their campuses of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activities and courses. Pro-Israel groups were emboldened to file complaints with the Office of Civil Rights charging administrators with turning a blind eye to faculty and student anti-Semitism. In the face of these challenges, the cowering began. Last summer, campuses brought in security consultants to rewrite faculty and student codes and handbooks; courses were eliminated; and faculty were silenced. Columbia University even set up an office that encouraged students to file complaints against pro-Palestinian students and faculty. Repression was in full swing. The pressures intensified with Mr Trump’s election. Columbia University became a “whipping boy” because of both its prestigious status and demonstrated willingness to cower. Despite the university’s efforts, last week the Trump administration increased the pressure on it, announcing that it was losing $400 million in federal grants. Then came the news from Mr Trump that a graduate student at the university, Mahmoud Khalil , was being deported for anti-Semitism. Other than the fact that Mr Khalil was the lead negotiator on behalf of the student protesters, there was no evidence of anything he had said or done to warrant that charge. With widespread protests being mounted in the face of this pending deportation, it remains to be seen whether Mr Trump’s deportation order will succeed or backfire. In either case, damage has been done and not only to free speech, but also to the very idea of academic freedom that has long been a hallmark of American education. For several years following the 9/11 attacks, Zogby International polled Arab attitudes towards the US. This was prompted by a Time magazine cover that featured then-president George W Bush’s famous response to the question: “Why did Arab terrorists attack us?” He was quoted as saying they did so because: “They hate our values of democracy and freedom.” The survey results found that Mr Bush’s flippant observation was untrue. In every Arab country in which the poll was conducted, substantial majorities expressed strong appreciation for America’s freedom and democracy. They also liked the American educational system, American cultural products and the American people. What many Arabs did not like were American policies, especially those towards Palestinians, and Arabs and Muslims in the US. In follow-up interviews conducted to better understand the findings, one respondent said: “I love America’s values, but they don’t want to apply them to Arabs.” Another said: “I studied in America and I love the country. I don’t feel America loves me. I feel like a jilted lover.” At the poll’s conclusion, respondents were asked for their overall favourable or unfavourable attitude towards the US. The results were overwhelmingly unfavourable. When asked whether their attitudes were based on America’s values or policies, it was the policies that were determinative. Mr Trump appears to be damaging the very values of freedom and democracy that the rest of the world admires about America.