To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Re How Are Students Expected to Live Like This on Campuses?, by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, nytimes.com, Nov. 8): <\/p>\n
Mr. Wegman is correct that universities cannot live up to their ideals as havens for unfettered debate when their Jewish students feel physically threatened. And he rightly suggests necessary limits on a culture of free speech, including prohibitions on harassment and targeting based on ethnic or religious identity. <\/p>\n
But it is time for a broader interrogation of the vaunted Chicago Principles he cites, which hold that the only appropriate role for a university is to stay silent on matters of public controversy so that its constituents may fully debate it. <\/p>\n
I believe that a more important principle for a university arguably its fundamental principle is to seek and articulate truth. And in this case, the truth is clear: Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, that is not representative of the Palestinian people as a whole. <\/p>\n
To the extent the Chicago Principles prevent universities from stating that truth, they make honest debate more difficult, stain all pro-Palestinian students with the repugnant reputation of Hamas, and undermine university administrators ability to isolate and combat real antisemitism on campuses. <\/p>\n
There is no doubt that free expression is a paramount value in universities. But we can aspire higher. We can build our bastions of free speech on the foundational layers of moral clarity and intellectual integrity. <\/p>\n
(Rabbi) Ari Berman New York The writer is president of Yeshiva University. <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Re What Is Happening on College Campuses Is Not Free Speech, by Gabriel Diamond, Talia Dror and Jillian Lederman (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 11): <\/p>\n
Protecting free speech on campus requires bravery and intellectual honesty, not partisan definitions. As Jewish students, we share in the real fear surrounding the rise of violent threats against our communities. Yet, this fear cannot be addressed with definitions that marginalize legitimate Palestinian advocacy. <\/p>\n
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism that the authors cite, which refers to rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism, is opposed even by several progressive, pro-Israel and Jewish organizations. Such critiques correctly cite the definitions potential to suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights. <\/p>\n
Institutions of higher education should, of course, address antisemitism; yet, adopting this broad definition would come at the expense of students and professors fundamental rights to free expression. Regardless of how uncomfortable certain phrases may make us, disagreements surrounding terminology and definitions must not be equated with the very real dangers of death threats, hate speech and physical violence. <\/p>\n
Upholding free speech requires empathy and consistency, and we must understand that intimidation and fear on campuses are real, and they are not felt only or even primarily by Jewish students. <\/p>\n
Eliana Blumberg Rita Feder Michael Farrell-Rosen Providence, R.I. The writers are students at Brown University. <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
Re At College, Debating When Speech Goes Too Far (front page, Nov. 11): <\/p>\n
A key role of higher education is to nurture students intellectually and emotionally as they develop their ethical and moral compasses. Just as alumni have threatened to pull financial support of schools that do not call out terror and take a stance on antisemitism, members of university boards must require similar action. <\/p>\n
As a member of a university board of trustees whose president has publicly spoken up for morality and truth, and as an American who is shocked to see scenes unfolding that are reminiscent of 1930s Europe, I challenge all the university boards in the country to raise their voices and make their leadership accountable for what is happening on their campuses. <\/p>\n
There is zero tolerance for racism and zero tolerance for harassment of any kind on todays campuses, and we should not rest until there is zero tolerance for antisemitism. Colleges should be places where truth is sought and where everyone feels safe. University leaders must step up and lead by example by first speaking up and then creating an action plan to combat hate and antisemitism. <\/p>\n
Lawrence D. Platt Los Angeles The writer is a member of the board of trustees of Touro University. <\/p>\n
To the Editor: <\/p>\n
If college students directed this sort of hate speech against Black or Asian or L.G.B.T.Q. people, they would most likely be expelled or at least suspended. The fact that they arent speaks to the moral cowardice of university administrators. <\/p>\n
Joshua Rosenbaum Brooklyn <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more: To the Editor: Re How Are Students Expected to Live Like This on Campuses?, by Jesse Wegman (Opinion, nytimes.com, Nov. 8): Mr Continue reading
\nOpinion | Speech and Antisemitism on Campus - The New York Times<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"