Recently there has been a lot of discussion amongst students, and across the country, about the importance of free speech on campus. Pro-palestinian students have asserted that their free speech rights are under attack. At the Review, we have long argued that free speech is the “indispensable condition” to a thriving and active campus. Further, not everyone who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic. Israel, like any other country, is not exempt from criticism.
However, it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticisms of Israel, and anti-semitic hate speech on campus. The University has done little to make distinctions between the two. To have effective and productive discourse about the Israel conflict, it is imperative to make such distinctions. A common pattern has emerged from anti-semitic speech on campus: a condemnation of the nation of Israel as a whole. This has dire consequences for any hope of rational discussion, and the implication of the message is violence against Jews.
Anti Semitic Speech on Campus
Below are a few examples of anti-semitic speech that have appeared on campus some argue is acceptable:
“From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free!”
This one is the most obvious, and most insidious. From the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea is a call for the elimination of the modern state of Israel, with violent repercussions. The phrase is widely condemned as anti-semitic. On November 14th, US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declared, “When Hamas says ‘from the river to the sea,’ they mean all of Israel should be Jew-free.” The phrase is clearly anti-semitic and the use of it should be condemned by all groups on campus.
The idea parallels Russia’s claim that Ukraine is an “illegitimate country.” The chant endangers members of the Jewish community on campus by encouraging violence against them.
Israel has illegally occupied the land for “75 years”
This argument has been made both verbally and physically, appearing in the now infamous “Resolution XX.” The argument that Israel is an illegitimate country is false. The UN approved a resolution creating both the state of Israel in 1948, as well as a Palestinian one. The resolution received approval from the majority of countries, meaning that by global standards, Israel is a legitimate country. Cornellians making this argument imply the country is illegitimate. This type of sentiment is dangerous to Jewish students and faculty, and encourages the type of threats we saw earlier this semester.
Hamas is an “armed resistance front”
Another statement appearing in “Resolution XX”, the statement is duplicitous in its language, and justifies violence against Jewish students. Hamas, in the most gruesome way possible, slaughtered 1400 Israeli civilians, and kidnapped over 200. Calling Hamas a “resistance front” suggests that these actions are a tolerable and legitimate form of opposition. When Cornellians call Hamas a “resistance movement” instead of the terrorist group it is, they condone the murder of Jews and violent threats against Jewish students.
Professor Rickford’s comments were taken “out of context”
Rickford’s defendants argue that his comments describing the attacks as “exhilarating” and “energizing” aren’t as bad as they seem because they, “did not have enough context.” The context, they argue, is that the “power dynamic between the Israelis and Palestinians had changed.”
The supposed change in the “power dynamic” was caused by a brutal massacre. Being exhilarated and energized by a shift in power is still being energized by the killing of civilians. Simply put, it’s a glorification of brutal violence.
The defense of Rickford and subsequent lack of initial action from the administration highlights a key viewpoint:
At Cornell, Jewish lives matter less than others.
For proof, one need look no further than the school’s response to the tragic killing of George Floyd, and compare it to Pollack’s statement after October 7th.
In May 2020, Pollack stated in response to the killing:
“The amount of pain in the Black community is unfathomable […] decent people and institutions cannot stand silent […] we will do all we can as a university to address this scourge of racism.”
Contrast this with Pollack’s initial statement on the October 7th massacre:
“The loss of human life is always tragic, whether caused by human actions […] or by natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires or floods.”
“ Regrettably, […] there is no way to acknowledge the pain that different members of our community feel when such events occur.”
While Pollack condemned the “scourge of racism” after the murder of George Floyd, she could not muster the courage to mention anti-semitism. Instead, Pollack initially compared the terrorist attack to “earthquakes, fires or floods.” It is inconceivable to imagine the university acting this callously if the events of October 7th had happened to another group.
Suddenly Cornell has found the fountain of free expression
One of the ironies of recent events is that a certain group of students have become free speech zealots. In response to Rickford’s remarks, Pollack rejected calls for banning hate speech because there is no “hate speech” exception to freedom of expression. The Sun ran an editorial imploring Pollack to let all students’ voices be heard. A number of students have publicly complained that their speech is being suppressed for holding pro-Palestinian views.
Last semester, I wrote a piece about how 8 out of 10 students report to self-censor. Where was the concern for free speech then? Why weren’t these students defending free speech when Ann Coulter was heckled off of campus? It is telling how the university found its “core value” only after Jews were being attacked.
Cornell must stand up to hate speech
After a recent “die-in” event where a speaker shouted “Israel will fall” and students chanted “From the River to the Sea”, I asked Vice President Lombardi if he had any comments. He replied that there was nothing he wanted to say to a public newspaper. The university gave an equally vague statement. The increased police presence has been a good first step, but the university’s continued silence is concerning. The police cannot fully make Jewish students feel safe in classrooms or in the residence halls they may share with anti-semites.
Calling for the destruction of Israel is an open call for violence against Jews. There has been an unprecedented spike in anti-semitism and violence against Jews. Here at Cornell, many Jewish students have never felt such fear in their life for simply being a Jew. By failing to condemn these ever increasing outbursts of hate speech, Cornell becomes complicit in any violence that occurs against Jewish students on campus. I applaud Governor Hochul for explicitly stating that calling for the genocide of Jews on campus is unacceptable. There is no more excuse for Cornell. It is past time for the University to take forceful action to condemn this type of speech, or live with the potential consequences.
