For decades, a crisis in universities, especially in North America, was being manufactured. The academy must be the space par excellence for ideological pluralism and free debate. But, on the contrary, they are today the most dogmatic and intolerant spaces in society. It was necessary for the war in the Middle East to awaken anti-Semitic sentiments for a chemical reaction to take place that blew the lid off Pandora’s box.
Pro-Hamas students have been mobilizing aggressive protests on American campuses for months. The First Amendment to the Constitution establishes almost absolute freedom of expression. Except in exceptional cases, such as direct incitement to violence, even neo-Nazi demonstrations are tolerated. Private institutions, such as universities, may have their own codes of conduct. And these codes have become not only more restrictive, but also, under pressure from ultra-majoritarian progressive contingents, more sectarian.
In the 90s, according to a survey by Leiden University, teaching staff in the USA declared themselves to be 40% progressive, 40% moderate and 20% conservative. Since then, there have been no major variations in the population’s party preferences, but on campuses progressives have grown to 60%, and moderates and conservatives have decreased to 30% and 10%, respectively. In elite universities the disproportion is greater. At Harvard, for example, 75% say they are progressive and only 3% conservative. In humanities departments, the asymmetry is greater.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire), elite universities are among the most intolerant. More than half of students at the five Ivy League universities believe that it is sometimes acceptable to block their peers from participating in a controversial talk. Only 70% agree that it is “never acceptable” to use violence to stop someone from speaking.
Codes that punish “microaggressions” and “hate speech” have been employed for years by activists to filter student and faculty admissions and conform them to progressive orthodoxy. Now that they are violating not only these codes, but the constitutional limits on freedom of expression, these activists say they are persecuted and restricted from their freedoms. But no one is free to threaten, intimidate and hinder the freedom of others.
According to Columbia University rules, for example, “every member of the community (…) has the right to organize protests, picket lines, circulate petitions and disseminate ideas”, even if “they are considered offensive, immoral, disrespectful or even dangerous”. But the Code says these rules are violated when a person “engages in conduct that puts another in physical danger” or “uses words that threaten physical harm in a situation where there is a clear and immediate risk of that harm.”
On campuses like Columbia, Jews are not only intimidated by chants that preach the extermination of Israel’s Jews, they are also prevented from accessing and circulating in certain spaces. Protesters disrupt classes and block access to some buildings. And they are not just demonstrating, but demanding that universities reject donations from Israeli companies and citizens; end academic partnerships with Israeli institutions; and condemn Israel’s actions in the war.
Columbia’s leadership, for example, offered to review its investment and partnership practices and discuss academic freedom. But, like Hamas, the militants do not accept compromise solutions. The police were called to disperse the camps that impede the course of classes, free movement on campus and the peace of mind of Jews. But activists who once said that words are violence now say that violence is “expression”.
Everything indicates that university sectarianism has reached a turning point. Even Democratic parliamentarians are criticizing the protests and demanding that deans restore order. But this is, at best, just the first step in a long-needed reform to departisanize universities.
Tags: University extremism shows face
--
