Open discussion on complex topics is a core mission of academia. In fact, academia was founded and uniquely tasked with addressing complexity in all areas of human endeavor. Sadly, this mission is currently being pushed aside on many university and college campuses in the United States and around the globe. Recent campus activities at both private and public universities and colleges have showcased antisemitic rhetoric, support for terrorist organizations and encouragement of their violent acts. They have promoted systemic discrimination against Jewish students and faculty and created a hostile environment for Jewish students in clear contravention of the Civil Rights Act obligations and of many state anti-discrimination statutes. Vocal chanting of racist genocidal and ethnically prejudiced slogans has escalated into a climate of intimidation – of Jewish and Israeli students, as well as of those perceived by the crowd to be on the “other” side of the debate over the Israel-Hamas conflict.

It should be noted that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – the same U.S.-designated terrorist entities that carried out the October 7th massacre in Israel and the associated mass rapes, mutilations, decapitations and hostage-taking – have issued public statements this week in support of the student rallies on U.S. college campuses, as has Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

In the face of this escalating situation, universities must find a way to uphold the academic endeavor and its dependence on free speech, while preventing its exploitation to legitimize bullying, harassment and incitement to violence. In many countries, hate speech that constitutes defamation, criminal incitement or threats is excluded from free speech protection. But even when protected, it should be exercised in a manner that safeguards free academic discourse and democracy itself. 

Critical academic discourse depends on the depth of the arguments and the quality of the corroborating evidence, not on the number and decibels of its repetition.  

Of particular significance in this respect are the “time, place and manner” restrictions on free speech as defined by the US Supreme Court, and adopted by universities across the US. These content  independent restrictions impose limitations on the manner by which free speech can be exercised while upholding the First Amendment to the US Constitution. At academic institutions, time, place and manner can be used to elevate the level of discourse and to enable a thorough study and examination of complex matters. That type of discourse does not and cannot occur in an environment of exclusion, intimidation and harassment.

In the spirit of such regulations, a number of observations are in order:

1. Freedom of speech does not entail freedom of violence or silencing. On the contrary, without protection from violence and silencing, there is no such freedom. Under no circumstances can expressions of protest be permitted to escalate into explicit or implicit threats, targeted acts of harassment or calls for violence. No form of protest at an institution can be allowed to compromise the safety of its staff or students. Violent  persecution of individuals and groups is an affront to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

2. Freedom of speech does not provide a license to create disruptions in the academic purpose of a campus. Protesters holding meetings or demonstrations must respect not only the time of their colleagues and peers but also the intended purpose of all university facilities and locations – from lecture halls and classrooms to libraries, restaurants and dorms – so that these can continue to serve their designated function. In the same vein, all lectures, classes and other academic activities must adhere to their declared topic and avoid being taken over by political demonstrations. A class, say, on algebra must focus on algebra, and not be hijacked for other issues. 

While in social sciences and humanities the subject matter is often inherently value-laden and politically loaded in the sense that it pertains to the distribution of power, this does not in any way excuse the hijacking of academia by any political agenda. The pursuit of truth in academia can never be achieved in a racist, bigoted or prejudiced environment, not even through a majority vote. Thus, though there is a place for demonstrations, boundaries that enable unthreatened discourse that safeguards human dignity are essential for free academia to survive.

3. Along with enabling and encouraging free expression at an institution of higher learning, people should be accountable for their words. They should not hide their identity and should accept being academically challenged by opposing views. It's imperative to ensure mutual respect and dignity for people from diverse backgrounds and cultures. A commitment to diversity must rule out racial, ethnic or religious profiling of individuals or groups, particularly, in the current context, of Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians. Most urgently, the state of affairs in which protesters hide their identity, and Jewish and Israeli students are forced to hide their identity or stay away from parts of the campus, is unacceptable by any standard. 

A recent 2023 study by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) indicated that one out of four Jewish students did not feel safe on campus and avoided wearing, carrying, or displaying items that would identify them as Jewish. One out of five reported feeling or being excluded from a group or event because they are Jewish. 

Conscience cannot be segregated: If Jewish students are not free to express their Jewish identity, no one is free. At present, wherever Jews are again persecuted, there is no freedom of expression, only temporary privileges in an undemocratic campus culture. 

4. Unsubstantiated calls for a boycott run counter to a basic principle of academia: providing a platform for resolving conflicts through discussion and collaboration. Moreover, such calls – when based on double standards or rhetoric rather than facts, or when they are independent of culpability – serve to legitimize the morally repugnant concept of collective punishment, which cannot be reconciled with a commitment to human rights. 

5. Finally, while placing boundaries on the manner in which on-campus protests can be conducted, let it be reiterated that the value of academic discourse is judged by the depth of the arguments and the quality of the corroborating evidence, not by the number and decibels of its repetition. Protesters would do well to keep in mind that inflammatory speech and collective shouting do not advance the understanding and resolution of complex issues. Rather, they achieve just the opposite: they create obstacles to the resolution of conflicts by generating an atmosphere that rules out in-depth discussion.

The core of academia should be learning, the exchange of ideas, and the ability to engage with differing views – not a place where any dissenting opinion is met with boycotts or chaos. The reality we face is not just a series of inconvenient protests; it's a breeding ground for indoctrination towards potentially radical and violent ideologies while abducting free speech.  

Please join our call for safe academic discourse for all.

Further reading

FIRE statement on campus violence and arrests

Avner de Shalit, The Ethics of Academic Boycott

David French NYT Opinion: Colleges Have Gone Off the Deep End. There Is a Way Out

Christopher L. Eisgruber On encampments, free speech, and ‘time, place, and manner’ rules on university campuses

“Time, place and manner” restrictions on free speech as defined by the US Supreme Court,