Somewhat paradoxically, the frightening testimony of three college presidents to Congress last week may have been the final straw in the perception and systemic tolerance of American antisemitism. The humiliating resignation of Liz Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, was the first casualty of prestigious universities permitting behavior by students that is morally reprehensible, regardless of that behavior’s (questionable) legality.
In the past decade, we have seen the hasty, superficial communication of uninformed opinions via social media result in populist movements; important issues have been addressed and acted upon sans the prerequisite thought and analysis that should inform public policy.
For instance, after George Floyd was killed, many people joined a movement to defund the police. This resulted in the rapid adoption of new policies in cities like San Francisco and Portland, which led to both a deterioration in the quality of life and a sharp rise in crime.
But after the impact of those kneejerk movements became obvious, some semblance of sanity returned. The initial frenzy was replaced by a sober understanding that while change was certainly needed, abolishing law enforcement is hardly compatible with civil society.
In the case of the recent, several-hundredfold increase in U.S. antisemitic incidents, social media accelerated a hate campaign against Israelis and Jews. Unlike the blood libels of the Middle Ages, the inciting incident was not a fictitious child sacrificed so its blood could be baked into matzoh.
Instead, in the ultimate irony, the torches and pitchforks broken out this time followed the attack and brutal murder of 1,200 innocent men, women and children — as well as the kidnapping of several hundred others.
But instead of eliciting the sympathy other victims would have received, the Jewish community was subjected to antisemitic outcries, particularly among American college students. Overwhelmed by a campaign of memes and influencers with nefarious agendas, young people with a minimal grasp on history or current events became drunk on the notion that Jews are the pinnacle of white supremacist colonialists.
Many expressed concern, but little concrete action was taken to assuage the fears of Jewish students until the House testimony last week. And what did the nation learn from those testimonies? Only that the presidents of some of our country’s most lauded institutions were capable of employing legal evasions instead of demonstrating moral clarity and leadership. Artful or otherwise, these evasions demonstrated a tolerance for specific hate speech and demands for genocide.
Perhaps more indicative of the challenges these presidents faced was their recognition of the problem. Appalled or otherwise, they remained powerless (or unwilling to exercise power) because, after all, there’s “free speech” and “dangerous is debatable” and, well, kids will be kids.
But the double standard was shocking. We all know that even minor slights against any other minority groups are taken seriously at these universities — certainly more seriously than calls for exterminating Jews.
Both Pennsylvania senators and the state’s governor roundly criticized the testimony, particularly that of Magill. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the strongest advocates for women’s rights and achievements in Congress, called for the resignation of all three women. Thus far, Magill is the only one who complied.
It appears the university presidents’ performance, followed by Magill’s resignation, accomplished what weeks of antisemitic rhetoric could not. The callousness, double standards and insensitivity was so brazen that the true nature of what’s been tolerated on college campuses for too long became clear — or at least clearer.
A single day’s testimony and one high-profile resignation will not change the minds of everyone, particularly those young students who liturgically chant from the river to the sea while ignorant of the slogan’s diabolic meaning. But the adults in the room have finally had enough.
UPenn’s Board Chair Scott Bok also resigned. In doing so, he noted that Magill is “not the slightest bit antisemitic.” But Magill’s personal prejudices were never in question — it was leadership that was concerning. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, and until that point, Magill’s response had been woefully inadequate.
The majority of Germans in the 1930s may not have been the least bit antisemitic either, but allowing Nazism to take hold in their country resulted in not only an unprecedented genocide, but also a devastated nation.
In the face of any racism or bigotry — including (and it’s about time) antisemitism — elected officials and education leaders must either rise to the occasion or step aside. The stakes are too high for “context-dependent” indecisiveness.
Magill has done something now. She’s demonstrated the consequences of insensitive leadership. Let this be a lesson for others.
Paterson was the 55th governor of New York. Kadish is president of Touro University.
Magill’s downfall means that we have had enough: University presidents fail their test before Congress
13
0
16.12.2023
Somewhat paradoxically, the frightening testimony of three college presidents to Congress last week may have been the final straw in the perception and systemic tolerance of American antisemitism. The humiliating resignation of Liz Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, was the first casualty of prestigious universities permitting behavior by students that is morally reprehensible, regardless of that behavior’s (questionable) legality.
In the past decade, we have seen the hasty, superficial communication of uninformed opinions via social media result in populist movements; important issues have been addressed and acted upon sans the prerequisite thought and analysis that should inform public policy.
For instance, after George Floyd was killed, many people joined a movement to defund the police. This resulted in the rapid adoption of new policies in cities like San Francisco and Portland, which led to both a deterioration in the quality of life and a sharp rise in crime.
But after the impact of those kneejerk movements became obvious, some semblance of sanity returned. The initial frenzy was replaced by a sober understanding that while change was certainly needed, abolishing law enforcement is hardly compatible with civil........
© NY Daily News
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Rami G Khouri
