Anti-Semitism Revived on College Campuses III, The Case of the University of Chicago

Before resuming our discussion of the anti-Semitic revival on college campuses in this country, it should be noted that in an analysis of the tragic bombing in the Frank Sinatra Cafeteria of the Hebrew University, it was predicted in this column that the bomber might actually have been an Arab employee of the school. That was predicted despite the storm of opinion castigating the perimeter security on the Mt. Scopus campus. It has now been confirmed that what was suggested in that column was in fact true. It would have been better, if the administration of the Hebrew University had exercised caution and remained suspicious of Arabs on campus. Suspicion and eternal guard must become the watchword of all Jews dealing with Arabs whether they hold Israeli identity cards or not.

It is perhaps for such a reason that one must regard with suspicion and great care the display that continued for four years of a most offensive poster for Hezbullah at the University of Chicago. Fear and trepidation are now stalking the campus of the University of Chicago because of the lack of determination on the part of the University authorities to protect real free speech and to banish intimidation and threats of violence from the campus. There can be no dispute about that. The U. S. regards Hezbullah as a terrorist organization, and the State Department, despite its pro-Arab configuration, has listed the organization among the global terrorist groups. Several of the members of that organization are enrolled on the FBI's list of the "Most Wanted" criminals.

The offensive poster was affixed to a pillar in the Joseph Regenstein Library of the University of Chicago. The poster hung in a room that was continually used by students and faculty who were seeking assistance for bibliography or engaged in research. On the poster appeared the logo of the terrorist organization Hezbullah, an outstretched arm raise aloft gripping a machine gun with the Koran quotation, "Indeed, the Party of G-d (i.e. the translation of Hezbullah), they are victorious." The poster itself was brought from Lebanon, and it was used there for the recruitment of terrorists into the Shiite Hezbullah organization.

The Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, John Woods, in a statement published a year ago in the Chicago Sun-Times, indicated that he didn't feel that displaying the poster without a comment or an explanation attached meant that the University of Chicago was supporting terrorism. In a sentence enshrining a particularly bad piece of the misuse of English grammar, he continued, "It seems like to me, the worst thing you could say is that it's in bad taste. . . . Of course I condemn terrorism, particularly in this day and age." Logically that should mean that he would not display a poster that is clearly threatening to a significant number of the students of the University of Chicago. Perhaps Mr. Woods would regard the display of the swastika or the hammer and sickle or even the letters KKK in precisely the same light. This Hezbullah poster is not merely a matter of bad taste. It is a case of displaying quite openly a threat to any Israelis or Jews who may happen to be enrolled in the student body of the University.

There is no question, if the poster was simply designed to be informative about the terrorist organization, that the people who saw that poster should have been informed about the nature of the Hezbullah and the U. S. government's disapproval of that organization. Instead the poster was displayed without comment for several years, and not only that, but the University of Chicago, through its administration, continued to defend inaction in the matter of the poster despite a series of protests over the years. Regardless of the numerous complaints from students and alumni, the representatives of the University of Chicago continued to defend the fact that the poster was displayed, and that it served to infuriate a great many students. In fact, upon closer analysis, the full purpose of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, in its present incarnation, appears to include the delegitimation of Israel, and the display of the offensive poster is only one step in that campaign.

The University of Chicago administrators have argued that free speech on that campus also includes the silencing of the opposition. Anti-Semitic and anti-Israel forces, supported by some of the Middle Eastern Center faculty, have attempted to silence any explanation of the position of those who support Israel. They have done that by the use of rowdy conduct, invective and threats of violence. Provost Stone of the University of Chicago has taken a very challenging stand by stating that the University does not accept any responsibility involving the character and form of the debate about issues. He said specifically in a declaration that was published "On Freedom of Speech and Civil Discourse," "Nor, as a general rule, does the University intervene to enforce social standards of civility." He continues in his declaration, "There are, however, limits to this policy. As the Manual states, 'Acts of violence, and explicit threats of violence directed at a particular individual that compromise that individual's safety or ability to function within the University setting are direct affronts to the University's values and warrant intervention by University officials.'" Notice that nothing is said about threats of violence directed against groups of individuals that can be just as threatening to all members of the group.

The Provost admits, "In the months since Sept. 11, several students have expressed feelings of fear in response to demonstrations and some angry rhetoric regarding the Middle East or even raised concerns about whether discussion and grading in the classroom is always free of bias." In accordance with this declaration of policy, or perhaps in violation of these declarations, the administration of the University of Chicago has tried to minimize the significance of the Hezbullah poster. The inescapable fact remains, however, that the Hezbullah terrorist organization is responsible for killing people, Americans, Israelis, and Jews. It is for that reason that it is threatening to many students at the University of Chicago. The Hezbullah poster is equivalent to the placing of a KKK poster with a hangman's noose depicted on the walls of a college or university to the north of the Mason-Dixon Line that has never experienced such a lynching.

For many students at the University of Chicago displaying the Hezbullah poster with a hand raised with an automatic weapon is precisely just that kind of threat. Under the very rule proclaimed by the Provost such a threat of physical violence should have called for action. Instead we find that when the poster was finally removed it was replaced by the text of a newspaper article about the protests by the students that contained a picture of the offensive poster. Thus the poster continued to be displayed. According to the Chicago Jewish News in an article in 2001, the threatening poster actually hung for four years in the Joseph Registering Library where all students could see it, but the University of Chicago, despite repeated complaints, did nothing to remedy the situation. It was only when the students, Jewish and non-Jewish, rose in protest against this implicit threat by appealing to the press to secure the removal of the offensive and threatening poster that anything, however small, was done.

For those who believe that the atmosphere on the campus of the University of Chicago has changed there is ample evidence to disprove that comforting illusion. It is impossible to dismiss the warning to Jews expressed by that poster that Israel and Jews do not belong in the Middle East. At the same time reportedly fifteen percent of the student body at the University of Chicago who are Jewish must suffer the indignity of being falsely accused by others of being "racists and fascists."

The Supreme Court of the U. S. has said that certain insults constitute "fighting words" and incitement to violence. There is little doubt that the Jewish students at the University of Chicago have shown remarkable patience and forbearance by moving forward in a peaceful protest. They did not tear down the poster, nor did they resort to threats of violence nor to violence itself to end this insulting threat directed at them.

Rashid Khalidi, a member of the faculty at Chicago, has undoubtedly played a major role in creating this hostile, anti-intellectual atmosphere on the campus of one of the leading universities in this country. One can only compare his role with that of Leonard Jeffries, a notorious member of the faculty at The City College in New York. It was only when the highest authorities, the trustees of the City University of New York (CUNY), decided to take firm steps against Jeffries that there was an improvement in the situation on that campus. The University of Chicago still awaits such firm action. Only action at the highest levels can change the atmosphere at the University of Chicago.

The so-called Palestinian Film Festival, a citywide Palestinian Arab propaganda effort, was, liberally laced with anti-Israel propaganda proclaiming that Israel had not the right to exist. Nevertheless the University of Chicago provided its facilities for that Film Festival that sent a frightening message of hate and violence that included the total elimination of the State of Israel. The elimination of Israel and the liquidation of its Jewish population were depicted as the first steps toward creating a new, and better, Middle East. Jewish students were not immune to that message. Obviously the students at the University of Chicago could not fail to comprehend the implicit threat. Arabists from the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and the radicals on the faculty of the University of Chicago, are trying to enforce the politically correct scenario that reduces Jews to objects of hatred and violence.

There can be no question but that some of the faculty are presenting completely biased pictures of the Middle East, either because they are not truly scholarly in approaching the subject or because they have been terrified by the rowdy students who believe in political correctness. In a Humanities Core Course in the Master of Arts Program one of the teachers while discussing the painting "The Golden Calf" during the autumn of 1999 launched a vicious attack against ancient Judaism. Influenced by his prejudice, he falsely told the class that the Hebrew's G-d would let one do anything, even commit murder, so long as one did not worship something in place of that G-d." The students remonstrated with that teacher, but he grew furious and told and Orthodox Jewish student that he could no longer attend the discussion section led by that teacher. Judaism was the only religion that was attacked in that fashion. Obviously that is academic freedom, free from coercion, University of Chicago style under the present administration of that University.

In that same Humanities Core Course in the autumn of 2000 the teacher would not permit the free interchange of ideas involving the presentation of the arguments in favor of Israel. The references to terrorist groups were always biased, and these groups were denominated as "liberation organizations." Israel was described as merely a form of colonialist effort to subjugate the Arab Middle East. In addition, a Jewish senior who had spent a full academic quarter in research for her senior thesis tried to hand her thesis to her teacher, but her preceptor refused to be bothered with her paper or even to read it because it dealt with Judaism and Zionism. Is that the academic atmosphere that the administrators at the University of Chicago hope to inspire and to maintain for the future?

One could continue for at least two more articles dealing with the situation at the University of Chicago without exhausting either the anecdotal or the documentary evidence for the decline of a great American educational treasure. It is impossible to do so. Nevertheless, from time to time it may be salutary to call attention to what has happened and is happening at the great University. It is obvious that the pro-Arabs and the radicals have embarked on a campaign to destroy free speech, the free interchange of ideas, and academic freedom on that campus. As a result of the lack of courage on the part of the administration the forces of evil appear to be on the verge of a triumph. Only the courage of a very few students, Jewish and non-Jewish, combined with a handful of the faculty stand between the obscurantist, prejudiced propagandists for the Arab cause and the successful emasculation of a formerly intellectually institution of higher education. .