Deposit photos. Image courtesy of lightsource.
JNS
Jews have long been champions of freedom of speech in the United States, yet they often have not hesitated to advocate canceling speakers who are anti-Semitic or virulently anti-Israel. Many Jews feel that those who spread hatred against them or Israel should face consequences, but they are frequently uneasy about the mechanisms used to deliver those consequences.
This ambivalence was true before Donald Trump returned to the White House, but has become more prevalent since his administration began taking aggressive steps against anti-Semites and their institutional enablers.
Exposure Will Neutralize?
Free-speech advocates often invoke Louis Brandeis’s famous line, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” (the exact quote was “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”). With apologies to the great Jewish jurist, when it comes to anti-Semitism, this is pure rubbish. The idea that exposure will neutralize hatred has been disproven by centuries of Jewish persecution. Hate doesn’t melt away in the light; it mutates and metastasizes. Permitting anti-Semites to spread their rhetoric on campus doesn’t disinfect; instead, it creates a toxic environment for Jewish students and undermines academic integrity.
Prof. Scott Galloway put it best: “Free speech is at its freest when it’s hate speech against Jews.”
Even while extolling free speech, Jews are often willing to oppose anti-Semites speaking on campus. For example, last year, alumni, faculty, community groups and parents of students at Brown University signed a letter urging the administration to disinvite U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (who was recently reappointed to her position over Jews’ and U.S. objections) because of her history of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks.
Tension
This tension between the desire not to appear as suppressors of debate and the need to confront hate speech is torturous. Jews often find themselves asking: Is opposing a bigot’s right to speak a betrayal of liberal values or a defense of moral ones?
Though none would admit it, the attitude of campus protesters is: We have the right to be anti-Semites, and no one has the right to say or do anything about it. So, they are understandably upset when anyone calls them out as bigots or makes them pay for the consequences. This is why so many cowardly hide behind masks, unwilling to take responsibility for their words or actions.
Discernment
Anti-Semites complain, for example, when groups like the Canary Mission publicize their public statements. It’s like pulling a hood off a Klansman. Publishing personal information about anti-Semites is not kosher, but exposing what they say is fair game. Students who support terrorists deserve to be shamed. They enjoy no First Amendment protection from being called out for being immoral or just plain stupid.
If employers decline to hire individuals who support hate, that’s not censorship; it’s discernment. International students can speak their minds, but they may be subject to deportation if they endorse designated terrorist groups like Hamas. Exercising that authority is not persecution; it’s policy.
When the anti-Semitic tsunami hit campuses after Oct. 7, nothing seemed to stem the tide. Now that the Trump administration has started to deport anti-Semites and withhold government funds from universities, we are finally seeing universities take the problem seriously. True, the administration is using a sledgehammer tactic that is making some Jews uncomfortable, but the slap-on-the-wrist approach of the Biden administration, on the rare occasions it was applied, was ineffective. Some Jews have said these steps will make anti-Semitism worse. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of anti-Semitism, which is that no excuse is needed to hate Jews. It is also difficult to determine whether the objection is to the punishment or that it fulfills Trump’s campaign promise.
The constant refrain that pro-Palestinian (they don’t admit to being pro-terrorist) voices are being stifled is easily disproven by their ubiquity. Some universities are finally suspending Students for Justice in Palestine groups (they should be expelling the members), and yet they find other ways to express their views. The annual anti-Israel hate weeks featuring speakers and films were held on many campuses over the last month without any interference.
Many of those complaining the loudest about freedom of speech support the boycott of Israel; that is, suppressing the speech of academics and students who wish to engage with Israel. Many professors are willing to defend the “academic freedom” of colleagues to use their classrooms to advance anti-Israel agendas. Jewish professors are rarely willing to speak out.
Definition
Even though the U.S. government and dozens of countries around the world have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism, faculty, often led by Jewish professors, fight against its use on campus, speciously claiming it stifles free speech. However, the refusal to define anti-Semitism ensures that no behavior can be deemed a violation. Without boundaries, there can be no enforcement, and impunity has thrived.
Right To Speak?
One group of Jews came up with the Nexus definition of anti-Semitism, which Prof. Cary Nelson described as an effort to “exonerate anti-Zionism by any means necessary.” Now, the Nexus Project is objecting to Trump’s crackdown on students and universities, and presenting an alternative strategy that, predictably, protects the anti-Semites by opposing the deportation or labeling of anti-Semites and defending diversity, equity, and inclusion. Their recommendations focus less on defending Jews than on challenging the administration’s authority and pushing unrelated policy goals, such as ending the war in Gaza and promoting a Palestinian state.
Let’s be honest: When we learn about anti-Semites coming to campus or elsewhere, there will be no shortage of principled Jewish voices defending their right to speak. But do we want to give them a platform? Shouldn’t neo-Nazis, Islamists, white supremacists, Hamas supporters and other anti-Semites be canceled, condemned and marginalized without apology?
Germany is a democracy that still has laws against hate speech. Denying the Holocaust, for example, is prohibited. Social media is the most dangerous medium for spreading anti-Semitism. In this instance, Trump’s defense of an unregulated digital marketplace fails the Jews. Germany, by contrast, holds platforms accountable for the hate they amplify. American Jews are equivocal. Some are free-speech absolutists, while others call for moderated online posts. What did the Jews who met Elon Musk say? Did they tell him—free speech be damned—keep the anti-Semites off X? Or did they simply grumble that they wish there weren’t so many of them?
Free speech is a core Jewish value, but so is the defense of Jewish life. The era of ambivalence must end. We cannot allow our principles to be used to undermine our safety. History has shown where that leads.
