Most universities are dedicated to academic freedom to include discourse and debate. If you can not accept that, you need to find a different type of higher educational experience.
Over 100 colleges have signed onto the Chicago Principles, above. Those principles protect discourse that makes people uncomfortable, and even statements they find abhorent. The Mideast is certainly a timely topic of academic debate, and a variety of views will be expressed including questioning the past, present, and future sovereignty or continuity of any state or political group, among other things.
There was a time when college-aged students understood that they could craft eloquent arguments to support/defend/argue a position with which they agree/disagree. It was done for generations, and is the answer rather than trying to silence others.
ETA: Chicago ( or similar) signatories are below:
Hamas/Palestinians have a record of violence and murder against Jews. Those supporting them might be viewed as a threat?
For those interested.
This is the group protesting at MIT.
MIT Coalition Against Apartheid (CAA)
Palestine@MIT and the MIT Coalition Against Apartheid hold the Israeli regime responsible for all unfolding violence. We unequivocally denounce the Israeli occupation, its racist apartheid system, and its military rule. Colonization is inherently violent, aimed at erasing and replacing indigenous peoples. We affirm the right of all occupied peoples to resist oppression and colonization.
The two Yale students that authored the WSJ article are being a bit irrational. They say that Yale has become a hostile environment for Jewish students, citing words from an organized discussion of the events in Gaza as their support. Yet they make no claim of anyone feeling unsafe or threatened during the event. They had to press their ears against closed doors, seeking something to be offended about. This makes it clear that at least in their situation, theyâre seeking thought control or censorship more so than protection from some sort of dubious threat.
No one (as least not me) has objected to Chicago principles. But there are two issues.
weâre objecting to physical intimidation not speech. And to say that the physical intimidation is not directed at Jews but âeveryoneâ is disingenuous and not particularly intellectually honest.
For those schools that have not subscribed to the principles (and perhaps even some that have) they are deciding what constitutes âfree speechâ. Conservative judges and others have been heckled and cancelled likely by the exact same people that are decrying that their right to call for the mass murder of an entire nation (yes: thatâs what âfrom the riverâŠâ means) is being infringed.
Any group that repeatedly doesnât follow the procedures for gatherings is subject to suspension. It has nothing to do with the subject of their speech.
MIT is quite clear in its guidelines on what it considers free speech; the policy is worth reading. It pretty much adopts the first amendment standard. You may wish for a different standard, but that is what MIT chose. Students should respond accordingly.
MIT has reportedly âacknowledged that the reason it did not follow through with threats to suspend students participating in an unauthorized anti-Israel protest this week was its concern that they could face deportation because they were not U.S. citizens.â
and that makes absolutely no sense. MIT or any college for that matter, can suspend students for a term or a year for infractions. (as long as they do it equally and fairly, the student goes home)
MIT has not legal authority for whatever action the federal government may or may not take. (If they felt guilty, MIT could even offer them free legal counsel if they wanted.)
Looked at another way, MIT is basically saying that we will not enforce our own student conduct policies bcos we donât agree with the US student visa system. (Then hire some lobbyists to get the laws changed.)
But ignoring written rules and policies? Why have them? Just delete them. Or, admit that they are just virtue signaling.
Agreed - I was thinking the same thing - it makes no sense. The âdifferent treatmentâ if they enforced their own policies isnât by MIT but by the law which makes a distinction between where home is for citizens and student visa holders. Way to tell students they can do whatever the heck they want without fear of repercussions. Is there any policies/rules they are willing to enforce if it results in suspension? What about sexual harassment? Bullying, intimidation? Cheating? If yes, what makes those rules more worthy of enforcing? What a joke.