Thank you for pointing out that the reporting on the student protests state "facts" that have "very little corroborating evidence." It has been driving me crazy trying to find exactly WHICH Jewish students were in some way threatened by the protests and why they should as a whole be put in fear of the protests other than being told to be so by a rabbi. I haven't found anything. One commentor on a Substack told me his local paper wrote that one girl was threatened by the chant "Free Palestine." Not someone confronting her, just the chant. When asked why, she said that the chant meant "destroy Israel."
News flash--it doesn't. It means exactly what it says, as anyone who has looked into the treatment of Palestinians by Israel since forever (1948 and particularly after 1968) can see. This is both in Gaza with the economy-destroying blockade and the continuing horror stories coming out of the West Bank pretty much daily--Haaretz reports them, even if no one else does.
So part of the problem isn't just "weaponized antisemitism" but actually MANUFACTURED antisemitism leading to what is clearly prior restraint. There have been multiple student protests over the years asking for divestment in certain university investments--in fossil fuel companies, racist or Christianist companies (like Holly Lobby) without immediate shutdowns. Shutdowns after violent ACTIONS are justified, but "being too loud" or "trespassing" aren't really in that category. (I thus see a difference between simply setting up tents--without blocking the paths around them--and take-overs of buildings. The latter may be Civil Disobedience, but that concept includes the willingness to take the consequences of the actions.
I am perfectly willing to condemn folks who actually shout pro--Hamas slogans, though I haven't seen any specific quotes of anyone doing that. But my condemnation is not a restraint; it is the way people should react to things that offend them--counter-speech.
Combined with the laws like Florida's about what teachers can actually SAY in a classroom, including simply discussions of the pros and cons of a volatile issue--this attack on academic freedom (which includes the freedom of students at the "academies")--is one of the most worrisome trends I have seen. (My top worry is theocracy.) It is an attack on even looking into the whys behind an issue, an attack on the very idea of the free play of ideas that our nation was founded on. And we now know we have a "justice" (I now use that word with skepticism) who clearly won't tolerate any speech that isn't conducive to "godliness." Heaven forfend if Project 2025 comes to pass and any speech that doesn't meet the approval of either Alito or Big Business will no longer be part of our national discourse.
Thank you for pointing out that the reporting on the student protests state "facts" that have "very little corroborating evidence." It has been driving me crazy trying to find exactly WHICH Jewish students were in some way threatened by the protests and why they should as a whole be put in fear of the protests other than being told to be so by a rabbi. I haven't found anything. One commentor on a Substack told me his local paper wrote that one girl was threatened by the chant "Free Palestine." Not someone confronting her, just the chant. When asked why, she said that the chant meant "destroy Israel."
News flash--it doesn't. It means exactly what it says, as anyone who has looked into the treatment of Palestinians by Israel since forever (1948 and particularly after 1968) can see. This is both in Gaza with the economy-destroying blockade and the continuing horror stories coming out of the West Bank pretty much daily--Haaretz reports them, even if no one else does.
So part of the problem isn't just "weaponized antisemitism" but actually MANUFACTURED antisemitism leading to what is clearly prior restraint. There have been multiple student protests over the years asking for divestment in certain university investments--in fossil fuel companies, racist or Christianist companies (like Holly Lobby) without immediate shutdowns. Shutdowns after violent ACTIONS are justified, but "being too loud" or "trespassing" aren't really in that category. (I thus see a difference between simply setting up tents--without blocking the paths around them--and take-overs of buildings. The latter may be Civil Disobedience, but that concept includes the willingness to take the consequences of the actions.
I am perfectly willing to condemn folks who actually shout pro--Hamas slogans, though I haven't seen any specific quotes of anyone doing that. But my condemnation is not a restraint; it is the way people should react to things that offend them--counter-speech.
Combined with the laws like Florida's about what teachers can actually SAY in a classroom, including simply discussions of the pros and cons of a volatile issue--this attack on academic freedom (which includes the freedom of students at the "academies")--is one of the most worrisome trends I have seen. (My top worry is theocracy.) It is an attack on even looking into the whys behind an issue, an attack on the very idea of the free play of ideas that our nation was founded on. And we now know we have a "justice" (I now use that word with skepticism) who clearly won't tolerate any speech that isn't conducive to "godliness." Heaven forfend if Project 2025 comes to pass and any speech that doesn't meet the approval of either Alito or Big Business will no longer be part of our national discourse.