The anti-Israel protests on campuses revealed some of the good, bad and ugly of our universities. Behind it lies the hints of Critical Theory, which has captured so many campuses, robbing faculty and students of reason and judgment.
The good news is that protests involved fewer than one in every thousand college students. That means, for every protesting student, hundreds of others were studying for final exams, completing term papers or preparing end-of-course presentations.
The depiction of many protesters as over-privileged and under-informed may be fair, but that is not what I see on campus. Most students arrive with a little intellectual humility, a desire to learn and thrive. Harassing fellow students or barricading campus are not why they came to college.
The bad was also apparent. Many universities were unprepared, if not confused, over how to handle protests. Any president who has not rehearsed a plan to ensure free speech, while protecting property, should be looking for a different job. Many failed at that simple task and should go. The harder challenge came with antisemitic threats, which risk creating environments that violate federal civil rights law and campus policies.
Still, after decades of colleges carefully curating students, staff and faculty for a very narrow set of ideologies, many schools seemed shocked to discover there is more than one point of view. This has left some of them helpless and hapless in their response.
There was also more than a little hypocrisy on display. Many faculty members criticized last-minute policy changes or were angered by the police presence, or the techniques they used to disperse students. Those complaints are fair.
Still, try to imagine the level of faculty outrage if campus officials summoned armed police to disperse a crowd of students chanting “they will not replace us” or some other noxious white supremacist mantra. There would be none.
To be fair, the protestors and counter protestors came in many forms. Those outside my office were neither disruptive nor plainly antisemitic. The Middle East has many deep issues that would benefit from honest discussion, and there are there are fair critiques of all sides. There is also more than sufficient suffering to make us care and sympathize with victims.
But, in many places, a deep ugliness descended on American campuses that we must confront.
The overall climate of these protests was antisemitic and frankly pro-terrorist. I cannot write about this without disclosing my own experience in Middle East wars and in peacekeeping missions designed to prevent another Arab-Israeli conflict.
As a young officer, I was in the midst of some of the most horrific violence the region has seen, including vast refugee columns, devastated cities and murdered civilians. My experiences yield both context and nightmares.
From Chabahar west to Casablanca, from the Mediterranean through the southern Sahara, the neighborhood is a wreck. In that region of 26 nations, there is one functioning democracy – Israel. The rest range from failed states, such as Sudan, to medieval monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, to full-scale civil wars, such as Syria or Yemen.
Ethnic cleansing is common across the region. Indeed, there’s only one nation with a religious minority that is larger today than in 1970 – Israel.
Many Middle Eastern nations are full of courageous citizens and struggling governments that wish to craft democracy from the ruins of despotism, imperialism and terror movements. Since the Arab Spring, pro-democracy volunteers continue to fight and die in desperate civil wars in Niger, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq and especially Syria. They fight radical terrorists, they fight armed groups of thugs and they fight Cold War despots.
A reasonable person might suppose American students would vigorously support that one liberal, multicultural democracy in the region. Or, perhaps there would be student rallies to support those pro-democracy movements. After all, no human being in the world basks more fully in the blessings of liberty and democracy than a progressive college student.
One might suppose that students would devote themselves to protesting the region’s despots, who operate military dictatorships or 12th-century century monarchies. These would surely be targets of an informed, progressive movement.
Most especially, we should expect student protestors to rally forcefully against the radical terrorists. After all, these movements don’t wish women to suffer the inconvenience of education, voting or choosing their husband. The LBGT+ community, which is so active on campus, is largely silent in radical terrorist circles, because they have been murdered.
None of this has happened. The protests on American campuses targeted the sole liberal, multi-cultural democracy in the Middle East. There is something else at work, an ancient and noxious hatred that has no place on campus. It is antisemitism. We must accept that’s what it is and stand against it.
The claims of Israeli genocide are preposterous. If you believe Hamas’ fabricated numbers, fewer than 1% of Palestinians have died in this war. The Syrian Civil War has killed 20 times the number, without any campus protests.
The protestors would have you believe that Israel has both a powerful and criminal military but lacks the competence to conduct a proper ethnic cleansing. The claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing are just a modern antisemitic trope, without facts or merit.
Many protestors waved the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups that won popular elections in Gaza and the West Bank. Both explicitly call for the elimination of Israel and Jews. It is time to state clearly that waving a Hamas or Hezbollah flag is functionally identical to waving a NAZI flag. We should treat them all with scorn.
The pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protests are funded, directed and promoted by groups with a deep hatred of our liberal democratic values. I doubt most students know this, but faculty and staff participants are well aware.
Hatred of Israel is taught on campuses under the umbrella of Critical Theory. In this view, Israel is depicted as an “oppressor” and Jews who support Israel are depicted as the epitome of privileged Zionists. This view justifies Hamas and the Oct. 7 murders that precipitated this war.
It is impossible to understand the current explosion of antisemitic protests without appealing to Critical Theory and its anti-liberal focus on race, religion and oppressor status. It is well past time university presidents end Critical Theory-based programming and policies on campus. If not, legislators should do so to prevent these antisemitic protests from becoming more ugly.
Professor Hicks,I read your pieces every time they come out, and I enjoy them. You customarily make a lot of sense, and even when I do not agree with you, I enjoy thinking about your position and testing mine against it. You make a lot of sense in this one too, with a caveat which I will get to in a minute.
I am not a young man anymore. I have lived long enough to remember why we have NATO, for example. I was a child when Russian tanks rolled into Budapest, but I remember it and the discussions of my relatives regarding it. I think I know exactly who and what Putin is. I could go on, but my point is that I fear we have many, many citizens who do not remember any of this, and may not understand the critical importance of NATO, SEATO, and our other alliances. I am actually older than the State of Israel, and I do understand the complexities of the Middle East from a layman’s point of view. You make some good points here.
The caveat concerns your animus against Critical Theory. You appear to dismiss systems that look at race and oppression, for example. I grew up in Birmingham during the 1950s and 60s. I was 18 when the four little girls were blown up. If you doubt systems of race and oppression, I would love to have coffee with you and share my memories from that period.
And to paraphrase Faulkner, the past isn’t dead; it’s not even past. We have a bank in Indianapolis being sanctioned right now for redlining. Systems of race and oppression are like death and taxes: they are always with us.
Interesting. As a former officer, what would you do if a foreign army invaded part of the United States? Would you fight them to the best of your ability? As a former NCO, I certainly would.
The equating of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is lazy thinking and it is dishonest.
After all, many Jews themselves are anti-Zionist. Are they also anti-Semitic? There's a great scene in the movie Munich where a Palestinian is talking to one of the undercover Israeli assassins. He says, "My father didn't gas any Jews", and that is the crux of the issue here.
Terrorist, freedom fighter, anti-Semite, anti-Zionist, all those terms are bullshit to obscure the central problem: Israel was created by Europeans to expiate their guilt for one thousand years of anti-Semitic pogroms and repression, which culminated in the Holocaust. But instead of doing it by giving Jews part of Germany, or part of France, or some other part of Europe, they "gave" them someone else's land. About 45% of Jews in Israel are Ashkenazi, meaning they are themselves European Jews or descended from European Jews. What right do those Europeans have to the land of Christian or Muslim Palestinians whose families have been there for more than a thousand years?
Why can any Jew, no matter where he is born, "return" to "his" homeland, but no Palestinian who was ethnically cleansed and pushed out in the last seventy years can return to his homeland?
The last five paragraphs of your post are full of so much lazy thinking, lazy argumentation, and factual inaccuracy I wonder at your ability to be a professor, a teacher.
To be anti-Zionist is not the same as being pro-Hamas. If you cannot understand that, it is because you WON'T understand it no matter how many facts you encounter.
It is entirely reasonable and humane to say that a country with F-16s, tanks, Apache helicopters, guided missiles and a trained army should not imprison 2 million human beings in a concentration camp 7 miles wide by 25 miles long. One of the justifications is "they voted for Hamas." But, that is irrefutably false since Hamas won elections in 2006 and half the population is younger than eighteen. In other words, they WEREN'T EVEN BORN when Hamas won elections.
Moreover, Netanyahu and the Israeli government GAVE MONEY TO AND SUPPORTED HAMAS.
Thus, by your reasoning, Netanyahu is anti-Semitic.
I find myself returning again and again to the words of Israeli leaders, who in private were at least honest, unlike you.
Ehud Barak: "If I were a Palestinian of the right age, I would join, at some point, one of the terrorist groups."
David Ben-Gurion: "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"
Again, Ben-Gurion: "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves … politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
The difference between these Israelis and you is they, in private, admitted what they are doing. They are slowly but steadily ethnically cleansing the land by removing or just killing Palestinians.
I continue to wonder, what would a former officer do if foreigners invaded part of the United States because their god promised it to them two thousand years ago? Would a former officer just surrender, or would he fight the invaders?