Protest and Prejudice

 

It should be obvious to all of even rudimentary intelligence that protest and prejudice aren't one and the same. Prejudice is, in fact, one of the things which may be protested.  It often is protested, in fact.  Similarly, one may be prejudiced against protests and protesters.  

Since the difference between them is obvious, when it's claimed that people who protest are prejudiced, the claim can't reasonably be accepted on its face, without explanation.  Their prejudice and the prejudicial nature of the protest should be established.  If prejudice isn't or can't be established then it may be inferred that those making the claim are, in some sense, prejudiced against the protesters and the protest.

Lately we're deluged with media coverage of protests being made against Israel regarding its actions in Gaza.  We're also imposed upon by posturing politicians and pundits who are apoplectic over those protests and condemn them as anti-semitic.  

Being a Boomer, I've seen, heard of and read about protests since I was a wee lad.  I haven't participated in any, as I'm one of those Boomers who were born late enough to miss the major ones which took place in the 1960s, and am also by nature more an observer of events than a participant in them.  I will participate when in great need, however.

In any case, protests, particularly those which take place on college campuses, don't astonish or appall me.  I consider them somewhat commonplace.  College students are excitable and easily swayed and have a keen sense of injustice, though they aren't necessarily sensible.  They can also be self-righteous and ignorant, though that may be said of humans generally who would rather avoid the rigors of thought and critical thinking. 

It is, or should be, clear that someone who criticizes the state of Israel isn't thereby anti-semitic.  I, personally, think that the creation of Israel assured that the Mideast would be subject to bloody conflict for many years.  That has been the case and I suspect will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.  I don't accept the claim that any people have or are entitled to have a homeland by grant of God. As a result, I don't think Israel is more or less entitled to exist than any other nation.  I don't think that these opinions establish I'm anti-semitic.  Israel is a nation, and is as subject to criticism as any other nation.

No reasonable person can contend that the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel in October of last year were justified.  I think that's apparent.  They were horrific.  If it is being claimed by those protesting against Israel on college campuses that they were justified, does that in itself make them anti-semitic?  If it's being claimed by the protesters that Israel's response to those attacks is excessive, does that in itself make them anti-semitic?  If anti-semitism is properly defined as hatred of or prejudice against Jews qua Jews (which seems a common definition of it), wouldn't the consideration of whether conduct directed at them is justified, or whether their conduct in certain circumstances is excessive, indicate that the fact that they are Jewish isn't the sole basis for approval or condemnation?

Mere criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza should not be deemed anti-semitic.  Is more than that involved in the protests?  If so, then clearly there should be concern about them.  In particular, if Jewish people are being targeted merely because their Jewish, and for being Jewish, the claim of anti-semitism is justified.

The latest protests, at Columbia University, seem peaceful; certainly in comparison to some of those protests engaged in by Boomers against the Vietnam War, for example.  According to accounts I've read, even the police who were called on by the University to clear students away, resulting in arrests, commented on the fact the protesters were peaceful and the University's reaction excessive.  

Unfortunately, reports regarding what is taking place conflict, and much of what is said and written seem polemical.  There are politicians who claim, or perhaps merely assume, that protests are anti-semitic and Jews are being repressed or are in danger, and demand colleges takes steps.  It's difficult to find much in the way of evidence to support such claims, though.

I admit to suspicion regarding the claims of anti-semitism being made by right-wing politicians and pundits.  Although it's probably unfair to believe that most if not all of them are gibbering, drooling idiots, it seems clear enough that their posturing is politically motivated and disingenuous.  Their relish of the opportunity to be sanctimonious where Ivy League colleges are concerned is too excessive to be genuine.  In fact, I find it disturbing whenever members of Congress insert themselves in matters of most any kind.  I doubt their good faith and believe most of them to be corrupt, that being the case almost necessarily in a political system where the acquisition and spending of money by politicians are of primary concern.

So, the question I think must be answered is:  What is it about the protests being condemned that makes them anti-semitic?  To me, that means:  What is it about them that isn't merely a criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza?  If they aren't anti-semitic, then they should be handled by the authorities like any other protest

The Dangers of Free Expression

Ah, the halcyon days of the House Un-American Activities Committee ("HUAC").  See the giants of HUAC above, Senator Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn, hard at work.  Have those days returned, or are they returning?

The People's House, as it is called by some without apparent irony, or at least certain of its members, recently took the opportunity to posture for us by interrogating high officials of certain Ivy League schools regarding anti-semitic speech and conduct if not in the halls of academia then on campus.  As a result, certain of them have resigned or are on the cusp of doing so, and the professionally outraged and great donating individuals and corporations are gunning for their jobs.

It's always amusing when politicians strike attitudes for the cameras and exercise their relatively limited powers of expression on most any topic.  But this is particularly the case when self-righteousness is what is on display.  To be frank, the very idea of members of Congress inquiring into free expression isn't merely amusing; it's alarming.  Their tendency is to regulate, as regulation involves the exercise of powers that, unfortunately, are given them, and except for the acquisition of money it is the exercise of power which gives them the most joy.

So, any meeting of a committee of Congress for the purpose of exploring issues which may be impacted by First Amendment concerns, or questions of morals, is prima facie disturbing.  What seems to be motivating the head hunting now taking place, though, is itself disturbing, as it seems that the sad recipients of Congressional attention had difficulty affirming that advocating the extermination of the Jewish people would violate the codes of their institutions relating to bullying and harassment. 

Calling for genocide would seem objectionable per se.  Ambivalence on whether it is in the case of Jews in particular is especially objectionable at this time, given increasing instances of anti-semitism, which is what evidently led to this latest salle by Congress into higher education.  One would think that it would only make sense to confirm that calling for genocide of a people is bullying and harassment even in Ivy League schools.

Just what caused the hesitance and equivocation isn't entirely clear, but it seems to be motivated by the belief that, at least in the academy, there should be few if any limits on expression.  Just why this would be believed is also unclear, to me at least.  To a certain extent, I tend to blame John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty.  On the question of freedom of speech, he remains something of an idol.  Mill is thought by today's version of conservatives to be a liberal, and therefore evil, but the truth is he was very much a Classical Liberal, which is what conservatives were in many instances in the days when conservatism was a legitimate point of view.  He is perhaps more accurately called a Libertarian.

Regardless, though, when it comes to free expression Mill was unfortunately something of an absolutist.  Thus, according to him--"if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

There is danger in absolutism.  In the case of free expression, claiming that all expression must be free requires the suspension of intelligent judgment.  It requires that we accept the view that all speech be treated as equal in value and merit.  That simply is not the case, and no appeal to a mythical "marketplace of ideas" justifies such an irresponsible position.  In fact, as we should know to an increasingly reasonable degree of certainty, people will believe anything, no matter how stupid, no matter how insensible, no matter how irrational, and once believing won't be persuaded not to believe.

This is not to say that there's anything seemly or worthy in the histrionics being engaged in by certain politicians and the wealthy as they seek to outdo each other in their self-righteous demands for academic blood.  But it is to say that free expression can be dangerous, and isn't always to be allowed.