Will Berkeley Ban Anti-Semitism?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

07 September 15

re you a Jew?” demanded the Palestinian, armed with a make-believe Kalashnikov. He was demonstrating at Berkeley during an annual “Israel Apartheid Week,” showing what it was like to be a Palestinian living under Israeli rule. He was also offending many Jews, both on campus and off, though many other Jews actively support the Palestinian cause. Either way, the whole thing may come to a head in mid-September, when the UC Board of Regents is scheduled to vote on a statement regarding anti-Semitism and other intolerance that could restrict pro-Palestinian efforts to boycott Israel and disinvest from companies that support it.

The regents’ consideration of the issue raises big questions. Is opposition to Israeli policies anti-Semitic? Do universities and governments have a responsibility to criminalize anti-Semitism and other “hate speech,” especially at a time when Jew- and Muslim-bashing feed far-right and neo-fascist movements in both the US and Europe? And where in all this does free speech and academic freedom fit in?

From a grubbier perspective, how much are the regents influenced by Israel-American businessman Haim Saban, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and their campaign to crush the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, especially on college campuses?

As Hillary Clinton wrote to Saban, a major donor to most of what her family does:

I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority. I am seeking your advice on how we can work together – across party lines and with a diverse array of voices – to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel….

I am also very concerned by attempts to compare Israel to South African apartheid. Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world – especially in Europe – we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.

An important indicator will be whether the regents adopt significant portions of a controversial definition of anti-Semitism that the US State Department has used since 2005 and that Hillary championed as Secretary of State. The definition includes several examples of possible anti-Semitism with regard to Israel. These include:

• Demonizing Israel by using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions


• Applying double standards for Israel by requiring of it a behavior not expected of any other democratic nation or focusing by multilateral organizations on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations


• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

The State Department definition is quick to note that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.” But any university-wide definition of what is and is not anti-Semitic would, if enforced with punishment of any kind, directly challenge academic freedom, free speech, and the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the First Amendment.

Like it or not, free speech has to include the right to say hateful things in uncivil ways. If governments, or state universities, or private universities that take government funding try to regulate what students and professors can and cannot say, freedom of expression begins to wither away. This is the situation in most if not all European countries, with their laws against hate speech and Holocaust denial that end up strengthening the haters and deniers. That is not a wise course to follow.

Far better is to fight speech you don’t like with speech you do like. If you don’t like BDS, argue against them. If you don’t like their demonstrations, create counter-protests. If you think they are edging into anti-Semitism, call them out, or – even better – try to convince them that they are only hurting their own cause. But if you permit government or university officials to regulate the content of speech, they will not stop with shutting down only the speech you do not like. They will, as in Europe, shut down the speech you do like.

How likely are the regents to take that route? At their meeting in July, they appeared to step back from the definition, announcing that their September meeting would consider “a statement of principles against intolerance, including, but not limited to anti-Semitism and other types of intolerance.” Pro-Palestinian groups took this as a major victory, but as university officials told the Los Angeles Times, the regents were still discussing whether to include the full State Department definition.

None of the regents have asked me, but I would urge them not to make the same mistake that the university made 51 years ago this month, when its assault on free speech triggered the Free Speech Movement (FSM). Back then, the university was trying to stop us from using the Berleley campus to organize against racial segregation and discrimination by businesses in the San Francisco Bay area. Now, they are trying to stop a new generation of activists throughout the university system from creating a new reality in the Middle East and in US foreign policy. Have the regents and administrators learned nothing over all these years? Don’t they realize that they are risking a massive defeat, either in the courts or from the steps of Sproul Hall?

A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.