The problem with the protestors is not with their expression of unpopular viewpoints. It is with their expression of speech that clearly violates the university’s code of conduct. The problem is their attempt to suppress the expression of views they disagree with. The problem is with their disruption of the university. Any student occupying a tent encampment or university building in contravention of university regulations should be expelled and arrested. Foreign nationals should be deported.
Then the opposing sides can have a civil discussion and real learning can begin. But be aware the anti-Hamas side will be able to display posters of the kids kidnapped by Hamas and women raped by Hamas. The pro-Hamas side has torn down such posters in an attempt to prevent people from learning just what atrocities their side has committed.
I just want to note that Tamkin does say, quite clearly, that "To the extent that there are specific threats made against or harm done to Jewish students at Columbia by their fellow students, those students should be specifically disciplined."
Agree that this is being used on the right to score points, and they are desperate for these protestors to show up in Chicago for the DNC. A lot of actions by the protestors I don’t think are at all legitimate though. Going to faculty homes to protest, distributing flyers depicting blood libel tropes, and shouting “genocide Joe” seem to do more harm than good by undermining genuine concerns for the health of civilians in Gaza. And why do these students seem unconcerned with Ukraine? Or are they also protesting against Russia?
There were students camping and breaking into campuses to demand support for Ukraine? I think a double standard exists only if you are ignorant of history and the context for these conflicts.
I don't have a particularly strong viewpoint on this question, but I am fairly concerned that if the university position is going to be that encampments are allowed to protest the war in Gaza, then, as a matter of institutional neutrality, they're going to need to allow encampments in protest/support of all manner of other behavior, which seems likely to be long term detrimental to the ability of the campus to function.
If, through this episode, Columbia and other universities provoke an era of "permanent encampments," that could be disruptive, sure. But one facet of this ongoing saga that is sometimes overlooked is the fact that the protests are a response to an ongoing, highly-publicized war in which a people group (Palestinians) of longstanding interest to young students, especially of a leftist bent, is undergoing a catastrophic humanitarian situation at the hands of a state this same group has for a long time viewed with deep suspicion (Israel). That confluence of protest drivers is not always in place, obviously. It's not like this encampment saga is carrying out at a time of relative peace between Israel and Gaza—it's happening in response to the unfolding Israeli military response in Gaza. This cuts against the idea that, at any given time, there's always going to be protest movements mobilized to this extent, war or no, and that this is the new normal.
Certainly the current encampments have a lot more support and interest than I would expect others to have. But I'd say two things: first, if the position is that it's actually just okay to camp on campus property without permission, then they should change their rules to authorize it, rather than make an exception for individual actions.
Second, I'm curious what the limiting principle here is? If the local homeless group wants to set up a homeless camp to protest the cost of living, should that be allowed? Or, if it's limited to students, can I camp out rather than paying for a dorm room?
But more broadly, I think that you're underestimating the knock-on effects of allowing flagrant rule violations.
So your headline says “Pro Palestinian Protests.” I’m confused. Are “students” protesting other students who are pro Palestinian? Are “students” informing other students about the positive qualities of Palestinians? Are “students”protesting professional vs amateur Palestinians?
I’m confused. My eyes tell me screaming folks in black have demands of the university, of the government. Others are calling Israel an apartheid state. Mass murderers.
My ears are straining to hear discussions or even polemics about the good reasons Palestine should be supported.
Sadly this article seems to reflect the largely unpersuasive “arguments” to be supportive or “pro” Palestine.
In fact. The behavior of the “students” distracts one from any notion of support at all! Goodness me. What I see and hear is “look at us!! do what we tell you if you don’t we will keep threatening you, them, those, whomever till you die.”
The “author” of this article is confused. In rhetoric class I learned that repeated bratty demands do not count as discussions of merit or lack of.
Further, even on college campuses, threats of violence to groups of people who may be present on said campus?
Such threats are an opportunity for “students” to learn about the legal system.
Your confusions all seem to stem from your crippling reading incomprehension. Given that, no tweak to the headline or article would've helped all that much. For example, what could we have done to help someone who thinks "In fact" is a full sentence or bizarrely puts "author" in quotation marks (I mean, suggesting what: that she's not really the author?). You said you wanted to hear good reasons for supporting Palestine, but that's not what this piece is about. You shouldn't ask pieces to do things they never set out to do.
1. "there are chants on campus—and off campus by people who are not students—that have made some Jewish students uncomfortable". Although you do belatedly give some examples later, this is a gross understatement of what is being said / shouted / directed at Jews. "uncomfortable" is not how you would feel when there are direct and unambiguous threats of violence and it is an injustice to claim otherwise.
2. "There are moments, however, when it may be hard to distinguish between protests and veiled violence: for example, people within the encampment at Columbia formed a human chain to stop the movement of alleged “Zionists” to protect the privacy of the encampment. That wasn’t violence, exactly, but arguably did contain within it a threat (what happens if you try to go past the chain?)" Using physical force to stop free actions of others is violence. To claim otherwise here is being persnickety at best and more likely just an apologist.
3. Trying to equate "Go back to Gaza!" with "Go back to Poland" and / or “the 7th of October is going to be every day for you!” is not just illogical, it is the worst of cultural relativism and yet another act of being an apologist for those in the pre-Gaza / Hamas demonstrations.
4. "There is also the reality that Jews ourselves, at both an institutional and personal level, do not agree on what is and is not upsetting to Jews." This is true - and it is a great example of how and why Israel and the US are morally superior to cultures and nations and religions that prohibit views that do not conform to official policy. It is, however, not a justification to allow protests that are initiating force and creating an atmosphere of violence such that a university is unable to conduct its business.
5. "It is important to remember that the population under discussion here—students—is ostensibly on campus in the first place to learn and think and challenge themselves and, most importantly, each other. It matters that they are able to do so safely; but it also matters that they are able to do so at all." This is also true. But when some students act and protest in such a way that is directly advocating violence against a certain demographic (Jews, in this case) and physically prevents other students from learning as they are entitled to and/ or the teachers from doing their jobs, then the protest should, rightfully, be broken up.
This is as bad as the "mostly peaceful" apologists for multiple protests that become violent. A peaceful protest is a peaceful protest and can and should be tolerated by those who hold opposing views. But when it is no longer peaceful, then justice demands that it be broken up. And this is the case for nearly all of the pro-Gaza / Hamas protests occurring both on and off campuses today.
". . .But those on the lawns. . .seem to me. . .to be trying to do what they can with the limited power they have: show solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. . ."
And in at least one case, that solidarity has been felt ". . .The scenes of American university campuses breaming with students in kuffiyehs, waving Palestinian flags and resisting the brutality of the police and their own university administrations, has uplifted my spirit in ways I cannot fully articulate. In a word, what is happening on US campuses today is validation of our people, of Palestine and of our struggle. . ." http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=26865&CategoryId=13
The latest Harris poll says 80% support Israel versus Hamas. It also shows a sharp counter-reaction against the campus disruptions. A majority want the malefactors arrested and expelled. A plurality want deportation for any non-citizens. Biden’s weak leadership is drawing criticism from all sides. The House just passed a bill adding the IHRA definition of antisemitism to Title IX.
A Commons is an area for everyone who is part of the University. Once you allow a particular group to physically take control, it is no longer a commons. These encampments are part of an intimidation campaign by an alliance of Leftist and Islamist agitators. If a group of Pro-Israeli and pro- American students were to want to set up their own encampment, how would the University then stop the commons from being divided into hostile little enclaves?
The problem with the protestors is not with their expression of unpopular viewpoints. It is with their expression of speech that clearly violates the university’s code of conduct. The problem is their attempt to suppress the expression of views they disagree with. The problem is with their disruption of the university. Any student occupying a tent encampment or university building in contravention of university regulations should be expelled and arrested. Foreign nationals should be deported.
Then the opposing sides can have a civil discussion and real learning can begin. But be aware the anti-Hamas side will be able to display posters of the kids kidnapped by Hamas and women raped by Hamas. The pro-Hamas side has torn down such posters in an attempt to prevent people from learning just what atrocities their side has committed.
I just want to note that Tamkin does say, quite clearly, that "To the extent that there are specific threats made against or harm done to Jewish students at Columbia by their fellow students, those students should be specifically disciplined."
I don’t recall the Occupy Protestors occupying Hamilton Hall or harassing Jewish students.
Agree that this is being used on the right to score points, and they are desperate for these protestors to show up in Chicago for the DNC. A lot of actions by the protestors I don’t think are at all legitimate though. Going to faculty homes to protest, distributing flyers depicting blood libel tropes, and shouting “genocide Joe” seem to do more harm than good by undermining genuine concerns for the health of civilians in Gaza. And why do these students seem unconcerned with Ukraine? Or are they also protesting against Russia?
There were students camping and breaking into campuses to demand support for Ukraine? I think a double standard exists only if you are ignorant of history and the context for these conflicts.
I don't have a particularly strong viewpoint on this question, but I am fairly concerned that if the university position is going to be that encampments are allowed to protest the war in Gaza, then, as a matter of institutional neutrality, they're going to need to allow encampments in protest/support of all manner of other behavior, which seems likely to be long term detrimental to the ability of the campus to function.
If, through this episode, Columbia and other universities provoke an era of "permanent encampments," that could be disruptive, sure. But one facet of this ongoing saga that is sometimes overlooked is the fact that the protests are a response to an ongoing, highly-publicized war in which a people group (Palestinians) of longstanding interest to young students, especially of a leftist bent, is undergoing a catastrophic humanitarian situation at the hands of a state this same group has for a long time viewed with deep suspicion (Israel). That confluence of protest drivers is not always in place, obviously. It's not like this encampment saga is carrying out at a time of relative peace between Israel and Gaza—it's happening in response to the unfolding Israeli military response in Gaza. This cuts against the idea that, at any given time, there's always going to be protest movements mobilized to this extent, war or no, and that this is the new normal.
Certainly the current encampments have a lot more support and interest than I would expect others to have. But I'd say two things: first, if the position is that it's actually just okay to camp on campus property without permission, then they should change their rules to authorize it, rather than make an exception for individual actions.
Second, I'm curious what the limiting principle here is? If the local homeless group wants to set up a homeless camp to protest the cost of living, should that be allowed? Or, if it's limited to students, can I camp out rather than paying for a dorm room?
But more broadly, I think that you're underestimating the knock-on effects of allowing flagrant rule violations.
So your headline says “Pro Palestinian Protests.” I’m confused. Are “students” protesting other students who are pro Palestinian? Are “students” informing other students about the positive qualities of Palestinians? Are “students”protesting professional vs amateur Palestinians?
I’m confused. My eyes tell me screaming folks in black have demands of the university, of the government. Others are calling Israel an apartheid state. Mass murderers.
My ears are straining to hear discussions or even polemics about the good reasons Palestine should be supported.
Sadly this article seems to reflect the largely unpersuasive “arguments” to be supportive or “pro” Palestine.
In fact. The behavior of the “students” distracts one from any notion of support at all! Goodness me. What I see and hear is “look at us!! do what we tell you if you don’t we will keep threatening you, them, those, whomever till you die.”
The “author” of this article is confused. In rhetoric class I learned that repeated bratty demands do not count as discussions of merit or lack of.
Further, even on college campuses, threats of violence to groups of people who may be present on said campus?
Such threats are an opportunity for “students” to learn about the legal system.
In a courtroom.
Namaste.
Your confusions all seem to stem from your crippling reading incomprehension. Given that, no tweak to the headline or article would've helped all that much. For example, what could we have done to help someone who thinks "In fact" is a full sentence or bizarrely puts "author" in quotation marks (I mean, suggesting what: that she's not really the author?). You said you wanted to hear good reasons for supporting Palestine, but that's not what this piece is about. You shouldn't ask pieces to do things they never set out to do.
I have several criticisms of your analysis:
1. "there are chants on campus—and off campus by people who are not students—that have made some Jewish students uncomfortable". Although you do belatedly give some examples later, this is a gross understatement of what is being said / shouted / directed at Jews. "uncomfortable" is not how you would feel when there are direct and unambiguous threats of violence and it is an injustice to claim otherwise.
2. "There are moments, however, when it may be hard to distinguish between protests and veiled violence: for example, people within the encampment at Columbia formed a human chain to stop the movement of alleged “Zionists” to protect the privacy of the encampment. That wasn’t violence, exactly, but arguably did contain within it a threat (what happens if you try to go past the chain?)" Using physical force to stop free actions of others is violence. To claim otherwise here is being persnickety at best and more likely just an apologist.
3. Trying to equate "Go back to Gaza!" with "Go back to Poland" and / or “the 7th of October is going to be every day for you!” is not just illogical, it is the worst of cultural relativism and yet another act of being an apologist for those in the pre-Gaza / Hamas demonstrations.
4. "There is also the reality that Jews ourselves, at both an institutional and personal level, do not agree on what is and is not upsetting to Jews." This is true - and it is a great example of how and why Israel and the US are morally superior to cultures and nations and religions that prohibit views that do not conform to official policy. It is, however, not a justification to allow protests that are initiating force and creating an atmosphere of violence such that a university is unable to conduct its business.
5. "It is important to remember that the population under discussion here—students—is ostensibly on campus in the first place to learn and think and challenge themselves and, most importantly, each other. It matters that they are able to do so safely; but it also matters that they are able to do so at all." This is also true. But when some students act and protest in such a way that is directly advocating violence against a certain demographic (Jews, in this case) and physically prevents other students from learning as they are entitled to and/ or the teachers from doing their jobs, then the protest should, rightfully, be broken up.
This is as bad as the "mostly peaceful" apologists for multiple protests that become violent. A peaceful protest is a peaceful protest and can and should be tolerated by those who hold opposing views. But when it is no longer peaceful, then justice demands that it be broken up. And this is the case for nearly all of the pro-Gaza / Hamas protests occurring both on and off campuses today.
". . .But those on the lawns. . .seem to me. . .to be trying to do what they can with the limited power they have: show solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. . ."
And in at least one case, that solidarity has been felt ". . .The scenes of American university campuses breaming with students in kuffiyehs, waving Palestinian flags and resisting the brutality of the police and their own university administrations, has uplifted my spirit in ways I cannot fully articulate. In a word, what is happening on US campuses today is validation of our people, of Palestine and of our struggle. . ." http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=26865&CategoryId=13
The latest Harris poll says 80% support Israel versus Hamas. It also shows a sharp counter-reaction against the campus disruptions. A majority want the malefactors arrested and expelled. A plurality want deportation for any non-citizens. Biden’s weak leadership is drawing criticism from all sides. The House just passed a bill adding the IHRA definition of antisemitism to Title IX.
A Commons is an area for everyone who is part of the University. Once you allow a particular group to physically take control, it is no longer a commons. These encampments are part of an intimidation campaign by an alliance of Leftist and Islamist agitators. If a group of Pro-Israeli and pro- American students were to want to set up their own encampment, how would the University then stop the commons from being divided into hostile little enclaves?