Back in 1970, during the Vietnam War, then President Nixon ordered that the United States attack Cambodia. In response, many students on campuses across the nation went on strike. At Kent State University in Ohio, the National Guard was brought in to quell disturbances. They fired at students and killed four of them. Nine others were wounded. The photo of a female student, screaming as she knelt over the body of dead classmate, was widely broadcast. Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s song, “Four Dead in Ohio,” followed shortly after. Soon over 4,000,000 students went on strike at 700 colleges, universities, and high schools. 34 college presidents wrote Nixon protesting the war.
I was a graduate student at Columbia then, teaching two classes. I and many others refused to hold classes on campus. A few months later, two more students were killed at Jackson State University, a black institution in Mississippi. These deaths did not receive the nearly the same amount of publicity as those of white students, causing black leaders to protest. That was one of the many ways in which the Vietnam War impacted college campuses.
What about now? The Hamas attack on Israel occurred on October 7. On the 18th, Inna Venikov, a Republican NYC council member, brought a gun, openly carried, to a pro-Palestinian rally at Brooklyn College, where I taught for many years. She was arrested, found to have a “concealed carry” permit and a gun that didn’t work and so, was released. The group Students for Justice in Palestine was suspended at Brandeis, Columbia, and George Washington Universities. Three college presidents at the City University of New York then prevented students from holding pro-Palestinian rallies on their campuses.
In early November, students at UCLA held such a demonstration, which Republicans then denounced. Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, declared that antisemitism had reached “historic levels” and warned of attacks on both Jews and Muslims. The White House amplified attempts to fight such attacks, but prioritized those against Jews. “Israelism,” a film questioning Zionism, was not allowed to be shown at Hunter College and the University of Pennsylvania. Some campuses celebrated Hamas. On others, Jewish and Muslim students were threatened. Jewish donors began taking back money they had previously given.
A group I’ve belonged to for many years, Historians for Peace and Democracy, decided to present a resolution “In Defense of the Right to Learn” at the American Historical Association’s meeting in early January. Cory James Young, a historian at the University of Iowa, sent in a letter in its support defending pro-Palestinian students. I wrote him and the group that I thought Jewish students should be added, since they were also being threatened (by campus signs of “Holocaust 2.0” among others). He agreed. The final resolution called for supporting accuracy in teaching, organizing campuses not to attack history or historians, defending academic freedom, and encouraging the right to learn.
One problem that arose in the ‘70s and also today is whether or not universities should prohibit or punish what students or student organizations declare. During the Vietnam War a faculty committee at the University of Chicago issued the Kalvan Report, arguing that universities should not censor their students and instead should sustain “an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry.” “A good university,” it maintained, “like Socrates, will be upsetting.”
This issue was raised in the U.S. Congress a few days ago, when Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asked three college presidents if they would condemn those advocating “genocide” for Jews. Moustafa Bayoumi, in the Brooklyn College English Department, correctly called this “the dead cat on the table” strategy. That means that when you want to distract people from real issues (like Trump, whom Stefanik has consistently supported), you throw a “dead cat” –- an issue that demands attention -- in its place. What Stefanik, and every other Congress member failed to mention was that “genocide” of Jews has not been advocated on any campus. The presidents equivocated, instead of exposing this fallacy and saying they would handle it if it arose. One of them has had to resign for her failure to condemn this supposed threat.
This event brings to mind the famous issue of “not yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.” This statement was made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a Supreme Court decision of 1919. The case, Schenk vs. the U.S., ruled that speech protesting the national draft was not protected by the First Amendment. (Obviously, you are allowed to shout “fire” if the theatre actually is on fire.) Much later, during the Vietnam War in 1969, the court ruled that such speech could be penalized only if it produces or incites “imminent lawless action.”
This decision provides an important precedent for today’s campuses and their presidents. As the Brown University philosophy professor Felicia Nimue Ackerman wrote, “Of course, the tactics of Students for Justice in Palestine ‘can provoke discomfort’ on college campuses. So what? Although some S.J.P. tactics, such as impeding student access to classes, are unacceptable, discomfort is inevitable institutions dedicated to the free expression of ideas.” I completely agree.
