Beyond free speech
Free speech is one of those principles that is easy to uphold in principle but quickly becomes muddied in practice. All too often those who claim to support it back off when it comes to those with whom they disagree. Yet speech cannot be truly free if it applies to one set of preferred opinions rather than the full range of views. Others claim the mantle of speech for areas to which it should not be applied such as physical intimidation and disruption of events.
To determine whether free speech is at stake it is necessary to look carefully at each individual case.
This month frenzied debates on the subject have raged on both sides of the Atlantic. British university campuses have seen protests against speakers who can reasonably be described as at least sympathetic to Hamas. In America the debate on campus anti-Semitism, centred on Columbia university, has taken on a new turn with an intervention by the Trump administration. In particular the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student born in Syria, has prompted a heated row with an attempt to deport him. His supporters claim his free speech rights are being curtailed while his opponents are claiming he has violated the terms under which he can stay in America.
The British cases are more straightforward so a better place to start. This evening saw a protest against Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was speaking at University College London. The protest organisers rightly claimed that she has said many appalling things. These include comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and justifying the 7 October pogrom as resistance to oppression. Neverthless the conclusion that many drew from such statements – expressed in the hashtag #BanFran - was flawed from a free speech perspective. Supporting free expression means defending the right of those you profoundly disagree with to state their views. Back in November there were also protests on British campuses demanding that Albanese’s speeches be banned.
This evening’s anti-Albanese protest followed a similar one in opposition to the launch of a book on Understanding Hamas and Why That Matters at the London School of Economics (LSE) last week. Judging by the text promoting the book – I have not seen the work itself yet – it is grossly misleading. It concludes by referring to the terrorist group’s “transformation from early anti-Jewish tendencies to a stance that differentiates between Judaism and Zionism”. While it is true that Hamas sometimes moderates its tone when speaking to western audiences its supporters have continued to make virulently anti-Semitic statements. Despite claims by anti-Israel activists Hamas has also denied rescinding its original overtly anti-Semitic covenant from 1988. On top of Hamas’s vile rhetoric there was of course the 7 October pogrom itself where Hamas put its murderous attitude to Jews into practice.
Yet cancelling the launch would have been wrong despite the book’s apparently absurd arguments. Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to Britain, could fairly describe it as “Hamas propaganda” but it does not follow the book should be no platformed. To be fair to those who demonstrated against the launch their counter-protest included a speech by Harry Saul Markham who argued against a ban. The LSE launch organisers also made the book’s arguments harder to challenge by switching from a public event to one restricted to LSE students.
In any event both London events should have been allowed to go ahead on the grounds of academic freedom. The counter-protests against Francesca Albanese and the Hamas book were completely legitimate but their calls for bans were not.
The case of Mahmoud Khalil, the activist who recently completed his master’s degree at Columbia university is more complicated. It is less clear in his case whether the key issue is freedom of speech.
Although much of the Khalil case is controversial there are some facts which are agreed. Although he was born in Syria he “identifies as” Palestinian as his parents are reportedly refugees. He played a prominent role in the extensive anti-Israel protests at Columbia since the 7 October pogrom in southern Israel. Khalil is also an American green card holder - meaning he has the right to work in America – and has a pregnant American wife. He therefore has a permanent resident status: he is neither a foreign student nor an American citizen.
From there opinions radically diverge. For example, for Mondoweiss, an avid anti-Israel publication, the threat to deport him “is a direct attack by the Trump administration on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. In other words, in its view it is a clear assault on free speech.
The pro-Israel media, as would be expected, tells a different story. For instance, an opinion piece on the Jewish News Service pointed out Khalil: “was involved in illegal occupations of buildings (Alexander Hall at Columbia, which was vandalized and a school janitor injured, and the Barnard library, where classes were disrupted). He served as the negotiator on behalf of the occupying students with the university, pressuring the administration to accommodate student demands based on their illegal activity. He helped organize an illegal encampment on the campus that denied access to ‘Zionist’ students. Therefore the First Amendment defense will not get him off, because many of his actions are not protected speech.”
Certainly in technical legal terms he was not detained by the Department of Homeland Security on free speech grounds. That would have been a clear violation of the constitution. According to Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, the action taken against Khalil by the federal authorities was based on him violating his green card status: “when you apply for a student visa or any visa to enter the United States, we have a right to deny you for virtually any reason, but I think being a supporter of Hamas and coming into our universities and turning them upside down and being complicit in what are clearly crimes of vandalisation, complicit in shutting down learning institutions … we’re going to revoke it and kick you out.”
It is for the courts to determine Khalil’s exact level of involvement but in general terms Rubio has a point. Expressing support for Hamas in the abstract – though an abominable belief – should be allowed on free speech grounds. But participating in vandalism and shutting down university campuses goes beyond free speech. Denying access to campus to ‘Zionist’ students is also an act of physical intimidation rather than one of free expression.
There clearly are dangers to the Trump administration’s war on woke at universities including his expressed opposition to anti-Semitism. The current consensus based on identity politics is loathsome but Trump’s counter-offensive could also have a chilling effect on free speech. It would be much better if academics and students took the lead in challenging woke ideas including the identitarian form of anti-Semitism. Such views need to be intellectually defeated rather than driven underground by government fiat. That could simply create a mirror image of the woke conformism which has dominated elite universities in recent years.
But when campus protests cross over into physical intimidation and deliberate disruption that is another matter. Then the authorities – at the university and governmental levels – have a responsibility to take firm action.
COMMENTS WELCOME: If anyone has any comments on this article please do get in touch. danielbenami@radicalismoffools.com
PHOTO: "2014 Columbia University Hamilton Hall entrance facade" by Beyond My Ken is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.