Despite the complexity of the matter, the question was not a trap. The answer was obvious, but the leaders of three prestigious American universities delivered an embarrassing performance before elected members of Congress.
Republican Rep. Stefanik (a Harvard graduate) asked a simple question: “Does calling for genocide against the Jews violate your university’s rules or code of conduct?”
Instead of answering “yes,” the three women skirted around the question. I'm still pinching myself…
A conflict that divides universities
The conflict between Hamas and Israel is triggering worldwide reactions. If we generally share Israelis' anger after the Hamas massacre in October, we believe that the Israeli army's response is akin to a war crime.
In the United States, protesters are unconcerned with the complexity of the conflict and firmly represent one camp or another, leading to an outbreak of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
On the campuses of many universities, including the most prestigious ones, students exercise their right to demonstrate and exercise their right to freedom of expression. Nothing unusual so far in a country that has seen many others.
The situation escalated when several supporters of Palestine and sometimes Hamas called for genocide against the Jews. We should have intervened at that moment rather than, like the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania, creating a context that would justify such comments.
Universities considered progressive, where one receives lectures if one expresses reservations about gender theory or systemic racism, had a duty to curb the use of an incitement to violence that violates the limits of freedom of expression.
Not to do so is to harm the cause and serve those who brush aside very real social problems that are conveniently summarized under a term that no longer means anything because it is so misused: Wokism.
- Listen to the American political column with Professor Luc Laliberté about QUB radio :
Condemnation and discomfort
Public condemnation of the three presidents' reactions was immediate and bipartisan. In this regard, Doug Emhoff, husband of Kamala Haris, could not be more categorical: “(…) this lack of moral clarity is simply unacceptable.” On a moral level, what the three women have done is unacceptable.
Even though I can only condemn tolerance for hate speech, I am uncomfortable with the behavior of the generous donors from all universities who are now calling for the dismissal of the three women.
Why my discomfort? Billionaires already have a disproportionate influence on universities, their children are privileged there, and inequality of opportunity in American society persists. Should we also give them the right to life and death over the fate of the leaders? It is unhealthy.