Recently former Human Rights Watch Exec. Director Kenneth Roth was offered a fellowship at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. What was It is very common that people with deep conviction toward a cause will in their zeal take actions that lead to a disfavourable counterreaction. Supporting Israel often requires a stiff upper lip amid vitriolic hostility and open bigotry, yet legal attempts to counter this hatred through legislation or cancellations is a recipe for failure. Unfortunately, leaders of the American Jewish community and the pro-Israel activist groups have consistently failed to learn this lesson and the saga of former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth is just the newest installment in this familiar narrative.
Harvard University's Kennedy School of Public Service Carr Center for Human Rights Policy fellowship (there's a mouthful!) had the offer to Roth rescinded by its dean Douglas Elmendorf. While it is unconfirmed what the reason is for the rescindment of the offer, Roth told The Nation magazine and Amy Goodman of progressive current events show Democracy Now! that he believed it was motivated by his criticism of Israel. After an outcry Elmendorf had to rescind the cancellation and re-extend the offer to Roth. Now anti-Israel activists are crowing in triumph at another maneuver against them that crashed and burned. Am I the only person that thinks this would make the perfect Mel Brooks comedy film?
Look, I am not going to beat my chest over Kenneth Roth receiving or not receiving a fellowship from Harvard. The university can set whatever qualifications it wants, and his fitness for it is up to Harvard to decide. But once there a process was begun to offer him a spot any reason for cancelling it needed a strong explanation. According to Roth, Dean Elmendorf withdrew the offer based on feedback from people who “mattered” to him at the university, but he never came forward with who they are. In a town like Cambridge, MA that doesn’t sit well, and the Boston Globe among other traditionally liberal press outfits instantly came to Roth’s defense.
How does a blunder like this happen?
Like many of you I grew up attending events supporting Israel and defending it against demonization and hatred that went beyond mere criticism. Both of my parents were born there and served in the IDF, as did many of my aunts and uncles, and so did I. The problem that Jewish and pro-Israel elements in the United States can’t process a simple rule of thumb: Any attempt to advance a cause in the US by discriminating based on viewpoint is doomed to failure, as it should be; while any cause that adopts freedom of expression as part of its standard has at least a path to success.
Much of the community’s culture and consciousness even today is viewed through the prism of the Holocaust, an event that occurred decades before many Jewish Americans were born, and naturally this leads to many latent feelings of fear clouding decisions by Jewish institutional leadership. Because so many of the ideas being expressed have such indecent or hateful sentiments behind them, it is often deemed too risky to allow them to be voiced and risk trauma or violence. Take for example the side of the Anti-Defamation League and local Jews during the 1977 Supreme Court case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. This landmark US Supreme Court decision rejected the position of the Village, which was that allowing a Nazi hate group to march in the community populated by Holocaust survivors would risk a violent backlash (“heckler’s veto”).
We are approaching a half-century since the Skokie decision, yet there are many Jewish acquaintances of mine, including practicing attorneys, that don’t understand the broad scope of this and other similar 1st Amendment court precedents. Another useful example is the case of Cong. Beth Israel of Ann Arbor, Michigan which has battled in court against a group of anti-Jewish left-wing protesters for 18 years. While the signs and statements by the protesters are admittedly meant to provoke and anger the congregants, they are protected by Snyder v. Phelps (2011) which ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church could protest military funerals with signs like “Thank G-d for IED’s” or accusing dead military servicemen of being homosexuals. Guess what? No matter how repugnant these groups are, the courts will simply toss any lawsuit attempting to restrain their right to peaceably assemble and protest.
The “New Old ACLU” and anti-anti-BDS court fights
The pro-Israel movement has worn horse blinders regarding both the soft and hard limitations on freedom of speech, thinking that having willing allies in both parties in the halls of government allows them to seek a competitive advantage. The “soft” limits entail labelling Israel critics as “anti-Semites” if certain euphemisms or tropes are used in an argument, and using professional rather than legal avenues to target the speaker. Denying Ken Roth the fellowship at the Kennedy School based on his statements at HRW would qualify as “soft” pressure. By contrast use of “hard” pressure involves enacting and enforcing legislation that could infringe on freedom of speech. In September I interviewed former State Department diplomat Rabbi Mordechai Lightstone. I asked him whether in retrospect his support of anti-BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) legislation had been ill-advised. He gladly took the question, but confusingly answered that the issue was one of “refining” the strategy of how these laws are made.
I hope that at one point Rabbi Lightstone and others realize that these were just terrible laws that should never have been passed and that they made a horrible mistake. In May 2021 one such law was struck down after Georgia Southern University had invited radical journo Abby Martin to be a keynote speaker at a conference there. Judge Mark Cohen labeled the application of Georgia’s legislation holding that a person contracting with the state may not be engaging in a boycott against Israel as “compelled speech” and unconstitutional. This was fully appropriate. Put simply, it’s not that I want to write articles about how important the free speech rights of terror apologists are, but rather I get tired of having to cite stories of them winning federal court cases.
Is this a one-way street? I certainly don’t think so. Recently Glenn Greenwald, the former Guardian journalist who helped leak the Edward Snowden classified documents, did a 95 minute deep-dive on his views of pro-Israel suppression of freedom of speech. Greenwald made it clear near the beginning that he believes Ken Roth to be too charitable in his characterization of Israel. Like Roth, Greenwald says that “as a Jew” he feels a stronger need to criticize Israeli actions that are done in the name of his people, as well as for the fact that the US provides significant military support for Israel. While he laid out several solid cases to support his hypothesis on pro-Israel censorship, Greenwald rejected any notion that pro-Israel voices have their free speech suppressed. Sadly, I think he’s ignoring his own side’s behaviour; the BDS movement itself is incredibly intolerant of opposition. Here are some important incidents to keep in mind:
UCLA pre-law student Rachel Beyda was in 2015 denied a spot on the student council’s judicial board because the panel could not understand how she could remain unbiased.
At Emory University in 2019 the Students for Justice in Palestine tagged Jewish students’ dorm rooms with “eviction notices” in order to protest demolition of Palestinian homes.
On May 20, 2021 a Jewish accountant was assaulted, pepper sprayed, and beaten in Midtown Manhattan by a group of four pro-Palestine protesters, and required hospitalization. Recently one of the confessed assailants was offered a generous plea deal of six months in prison.
In 2019 pro-Israel speaker Hen Mazzig was prevented from speaking by SJP protesters at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, NY.
In 2017 the Jewish-American singer Matisyahu was forced out of the Sunsplash festival in Spain after refusing to express an explicit statement of support for a Palestinian state. This is no less compelled speech than what is imposed by anti-BDS laws.
Not all of these examples occurred on a college campus, but despite these episodes and many others documented over the years most colleges and universities remain the epicenter of the BDS movement. The reason that Roth found such a welcome spot at Harvard is because so many members of the faculty there and at other institutions hold similar critical or hostile views toward Israel.
A Free Fire Range of Arguments
During the Skokie trial the Anti-Defamation League stood against the right of the NSPA to march, whereas the ACLU represented the Nazis, but attorneys for both sides were Jewish. But now neither group has a commitment to freedom of speech. But starting in 2017 the ACLU began to shift away from representing hate groups after the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. There are few institutions left in the 21st century that remain true to the First Amendment and civil liberties regardless of viewpoint. Instead of seeking to limit those liberties, I encourage those dismayed by the politics of the modern public square and college campus to use theirs. Stop donating to, patronizing, or investing in companies and institutions that take it for granted that they only have to listen to the loudest voices, or speak louder yourself! Instead of attending a university that frowns on your viewpoints or even your heritage, prospective college students ought to explore alternatives that offer a more hospitable atmosphere if they can help it.
This is why I recently proposed the Jewish Alliance for the First Amendment, because we ought to know by now to move away from absurd aspirations of eliminating hate by limiting civil liberties. Please email me at razorsharpreport@protonmail.com or message me on Twitter at @JaffaWire if you would like to be a part of it.