Aside from those who believe that there is no such thing as free speech, most intellectuals can be counted on to oppose efforts at censorship. In my own case, it was the Jewish environment in which I was raised that led me to value free speech and expression. Although I grew up a secular Jew — my bar mitzvah was as pro forma as they come, and after that, I have returned to synagogue only a handful of times — I was spoon-fed a version of Jewish liberalism in which we Jews were always expected to come to the defense of unpopular ideas. When American Nazis announced in 1977 their intention to march in Skokie, Ill. — a town in which one-sixth of the population was related to a Holocaust survivor — the American Civil Liberties Union defended their right to do so, and many of the leaders of and contributors to the ACLU were Jewish. I recall taking considerable pride in the ACLU’s actions, not out of Jewish self-hatred, but out of pride in Jewish liberalism.

From “Free Speech, Israel, and Jewish Illiberalism” by Alan Wolfe in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Wolfe discusses how Jewish organizations, but more often, large individual Jewish donors, will pressure institutions to drop anti-Israel speakers, exhibitions, and articles, in contrast to the traditional liberal Jewish principle which answered disagreeable speech with more speech. It’s spot on and something I’ve been thinking about for a while. It gets me thinking, though: why the shift? Here are some hypotheses I’ve come up with:

1. Gentiles are too afraid of offending Jews: There’s a tendency, especially in America, to over-estimate Jewish sensitivities (I’m reminded of a censored episode of Family Guy, which every Jew I know found hysterical). Most Jews might still support the right of anti-Israel speakers to be heard, but when a few make a stink, gentiles, who aren’t in touch with the Jewish community, assume that the they just offended the lot of us, and afraid of the Antisemite label, panic. This isn’t just a phenomenon with Jews, though - people often tread lightly around minorities, weather they’re talking about race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. We’re just sensitive as a society.
2. Gentiles are too afraid of losing Jewish money: I don’t mean this in a conspiratorial sense, I mean it in the sense that Jews are disproportionately philanthropic, and offending them en masse is a bad idea for any institution. This isn’t really a religious thing, it’s another instance where an organization is beholden to their donor stakeholders, and it often happens with much more mundane institutions (I’m thinking of bad purchases by art museums). In this case, I think the problem doesn’t lie with Jews having lost their liberal attitudes towards free speech, but with individual Jews exercising their donor muscle illiberally. I’m conflicted about this, because while they shouldn’t censor speech, I don’t think they have an obligation to sponsor speech they disagree with. Bottom line: when it all comes down to it, I highly doubt that Jewish contributions to universities and cultural institutions are nearly as sensitive as these institutions’ leaders seem to think.
3. Jews are more afraid of anti-Israel speakers than Nazis: I can really believe this one, especially among baby-boomer Jews, who have internalized a real fear for Israel’s survival that Gen-x and younger Jews just don’t relate to. Nazis in America aren’t seen as powerful, so we can let them march, but there are Jews who are genuinely afraid of what anti-Israel speakers have to say, whether because it has a grain of truth, because they fear so heavily for Israel, or because they feel it has more mainstream support. Regardless, what this says is that Jews who feel this way are liberal when it’s convenient, and that’s just a bad way to set up policy like this.
4. Most Jews Are Still Liberal: As of a few years ago, members of the ADL were still telling me that “more speech” is the counterweight to hate speech, and the leadership hasn’t changed significantly since. The position of the Israel on Campus Coalition and its constituents is that campus activists should focus on a positive message for Israel, talking about things other than conflict. The debate really isn’t that important, so it’s safe for Jewish activists to ignore controversial speakers. When I did PR and communications for the Michigan State Jewish community, my first successful press release was for a pro-Israel event with a moonwalk, my statements in response to anti-Israel events looked like this:

“The college campus should always embrace the free discourse of ideas,” Dworin said.

However, Dworin said the film only presents one side of the conflict.

“I think it is disingenuous to show these women, who have killed other human beings, as if they have a monopoly on victimhood,” Dworin said.

These are just a few hypotheses, and I think there’s an interplay between all of them, and other factors, at work when Israel elicits illiberalism. When it comes down to it, the real issue for me here isn’t about Isreal, it’s about the free speech and civil liberties implications, and how we deal with speech that we disagree with.

Categories: America, Israel, Jewishness, Politics