For the first time in a long time, Boston University Chancellor John Silber should be congratulated. As of Friday, Silber was one of three presidents of major area colleges to sign a pledge calling for “intimidation-free” campuses throughout the United States, showing his commitment to supporting a violence-free BU campus.
Three hundred other university presidents throughout the country signed the statement, which was circulated by the American Jewish Committee and will be released with a list of signatories as an ad in today’s New York Times. It calls for presidents to “maintain academic standards inside the classroom” and “sustain an intimidation-free campus.” Several presidents raised issue and refused to sign the pledge because it mentions pro-Israel students specifically as victims of such hate and intimidation, rather than generally referring to all groups. But AJC Spokesman Kenneth Bandler said pro-Israel students were only mentioned as an example because of recent events at campuses throughout the country and that the statement was meant to apply to all groups.
Though the letter should have included pro-Palestinian groups as examples of groups to especially think about, the letter’s framers and the AJC are fully justified in including only pro-Israel students. Not only is it a Jewish organization with a large Jewish constituency, it clearly does not single pro-Israel students out as the only group needing protection from hate and intimidation. Rather, it says, after mentioning actions against pro-Israel students, “these practices and others, directed against any person, group or cause, will not be tolerated on campuses.” Though a cursory glance at the statement may leave some feeling left out, the document’s intent is clear with a closer reading.
The statement is, in fact, made much more powerful by including only one group as an example to make a broader statement against hate and intimidation. The pledge was started in response to threats, vandalism and violence against pro-Israel students and their property over the past year. Though it was intended as a blanket statement applying to all groups, it is a specific response to acts against pro-Israel students and should be so worded.
Though it would be ideal to also include pro-Palestinian students, adding any groups beyond Palestinians would make the statement too broad and likely make people take it less seriously. Rather than simply making a statement for the sake of making a statement, using pro-Israel students shows a specific group in need of protection from intimidation and hate.
Palestinians can be considered underdogs in the Middle East conflict, but pro-Israel students have faced stiff opposition on college campuses throughout the United States over the past year. Though typical BU student apathy has kept the conflict at a distance, students have been intensely active in defending their respective sides on campuses across the country.
Events at the University of California at Berkeley and San Francisco State University have been the most noteworthy examples of the heated tension between the two groups. At Berkeley, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian student groups have had several intense confrontations and the university’s Hillel House reported vandalism in a separate instance last spring. Pro-Palestinian students at SF State surrounded several students cleaning after a pro-Israel rally and began yelling hate speech last May. According to the rally’s pro-Israel leader Dennis Dubinsky, several of the students went as far as to say “Hitler should have finished the job.” Because threats and vandalism against pro-Israel students and groups have been well documented recently, mentioning them specifically can draw university leaders’ attention to pro-Israel students as a frequent recipient of such acts and will hopefully help minimize that problem.
However, all Arab groups are deserving of an equally forceful statement decrying acts of intimidation and hate against them. Since Sept. 11, Arab and Arab-American students have been repeated targets of threats, violence and racial profiling. Within the BU community, a male Arab student was stabbed outside a nightclub nearly one year ago and several Arab students native to the Middle East decided against returning to BU for the second semester last year and first semester this year, likely because of discomfort with general American sentiment toward Arabs. Arab students are deserving of specific recognition in a statement because they have also been recent victims of intimidation and hate. They may even be more deserving of specific attention, as their plight goes less widely reported.
Even so, John Silber deserves credit for signing the pledge and showing his commitment to protecting one of BU’s largest minorities. Though he has been justifiably maligned throughout the year’s first month, his signing of the AJC pledge shows his commitment to allowing campus religious and political groups to practice and advocate without fear. Though he is clearly uncomfortable with homosexuality, he does seem to be interested in protecting most of the school’s other minority groups.
In the end, the AJC statement is not legislative. It serves well as a public relations ploy, giving violence against pro-Israel students deserved attention while reiterating commitment to combating hate directed toward all groups. But neither the AJC nor the U.S. government will enforce it. Rather, it is up to the pledge’s signatories to consciously combat hate and intimidating forces on their respective campuses.