Free Speech or Intimidation?

As the debate over Israel and the Palestinian territories has heated up recently on campuses, questions concerning the right to free speech have taken center stage. For students of Middle Eastern descent, ourselves included, the Constitution’s First Amendment may just be our last line of defense both on and off campuses in the post-Sept. 11 climate.

Jewish students have no less of a stake in the matter. Across the country, they have suffered a number of ugly incidents due to their religion and their stance on Israel. At the University of Colorado there were reports of swastikas painted at a booth set up by a Jewish student organization. At the University of California Berkeley, a brick was thrown through a glass door at the Jewish Hillel center. Such actions are intolerable.

In this context, it is hardly surprising that 300 college presidents signed a letter drafted by the American Jewish Committee and published in The New York Times calling for “intimidation-free campuses.” Who could possibly oppose the reaffirmation of our universities as safe-havens for open, free and critical debate? The shocking news was that more than 1,700 college presidents who were asked to sign the letter opted against it, and the reason for their abstention is a hopeful sign for those struggling to maintain the right to have a political voice on campus.

The letter had one central problem: it mentioned only Jewish students and “supporters of Israel” as potential targets of intimidation. Such one-sidedness is worrisome, particularly considering the extent of intimidation, hate crimes and loss of basic civil liberties experienced by those of non-Jewish Middle Eastern descent since the atrocities of the World Trade Center.

Thankfully, many college presidents recognize this reality. University of North Carolina Chancellor James Moeser expressed this concern most plainly. “I am happy to sign this statement,” he said. “However, in the wake of Sept. 11, there have also been acts of violence and intimidation directed at Muslim students and Arabs. I would be happier if this statement were more inclusive.” Moeser was not alone in his concern. From Boston College to Duke University, presidents from across the country filed their dissent. One of the original framers of the letter, Tufts President Lawrence S. Bacow, raised his concerns about the letter’s imbalance and eventually decided not to sign the final version because he said it was “cast too narrowly.” William M. Chace, president of Emory University, also one of the letter’s initial backers, withdrew his support after his requests to make the piece “more symmetrical” were denied.

We should not forget what happened after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within weeks after the horrible events at the World Trade Center, street attacks against Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent reached such a level that even President Bush went racing to the nearest mosque to call for an end to the violence. Two weeks after the attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft already had 40 anti-Muslim hate crime cases sitting on his desk. Several mosques were firebombed. A Sikh gas station attendant in Arizona was shot for merely looking like an Arab. Some things have improved since then, but much has not. Last month, the Center for American Islamic Relations, one of the few organizations still tracking the situation, released its annual report revealing that in the last 12 months, the quantity of hate crimes nationally against Middle Easterners is quadruple the number from the previous year, with more than 2,000 incidents reported to the police.

Campuses were not immune from the wave of backlashes and blatant intimidation. Only a week after the Sept. 11 attacks, two Muslim girls were beaten at Moraine Valley College in Palos Hills, Illinois. At the University of Connecticut, a Muslim female student had her hijab (Islamic head covering) torn off and then she was chased off campus.

Free speech for students of Middle Eastern descent has fared little better. This is especially true for those who dare to raise their voices on politically controversial issues. Only five months ago, a Harvard graduating senior, Zayed M. Yasin ’02, was slated as one of the commencement speakers. Due to pressure from students and others, he had to remove the word “jihad” from the title of his speech. Approved by the University, the speech was intended to reclaim the true meaning of the word “jihad” as the moral and personal struggle to better oneself and one’s community. It was a critical and historicizing commentary, and one which former University Marshal Richard M. Hunt, who read the proposed draft, described as “healing” and “non-confrontational.”

Attempts to silence free speech have continued, and especially on matters concerning Israel and Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). In a particularly McCarthyist turn, a recently founded website called Campus Watch encourages students to report professors who criticize Israel. The emergent divestment movement which hopes to pressure Israel to end its military occupation has met with similarly unfair tactics. As students on campuses across the country have called for universities to withdraw U.S. subsidies and corporate investments supporting the highly repressive policies of the Israeli government in the Palestinian territories, these students have been called anti-Semites. This is the worst kind of slur. Student critics of Israeli policies are no more anti-Semitic than opponents of apartheid were anti-Afrikaner or advocates of Tibet are anti-Chinese. Criticizing the actions and laws of a country is very different from attacking people for their religion, nationality or ethnicity.

Many college officials are fully aware of the current political realities facing students of Middle Eastern descent. At the University of Arizona in Tucson, the dean’s office reported that since Sept. 11 at least 39 Arab students pulled out of their courses, citing fear as a primary factor. The University of Colorado in Denver had 45 Arab students withdraw. Perhaps it’s time for these college officials to draft a more honest, fair and inclusive anti-intimidation letter. Students of all political leanings and ethnic backgrounds would be the better for it.

Rita Hamad ’03 is a chemistry concentrator in Eliot House. Shadi Hamid is an undergraduate at Georgetown University. Yousef Munayyer is an undergraduate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.