On Campus Protests

Roger Berkowitz

Hannah Arendt believed that civil disobedience was a fundamental right and a distinctly American form of politics. Unlike Henry David Thoreau, who understood civil disobedience as an act of individual conscientious action, Arendt believed that civil disobedience was a form of collective political dissent. It is a group phenomenon that publicizes widely shared minority opinions via extraordinary means to contest unjust acts by a ruling majority. “Civil disobedience,” she writes, “are in fact organized minorities, bound together by common opinion, rather than by common interest, and the decision to take a stand against the government’s policies even if they have reason to assume that these policies are backed by a majority.” 

The protests that began at Columbia University and that have now spread to campuses around the country, are more than protests. They are acts of civil disobedience, efforts by organized minorities who share a common opinion and seek to change the policy of both their universities and the United States Government. 

It is important to remember, however, that not all minority opinions are destined to become majority opinions. When potential acts of civil disobedience turn violent and hateful, they lose their character as “civil” disobedience. And these protests, sadly, are not always civil. It is one thing to break a rule against convening in a square without a permit. It is another thing entirely to threaten students because of their religion, their beliefs, or their opinions.  

We all are learning about these protests through very different lenses and social media feeds. Some see peaceful protesters eating Matzah at a Passover Seder. There are images of multicultural students studying and learning together, forming almost a university within a university to teach and learn about the conflict in the Middle East. But others see angry students screaming that Zionists don’t have a right to live (as one of the leaders of the Columbia protest did in an angry Youtube rant), calling upon the al-Quassam brigades to attack Jewish students, claiming that Tel Aviv should be destroyed, calling for the death of Israel, and molesting journalists who try to film the protests. Still others see images of protesters hitting or surrounding and taunting Jewish students. One can say that these incidents are isolated and don’t reflect the spirit of the protests. Columbia protesters have convinced the person who said that all Zionists should die to apologize, offering the lame excuse that as a black-gender fluid man they were suffering from internet trolling. It is a positive that the student has apologized, and I hope it is sincere. But the deep groundswell of antisemitism is a visible and palpable experience in these protests. 

One can also say, which is true, that many Jewish students support the protests and are part of the encampments. There is no doubt idealism and moral outrage animating many of the protesters who are serious and upset about what is happening in Gaza. There is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and it is to the credit of students that they care. But it is also true that we see none of this idealism and outrage about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians being killed in Sudan, Yemen, Ukraine, and other places. And it is true that many Jewish students, and also many non-Jewish students, feel targeted and threatened by the bellicose tone of too many of the protesters. We don’t see angry anti-Russian taunts at Russian students (nor should we). We don’t see aggressive anti-Chinese or anti-Iranian attacks on students from these countries (and we shouldn’t). That Jewish students are being targeted for the actions of the state of Israel suggests an underlying role of antisemitism. I can say as the father of college-aged Jewish students, if my children were at Columbia and other campuses where this was happening, I would be upset and worried. If this were happening at my College where I teach, I would be upset and worried. 

Arresting students on campus is generally a bad idea. Colleges are educational institutions. We should be in the business of educating young people, not arresting them. 

At the same time, violence and even the threat of violence is antithetical to the educational mission and vision of the university. For those who believe in the power of persuasive speech and the liberal idea of reasoned discourse, the descent into screaming slogans, threatening chants, and aggressive taunting violates the very essence and spirit of a college community. Disagreement and dissent are at the heart of the university. But threats and taunts are not. While many and even most of the protesters are peaceful and serious, there is an undeniable and ugly element of violent and hateful antisemitism that has made the protests appear threatening and highly offensive to many Jewish students and offensive to liberals who reject the weaponization of threats and violence as a legitimate way of engaging in disagreement. 

The hypocrisy of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion crowd is evident, when speech that attacks or insults members of some minority groups is seen as unacceptable while speech that denigrates, threatens, and insults Jews is said to have no consequences because of some misplaced idea that Jews are white and powerful. 

So how should universities respond to these protests? It is a hard question. We need to balance the rights of protests and free speech, the respect for activism and civil disobedience, the need to protect individuals from threats and taunts as well as physical violence, and the ideal of a campus community committed to non-violent engagement with difficult and disagreeable ideas. In the heat of the moment and amidst angry and loud protests that at times cross the line of acceptable behavior, striking the right balance is a challenge. Doing the right thing is made more difficult by right-wing politicians trying to score political points by demanding that students be arrested and also by left-wing critics who insist that any interference with the uncivil protests is illiberal.  It is too easy to chide from the twittersphere and demand the protests be shut down by the police or that free speech demands these protesters be given free reign. But there are alternatives. 

Every college will have to address these protests in their own way, but in my experience dealing with protesters, it is wise to do so with college personnel rather than police officers. Administrators, Deans, Assistant Deans, Faculty, campus police officers, and others can be dispatched to the protests to insist on standards of action. We should treat these protests as pedagogical moments, instructing and modeling appropriate behavior. Students who violate such standards should be suspended, expelled, and removed from campus. In short, colleges and universities should seek to engage the protesters, remind them of the liberal ideals that allow them to protest, and teach them. It is also imperative that universities offer courses and events that add nuance and historical knowledge about one of the most complicated historical and political regions in the world. The kinds of simple-minded slogans and moral certainty that underlie the ideological certainty behind the worst elements of the protests show a failure of our universities. And when the students nevertheless violate the liberal principles that make universities special, they should as individuals suffer consequences for their actions. Only if and when actual violence occurs should there be recourse to the police. 

On Tuesday of this week I inaugurated a new Hannah Arendt Center Radio Show, “For the Love of the World,” on Radio Kingston in Kingston, NY. My first guest was Bard President Leon Botstein. We spoke about Hannah Arendt and also about President Botstein’s thoughts on the protests roiling the university world. It was a wide-ranging and honest discussion. You can listen to it here.