These have been difficult times for Jewish students and faculty across our country. Anti-Semitic incidents on campus have increased. Protesters on the way to class shout hateful words or tear down signs about Israeli hostages, students interrupt speeches rather than listen, and school staff worry they might find anti-Semitic greetings on classroom whiteboards. It can be difficult to know where to find friends and allies.
Jews are strong. The need to hide or run away from hate has plagued us throughout history. But living with socially acceptable hatred between people who we think share our values is new for many of us.
The January 19th Faculty Council meeting here at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill marked a new low for me. The meeting started with big promises. I attended because my husband, Michael J. Gerhardt, received UNC's Thomas Jefferson Award for teaching and research that embodies democratic principles. The new interim Prime Minister, Lee Roberts, delivered a speech after the ceremony in which he criticized anti-Semitism and outlined how we can fight it while protecting strong freedom of expression. If the conference had ended there, we would have left a more inspired community, unafraid to tackle our toughest challenges and connected by a common purpose as educators. But the meeting changed.
Next on the agenda was a resolution condemning comments made by a guest speaker at a campus roundtable event on Nov. 28 who called Oct. 7 a “beautiful day.” The Black Sabbath was September 11 in Israel. It was the worst day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It was a day when sleeping children were dragged out of bed to watch their parents murdered, women and girls were violently raped and mutilated, civilians were tortured, killed and terrorized, and even family dogs were slaughtered for the crime of life. . In Israel. Before the day was over, over 1,000 innocent people were dead and hundreds taken hostage. Some of them were infants and toddlers. More than 100 of them are held captive by Hamas. However, the entire faculty said nothing about the guest speaker's comments.
As I looked at the resolution condemning this view, I thought: yes. thank you Finally, some students will have the courage to come forward and say that they do not agree with the cruel words that are still echoing across campus. My Jewish students struggle with broken friendships and opposing mentors, and I want them to know that many UNC faculty also consider them valuable members of our community.
The proposed resolution states three main points: (1) Condemned anti-Semitic remarks made at the November 28 event. (2) strengthened the faculty's belief in freedom of expression, and (3) condemned incitement or celebration of violence against any religion or religion. nationality.
Let me be clear about the law for a moment. Anyone who calls the violence of October 7 “beautiful” is entitled to their opinion. As a lawyer and a deep believer in the First Amendment, I will defend the right of guest speakers to present their points of view. But the First Amendment also gives us the right and responsibility to protest. Because truth only emerges when false and hateful ideas are challenged. At this meeting, UNC faculty had the opportunity to say that they do not agree that the horrific murder of innocents on October 7 was a beautiful day.
Several people expressed concern. Faculty attending the meeting asked the following questions: What does antisemitism mean? How should the faculty council define this? What do our students who sympathize with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip think? Will passing this resolution make speeches colder? One faculty member decided to cancel the resolution (postponing it indefinitely, effectively killing it). It took time to explain this procedure. There were no clear guidelines as to when non-council members could speak and, if so, how much time we would be allowed. One professor who was not present at the council opposed the resolution for so long that the frustrated chairman refused to hear from other non-council members who were Israeli citizens.
With few exceptions, the debate reflected a surprising lack of empathy for the group actually targeted by the guest speaker's belief that October 7 was a beautiful day. One professor, noting that UNC is under federal investigation for allowing a hostile educational environment for Jews, pointed out that its refusal to condemn the celebration of anti-Semitic violence supports such hostile environment claims. As I tried to listen and organize my thoughts, I lost the opportunity to speak.
The council voted 32 to 29 to kill the resolution, with six abstentions. Immediately after the vote, I gathered in the hall with some colleagues and left in tears. I was horrified that our Israeli colleagues were ignored, not allowed to speak, and did not raise their hands aggressively to oppose the resolution or to act, which would only worsen the already tense atmosphere.
I do not recall any examples of similar measures designed to allow time to define these terms in discussions denouncing racism or gender inequality. Were such basics about antisemitism really so new and unclear to your colleagues? It would have been nice to have given them the benefit of the doubt and made it clear: “Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews. I'm not criticizing Israel. “Anti-Semitism holds Jews to different standards than any other group.” The professor who proposed the resolution asked faculty to consider how they would vote if violence against groups other than Jews was celebrated. Would this faculty member have condemned comments made by a speaker at a UNC event commemorating the killing of George Floyd or the kidnapping and rape of women by Boko Haram in Nigeria?
A principle is meaningless if it applies to some people and not others. The First Amendment supports everyone's right to celebrate October 7th, but it does not require us to remain silent when we hear it. The number and severity of anti-Semitic incidents are increasing worldwide. In the past few weeks, two friends in London were hospitalized after assaulting a crowd they heard speaking Hebrew, while a Jewish student in Berlin ended up in jail after being beaten so badly by a student with pro-Palestinian views. hospital.
I am grateful to know that 29 of my colleagues voted anonymously to consider whether the October 7 celebrations should be condemned. But I don't know who they were or how they would have voted on the resolution itself. I have a pretty good guess where the other 38 are. If you've ever wondered what change would have happened in Germany if citizens had represented themselves and their Jewish friends and colleagues, now we have a chance to learn.