66 No. 73 JUSTICE can be unlawful under the criminal offenses of public nuisance and aggravated trespass. But protests, occupations, and encampments can also be important factors in the enforcement of departmental orthodoxies. Academics and students who take a different position from that of the protest or encampment may face ostracization, harassment or interruptions to their work or lectures. Such pressures amount to an externally imposed restriction on academic freedom. Recognizing the wider potential impact of protests is particularly important when they are not isolated events but instead develop into long-term encampments or occupations. The relative permanence of an encampment or occupation, particularly one that dominates shared spaces with large banners and loudspeakers, can have a significant impact. It can become impossible for students and staff who hold a different view to avoid such longterm encampments, and the campus may become a space in which they feel unable to openly express an opposing view, or even merely access university facilities and participate in its activities while the encampment or occupation is ongoing. Encampments that obstruct access are also unlawful on other grounds, including criminal offenses of public nuisance and aggravated trespass. Once protests begin to interrupt the functioning of a university over a relatively long period of time, they pose a threat to academic freedom and to the right of free expression. Moreover, regarding issues like Israel and Palestine where Jewish and Israeli identities are a central aspect of the debate, there is an additional risk that longterm encampments and occupations which prevent access to university facilities may amount to a form of indirect discrimination against Jewish and Israeli staff and students. Regarding protests about Israel and Palestine in particular, universities should clearly identify cases in which rhetoric is judged to shift from harsh but legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism to antisemitism. These guidelines would exist in addition to any definition of antisemitism that the university has adopted, such as the IHRA “working definition.”32 While these definitions can be helpful in determining when statements or actions are antisemitic, they are only truly effective when applied with an adequate level of knowledge about the complexity of antisemitism required to make proper judgements. Moreover, there is disagreement within the field of antisemitism studies about whether certain concepts and analogies – such as comparisons between Israel and Apartheid South Africa, or slogans such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – are antisemitic. There is general agreement, however, on the antisemitic nature of statements or images conflating Israel, Israelis, “Zionists” or Jews with Nazi Germany or Nazis, Israeli leaders with Hitler, Palestine or Gaza with Auschwitz or the Warsaw Ghetto, or which use Nazi language such as “final solution.”33 Similarly, antisemitic tropes are agreed at the very least to include portraying Israel, Israelis, “Zionists,” or Jews as secretly controlling the world, the media, the financial and banking sector, other national governments, or world wars. Imagery of tentacles or octopuses are common markers of these ideas, or depicting Israel, Israelis, “Zionists” or Jews as devils, drinking blood, eating bodies, or deliberately targeting or delighting in the murder of children. Other forms of antisemitism from encampments and protests include statements or imagery which celebrate, justify or call for violence against Israeli citizens or Jews; statements or imagery calling for Israelis or Jews to “go back” to Eastern Europe; statements or imagery targeting Jewish students on campus (individually or collectively), Jewish student organizations or events, or Jewish religious organizations or events on campus, including chaplaincies – whether those individuals, organizations or events are labelled as Zionist or Jewish; demands that a Jewish individual or group take a position on Israel or Zionism; and the use of one strand of Jewish opinion as a means to delegitimize another. Not all the examples above are necessarily unlawful speech, because antisemitic speech, like other kinds of racist speech, is not invariably unlawful. But the types of antisemitic imagery and statements described above threaten academic freedom, reinforce attempts to impose ideological orthodoxies on departments and disciplines, and create or contribute to an atmosphere within which direct, targeted discrimination and harassment of individuals may follow. The second specific threat to academic freedom has been the demand for a boycott of Israeli universities and academics. The default policy within higher education should always be one of cooperation and exchange with 32. “Working definition of antisemitism,” INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE, available at https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/workingdefinition-antisemitism 33. There are some occasions when comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany may not be antisemitic, but these are limited to proper academic research or teaching.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=