Candace de Russy broaches an interesting subject in her post about the federal government’s investigation of “anti-Semitic harassment” on college campuses. Clearly, colleges in general–and Middle Eastern studies departments in particular–have become hotbeds of virulent anti-Israeli sentiment and even anti-Semitism. (Stanley Kurtz has been on this beat for awhile, and it’s a real problem.)
But there is something troubling about some of the groups who are calling for a federal investigation of campus anti-Semitism. Namely, it seems that some of these well-intentioned defenders of Israel are tempted to adopt some of the same speech-suppressing tactics that have been so shamefully employed by the academic Left.
One of the ways that campus leftists have succeeded in stifling speech that they disfavor is by disingenuously labeling it as “harassment.” Harassment is not constitutionally protected, they claim, and in this limited claim they are quite correct. What they ignore, however, is that “harassment” has a narrow legal definition, which is based on the time, place, and manner of speech–not on the speech’s content. So when some campus leftists call for “harassment policies” prohibiting “lewd jokes” or “racially offensive expressions,” they are in fact broadening the definition of harassment beyond its legal parameters, thereby advocating the censorship of constitutionally-protected speech.
Now some opponents of “anti-Semitic harassment” seem to be doing the same thing. The Anti-Defamation League, for example, claims that “anti-Semitic harassment” is exemplified by: “anti Jewish slurs”; “Fliers containing anti-Semitic messages or leaflets from virulent anti-Semitic groups”; “anti-Jewish or Holocaust-denying letters-to-the-editor or advertisements printed in newspapers.” The United States Commission on Civil Rights, which de Russy mentions, implies that anti-Semitic harassment includes “anti-Israel literature and promotion of Jewish stereotypes.” But that’s all protected by the First Amendment. We should not expect the federal government to investigate such things, much less to censor them.
In the name of preventing “anti-Semitic harassment,” we should be wary of censorship. As advocates of individual liberty and defenders of the Constitution, conservatives can and should fight puerile bigotry in accordance with their principles–through the marshalling of public outrage and the power of argumentation in the free marketplace of ideas.