When Rutgers Administrators Apologized for Condemning Antisemitism
And When the Rutgers President Followed by Saying Rutgers Would Never Apologize for Condemning Antisemitism: A Case Study in the Toxic, Intimidating Nature of Some Social Justice Rhetoric
Nothing quite says “social justice politics rots the mind” as craven administrators apologizing for condemning antisemitism in response to being denounced on ostensible “social justice” grounds. I tell the story of when this happened at Rutgers not too long ago.
Rutgers Chancellor and Provost Condemn Antisemitism
In May 2021, intense fighting broke out between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. As reported by both the New York Times and Human Rights Watch, the conflict triggered a spate of attacks on Jews and synagogues in the U.S.
In response to the spiking hate crimes and harassment of Jews in the U.S., the Rutgers Chancellor-Provost’s Office released a statement that read: “We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States. Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us.” The statement also condemned “all forms of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, xenophobia, and oppression, in whatever ways they may be expressed.”
Students for Justice in Palestine Denounces Rutgers’ Condemnation of Antisemitism
The following day, this statement was denounced by the Rutgers chapter of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) on the grounds that it “conveniently ignore[d] the extent to which Palestinians have been brutalized by Israel’s occupation and bombing of Gaza,” and “cannot be separated from widespread attempts to conflate antizionism with antisemitism...” This is a brilliant, if evil, piece of propaganda. The best (worst, i.e., most effective) propaganda builds on something true to promote something false or evil. The true part here is that, sometimes, some defenders of Israel will accuse critics of antisemitism when, in fact, it is possible to criticize, condemn, or even denounce Israel without being antisemitic. Antisemitism and negative attitudes towards Israel, however, tend to be correlated (see here or here for studies). This means that the harsher the condemnation, the more likely it is an expression of antisemitism. Regardless, the correlation between antisemitism and negative attitudes towards Israel are never a perfect 1.0, so it is definitely possible to have and express a negative attitude towards Israel without being antisemitic.
SJP is right that, sometimes, some people do conflate antizionism with antisemitism. But that is not what went on in this incident. Rutgers administrators condemned antisemitism in the U.S. They made no comment on the Israeli-Hamas conflict, nor should they have, at least if one subscribes to the principle that universities should not generally take official sides in political conflicts, a principle adopted by the University of Chicago in its Kalven Report — something which many believe is a model for the type of institutional neutrality that should be the norm across academic institutions and organizations. From the Kalven Report:
The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.
What is going on in the SJP statement is a piece of brilliant propaganda that inverts the usual argument that charges of antisemitism are used to deflect antizionist claims. SJP’s statement attempts to deflect and neutralize a condemnation of antisemitism in the U.S. by treating antisemitism in the U.S. as somehow “justified” by antizionism (the real or imagined evils of Israel in the Israeli-Hamas war and elsewhere).
Contra the SJP denunciation, Human Rights Watch, which has issued numerous reports condemning Israel, unambiguously acknowledged that “just as it is a hate crime to attack an Asian-American for how China’s authoritarian rulers may have handled Covid,” it is antisemitic to treat individual Jews as if they embody the Israeli government.
Rutgers Chancellor and Provost Apologize for Condemning Antisemitism
If this was just another example of SJP engaging in antisemitism under the guise of antizionism, it would not say much about the academy in general or Rutgers in particular. What makes it interesting more generally is the craven response of the Chancellor’s & Provost’s Offices to the SJP denunciation. I have pointed out elsewhere that one can make almost any claim, no matter how bizarre, inflammatory, or hate-mongering, and, as long as it is framed as some form of “social justice,” one will receive widespread support and credibility from within academia. On cue, the Chancellor’s and Provost’s offices released an obsequious public apology laced with social justice buzzwords, including: “We understand that intent and impact are two different things…In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community… We sincerely apologize for the hurt this has caused...we will take the lesson learned here to heart, and pledge our commitment to doing better.”
Progressive Antisemitism
Progressive antisemitism is on full display here via the demonization of Israel by drawing a false equivalence with Nazism that only the most dogmatic far left cult members could take seriously. The lower right is most interesting regarding the issues in this essay and is the progressive version of the Chazai Tweet displayed above. Chazai blames Jews for being hated; the sign in the lower right blames antisemitism around the world on Israel, rather than those perpetrating it. In the absence of acknowledgment that those committing acts of antisemitism are responsible for their own actions, and the presence of laying the blame on Israel for antisemitism, the rhetoric is plausibly viewed as justifying antisemitic attacks in the U.S.
There can be grains of truth in this sort of thing. It is literally true that, when tensions involving Israel and its neighbors flare up, attacks on Jews outside of Israel often flare up. But that, gentle reader, is the point. Just as Russian emigres are not responsible for Putin’s war on Ukraine, Chinese immigrants are not responsible for Covid, and Muslim Americans are not responsible for Islamic terror attacks, American Jews are not responsible for anything that goes on in Israel. This is obvious to anyone whose mind has not been totally corrupted by some sort of toxic ideological tribalism.
The American far left, including much of academia (which is indeed far left), loves denouncing antisemitism when they can blame it on rightwing hate groups, and lord knows, there is plenty of antisemitism among those groups. But there is a slowly dawning recognition among a small cadre of scholars1 that progressive antisemitism is alive and growing, and usually manifests as the type of harsh rhetoric seen in the protests shown above, in which Israel is likened to Nazis. This essay is not the place to review that work, but some of that scholarship is available here, here, here, or here. If, rather than poring over dense academic tomes, you prefer an emeritus law professor giving a crystal clear 20 minute youtube talk, go here.
Public (not Academic) Outrage Evokes an Apology that Wasn’t an Apology for Apologizing for Condeming Antisemitism
It probably would have ended there, but for the loud public outcry from outside of Rutgers, protesting the absurdity and offensiveness of apologizing for condemning antisemitic attacks in the U.S. In response to those public protests, the President of Rutgers, released an obfuscatory statement: “Rutgers deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms. We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism. Neither hatred nor bigotry has a place at Rutgers, nor should they have a place anywhere in the world. At Rutgers we believe that anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and xenophobia are unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur.” The Chancellor and Provost’s original statement and apology were deleted, but can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CyyXw0wyWumoxtQuLoCkQBU9gvz-KUqasebXQ8cvamg/edit?usp=sharing. The entire affair was reported and summarized at NJ.com.
Or, as Pamela Paresky so exquisitely put it on Twitter, when it comes to Jews, All Lives Matter is the order of the day:
This is only the second time in my 35 year career at Rutgers that I have been embarassed to work here by the behavior of administrators (the first involves their commitment to insane expenditures on the football team). If the mob ever comes for Jews, even though I don’t expect this anytime soon, and even though I also recognize that there are plenty of decent academics, and plenty of antisemitic nonacademics, I will play the odds and seek shelter among my nonacademic friends and acquaintances.
How do I know the cadre of scholars exposing leftwing antisemitism are probably left? I don’t know, but the base-rate of being left in academia is so high, I’d bet large sums of money on it.
Well, call me cynical all you want but I couldn't help but laugh out loud upon reading the administrator 's issuing a virtue signaling excuse of having issued a virtue signaling excuse for having issued a virtue signaling statement .
Isn't it simply heartwarming to see our esteemed educators tripping over themselves in their rush to pander? Talk about playing Twister with basic human decency. Now, that's a lesson in 'social justice' I'd pay to skip.