Listen to the article
On December 5, three prestigious American universities found themselves in a challenging situation. Summoned to appear before the US Congress, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania faced questions about anti-Semitic comments and incidents on their campuses following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The situation was grave: there were explicit calls for the “genocide of the Jews” by students. Yet, when asked if such speeches violated university harassment policies, the responses from the university presidents were ambiguous. “It may be the case, depending on the context,” stated Harvard President Claudine Gay cautiously. Her colleagues at MIT and the University of Pennsylvania expressed similar uncertainty.
“Context”: A Tricky Term
The term “context” was used to potentially justify not condemning such comments outright. This reluctance to categorize an explicit call for the massacre of a population as punishable hate speech suggests a form of relativism, where the shocking nature of such speech is reduced to mere perspectives. Alarmingly, the argument was even turned against the Jewish community, insinuating that criticism of Israeli policy might justify threats of genocide. This conflation indicates how the fight against anti-Semitism can be manipulated for political purposes.
The university presidents’ responses were doubly problematic. They downplayed explicitly racist and criminal statements made within educational institutions and implied that Jews might somehow “deserve” these threats due to perceived complicity in crimes. This line of reasoning echoes Nietzsche’s phrase: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Thus, when the presidents suggest the classification of a speech as anti-Semitic “depends on the context,” they are inadvertently echoing this relativistic stance.
An Extreme Interpretation of Freedom of Expression
How can such ambiguous reactions be reconciled with academic ethics? The almost absolute freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution does not entirely explain this. While the US legal framework is permissive, it has its limits. For instance, in France, similar statements inciting violence and denying crimes against humanity have led to criminal convictions.
The approach taken by the university presidents reflects an extreme interpretation of freedom of expression, bordering on complacency with morally and legally reprehensible ideas — a stance unlikely to be tolerated in other countries like France.
Guilty Complacency
This complacency could stem from ambiguities inherent in American society, which struggles with supremacist movements, and a shift in campus atmosphere. Influenced by “decolonialist” theories and “woke” activism, a climate of censorship and intimidation has emerged, particularly affecting those labeled as “Zionists.” The presidents’ reluctance to take a firm stand also appears to be influenced by this divisive environment. Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” is relevant here, where evil manifests through seemingly “normal” people conforming to harmful norms without critical thought. The fact that the president of Harvard is African-American adds another layer of complexity to this scenario.
Reactions that Trivialize the Worst
By hesitating to confront explicit calls for hatred and violence, university leaders risk normalizing dangerous rhetoric. The passive acceptance of such discourse could be seen as a form of insensitivity to the absurdity of these ideas, as described by Albert Camus.
This situation mirrors the “boiled frog” analogy: gradual acceptance of extreme views without immediate reaction can lead to a lowered bar of acceptability, normalizing previously unacceptable ideas.
Urgent Need for Action
There is a pressing need to counter this trend and firmly oppose racist rhetoric. University presidents, as leaders in education and ethics, have a responsibility to set an example. Failure to do so risks rendering the principles of ethical responsibility and the vow of “never again” meaningless. The situation is dire, and the need for decisive action against such rhetoric is critical.
But perhaps it’s already too late; the water is simmering in the pan where the frog is…
