The protests at Johns Hopkins

An enormous number of Gazans have been killed by the Israeli invasion. Some people find these deaths to be abhorrent and are speaking out in an effort to stop the killing and destruction. Johns Hopkins University has not escaped the pro-Palestine demonstrations that have occupied colleges and universities.

At campuses across the nation protesters have gathered and encamped, demanding, among other things, that universities divest their investment of substantial endowment funds from Israeli companies and those doing business with them.

The Hopkins’ demonstrators are demanding that the school cut all ties with Tel-Aviv University.

In some cases there has been hate speech aimed at Jews, or Israel as a nation, and calling for violence, sometimes invoking Germany’s mass murder of Europe’s Jewish population. Make no mistake; the threats or invocations of violence are intolerable to this board. They are hate speech, unprotected under the First Amendment on college campuses and elsewhere because their words are likely to incite violent acts, not because they express a particular view.

Some of the protests, however, do not call for violence although they demand that universities meet their  demands. Some demonstrations are orderly, some less so when they break into campus buildings or otherwise serve to prevent non-protesting students, being the vast majority of the school population, from attending their expensive classes or participating in graduation ceremonies.

We need to question whether the acts of merely assembling where universities say students should not assemble, without more egregious conduct, are sufficient to cause some universities to invoke police intervention resulting in the removal of protesters by violent means.

Regrettably, acts of violence resulted when some universities called in the police. At UCLA, rubber bullets were fired by police from their shotguns at the protesters; at Columbia, a person was pushed down the stairs and police discharged a firearm when it was inexplicably used as a flashlight.  Over 2,000 people have been arrested, some pushed face down to the ground.

Although some schools resorted to police intervention, other schools did not call the police.  Instead, they sat down with the protesters and negotiated demands, evidencing that the protests over this serious matter were heard and important. Hopkins appears to be a school on the verge of working out these questions without police intervention.

In some cases school administrators agreed to the demands of protesters and others they did not. Some punted the ball to their trustees for a future discussion and vote.  At least there was an exchange of ideas.

This editorial is controversial among our own board members and, to be clear, it does not condone unlawful behavior, although it does view the peaceful occupation of  a plaza to strengthen expression and as a focal point to bring people together as something that is not so terrible, even if the university could consider it trespass in its discretion.

But it does not condemn protesting Israeli actions in Gaza even though many call those protests antisemitic.   And to be quite clear, this board  condemns the threat of violence, violence and hate speech regardless of its target. We do recognize the right to express a legitimate point of view and to express it in a way that will be heard. This is particularly true in the case of students and colleges where exchange of ideas is the backbone of the education process.

The protesters have a legitimate position to present to the universities.  Adding to the complexity of whether the protesters’ conduct is appropriate is that some schools appear to be changing the rules in midstream, based on the protesters’ anti-Israel message.  Indiana University changed its longstanding rule to disallow tents, an apparent symbol or expression of this protest.  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has decreed that public Texas universities must change free speech policies if the speech is antisemitic. He calls for the  expulsion of students who break his rules and criticize Israel.

Some on this board participated in the anti-war protests of the 1970s that occupied buildings and shut down college campuses. These demonstrations were effective and may have led to the beginning of the end of the Vietnam War although those protests, too, were controversial. We recall anti-demonstration slogans like “America, love it or leave it.”

Back then there were many peaceful demonstrations and there were deadly ones such as at Kent State University, where the National Guard fired on, and killed, peaceful protesters. Buildings were occupied and classes were disrupted. Regardless of perspective, peaceful demonstrations and the exchange of ideas between protesters and universities are a critical part of our democracy and higher education. We support the right to engage and to criticize Israel and its leaders.

Editorial Advisory Board members Arthur F. Fergenson, Julie C. Janofsky, Debra G. Schubert and H. Mark Stichel did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Gary E. Bair

Andre M. Davis

Eric Easton

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.