PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) — Liz Magill’s tenure as Penn president is threatened by her own words after she told a Congressional hearing that whether calling for the genocide of Jewish people is against the university’s code of conduct is "context-dependent."
To many, like Gov. Josh Shapiro, that statement was “absolutely shameful.”
Magill has since said a call for genocide of Jews is “evil, plain and simple.”
Evil — but in this country, people should be free to express such a sentiment, vile as it may be, according to Zach Greenberg, a First Amendment attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit based in Philadelphia.
The exchange on Capitol Hill that received the most attention had Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, the Republican from New York, asking whether calling for the genocide of Jews is against the codes of conduct at Penn, Harvard, and MIT. The answers from the university presidents were, basically, "it depends." Penn's president has tried to walk back what she said, explained what she should have said, and what Penn will do next. Were Magill and the others wrong in their "it depends" answers?
KYW's Ian Bush spoke with Greenberg to find out.
An edited excerpt of their conversation follows.
Greenberg: We think the university leaders’ responses were the correct answers. It depends on the context of the expression to ascertain whether it is a true threat, discriminatory harassment, or otherwise unprotected. Mere calls for violence, even justifying violence against certain groups of people, is political speech representing the highest level of protection under First Amendment standards. It's a big deal and a complicated question of when universities can punish students for their speech. And "it depends" is a totally valid answer to put forth in this situation.
Bush: Private universities like Penn can impose stricter limitations on free speech, but aren’t words, though, sometimes weapons themselves — a word like genocide, especially, when that happened to the group of people we’re talking about here — does that not constitute a threat in itself?
Greenberg: Yes, there's absolutely a concern that these words could constitute a true threat or incitement, a serious intent to commit unlawful violence. When these words do rise to that level, universities must crack down and punish those who create these threats. But the question was, does saying this mere phrase out of context rise to that level? And I think "it depends" is a valid answer. The context is very important here. It's important to understand why the First Amendment protects these calls for genocide.
It's really important for us to be able to debate these intense societal issues, especially when it comes to these global conflicts. Being able to talk about genocide, and talk about why this is happening, and the violence in our society — that's how we're going to be able to solve the problem. Yes, we acknowledge that calls for genocide may be offensive and obviously hateful. But if hate is the product of ignorance and fear, the solution should be education, enlightenment -- and not punishment.
Bush: So a group has a right to say this — but don’t I also have a right, if I’m Jewish and a Penn student, not to feel threatened while on campus?
Greenberg: Students absolutely have the right not to feel threatened on campus. To the extent they do feel threatened, they should contact campus safety to deal with students who are engaging in true threats – a serious intent to commit an unlawful act. But when it comes to the ideas being expressed, I don't think students have the right not to feel uncomfortable. I think the purpose of liberal arts education is to challenge students’ deepest ideas. The mere fact that these ideas are circulating on campus — that's part of a campus community. We think that engaging with these ideas — that's how students learn, that's how they become better members of our democracy. And that includes ideas that may be hateful, or offensive, or controversial.
Bush: Is there a clear red line with this where saying, meaning, and doing cross into unlawful, unacceptable, or unconstitutional territory?
Greenberg: The biggest example we've seen with recent protests is substantial disruption to campuses. These protests can occur, but they cannot march into classrooms and shout over professors. They have to allow the normal operation of the university to continue because that's how the university operates. Students pay tuition, they’re able to go to class. But the words that are said — they can be ignored. The ideas expressed — they can be disagreed with and debated. Students have the right to engage with them or to ignore them — that’s within their rights as well. But the real issue here is to deter the use of violence at these protests and to ensure that they’re not disrupting university operations.
Bush: You must understand this is tough stuff — it’s difficult for an outsider to think, yes we must uphold the Constitution, but no, I don’t want people to be even able to say Jews should be killed. As a Jew, I feel that is a threat in itself. How do I reconcile that?
Greenberg: I definitely understand that this is a very difficult time. And I can see why the calls for censorship are very attractive. But I do want to warn those who call for censorship of a couple things.
The first is that censoring people does not make them go away. It does not destroy their ideas. They still hold these views, even if they can't be able to say them. And in fact, maybe censoring them will make them even more deeply held. The second thing is that if we do censor people for their beliefs, those same rules can come back to you — they can come back and censor the views that you hold deeply. That's a very dangerous double standard and a dangerous tool to give to the university and give authorities, to be able to punish people for their beliefs and what they think. A better solution would be to encourage dialogue and debate and to create tolerance by having people come together and discuss their ideas. Allow them to speak. Let them out themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And maybe even knowing what these people think is the first step to engaging with them, having a discussion, and maybe even persuading them to your side.