Arizona Gov. Hobbs Seeks to Bury Education Freedom in Bureaucracy

A largely failed attempt to place ads for a pro-Israel book in ten universities’ student papers illustrates the double standard by which many students as well as faculty and administrators treat anti-Israel protestors, on one hand, and Israel supporters on the other. Every university approached recently by Seattle-based Discovery Institute on behalf of The Israel Test by George Gilder, a pro-Israel work published by Encounter Books, has experienced anti-Israel demonstrations. Some had riots. Yet most were treated by authorities with appeasement or even encouragement.

Progress combatting antisemitism since then appears meager. A November survey of students on two dozen prominent campuses by the civil rights organization StopAntisemitism showed some of the results: 72 percent of Jewish students feel “unwelcome” now and 52 percent state that they personally had been victims of antisemitism.

There are exceptions. In December the student government at the University of Michigan impeached its president and vice president because of their strident efforts to force university divestment from Israel and to coerce other student groups into support. Meanwhile, Rutgers University in New Jersey, with hundreds of discrimination charges against it, has signed a commitment with the Civil Rights office of the Department of Education to combat antisemitism more vigorously.

But overall the reform process has been weak or contradictory. For example, also at the University of Michigan, the student paper, The Daily, first accepted, and then rejected an ad for The Israel Test with the weak explanation that the publication doesn’t accept “partisan” ads. This ignores the reality that the book plainly is non-partisan, as is the issue of Israel’s war against terrorists. The Gilder book, in truth, is a history of the state of Israel and an account of its modern contributions to science, computer technology, medicine, agriculture, arts, and culture. It suggests from ample evidence that the unique spite aimed at Israel is largely rooted in long-standing envy and scorn of Jews, and not only Zionists. Indeed, the anti-Israel protests these days also are hiding a broader anti-American animus. Demonstrators in Times Square on New Year’s Eve chanted “Globalize the Intifada.” The New Year’s Eve terror attack in New Orleans similarly illustrates why we cannot ignore the threat anywhere.

Papers at Stanford (also asserting that it does not “publish political ads”) and The Yale Daily and The University of Washington Daily, like the Michigan Daily, rejected The Israel Test ad. Papers at Northwestern, Columbia, and the University of California at Santa Cruz did not respond to repeated inquiries. Only three papers accepted the ad — at Harvard, UCLA, and the University of Pennsylvania. The Harvard Crimson initially declined the ad because it displayed the flag of Israel. When it was pointed out that the book cover itself contains the flag, and Discovery Institute agreed to include its own logo, The Crimson relented and ran the ad.

Actually, there was nothing controversial about the banner ad Discovery attempted to place on the university publications’ mastheads. It merely asked, “Can you pass The Israel Test?”, and if readers clicked on the question, they were led to a description of the book and invited them to consider Mr. Gilder’s arguments fully. The hope was to provide information and arguments for students that they otherwise might not encounter. Passing the Israel Test, students would learn, is avoiding prejudice in how one treats Jews.

The failure of higher education to lend an ear to pro-Israel voices, including even non-Jewish ones like George Gilder’s, is a sign that universities are still failing in their duty to air all opinions and to protect civil, non-violent debate.

Why the hesitance to crack down? It is speculated by some in Congress that one reason universities have tolerated harassment of Jews and ignored the ensuing indignation of pro-Israel alumni, is that the truly big money at prestigious schools doesn’t come from alumni but from government agencies that themselves are unfriendly to Israel and from anti-Israel countries overseas, such as Qatar.

The failure of higher education to lend an ear to pro-Israel voices, including even non-Jewish ones like George Gilder’s, is a sign that universities are still failing in their duty to air all opinions and to protect civil, non-violent debate.

Bruce Chapman

There is growing interest also in knowing where the demonstrators are getting their money and direction. Some of the protestors come from off campus and the funding certainly does. According to Ryan Mauro of the Capital Research Center in Washington who has researched the subject, some support is linked to Middle Eastern sources, some to Russia and Iran. China is linked to the militant People’s Forum group in America.

Mauro has charted some 150 organizations involved in opposing Israel, yet there seems to be coordination among them. How is it that supposedly spontaneous acts of civil protest and disobedience by Students for Justice in Palestine, which justifies violence, and companion groups take place simultaneously all around the country, frequently sporting the same printed signs? How is it that calls for a cease-fire in Gaza a year ago have evolved into calls for eradicating Israel altogether and to “Bring the Intifada Home” and expressing support of what is called the “Axis of Resistance,” meaning not just Hamas, but Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Iran, and even Russia?

Some liberal observers point out that there also are antisemites on the far right, and that some are violent. That, of course, is true. But whatever far-right antisemites exist, they are seldom found on college campuses and, in any case, are now joining their hatred of Jews with that of pro-Hamas far-left groups.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently released a 42-page report on antisemitism on college campuses. The report also expressed alarm that the federal government itself, through grant programs of such agencies as the National Institutes of Health, is, de facto, biasing school admissions policies against Jewish students, including, for instance, at medical schools. In practice, the report indicates, “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies that the government promotes and universities implement are being used to discriminate.

All of this points to the need for the new Trump administration to change the federal government’s course, first to eliminate incentives for university programs that discriminate on the basis of perceived identity, and, second, to withhold funding from institutions that persist in such policies. As Ryan Mauro’s report suggests, the government, among other things, should also deport foreign protestors that promote terrorism and “substantiate claims of foreign support by safely declassifying credible intelligence.” States, meanwhile, should apply (or pass) anti-masking laws so that activists cannot hid their identities.