When Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law and a strong advocate of free speech, invited sixty graduating students to his home, one of them rewarded his and his wife’s kindness with appalling behavior. Using her own microphone in Chemerinsky’s backyard to plead the plight of Palestinians, she and ten other students showed utter disregard for the dean’s hospitality.
I repeat: the dinner, along with two others for the graduating students, was at the dean’s home in his backyard.
Beware of immature guests with antagonistic agendas.
As I wrote this column, I became angrier and angrier. The protesting students cared little about others. Only their cause mattered. They used their perception of free speech as a cudgel.
Chemerinsky had some warning about the pathetic protesters. They employed antisemitism in creating a widely circulated poster that portrayed the dean, a Jew, holding a bloody fork and knife, with blood around his lips, and this despicable language:
“‘No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves.’”
Jews have long withstood antisemitic accusations of “blood libel.” The trope characterizes Jews as killing Christians to harvest their blood for religious rituals. This ugly libel has spread its poison for thousands of years.
Typical of his being a learned constitutional law scholar, Chemerinsky sublimated his deep hurt and characterized the horrific posters as legally permissible under the First Amendment.
Think about that. A person subjected to antisemitism justified its protection under the American privilege of free speech. Even if it stings your soul and frays your sense of decorum.
I commend the dean for his reaction to the pernicious poster. And his wife’s and his vigorous defense of the sanctity of his home. The protesting students exhibited an arrogant disregard for their hosts. They selfishly ruined a joyous occasion.
In a heartfelt statement to the Berkeley community, Chemerinsky wrote, “I have spent my career staunchly defending freedom of speech. I have spent my years as a dean trying to create a warm, inclusive community. I am deeply saddened by these events and take solace that it is just a small number of our students who would behave in such an inappropriate manner.”
As repulsed as I am by the appalling behavior of a small cadre of law school students, I felt pleased by the bold action taken last Wednesday by Columbia University’s president, Menat Shafik, to ask the New York Police Department (NYPD) to clear and remove a tent city set up by roughly 100 students protesting Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. They were arrested for trespassing and disorderly conduct.
While critics will disparage the punitive actions taken by Columbia’s president as violating free speech, I believe that the 100-plus protesters were interfering with academic freedom deserved by thousands of their fellow students. Like their disruptive counterparts at Berkeley, they exhibited no regard for the Columbia community.
In the 1960s, during the public outrage over the Vietnam War, Columbia University was a hotbed of unrest and protests. Students occupied the administrative building. Anarchy afflicted campuses throughout the country.
Maybe it is my age. Maybe it is my sense of fairness. Maybe it is my belief in accountability for illegal or unethical transgressions.
That said, university presidents such as Columbia’s leader should listen to their students. Though they often are the tip of the spear in identifying critical social issues, they cannot feel free to disrupt a university catering to all students, not just a few.
Free speech is an inviolate American right. A fervent defender of free expression, Dean Chemerinsky and his wife endured the unconscionable violation of their private property. Their kindness as hosts meant nothing to a small group of pro-Palestinian law school students. Their inconsiderate conduct was shameful.
Finally, I applaud the bold but difficult decision by Columbia’s President Shafik to enlist the NYPD to arrest students for trespassing and disorderly conduct. She rightfully protected precious academic space. I bemoan that the protests continued over the past weekend and then erupted at Yale. Disheartening. Dr. Shafik did not request the NYPD due, I suspect, to criticism for stifling free speech. Would this adolescent exhibition of passion for the Palestinians have occurred during finals?
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. After 44 years in Easton, Howard and his wife, Liz, moved in November 2020 to Annapolis, where they live with Toby, a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel who has no regal bearing, just a mellow, enticing disposition.
Margaret Iovino says
Howard – Columbia president violated University rules/constitution. It is a requirement that the police never be called in without consultation with other university bodies such as the faculty – which rejected her request but she unilaterally acted. The police denied her claim that the students posed a clear and present danger as she claimed, and said they were peaceful and were causing no problems. This rush to support this rash and dictatorial president is frightening. She needs to obey the rules and constitution of her Unoversoty. Who is the clear and resent danger??
Rich Long says
Who is the clear and present danger? The pro-Hamas (pro-terrorist) protesters who have been threatening the safety of Jewish students and professors, so much so, that the students and educators have been told not to be on campus due to credible security concerns. Let’s say you were walking downtown and a crowd of people violated your right to move freely in a public space, while lobbing threats to you and chanting slogans regarding your death. Would you feel that activity would be a clear and present danger? I’m guessing you couldn’t call the police fast enough. Perhaps you should try walking in others’ shoes and respecting the civil rights that Jewish Americans have before worrying about some arbitrary campus policy which doesn’t supercede United States law.
Michael Davis says
Excellent essay.
It is not legal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. That is a very small limit on free speech. This country probably allows as much free speech as any country in the world. Unfortunately, people use that freedom to yell “Death to America” and “From the river to the sea,” promoting the death of all Jews. We have to tolerate that, but not the disruption of our common welfare from certifying elections to crossing bridges to get to work.
Robert Siegfried says
Mr. Freedlander’s editorial touches on multiple themes : what is free speech? What is hate speech? What is a public forum? What is private property?
In the Chemerinsky affair, one has an obvious “hate” poster on display in a public space ,the Berkeley Law School. As a leading advocate of free speech , Chemerinsky , while , along with many others found the poster to be abhorrent, determined that the poster could remain in that public space. In his home – a private personal space, a dinner his wife and he were hosting was suddenly disrupted by a guest who rose to speak without any prior agreement with the hosts.
At Columbia as well as other university/ college campuses , public spaces are being used by demonstrators to promote opinion but sadly often formed by and with misinformation. And this , often has translated into hate speech , including the demonstrators accosting or hurl threats at non demonstrators. As Mr. Freedlander points out, responsible use of public spaces lies with both those demonstrating and those charged with overseeing such space , in this case a university / college , to the well being of all of the constituencies involved with the space.
But perhaps worse: Intentionally using these different forms of demonstrations, many of which are influenced by outside agitators , to promote loss of confidence in a university / college administration is a politically desperate , politically self serving , “ burn the house down” group of congressional Republicans.
Shame on them -for they are doing nothing but undercutting the future strengths of this country and its educational institutions.
Sharron Cassavant says
Thank you for speaking out. Whatever the rights or wrongs of a certain position being defended, colleges and universities must set the standard for society as bastions of academic freedom. Bullying, shouting down speakers whom a faction doesn’t agree with, , and threatening others should not be tolerated. The violation of the Dean’s hospitality is, as you say, shameful. Threatening other students is intolerable.
When I taught at Northeastern, some students broke into the offices of the student newspaper and destroyed copies of a certain issue before they could be distributed. Why? They didn’t agree with an editorial that defended the right of an invited speaker to speak.
That happened around 2001, and such infractions of law and civil discourse have grown ever since. My understanding is that Northeastern did not penalize the students nor were they charged by the police.
Once we have lost the idea of a university — and a society — that tolerates civil disagreement and is capable of listening to other views — totalitarianism threatens.
Mike Callahan says
Excellent column.