As the school year has ended for U.S. colleges and universities, I hope that academic leaders closely examine their culture of tolerance and codes of conduct. Their decisions will be telling, if not determinative of the future.
Protests, encampments, anti-semitism and poor behavior have marked schools throughout the country. Local police have had to intervene. Congressional committee members grilled Ivy League presidents with lack of disrespect and disdain.
Some alumni foreswore their loyalty and donations. They publicly castigated the colleges and universities they presumably loved.
Though I have found alumni reaction misguided, if not arrogant, I understood why lack of leadership in condemning anti-semitism and protecting the safety of Jewish students rankled alumni. My fealty, however, is rock-solid, though shaken a bit.
At my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, I gladly received as an alumnus, actionable recommendations to create a climate of tolerance toward Jews, Palestinians, African Americans, Asians and students of other creeds. I was disappointed to learn, however, from a campus official that the newly revised code of conduct, a foundational necessity, would not require a signature for reasons known only to lawyers.
During orientation for all new students, it must be the first order of business. It cannot be a nice sidebar. Call it an honor code, call it an acceptance of common values. It requires more than bureaucratic lip service. Not only staffers, but faculty, trustees and alumni leaders must sign a document and be accountable for its behavioral standards.
The great nation-builder, Ben Franklin, founded Penn. He injected his well-defined sense of pragmatism into the curriculum. He sought usefulness. I cannot vouch for his affinity for the classics.
I opine that Dr. Franklin, though a revolutionary leader, would have considered the protests and consequent disruption of studious conduct antithetical to an opportunity for intellectual enrichment. Simply, he would have been sorely disappointed. He expected much of himself and others.
Leaders like Ben Franklin are hard to find nowadays. Nonetheless, college and university presidents must display moral clarity and ensure that protests are short-lived, if not prohibited, as is now the case at Penn. For the common good of all students seeking a degree. And in deference to the surrounding community that must endure immature actions.
Some may argue that protests are acceptable on campuses as a pure form of free speech. A natural passage for students trying to express themselves in a visible way. There’s a thought that those being disruptive represent a minority of students.
All true, I suppose.
The corollary then is that it is permissible for a few to interfere with many. A skewed sense of democracy, though arguable.
I recently read that the Johns Hopkins University president negotiated with the student protesters, assuring them that they would have the right to review possible divestment of Israeli defense investments if they dismantled their encampment. I wrote to Ron Daniels, the president, criticizing him for capitulating. He has yet to respond to explain his absurd decision. I suspect he will not.
What do I recommend as an all-knowing Spy columnist to academic leaders?
Act morally. See bigotry for what it is and condemn it. Vigorously defend free speech but prohibit hateful, threatening speech.
College students have unformed minds—feed them knowledge, including unequivocal recognition of right and wrong. Demand accountability and forsake coddling.
Treat alumni with respect but ensure the relationship is not transactional; donations sustain higher education, but not to the point that academic freedom suffers.
While I understand the need to listen to lawyers during a crisis, I question absolute acquiescence to their advice. A strong leader must use his/her own instincts based on experience to make wise decisions. A crisis has many facets, only some of which require legal counsel.
Preparation of the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T., and Penn by a Washington law firm was abysmal. All three offered the same legalistic answers to a gotcha question from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R, NY) concerning anti-Semitic comments voiced on their campuses. The responses were devoid of outrage.
The outcry afterward resulted in the resignations of Claudia Gay (Harvard) and Liz Magill (Penn). Common sense fell victim to inappropriately mechanical replies.
Soul-searching by college and university presidents, as well as board members, is a must to retain credibility for high-level pedagogy and character development.
And for continued support by parents, politicians and alumni. Prestige can fall victim to questionable leadership.
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.
Robert Siegfried says
Sadly Mr. Freedlander’s well intentioned op editorial misses the point about what has been happening on U.S. university/ college campuses over the last several years and particularly since October 7- that is, they have become breeding grounds of and showcases for anti semitism. It is not about free speech or disagreements with policy- be it Israel or the university itself- it is about publicly trafficking in anti semitism at multi levels in many of this nation’s higher education platforms.
It is not about necessarily the tone of political questioning by certain members of congress of university presidents. It is the fact that these university presidents incredibly were unable to acknowledge the anti semitism!
Sure, codes of conduct – and better yet ones signed by those who are part of an institution – should be in place. But , most disturbingly, where we as a country are today is a place where some of the most important pillars of our society are pro actively enabling and promoting perhaps the oldest form of hate to our society and particularly to those who will shape this country’s future.