Dec. 19, 2013
By now you must have heard that presidents of elite American universities testified in front of Congress and they flunked. Many Americans were shocked. Many Chinese were confused, what was the fuss? This incident should be analyzed from two perspectives: legality (freedom of speech) and morality. I hope the below might be helpful.
First, what does free speech mean? Freedom of speech is very important. The US Constitution’s First Amendment protects citizens’ or groups’ right to speak. It is not limited to speaking, but also publishing, broadcasting, newspapers, etc. Since freedom of speech is so common in the West, many take it for granted and do not appreciate its importance. They regard freedom of speech as a right: anyone can speak about anything and anywhere. That is not true. Consider two examples from an excellent textbook [1]. Socrates, a great philosopher of all time, was condemned to death because he did not have the protection of freedom of speech (It was more complicated but that is beyond this short write-up). For political stability, a great British philosopher Thomas Hobbes advocated complete control of speech, publications, and universities by the crown (government). Without freedom of speech, the US would not be the nation it is now.
One WSJ commentator (see videos below) clarified an important point, that Freedom of Speech applies to the US Government only. Since these elite universities (Harvard, MIT, UPenn) are private, at least nominally, Freedom of Speech does not apply to them. Legally speaking, yes. But morally speaking, no. Legally, public universities (in the US most are state-funded) must obey State and Federal laws. Private Universities, on the other hand, have their codes of conduct. Pay attention to the details of the hearing, you might see the differences. If the US government cannot dictate private universities on issues of free speech then what was the purpose of the hearing? These universities failed to protect their Jewish students (anti-semitism rampant). Some asked (videos below) if Nazis demonstrate on campus, what would they do? Hamas is as bad as Nazis if not worse [2]. Watch the videos to get your conclusion.
What is shocking to many Americans is the morality of these elite universities. Elite universities are supposed to lead by example and to have high morality. Participating in pro-Palestine demonstrations, even supporting Hamas in slogans but not violence, is legal (under the US Constitution) but immoral. However, harassing or intimidating Jewish students is prohibited under the codes of conduct of these universities. (I suspect that these would be in focus if the presidents would pass the initial stage of questioning.) Although many young Americans show sympathy for Palestine people (this is immoral see my previous write-up), most older Americans are not fooled by pro-Palestine propaganda (more on this in a future write-up). You do not need to go to college to know that any organization (such as Hamas) preaching genocide (whether Jews or any other ethnic group) is abhorrent. How is possible that these academics do not have basic values?
Surprisingly, many in the West support Hamas even though Hamas is a terrorist organization. According to the comments, there are several factors. First, many have no idea that Hamas is evil. Just imagine supporting Al-Qaeda after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Second, many have no idea what Islamist ideology is. For example, some advocates of LGBTQ joined pro-Palestine demonstrations. Homosexuals are illegal in many Muslim countries and according to the Quran, they should face certain death. If you want to die, you can find an easy way rather than being pushed from a high rise. Third, many buy into Hamas and Muslims’ propaganda that Jews were oppressors or aggressors and Palestine belongs to Muslims. This is based on a fake history.
Now go back to the hearing. I think that the three presidents are different. If reports of Harvard President Claudine Gay’s plagiarism are accurate, then she is not qualified. Niall Ferguson and Alan Dershowitz think that DEI (Diversity, Equality, Inclusion) made her president. For all I know, both Niall Ferguson and Alan Dershowitz are prominent intellectuals with good characters who speak the truth. Perhaps Gay does not know what morality is because it was not on her agenda. Incidentally, Alan Dershowitz praised Larry Summers for being the best Harvard President and thought that Summers was unfairly forced to resign because some in Harvard pushed a political correctness agenda. It seems to me that Dershowitz is right on both accounts.
The other two presidents perhaps are good academics, just not suitable to be president. Besides being respected for their academic achievement, a president also should have political skills, good character, and morality. They might be also partially the product of DEI. How can the two flunk the hearing? From what I heard, their universities hired prestige PR and Law firms and spent one week preparing for the hearing. The preparation was probably more on legality rather than morality. They did not expect Congress would ask some simple morality questions. (I suspect that they would face trickier questions later. If you have seen such hearings before, you would know. The word grill is used for a reason.) It turned out that all three failed questions for high school students. They have only narrow knowledge and overcoaching made them unprepared for simple morality questions. What is interesting is that Gay made an apology the next day. She also made a photo show in front of a Jewish synagogue later. This strengthens my belief that she is not qualified and probably never thought these questions herself. She might be the front face of DEI, being black and female. Some others plan the show behind the scenes.
References:
-
Steven B. Smith, “Political Philosophy,” Yale University Press, 2012.
-
Niall Ferguson 12-11 The Treason of the Intellectuals | RealClearP...
-
Journal Editorial Report, 12-17-2023