Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Anti-Semitism 101
On Saturday, March 7th, a bus full of University of Oklahoma SAE fraternity members chanted disgusting racism. Someone filmed a 20-second clip of it on their phone. The following day, the video appeared on the Internet, and quickly became viral, worldwide. On Monday, the school severed all ties to the frat.
On Tuesday, two of the students from the video were expelled. Even though the school’s administration acted swiftly and harshly, there were multiple protests & marches. The school’s football and basketball teams and coaches gave the actions even more attention. None of the outrage displayed could stop a highly-recruited football player from decommitting from Oklahoma. Many are saying this requires a “national dialogue,” so we certainly haven’t heard the end of this story.
Nearly a month earlier — and halfway across the country — a UCLA student was applying for a position on the student council’s judicial board when she was asked this question:
“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”
On February 19th, The College Fix covered the story. While not MSM-level attention, it was good that the story was being reported.
On March 5th, a full 23 days later, The New York Times got around to covering this story.
Imagine: “Given that you are a black student…” or “Given that you are a gay student…” or “Give that you are a Muslim student…”
The backlash would be as immediate and severe as what happened at the University of Oklahoma, possibly even harsher. This was not leaked hidden video of drunken frat boys chanting racist slogans on a bus somewhere. This was the UCLA student council, conducting an official meeting on-campus.
Thankfully, sanity prevailed, the student was unanimously approved, people were criticized, and apologies were made. But there were no protests on the quad. Dozens of UCLA students didn’t march with duct tape over their mouths. No Bruin player on any sport held hands with a coach to express displeasure.
Anti-semitism on college campuses is a scourge that gets worse with each passing year. According to The Louis D. Brandeis Center:
Over 50% of Jewish American college students report that they experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism on their campuses during the 2013-2014 academic year. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has announced that campus anti-Semitism “is a serious problem which warrants further attention.”
The organization Jew Hatred on Campus released The 10 Campuses With The Worst Anti-Semitic Activity. Number 9: UCLA.
Stories like what happened at UCLA are a constant occurrence, and most times, never garner any national press attention. I’d call for a national dialogue, but I don’t like silence.
UPDATE: As I was writing this piece, I discovered that on March 10th, UCLA passed a resolution against campus anti-Semitism. According to Buzzfeed:
The resolution stood against, among other points, making stereotypical or dehumanizing allegations about Jews as well as “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.” It passed 12-0 Tuesday night at the meeting of the Undergraduate Students Association Council.
This is a positive development, and I can only hope that other college campuses follow suit.
Published in Culture, Education
While I abhor campus Antisemitism, I do not think that the answer is a resolution banning particular speech. Frankly, I would rather let these people speak, videotape it, post it on the web, and see how successful they are when the apply for jobs after graduation.
Because: sanity prevailed, the student was unanimously approved, people were criticized, and apologies were made. Am I missing something about the response?
I agree with Larry. It should not be against the rules to be an anti-Semite, or express anti-Semitic ideas. Frankly, I would like to be able to see people for what they are, wouldn’t you? Let people speak, and let others react.
A correct response to the racist chants of the frat boys at the University of Oklahoma could have been, for example, making them into social pariahs. The fraternity itself is also free to kick them out. Curtailing speech, at a publicly-funded institution, is not the answer.
Is there no scenario you can think of where that question to the student is a legitimate inquiry and not based on anti-Semitism?
The reason it’s seen as less awful to say things about Jews rather than blacks or Muslims is because Jews are seen as “high-status” or “privileged.”
This is mainly because, despite Jewish history of incredible suffering and prejudice, when you look at the upper echelons of just about any intellectual or creative field, you’re likely to find several Jews.
So, Jews suffer because, in their normal distribution, their upper tail is fatter and goes farther than just about every other easily identifiable group, and because they are small enough to have minority status. It’s easier to beat up on small groups and it’s easy to be jealous of the success of the small number of Jews who happen to fill many of the spots on the top. So, you can convince yourself you’re still “punching up,” as they say, even if the vast majority of Jews are as average as the rest of us.
Mike, this is rather an odd comment. I know you are not an anti-Semite; why bother to offer a rationalization for those who are?
ETA: On rereading your comment, it occurs to me that perhaps you are trying to explain why the UCLA story did not make the splash the Oklahoma story did. I can agree that there are many who think anti-Semitism is just dandy, and therefore don’t get het up about such happenings. Still, something about your attempt to explain this mindset strikes me as off. I know you are not suggesting that anti-Semitism is reasonable, but your comment comes off that way.
Does attempting to explain their psychology lessen its awfulness? Are these things not OK to talk about? We’re just supposed to scream “hateful bigot!” and move on?
That seems beneath us.
Tommy De Seno
Is there no scenario you can think of where that question to the student is a legitimate inquiry and not based on anti-Semitism?
Mmmmmmaybe. Does the position hold a lot of power over other students? Like getting people expelled? Are her religious beliefs so unusual that she would be likely to judge someone who came before this body too harshly for things that mainstream Americans would find unobjectionable? Then yes, I think you’d have an argument for keeping her out.
But that’s not what happened here. The existing members of this council were trying to stack the body in favor of Israeli Divestment. And the canard that was raised was that this woman Rachel Beyda, had been on trips sponsored in part by the Israeli government, and that this was a conflict of interest that would have biased her against the Divestment movement.
Which is a very strange idea of being unbiased. As though any neutral person would naturally go for Divestment once they looked at and really understood the situation. Instead of seeing the Divestment movement on these campuses for what it is, a self-indulgent exercise in moral preening.
On the contrary, we should talk about them. I would rather meet anti-Semitism with argument, as, I imagine, would you. I edited my comment, above, to note my understanding of what you are trying to accomplish.
Thank you. Sorry if I don’t talk about this sort of thing with a sufficient amount of righteous indignation. I just see it as the same type of thing radical feminists do. Put everyone on the one dimensional “privilege” latter. If you’re listed above someone else (which I’d wager that Jews may even be placed higher than whites in general) then it doesn’t matter what awful things people do to you because you’re “oppressing” everyone listed under you.
It’s mind-numbingly stupid.
Agreed.
I think in the UCLA case you cite the reactions seem more or less normal. I don’t think that question is ridiculous, it is fair game to ask those who seek to govern us what their worldview is. We should err on the side of free speech and free inquiry in these matters IMHO. Is this worse than when John Kennedy running for political office had to answer questions from Baptist ministers about his relationship with Catholicism? If there was a video of students chanting “Never gonna elect a Jew” I think the reaction would have been much larger although not an OU by any means.
The reaction for the OU incident on the other hand is way over the top (it has to be because it is high stakes politics for OU and for the fraternity and they are not dummies). It is not over the top to condemn the sentiments of this song or even to protest if that is your thing. The reason OU gets the reaction it does is that it bolsters the narrative (damn that word) that the liberal arts professors have been teaching to the media about America for the last 40 years. The perpetrators are white and middle class and more importantly from the heartland of America. This is how America is or so we are now to be told. Because they are us we are all responsible. Our White guilt must be assuaged.
Nowhere do we get to hear the back story of the OU event other than the narrative that the media wants to promote. Obviously this is hateful speech (which is not and SHOULD NOT be a crime) but how old were these young men? How many were pledges? Is there a history of racism in DEED by this fraternity on this campus or is this just young men behaving stupidly and beating their chests when they think no one is looking. No one wants to get within 10 meters of these guys lest they be sullied.
I’d bet the house that you’re right on t he particulars of this case, Jason. However, I agree with Tommy that such a question in itself is not automatically driven by some -ism. Activists for a particular “community” (ie race, ethnicity, religion, or other narrow interest group) actually are incredibly biased, in my experience, and probably not fit for a governing position over a wider group.
Remember the hubbub surrounding Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation where she was grilled over her ability/inability to judge based on the law without reference to her personal experience and leanings? I remember her defending personal experience and leanings, qualified defense though it was.
This can be a legitimate question. I think the details need to be fleshed out, as you did, before we can label it an illicit question.
Yes, there are so many angles from which to approach the OU case. I think the actual reaction has been wrong on just about all of those levels.
It’s not that speech should be banned. Personally I think the whole college fraternity concept is problemmatic. What positive role do they serve? College kids run free to develop their own sub culture without the restraint of older wisdom. It’s doomed for trouble. Yes, I bet these boys in a different setting were basically good boys. But put them into an unrestricted structure and the inherent evil is bound to come out, and if it takes root will lead to very anti social behavior. This is a sub culture effect, no different than a dysfunctional ghetto. The only thing is that these fraternities/sororities for the most part end after college. Still I don’t think they are a good thing and should be discouraged on campuses.
No, none
That was my whole point for the piece. Comparing the speed at which the 2 events were covered, and addressed by the respective campuses. Cameron
I don’t believe in banning speech either. But this wasn’t a group with a bullhorn on the UCLA campus quad, it was, for lack of a better term, a job interview. Cameron
I pick juries for a living. I can tell you for certain that the 1/3rd branch of our government that is the judiciary accepts that a relationship is a reason to question (as in ask the question) whether the relationship might create some favoritism, fear, bias or prejudice when being asked to judge facts for or against the party with whom you have a relationship.
If I’m suing Bank of America, and a potential juror is an employee or has an account there, the employee will be questioned by the judge about whether that relationship will in any way impede the juror’s ability to be fair.
If I am picking a jury on an injury case and a potential juror was treated by one of the doctors who will testify in the case, that juror will be questioned about whether that relationship will impede the juror’s ability to be fair.
You can imagine the examples can go on and on.
In all those cases, the court and the lawyers don’t have to accept the juror’s answer. The judge or the lawyers , simply for being unsure about the potential for favoritism or bias, can dismiss the juror.
Asking a Jew who has more than a passing relationship with Israel (in this case an activist) if that relationship will (or will not) interfere with her ability judge fairly is entirely understandable.
Banning the inquiry is a symptom of political correctness in a nation that at the same time insists we recognize multiculturalism also punishes those who then recognizes or points out a color or religion.
Tommy, it has been oft repeated that if the question pertained to her ethnicity or gender, there would have been a much larger outcry. But it was because she is Jewish and that the BDS movement has taken hold of our institutions of higher learning.
Have you seen the video? UCLA had it removed, but here is copy. Would be interested in hearing your opinion.
David what does this Judicial Board do? Does it decide issues between ethnic groups having a problem or as someone suggested take positions on things like Israeli divestiture? What is their function?
According the their website:
To paraphrase Hillary, what difference does it make? Their planting of students sympathetic to BDS amounts to nothing more than antisemitism.
David if you have some inside baseball that the board is stacked with pro-BDS folks and her rejection was the work of that faction for that reason, then I’d have a bit of a problem with the stacking.
But it feels like you are coming out of left field at me because that’s not how Cameron set up the post.
To perhaps clarify my position, if this woman is going to be on a board that may be called upon to take position pro or con the working of Jewish student groups or on Israel, then I don’t object to the QUESTION of whether she thinks she could be fair, in other words be open minded to ruling against those groups, considering that she has or may have relationships to them.
That sort of inquiry is quite common, is it not? For instance if a lobbyist gets a government job vice versa, isn’t the relationship a valid point of inquiry?
“On-campus BDS is feeding anti-Semitism: UCLA is case in point
Three of the four UCLA students who questioned a sophomore for being Jewish are pro-BDS activists. Perhaps they let their own anti-Israel sentiments infect their ‘impartiality.'”
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.646175
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/02/ucla-student-govt-candidate-challenged-for-being-jewish/
My impression is that she was an activist. It’s the difference between merely being black and being a member of Rainbow Coalition. It’s a legitimate question to the activist, not so much for the person who simply happens to be black. If I’m misunderstanding and the student was merely active as opposed to an activist, then the question becomes less relevant.
Like I said I can’t speak to that incident. That’s not how Cameron presented the story.
Campus kids are a hotbed of hysteria. I went through an issue when I was in school over the divestiture of South Africa. Any discussion of the merits or lack thereof was met with screams of racism.
She was questioned because she was Jewish and active within her community. As demonstrated above, she was asked those questions by 3 BDS Activists who already sit on the board, at a time when UCLA has become the defacto center of the Divest universe. I am quite certain there is no ambiguity here.
Let me try a hypothetical. Suppose the same board were the center of the SSM movement and the current board was stacked with supporters. They see me, an active (not activist), Catholic come along and they ask me a similar question: can I be unbiased?
Is that an illicitly discriminatory question?
I won’t argue the specific case too much because I don’t know anything about it and you very well may be correct. I am interested in the principle, though.
Agreed it gets emotional, especially with young activists, on all sides. Cameron is correctly pointing out the fact that there are many examples of antisemitism in college and it’s growing at an alarming rate. UCLA is deeply concerning, especially as it’s located within one of the largest Jewish community in America.