Stopping campus antisemitism harms free speech, strengthens democracy - opinion

Freedom of speech and expression in universities appears to be unlimited, potentially endangering other democratic values such as countering the freedom of speech of Israeli professors, restricting the movement of students on campus (Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), limiting students’ freedom to express their religious identity as Jews (First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights), and compromising the right to feel safe and secure (Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

The absence of intervention by governors and university administrations worldwide blurs the fine line between freedom of expression and violent harassment. Consequently, it effectively legitimizes calls aligned with terror organizations’ agendas, fosters hate crimes against Jews, and undermines the core values of liberal democracy.

Analogously, we can explain this situation through the economic concept of market failure. In economics, market failure refers to the inefficient distribution of goods and services within a free market, when individuals make rational decisions for their interests, but against the group interests as a whole. One of the causes of market failure is externality. An externality arises when a third party is positively or negatively influenced by a certain activity of other parties.

How democratic tools are being exploited to harm Jews

In a sense of democratic values, the use of democratic tools by the demonstrators in the universities creates a negative externalization towards Jewish students that results in the lack of ability to exercise basic rights such as live safely. Hence, democratic market failure manifests when certain groups within universities exploit democratic principles to further their interests, consequently tarnishing the overall image of educational institutions founded on democratic values.

Furthermore, many students, lacking familiarity with the complexities of the conflict, inadvertently become conduits for Hamas propaganda, earning them the label of useful idiots. While genuinely sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, they fail to grasp that Hamas exploits them and its civilians as part of its strategy to create a narrative where the Zionists are the cause behind the conflict.

This manipulation occurs through various channels, including the media, the UN, and even the literature. Hamas disregards the well-being of Palestinian civilians and opposes efforts toward normalization in the Middle East through peaceful agreements. In contrast, Hamas unequivocally rejects any possibility of peace or coexistence with the State of Israel.

This stance is explicitly outlined in its charter, which emphasizes the goal of rejecting any alternative to the full liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. In other words - destroying Israel and opposing any of its allies who do not accept the primacy of Islamic rule in the Middle East.

Back to economics, when the solution does not come from the market itself, governments can intervene and take some measures as a response to a market failure, like imposing taxes and subsidies as possible solutions. Government interventions serve not only to maintain efficiency but also to shield domestic markets from external impacts originating from other nations, whether politically, economically, or culturally. In essence, these interventions aim to safeguard the interests and sovereignty of the nation against foreign influences. For example, US President Joe Biden’s decision to increase tariffs on Chinese imports in some sectors serves as one such intervention.

The same concept is excised in the legal and political theory, known as the defensive democracy doctrine. That doctrine reflects the idea of legal restriction on certain rights and freedoms that are taken by democratic governments, in order to protect themselves from anti-democratic forces that seek to exploit democratic freedoms to undermine or overthrow the democratic order.

For example, some countries in Europe have outlawed laws against Holocaust denial. The case in the universities is a wake-up call to apply the defensive democracy doctrine against extremist ideologies and movements that threats the core interest of the US as a democracy.

In terms of hate crimes, waiting until the “antisemitic rhetoric crosses into conduct” [as suggested by respondents testifying in Congressional hearings] for taking action by the universities and governors might be irrelevant. This is because the prevention element is crucial when it comes to safeguarding human lives. In that sense, interventions such as restricting statements that have a high probability of leading to hate crimes are essential for cultivating stability in society.

Limiting calls for an intifada or suspending permanently students who encourage violence in campuses indeed harms freedom of speech. However, it enables the implementation of more rights and creates a more democratic environment.

The writer is a fourth-year student pursuing a dual degree in law (LLB) and business administration (BA) at Reichman University. He holds a comprehensive security background, with approximately eight years of dedicated service as an officer and combatant commander in the IDF. Currently, he is a fellow of the Argov Program in Leadership and Diplomacy.