Category: News and politics

In the face of rising arrests on university campuses of protesters against Israel’s war in Gaza and West Bank, I will explore what forms of protest are proper and effective. I will not address the merits of one view or another as I have already done so in several earlier blogs. I support the measures that will best achieve Israel’s security and prosperity as well as those measures that will best achieve Palestine’s security and prosperity. The two are inseparable.  https://wcoats.blog/2023/10/10/israel-and-the-wbgs-next-steps/

As with international relations more generally, diplomacy is preferred and invariably more successful in the long run to war. War should be the absolute last resort when every effort at diplomacy has failed, if at all.

What does this mean for the war in Gaza and between Israel and its West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) neighbors more generally? Diplomacy begins with correctly understanding the views of the other side. It involves talking with each other. American University protests are largely by students protesting Israel’s behavior vis a vis Hamas and more broadly its Palestinian neighbors.

“The students are protesting against Israel’s actions in the war with Hamas. The Columbia University Apartheid Divest coalition, which consists of more than 100 student groups, is calling for the university to financially divest from companies and institutions that ‘profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine’…. Protesters camping on the university lawn say they believe the war in Gaza amounts to ‘genocide’ of Palestinians….

“’I’m here continuing the Jewish tradition of standing against oppression and injustice, especially as we approach Passover, a holiday that celebrates our own liberation and commits us to fighting for everyone else’s,’ the Jewish Voices for Peace at Columbia said in an online statement.”  https://abcnews.go.com/US/columbia-university-student-protests-israel-gaza-war-continue/story?id=109493377

These protestors clearly have something to discuss with U of Columbia’s Administration. I have no idea whether they are or not. Peaceful public demonstrations of support for demands to impress the other side with the existence of broad support is certainly an appropriate and often effective part of pressing demands. Public debate of the pros and cons of these demands, as guaranteed by our First Amendment right to free speech, can be a powerful way to refine demands and to educate the public of their merits.

But our freedom of speech has limits. We may not yell “Fire” in a theater in which there is no fire. We may not credibly threaten physical harm as in “Kill the Jews.”  On the other hand, the charge that damning the Israeli government for its war in Gaza (or any other unwanted policy) is antisemitic is as wrong as charging me with anti-Americanism for damning some of President Biden’s policies (such as using my tax money to provide the Israeli army with weapons with which they are killing women and children in Gaza).

But many protestors at Columbia U sat up tents on the campus in violation of university rules and on April 18^th more than 100 of them were arrested and removed from the campus. The right to free speech is not the right to violate the law and Universities (or other property owners) have the right to remove violators. The boundaries for the proper right to free speech are set out in the following article by FIRE’s President Greg Lukianoff https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/hypocrisy-projection-civil-disobedience?r=1n8osb&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

When protestors feel so strongly about an issue that they knowingly break the law to dramatize their position, they must expect and accept the legal consequences. But this is the equivalent of going to war when the prospects for diplomacy have been exhausted. An extreme example was the self-immolation of US Airforce officer, Aaron Bushnell, in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. “He was a 25-year-old serviceman who, on February 25, 2024, set himself on fire as a form of protest against what he described as the experiences of Palestinians at the hands of their colonizers and declared that he would no longer be complicit in genocide.” Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell – Wikipedia

Today’s student protests, most of which have been peaceful and legal, are often compared to the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley in 1964, in which I participated. Traditionally, meaning at least during the time I was a student there, we sat up our recruiting tables along Bancroft Avenue near its intersection with Telegraph Avenue just outside the campus.

On September 14, 1964, Dean of Students Katherine Towle “announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, signing of members, and collection of funds by student organizations at Bancroft and Telegraph would henceforth be ”strictly enforced.” FSM Leaflet: Chronicle of the Free Speech Controversy (fsm-a.org)

We, and by we I mean students across the entire political spectrum, protested. Within a week most all student groups, including the University Young Republicans of which I was President, loosely organized into a United Front for presenting our “demands” to the Dean.

On September 27, 1964, the United Front held an all-night vigil on the steps of Sproul Hall. These steps, which became a major staging place for Free Speech Movement (FSM) speeches and demonstrations, are midway between the Telegraph and Bancroft Avenue intersection and Sather Gate. On September, 30 five students who refused to remove their card table were indefinitely suspended from the University. The next day, October 1, during a rally in front of Sproul Hall, Jack Weinberg was arrested for refusing to leave his CORE table. When he was put into a police car, students immediately surrounded it and prevented it from leaving as students began to speak to the crowd from the roof of the police car and the Sproul Hall steps. The next day the student crowd grew to 3,000 and the Alameda Country police force had grown to 500.

On October 3, leaders of Berkeley’s political organizations met on the Sproul Hall steps and formed the Free Speech Movement. Each group had a member on its council and thus I was a member of the FSM Council by virtue of being President of the University YRs. Days of speeches on these steps followed. On one occasion my address to the crowd followed that of Mario Savio the de facto leader of the FSM. Mario was an inspirational speaker and never called for violence. I also stressed the importance of peaceful discussions with the University administration aimed at restoring our traditional political activities on Bancroft.

It should not be surprising that with such a diversity of members on the FSM Council views differed on how to proceed. An important misunderstanding, which persists in the general public to this day, was that Dean Towle’s banning of political activity was not actually a reference to campus activities. The Telegraph and Bancroft location of our club tables was off the campus on city territory and the city had complained to the University that it had not approved such use of its sidewalks.

When control of the FSM Council was taken over by the radical left, Marxist faction, led by Bettina Aptheker, I resigned and joined with the presidents of four other groups genuinely fighting (peacefully) for free speech on campus to help steer student protest toward genuine free speech. It was clear from Bettina’s speeches that she wanted to steer the movement toward violence. Our small group consisted of the presidents of the University Conservatives, University Young Democrats, Young Peoples Socialist League, Young Socialists and myself. We meet at 2:00 am every few days in the office of Professor Seymour Lipset because the YPSL president was his research assistant and had a key to Lipset’s office. Our goal was to represent to the University administration the broader student body commitment to genuine free speech and the exchange of different ideas.

December 2, two to three thousand students peaceably occupied Sproul Hall sitting in for two days. Mario Savio led the occupation with the following words:

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Now, no more talking. We’re going to march in singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’” 

And Joan Baez stood there singing it as they walked in. In the early hours of December 4 Alameda police carried out and arrested 800 students.

For some reason our group of five moderate left and right wing groups were never interested in meeting with the Chancellor of the Berkeley campus, Edward Strong. Clark Kerr was the president of the whole university system and we ultimately met with him and made our case that his administration had not done a very sensible thing in clamping down on all of our traditional political activities. We argued that we thought there was a way of both satisfying the law and re-establishing our tradition of open, free speech that would satisfy everybody except Bettina Aptheker. Happily, this is what happened, in part by clarifying that student activities needed to be on the campus and not on the streets of Berkeley.

Sadly, we too often choose war when diplomacy would produce a better outcome.