oints of view

>> Send letters to: letters@thejewishnews.com

Editorial

ILJ-M Must Monitor Students' Civil Rights

I

n a show of steely courage in the
face of intimidation, deception
and lies about Israel in its conflict
with the Palestinians, the University
of Michigan's Central Student
Government voted to soundly defeat
a contentious divestment resolution
in the wee hours of March 26.
The resolution fell 25-9; five CSG
members abstained. Those in the
majority deserve plaudits for the
integrity and conviction of their vote
against a well-orchestrated proposal
by Students Allied for Freedom and
Equality (SAFE). The proposal's goal:
to encourage the university to divest
from select companies allegedly
engaged in human rights and
international law violations against
the Palestinians through business
dealings with Israel.
Similar votes have passed on other
campuses, including on the Chicago
campus of Loyola University the
same night. Passage at U-M wouldn't
have compelled the Board of Regents
to support the resolution. But it
would've sent a disturbing message
that the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions Movement against Israel
was developing steam on the campus
of one of America's great universi-
ties.

Momentous Tally

The U-M vote came amid hundreds
of students who had jammed the
Michigan Union. It followed a long
night of discussion wherein SAFE and
other student groups backing the
resolution stated their case, as did
students opposed to the resolution.
Most of the opposition had been
organized by U-M Hillel, under execu-
tive director Tilly Shames' leader-
ship, but chose not to identify with
a specific group. Hillel helped rouse
the passion so needed to defeat SAFE
after CSG had indefinitely postponed
the vote eight days earlier, causing
SAFE to stage a sit-in in protest.
In a telling moment, the vote took
place by secret ballot to ensure the
safety of the voters. The issue had
become emotionally charged thanks
to SAFE's strong-armed tactics,
including allegedly cursing Jewish
members of the student government
apparently in hopes of bullying them.
The SAFE proposal also pronounced
that divestment already has broad and
consistent campus support — which
simply isn't true.

Administration's Role

On March 27, Israel-based columnist
Caroline Glick captured the magni-

tude of the decisive vote by the U-M
student government: "Although no
democracy can long survive without
a citizenry capable of displaying such
strength of convictions and basic
decency, these characteristics are
becoming all too rare on campuses.
Indeed, it is the rarity of such devo-
tion to truth that makes the council
members' behavior so heartening."
She went on to challenge students
to stand up not only to campus anti-
Semites, but also to administrators
everywhere who protect expressions
of hatred under the guise of free
speech. Certainly, a university can't
allow a campus religious or ethnic
group to be grievously harassed or
threatened without exposing itself to
civil rights violations and a federal
probe. The Zionist Organization of
America has been particularly effec-
tive at getting hesitant administrators
around the country to respond, to
some degree, to mounting anti-Jewish
fervor on their campuses.
With members of the U-M student
government and the Jewish student
community feeling threatened in the
wake of the divestment drama, the
burden falls squarely to the University
of Michigan administration to stay
on top of anxiety and hostility on the

The burden falls
squarely to the
University of Michigan
administration to stay
on top of anxiety and
hostility on the Ann
Arbor campus.

Ann Arbor campus.
Reminding students to be respect-
ful and tolerant in exercising free
speech is no doubt important. But so
is closely following what is expressed,
in whatever form, and acting decisive-
ly when such expression moves from
spirited, measured utterances toward
the briar patch of violating student
rights.
U-M Hillel isn't in the business of
ridiculing defenders of the Palestinian
people's push for statehood. SAFE,
meanwhile, has pushed an anti-Israel
agenda intended to polarize, demean
and engender a climate of unrea-
soned confrontation, not informed
debate. ❑

Guest Column

If Not At Hillel, Then Where?

S

everal incidents have sparked
nationwide reactions from aca-
demic institutions and Hillels this

year.
First, more than 200 university presi-
dents and provosts around the country
rejected the boycott of Israeli academic
institutions adopted by the American
Studies Association. In response, they
pointed to the importance of free speech
and free academic exchange.
Second, when University of Michigan
freshmen experienced fake Palestinian
eviction notices placed under their doors
in the residence halls, the Department of
Housing stated the notices were in viola-
tion of policy and apologized immediately
to its residents, calling for civil discourse
and dialogue.
More recently, when the same group
responsible for the eviction notices pre-
sented a resolution to student government
to divest from companies doing busi-
ness with Israel, the student government
voted to reject the divestment resolution,

28 April 3 • 2014

expressing it had no place in student gov-
ernment.
And lastly, in response to the "Open
Hillel" movement, which calls on Hillels to
include anti-Zionist speakers,
Hillel International president/
CEO Eric Fingerhut re-asserted
Hillel's Israel guidelines by wel-
coming "a diversity of student
perspectives on Israel; while
drawing the line at activism
that delegitimizes Israel, denies
it the right to exist, or imposes
boycott, divestment and sanc-
tions (BDS).
These incidents challenged
Hillels, students and adminis-
trators to consider and define
appropriate boundaries for
discourse, scholarship and advocacy.
While some may perceive these responses
as limiting speech or activism, I believe
they offer the broadest possible invita-
tion for exchange and dialogue within our
institutional boundaries. The responses of

all these leaders focused on the freedom

of academic exchange, freedom to pursue
one's mission and freedom to set institu-
tional boundaries.
With regard to speakers, I
agree with the Hillel guidelines
that we should not host an event
that calls for the destruction of
Israel, such as those furthered
by the BDS movement. We
should also consider the limits
to speakers and activism on the
right. But that does not mean
we avoid engaging in difficult
topics. It is through wrestling
with Israel that students develop
a loving relationship with Israel.
While some have criticized
Hillel for setting such limits,
every institution has the right to pursue
its mission and establish its boundaries.
As a Hillel director pursuing a broad and
pluralistic mandate, I find it profoundly
troubling that Hillel's mission is being
misconstrued and misrepresented, both

by defenders and attackers, to be bound
up with censorship and exclusion. I can
think of no other Jewish institution with
as broad a mission, as diverse a commu-
nity, and as strong a desire to pursue civil
discourse and address challenging topics
as Hillel.
With regard to the students, Hillels
across the country welcome the diversity
of students into our doors. It should not
be surprising that we invite all students
into Hillel's safe spaces for the following
reasons:

What are these labels? Where is the
line drawn among an anti-Zionist, post-
Zionist and non-Zionist? As with most
efforts to categorize people, the reality is
more complex than the labels might sug-
gest. Most of the students who appear to
reject Zionism are supportive of Israel in
some form. They just don't associate with
the word Zionism because they think the
label lumps them in with policies with
Guest Column on page 29