From the river to the sea and from Harvard to Iowa

I am no stranger to campus controversies. As a student and the son of a UNI professor, I was involved in all aspects of college life. I served as a photographer and columnist for the student newspaper and later as associate editor for ‘The UNI Sentinel’, an alternative conservative newspaper. I was a frequent speaker at various campus forums, and after serving multiple terms in student government, I became student body president in a sort of “palace coup.”

But in my time on campus, no controversy escalated as rapidly as the wave of antisemitism and Islamophobia following the Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack and Israel’s military response in Gaza. The situation has deteriorated so quickly that, within two months, 13 institutions have come under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education. Congress has stepped in, convening hearings and summoning the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to testify on the matter. The congressional hearings did not go well, major donors vowed to withhold donations, including one for $100 million to the University of Pennsylvania. As a result, the president of the University of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the Penn Board of Trustees resigned last week. It would not surprise me if we also saw leadership changes at Harvard or M.I.T. before this op-ed goes to press.

The swift and dramatic fallout at Harvard is the result of a statement signed by thirty-two student organizations, including the African American Resistance Organization, Harvard Law School Justice for Palestine, Harvard Jews for Liberation, and Harvard Undergraduate Arab Women's Collective. The statement began, "We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all the unfolding violence."

The statement went on to say that these events “did not occur in a vacuum.” It pointed out the trials of Palestinians living in Gaza and called Israel an “apartheid regime.” It concluded by calling for a “firm stand against colonial retaliation” and a stop to “the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.”

In response, the conservative activist group, Accuracy in Media, rented a truck and used it to display the names and faces of student leaders who had signed the statement under a banner that read, “Harvard’s leading anti-Semites.”

As tensions on campus increased, more voices joined the fray. As The Crimson, Harvard's student newspaper, reported, “thousands of Harvard students, alumni, and faculty” signed their own statement condemning the original statement. Yet another 160 faculty members wrote a letter attacking critics of the statement.

Harvard and other campuses across the country are seeing a rash of pro-Palestine and pro-Israel demonstrations. Students have occupied buildings, there have been arrests, suspensions and threats of violence.

It was in this climate that Harvard president Claudine Gay, along with the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T., found themselves testifying on Capitol Hill. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) asked, “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment?"

Gay gave an equivocal response, “It can be, depending on the context.” To her credit, Gay also pointed out that she found such speech to be “personally abhorrent,” but that has not been enough to silence her critics.

This is not just an issue on the East Coast or for Ivy League schools. Closer to home at the University of Iowa, the University Democrats issued a statement in support of Palestine on their social media. The statement ended with the phrase, “May every Palestinian live long and free, from the river to the sea.”

The statement “from the river to the sea” speaks of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That is the entire country of Israel today. Many see this as a code phrase for the destruction of Israel and, with it, genocide against the Jews.

Like the response at Harvard, the reaction in Iowa to the University Democrats was swift and intense. When told of the post, Iowa Board of Regents President Michael Richards said, “Terrible statement. Idiots.”

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart was also swift to respond. “Let's be very clear. That is a call for Jewish genocide, and we wholly condemn that offensive language,” Hart said in the statement. “The Iowa Democratic Party stands with the innocent civilians, Israeli and Palestinian, that have had their lives ruined by the terrorist group Hamas. The Iowa Democratic Party has requested the student representatives who signed the letter resignations.”

Before I share my thoughts on the free speech issues here, I will take Machiavelli’s advice and not remain neutral. In a previous column, I referred to Oct. 7 as a “terrorist” attack. I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Sadly, I also believe that the events that Hamas started rolling have and will result in untold suffering for the Palestinian people.

I have no doubt that the phrase “from the river to the sea” is a call for an end to the state of Israel. But just as Israel is in an existential struggle with Hamas, Palestinians in Gaza are also in an existential struggle. Palestinians view Israel as an occupier, and many have called for its destruction. Likewise, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said, “We will wipe this thing called Hamas, ISIS-Gaza, off the face of the earth. It will cease to exist.” Depending on which side of the border you live, both could be considered a call for genocide.

But here lies the nuance in my position: although I strongly disagree with both the Harvard statement and the UI social media post, I am wary of the trend where 'feeling safe' is increasingly used as the barometer for acceptable speech on campus. The problem is that ‘feeling safe’ is completely subjective, dependent on the individual perspectives and experiences of those involved, making an inadequate metric for regulating speech.

Free speech is one of the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and it is precisely this kind of controversial, difficult political speech that the First Amendment was adopted to protect. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said of offensive speech, “ … the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

David Chung is a Gazette editorial fellow. david.chung@thegazette.com