If you have been following the news, it is likely that you have heard about the deeply upsetting conflict between Israel and Palestine. As a result of the unfortunate conflict that started on October 7th, rallies protesting against inhumane actions of each respective government have become increasingly popular, occurring in a multitude of locations and countries. While protests like these are to be expected during wartime, what happens when protests turn to calls for violence? When weighing the importance of free speech, especially on college campuses, at what point do we cross the line from protest to harassment and threats?

This fine line becomes increasingly broader in certain situations. In the last month, protests have emerged on prestigious college campuses, including Penn, Harvard, and MIT, calling for “Intifada,” an Arabic word translating to “uprising.” This term has been mainly used to describe the periods of intense Palestinian protest against Israel during the first and second intifadas. While some cite that the word is actually a call for peace, regardless of interpretation, there is a threatening connotation that has Jews at each campus feeling unsafe. 

For example, Shabbos Kestenbaum, a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School, has said he has sat directly next to classmates who  “explicitly praise Hamas and deny the rape and abduction of Israeli women.” He added that he is “certainly not comfortable, and I wouldn’t even say welcomed, in many spaces around campus.”

On December 5th, in a hearing conducted by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, former Penn President Elizabeth Magill, former Harvard President Claudine Gay, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth were given the floor to answer questions about growing anti-semitism on their campuses, ranging from social media posts, disruption of lectures, and direct threats. 

To summarize, their responses were incredibly upsetting. When asked by Representative Elise Stefanik if “calling for genocide of Jews violates Penn’s rules or code of conduct,” Magill would not give a definitive answer of yes. After dodging answering the question directly three times, Magill answers that it is a “context-dependent decision.” 

Similarly, when asked the same question by Representative Stefanik, Gay responded “It can be, depending on the context.” Stefanik responded with disgust, calling for Gay and Magill’s resignation from their posts. 

Shortly after, both Gay and Magill resigned from their respective positions as Presidents. 

As leaders of their schools, it is their job to ensure free speech, but more importantly, it is their job to ensure the safety of the students that attend. To stand in front of Congress and not give threatened students proper recognition and assurance of safety is simply ignorant. Regardless of the interpretation of the words and phrases being used during these protests, the question Congresswoman Stefanik asked was clear, essentially asking if calling for the mass murder of Jews was acceptable on their campuses. Their responses essentially established that it only is unacceptable if it elevates into “conduct,” an incredibly frightening idea to assert. For instance, what does this “conduct” entail? Physical violence against Jews and Israelis, some of which have no allegiance or bias to the Israeli Government? 

When examining this issue, one has to realize that we are discussing college students, not government leaders. While protesting a government’s conduct or policies is acceptable, calling for uprising and violence is not, especially if it is aimed towards innocent college students who have absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli government. For example, is calling for violence against any ethnic group acceptable? The correct answer is no, it is not. During times of war, as a country, we should be focused on coming together to combat violence rather than encouraging more of it. 

The responses of these former and current college presidents are an alarming insight into the rampantly growing trend of the normalization of anti-semitism. Collectively, as a country, we need to truly examine what exactly we are protesting for and reevaluate.